Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology spin-offs: teamwork, autonomy, and the exploitation of business opportunities

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyzes the antecedents of technology spin-off resulting from the exploitation of patented technology developed in established firms and then transferred to a new organization. We hypothesize and empirically examine how teamwork and autonomy, two key dimensions of the established organization’s inventive activity, correlate with spin-off formation. The results, based on a large-scale survey of inventors, show that (1) inventive activities organized as teamwork are less likely to engender the creation of a new firm and (2) granting strategic autonomy increases the likelihood of a spin-off whereas structural autonomy decreases the chances of a spin-off.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Often, the parent firm is present in two or more industries. In these cases, we compared all of the parent’s industry codes with the spinoff’s industry code. When we found a match at the four-digit SIC level, we scrutinized more carefully the activity of the spinoff to determine whether it focuses on a market niche not occupied by the parent.

  2. Confidentiality agreements with survey participants prevent us from disclosing any information that would allow identification of the individual inventors or their employers at the time of the survey.

References

  • Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astebro, T., & Thompson, P. (2011). Entrepreneurs, jacks of all trades or hobos? Research Policy, 40(5), 637–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Start-ups and spin-offs: Collective entrepreneurship between invention and innovation. In D. H. Hart (Ed.), The emergence of entrepreneurship policy (pp. 61–91). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, L. (1985). Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab. Human Resource Management, 24(2), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. (2010). Job design and entrepreneurship: Why closer connections = mutual gains. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 370–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bhidé, A. V. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braguinsky, S., Klepper, S., & Ohyama, A. (2012). High-tech entrepreneurship. Journal of Law and Economics, 55(4), 869–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38(6), 551–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the type of corporate spin-off on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 943–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M. D., Sørensen, J. B., & Beckman, C. M. (2002). Coming from good stock: Career histories and new venture formation. In M. Lounsbury (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 19, pp. 229–262). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Ueda, M. (2006). Optimal project rejection and new firm start-ups. Management Science, 52(2), 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K. (2009). Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). The governance and performance of Xerox’s technology spin-off companies. Research Policy, 32(3), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., Wennberg, K., & Hellerstedt, K. (2011). Endogenous growth through knowledge spillovers in entrepreneurship: An empirical test. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(3), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrev, S. D., & Barnett, W. P. (2005). Organizational roles and transition to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2011). Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 412–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfenbein, D. W., Hamilton, B. H., & Zenger, T. R. (2010). The small firm effect and the entrepreneurial spawning of scientists and engineers. Management Science, 56(4), 659–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikkson, T., & Kuhn, J. M. (2006). Firm spin-offs in Denmark 1981–2000: Patterns of entry and exit. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), 1021–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrary, M. (2008). Strategic spin-off: A new incentive contract for managing R&D researchers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 600–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. (1986). Entrepreneurs as organizational products: Semiconductor firms and venture capital firms. In G. Libecap (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth (Vol. 1, pp. 33–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryges, H., & Wright, M. (2014). The origin of spin-offs: A typology of corporate and academic spin-offs. Small Busimess Economics, 43(2), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, A. W., & Rothaelmer, F. T. (2012). When stars shine: The effects of faculty founders on new technology ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 220–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., Ganco, M., & Honoré, F. (2014). Using what you know: Patented knowledge in incumbent firms and employee entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 26(2), 456–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., Lerner, J., & Scharfstein, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial spawning: Public corporations and the genesis of new ventures, 1986 to 1999. Journal of Finance, 60(2), 577–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, M. R. (2010). The double-edge swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, I. (2013). Tech starts: High-technology business formation and job creation in the United States. Ewing Marion Kauffman foundation research paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2310617

  • Hayton, J. C. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T. (2007). When do employees become entrepreneurs? Management Science, 53(6), 919–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I. (2014). When do spinouts enhance parent firm performance? Evidence from the U.S. automobile industry, 1890–1986. Organization Science, 25(2), 529–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9(2), 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchberger, M. A., & Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: A literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1077–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Thompson, P. (2010). Disagreements and intra-industry spinoffs. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28, 526–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larraneta, B., Galán González, J. L., & Aguilar, R. (2016). Early efforts to develop absorptive capacity and their performance implications: Differences among corporate and independent. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9488-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, A. H., Gertsen, F., & Riss, J. O. (2006). The nexus of corporate entrepreneurship and radical innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(4), 359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 94(2), 208–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labour Economics, 23(4), 649–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Dai, O., & Lu, J. (2010). Human mobility and international knowledge spillovers: Evidence from high-tech small and medium enterprises in an emerging market. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 340–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effect of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J., & Vojak, B. (2007). Examining the technical corporate entrepreneurs’ motivation: Voices from the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 753–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, E. F., III. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda, R., & Sørensen, J. B. (2010). Workplace peers and entrepreneurship. Management Science, 56(7), 1116–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palomeras, N., & Melero, E. (2010). Markets for inventors: Learning-by-hiring as a driver of mobility. Management Science, 56(5), 881–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parhankangas, A., & Arenius, P. (2003). From a corporate venture to an independent company: A base for a taxonomy for corporate spin-off firms. Research Policy, 32(3), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petre, M. (2004). How expert engineering teams use disciplines of innovation. Design Studies, 25(5), 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N. (2010). When do applicants search for prior art? The Journal of Law and Economics, 53(2), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann, H., & Cohen, W. M. (2010). What makes them tick? Employees motives and firm innovation. Management Science, 56(12), 2134–2153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2001a). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2001b). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science, 47(9), 1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu, K. (2012). Risks of corporate entrepreneurship: Autonomy and agency issues. Organization Science, 23(1), 194–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, K. L., & Astebro, T. (2010). Entrepreneurs seeking gains: Profit motives and risk aversion in inventors’ commercialization decision. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 19(4), 863–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 70–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B. (2007). Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: Workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B., & Fassiotto, M. A. (2011). Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(5), 1322–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi, S., Gambardella, G., Giuri, P., Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., & Mariani, M. (2016). Used, blocking and sleeping patents: Empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey. Research Policy, 45(7), 1374–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Antitrust analysis and implications. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, J. L. (2017). Origins and outcomes: The role of spin-off founders and intellectual property in high-technology venture outcomes. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(1), 64–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Previous versions were presented at the Annual Conference of the European Policy for Intellectual Property Association in Leuven (2012), the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Orlando (2013), the European Academy of Management Annual Conference in Istanbul (2013), the Entrepreneurship Exemplar Conference in Denver (2014) and the Strategic Management Society Special Conference in Tel Aviv (2014). We are particularly grateful for comments to earlier versions of the paper by Tim Folta, Keld Laursen, Gideon Markman and Richard Priem. Financial support from the PRIN National Research Programme of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (Project B41J12000160008) and from the InnoS&T EC project (Contract No. 217299) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca 34, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Marco Corsino & Paola Giuri

  2. Department of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi 8, 20126, Milan, Italy

    Salvatore Torrisi

  3. ICRIOS, Bocconi University, 20136, Milan, Italy

    Salvatore Torrisi

Authors
  1. Marco Corsino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paola Giuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salvatore Torrisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Torrisi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corsino, M., Giuri, P. & Torrisi, S. Technology spin-offs: teamwork, autonomy, and the exploitation of business opportunities. J Technol Transf 44, 1603–1637 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9669-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9669-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation