Research Summary While much research suggests that capabilities are critical for firms, little is known about the individual‐level origins (“microfoundations”) of capabilities. Using in‐depth nested case studies, we explore how firms develop an internationalization capability. The setting is six entrepreneurial firms from three culturally distinct countries. Our data show that executives begin by seeding the process with imperfect heuristics and then managers continue development by elaborating their understanding of what task to perform and how to perform it. Importantly, managers across hierarchical levels support the development of their firm's internationalization capability by abstracting key heuristics away from any one experience such that the capabilities become less routine over time. Overall, we contribute to the microfoundations movement in strategy and to the literature on organizational learning. Managerial Summary Firm capabilities are not just important to strategy, but often are the strategy of firms, especially in dynamic markets. Popular examples include Cisco's acquisition capability, Hewlett–Packard's alliance capability, Starbuck's internationalization capability, and Apple's product development capability. Unfortunately, it is often unclear to executives how to build a firm capability. We explore how entrepreneurial firms develop their own internationalization capability over time. Our data show that these capabilities develop through a process of seeding, elaborating, and abstracting key heuristics for internationalization. Importantly, we show that this process is shaped by extensive communication within and across multiple hierarchical levels. In this way, heuristics move from individual‐level “rules of thumb” for action to firm‐level understandings for fueling growth and creating competitive advantage.

Research Summary As firms mature, their founders are often replaced with seasoned executives. When founders are retained, the surrounding top management team (TMT) members are viewed as critical resources in helping compensate for the founder's managerial deficiencies. Surprisingly, however, little is known about how TMT members affect a founder‐led firm's performance later in a firm's life. Using novel methods and a sample of over 2,000 firms, we address this gap. We find that although team structure has a significant impact on the performance of nonfounder‐led firms (consistent with past literature), it has little to no effect on the operating performance of founder‐led firms, suggesting that founder chief executive officers (CEOs) may exert too much control. Thus, the irony is that founders are retained to propel progress but their very retention may prevent progress. Taken together, our findings add to the entrepreneurship, team, and research methods literatures. Managerial Summary Although founders have the entrepreneurial skills to successfully grow a startup, they generally lack the managerial skills required to lead a large, public firm. As a result, many founder CEOs are replaced before a firm goes public. When founders do stay as CEO, the prevailing belief is that they require a strong TMT to help compensate for the founder's managerial deficiencies. However, given founders' desire to retain control, there is a question of whether they will rely on that team, or if they will simply continue to follow their own intuition. We find evidence that founder CEOs are much less likely to listen to and benefit from their teams relative to nonfounder CEOs.

No abstract

Research and practice suggest that cofounded ventures outperform solo-founded ventures. Yet, little work has explored the conditions under which solo founding might be preferable to cofounding. Combining an inductive case-oriented analysis with a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 70 new entrepreneurial ventures, we examine why and how solo founders can be as successful as their peers in cofounded ventures. We find that successful solo founders strategically use a set of cocreators rather than cofounders to overcome liabilities, retain control, and mobilize resources in unique and unexpected ways. A primary contribution of this paper is an emergent configurational theory of entrepreneurial organizing. Overall, we reveal the broader significance and theoretical importance of adopting a configurational lens for both practitioners and scholars of entrepreneurship.

No abstract