Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level

Abstract

T his study explores the process of organizational change by examining localized social learning in organizational subunits. Specifically, we examine participation in university technology transfer, a new organizational initiative, by tracking 1,780 faculty members, examining their backgrounds and work environments, and following their engagement with academic entrepreneurship. We find that individual adoption of the new initiative may be either substantive or symbolic. Our results suggest that individual attributes, while important, are conditioned by the local work environment. In terms of personal attributes, individuals are more likely to participate if they trained at institutions that had accepted the new initiative and been active in technology transfer. In addition, we find that the longer the time that had elapsed since graduate training, the less likely the individual was to actively embrace the new commercialization norm. Considering the localized social environment, we find that when the chair of the department is active in technology transfer, other members of the department are also likely to participate, if only for symbolic reasons. We also find that technology transfer behavior is calibrated by the experience of those in the relevant cohort. If an individual can observe others with whom they identify engaging in the new initiative, then they are more likely to follow with substantive compliance. Finally, when individuals face dissonance, a situation where their individual training norms are not congruent with the localized social norms in their work environment, they will conform to the local norms, rather than adhering to the norms from their prior experience.

Organizational Factors that Affect the University-Industry Technology Transfer Processes of a Private University

“…Considering that each university's organizational aspects decisively impact the UITT, to analyze such process we need to understand the context in which it takes place (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008). Some of the factors impacting UITT performance include the policies, the institutional characteristics, and the intermediaries involved in managing this process at the universities (Landry et al, 2010;Caldera and Debande, 2010).…”

Inventors and Entrepreneurs in Academia: What Types of Skills and Experience Matter?

“…The effect of scientific excellence is higher for the discovery of technological opportunities than for the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship research shows that individuals with interdisciplinary backgrounds are better placed to recognize and act upon innovation opportunities (Venkataraman, 1997;Shane, 2000;Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008). Individuals who are able to integrate different bodies of knowledge in their research activities and, therefore, are familiar with multiple methodological perspectives, are particularly likely to develop the skills required to propose novel approaches and to bridge the worlds of scientific research and application.…”

“…Prior invention experience in terms of time spent on invention disclosure and development of patent applications helps to refine the routines involved in the invention process and increases the ability of the researcher to add to the pool of technological opportunity sources (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008). invention experience may also contribute to have a heightened appreciation of the risks associated with, and the complementary assets required for, the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, suggesting that experience may have a weaker impact on opportunity exploitation compared to opportunity discovery (Cooper et al, 1988;Shepherd et al, 2003).…”

“…The resulting scale is reliable, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient equal to 0.69. Second, we include researcher's age (Age) since age is likely to influence engagement in entrepreneurial activities (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008).…”

“…While collaboration and networking are important factors in academic entrepreneurship (Shane, 2000;Nicolau and Birley, 2003;Bercovitz and Feldman, in which the network is defined. We considered the network of the scientist proxied by the co-publication activity of researchers, but this measure may be biased in favour of academic organizations -although it does not rule out the possibility of collaboration with non-academic institutions.…”