Organizational Sponsorship and Founding Environments: A Contingency View on the Survival of Business-Incubated Firms, 1994–2007

Amezcua, Alejandro; Grimes, Matthew; Bradley, Steven W.; Wiklund, Johan

doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0652

Cited by 281 publications

(279 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

268

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Project-centric collaboration implies that arts organizations seek to acquire corporate sponsorship for concrete creative projects under strictly defined agreements which outline specific contractual obligations of each party. It is in line with the broader definition of organizational sponsorship which is based on the idea of providing organizations with supplemental resources which will increase survival rate (Amezcua et al, 2013). In the context of corporate donation in the field of cultural production, the benefits for both parties are more limited in scope.…”

Section: Mitigating the Negative Signal Of Being Associated With Extrmentioning

confidence: 67%

When Does Medici Hurt Da Vinci? Mitigating the Signaling Effect of Extraneous Stakeholder Relationships in the Field of Cultural Production

Shymko

Roulet

2017

AMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We thank associate editor Martine Haas and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, consistent support and guidance throughout the process. We are indebted to Joel Bothello: his help and advice were pivotal in shaping this paper. We are also grateful to Frederic Godart, Michael Gill, Pierre-Antoine Kremp, and the participants of OTREG at Imperial College in September 2015, in particular Matt Kraatz. Finally, we would like to thank Eva Cools for her operational support and Dariya Plaksina for her tremendous help with data collection. [2004][2005][2006][2007][2008][2009][2010][2011]. Firstly, we engage in a qualitative exploration of our setting to contextualize our hypotheses and understand how relationships with corporate donors, depending on their characteristics, affect peer recognition. We then quantitatively test our hypotheses and confirm that the salience of the relationship with extraneous stakeholders -operationalized as the number of corporate donors -has a negative effect on peer recognition. This effect however can be mitigated if theaters choose to limit the breadth, depth and negative valence of the relationship. We contribute to both the institutional logics and stakeholder literature by bringing in a signaling perspective: we show that peer recognition, upon which the maintenance of a dominant logic lies, is directly impacted by the nature of relationships with extraneous stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Mitigating the Negative Signal Of Being Associated With Extrmentioning

confidence: 67%

When Does Medici Hurt Da Vinci? Mitigating the Signaling Effect of Extraneous Stakeholder Relationships in the Field of Cultural Production

Shymko

Roulet

2017

AMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly, by reviewing the literature against the background of management theories, we reply to the call to increase the theoretical depth of the network-based incubation literature (Ahmad and Ingle 2013;Amezcua et al 2013;Hackett and Dilts 2004). This review has shown which and how contemporary concepts and insights from the resourcebased view, from the knowledge-based view and organisational learning, and from social capital theory can strengthen the network-based incubation literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other interesting theoretical perspectives that have been suggested are the resource dependency view (e.g. Amezcua et al 2013;Phan et al 2005), institutional theory (e.g. Hackett and Dilts 2004;Phan et al 2005;Rothschild and Darr 2005), innovation systems literature (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The network-based incubation literature is no different. Authors use theoretical perspectives from management, but according to several authors, these are applied with limited theoretical depth (Ahmad and Ingle 2013;Amezcua et al 2013;Hackett and Dilts 2004). For example, Ahmad and Ingle (2013, p. 136) state: ''There is a lack of a theoretically grounded basis for explaining this variation in incubator performance.''…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How network-based incubation helps start-up performance: a systematic review against the background of management theories

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on how network-based incubation influences the performance of technology-based start-ups has recently grown considerably and provided valuable insights. However, at the same time this literature has become quite fragmented, inconsistently conceptualised, and theoretically underdeveloped. Therefore, this article uses three management theories to structure the literature, improve the theoretical underpinning and develop an agenda for further research. The management theories are the resourcebased view, knowledge-based view, organisational learning, and social capital theory. We find that the network-based incubation literature has convincingly shown that networkbased incubation provides start-ups with resources, capabilities, knowledge, learning and social capital. However, the influence of these intermediary benefits on start-up performance is ambiguous. There is a considerable opportunity to advance the network-based incubation literature with contemporary insights from management theories. We propose an agenda for further research on network-based incubation that leads to a fine-grained model of the mechanisms and impact of network-based incubation that goes beyond taken for granted assumptions about the positive impact of network-based incubation.

show abstract

“…A major part of the ecosystem agenda is the role of public and private organisations in supporting entrepreneurial activity. While such entrepreneurship support organisations (ESOs) are relatively common -it is rare to find a region in a developed economy without some sort of startup incubator or entrepreneurship training forum -their effectiveness has been questioned (Totterman and Sten, 2005, Lerner, 2009, Qian et al, 2011, Amezcua et al, 2013. Beyond this, the effectiveness of programs are often considered in isolation with little awareness that there are often multiple support programs operating simultaneously within regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing and governing entrepreneurial ecosystems: the structure of entrepreneurial support programs in Edinburgh, Scotland

Spigel

2016

IJIRD

114

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers and policymakers are increasingly employing the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems to understand the concentration of high growth ventures in certain regions. Ecosystems represent the economic, social, and policy environment surrounding the entrepreneurship process. Public and privately run entrepreneurship support organisations (ESOs) form a critical part of entrepreneurial ecosystems by providing training and resources to entrepreneurs and new ventures. However, the role of ESOs within ecosystems is poorly understood with little conceptual or empirical discussions about how they contribute to the development of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems. To address this gap this paper employs the concept of institutional thickness to identify the optimum structure of support programs within a region. The role of institutional thickness is explored through an investigation of entrepreneurship support programs aimed at technology entrepreneurs in Edinburgh, UK. 43 ESOs are identified and their actives and types of support they provide analysed. The paper argues that there is the need for a new approach to the role of ESOs within ecosystems that looks beyond a single program but instead embraces a more holistic perspective that sees how they work in conjunction to provide support for firms throughout the venture creation and growth process.

show abstract

Organizational Sponsorship and Founding Environments: A Contingency View on the Survival of Business-Incubated Firms, 1994–2007

Cited by 281 publications

References 95 publications

When Does Medici Hurt Da Vinci? Mitigating the Signaling Effect of Extraneous Stakeholder Relationships in the Field of Cultural Production

When Does Medici Hurt Da Vinci? Mitigating the Signaling Effect of Extraneous Stakeholder Relationships in the Field of Cultural Production

How network-based incubation helps start-up performance: a systematic review against the background of management theories

Developing and governing entrepreneurial ecosystems: the structure of entrepreneurial support programs in Edinburgh, Scotland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About