Organizing Entrepreneurial Teams: A Field Experiment on Autonomy over Choosing Teams and Ideas

References

• Amabile TM, Gitomer J (1984) Children’s artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 10(2):209–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amore MD, Garofalo O, Martin-Sanchez V (2021) Failing to learn from failure: How optimism impedes entrepreneurial innovation. Organ. Sci. 32(4):940–964.Link, Google Scholar
• Atkin D, Khandelwal AK, Osman A (2017) Exporting and firm performance: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):551–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bailyn L (1985) Autonomy in the industrial r&d laboratory. Human Resource Management 24(2):129–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barley SR, Kunda G (2001) Bringing work back in. Organ. Sci. 12(1):76–95.Link, Google Scholar
• Benz M, Frey BS (2008) The value of doing what you like: Evidence from the self-employed in 23 countries. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 68(3-4):445–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein S, Korteweg A, Laws K (2017) Attracting early-stage investors: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. J. Finance 72(2):509–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein E, Bunch J, Canner N, Lee M (2016) Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94(7):13.Google Scholar
• Biancani S, McFarland DA, Dahlander L (2014) The semiformal organization. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1306–1324.Link, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A, Thonemann UW (2012) Managers and students as newsvendors. Management Sci. 58(12):2225–2233.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C (2016) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–2783.Link, Google Scholar
• Brannon DL, Wiklund J, Haynie JM (2013) The varying effects of family relationships in entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurial Theory Practice 37(1):107–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks AW, Huang L, Kearney SW, Murray FE (2014) Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(12):4427–4431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA (1983) Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Sci. 29(12):1349–1364.Link, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital, 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Merluzzi J (2016) Network oscillation. Acad. Management Discovery 2(4):368–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camuffo A, Cordova A, Gambardella A, Spina C (2020) A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Management Sci. 66(2):564–586.Link, Google Scholar
• Carpentier C, Suret JM (2015) Angel group members’ decision process and rejection criteria: A longitudinal analysis. J. Bus. Venturing 30(6):808–821.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattani G, Ferriani S, Mariani MM, Mengoli S (2013) Tackling the “galácticos” effect: Team familiarity and the performance of star-studded projects. Industria Corporate Change 22(6):1629–1662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clement J, Puranam P (2018) Searching for structure: Formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Management Sci. 64(8):3879–3895.Link, Google Scholar
• Clingingsmith D, Shane S (2018) Training aspiring entrepreneurs to pitch experienced investors: Evidence from a field experiment in the United States. Management Sci. 64(11):5164–5179.Link, Google Scholar
• Cooper DJ, Saral KJ (2013) Entrepreneurship and team participation: An experimental study. Eur. Econom. Rev. 59:126–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Salter A, Ter Wal AL (2014) Going underground: Bootlegging and individual innovative performance. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1287–1305.Link, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, O’Mahony S (2011) Progressing to the center: Coordinating project work. Organ. Sci. 22(4):961–979.Link, Google Scholar
• Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L (2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA 108(17):6889–6892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dean DL, Hender JM, Rodgers TL, Santanen EL (2006) Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 7(10):646–699.Google Scholar
• Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J. Law Econom. 26(2):301–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foss NJ (2003) Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization. Organ. Sci. 14(3):331–349.Link, Google Scholar
• Fréchette GR (2011) Laboratory experiments: Professionals vs. students. Preprint, submitted XX, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939219.Google Scholar
• Gallus J (2017) Fostering public good contributions with symbolic awards: A large-scale natural field experiment at Wikipedia. Management Sci. 63(12):3999–4015.Link, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Khashabi P, Panico C (2020) Managing autonomy in industrial research and development: A project-level investigation. Organ. Sci. 31(1):165–181.Link, Google Scholar
• Gist ME (1987) Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Acad. Management Rev. 12(3):472–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goncalo JA, Polman E, Maslach C (2010) Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 113(1):13–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gray SM, Knight AP, Baer M (2020) On the emergence of collective psychological ownership in new creative teams. Organ. Sci. 31(1):141–164.Link, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1439–1493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gutierrez C, Åstebro T, Obloj T (2020) The impact of overconfidence and ambiguity attitude on market entry. Organ. Sci. 31(2):308–329.Link, Google Scholar
• Hackmann JR (2002) Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances (Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psych. 60(2):159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamilton BH (2000) Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns of self-employment. J. Political Econom. 108(3):604–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hampel C, Perkmann M, Phillips N (2020) Beyond the lean start-up: Experimentation in corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Innovation 22(1):1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen Z, Owan H, Pan J (2015) The impact of group diversity on class performance: Evidence from college classrooms. Edu. Econom. 23(2):238–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature 42(4):1009–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasan S, Koning R (2019) Prior ties and the limits of peer effects on startup team performance. Strategic Management J. January:1394–1416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Pinto R (2015) Econometric mediation analyses: Identifying the sources of treatment effects from experimentally estimated production technologies with unmeasured and mismeasured inputs. Econometric Rev. 34(1–2):6–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn S, Oosterbeek H, Van Praag M (2013) The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management Sci. 59(7):1514–1528.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn S, Parker SC, van Praag M (2017) Smart or diverse start-up teams? Evidence from a field experiment. Organ. Sci. 28(6):1010–1028.Link, Google Scholar
• Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB (2007) The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Management 33(6):987–1015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang L, Pearce JL (2015) Managing the unknowable: The effectiveness of early-stage investor gut feel in entrepreneurial investment decisions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(4):634–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huckman RS, Staats BR, Upton DM (2009) Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Sci. 55(1):85–100.Link, Google Scholar
• Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D (2010) A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psych. Methods 15(4):309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingram P, Morris MW (2007) Do people mix at mixers? Structures, homophily, and the life of the party. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):14–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanter R (1985) Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. J. Bus. Venturing 1(1):47–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klapper H, Reitzig M (2018) On the effects of authority on peer motivation: Learning from Wikipedia. Strategic Management J. 39(8):2178–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Kling JR, Liebman JB, Katz LF (2007) Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica 75(1):83–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knight D, Durham CC, Locke EA (2001) The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Acad. Management J. 44(2):326–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhn HW (1955) The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Res. Logist. Quart. 2(1–2):83–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamaze A, Van Knippenberg D (2014) Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 39(4):423–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee GK, Cole RE (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organ. Sci. 14(6):633–649.Link, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Prietula MJ (2014) Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1414–1433.Link, Google Scholar
• Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindsley DH, Brass DJ, Thomas JB (1995) Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3):645–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu CC, Srivastava SB, Stuart TE (2016) An intraorganizational ecology of individual attainment. Organ. Sci. 27(1):90–105.Link, Google Scholar
• Lovas B, Ghoshal S (2000) Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management J. 21(9):875–896.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lumpkin GT, Cogliser CC, Schneider DR (2009) Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurial Theory Practice 33(1):47–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A, Baldwin C, Rusnak J (2012) Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis. Res. Policy 41(8):1309–1324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mao A, Mason W, Suri S, Watts DJ (2016) An experimental study of team size and performance on a complex task. PLoS One 11(4):e0153048.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maxwell A (2011) Business angel decision making. J. Bus. Venturing 26(2):212–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKenzie D (2017) Identifying and spurring high-growth entrepreneurship: Experimental evidence from a business plan competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(8):2278–2307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miner AS (1994) Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolutionary theory and managerial action. Baum J, Singh JV, eds. Evolutionary Dynamics Organizations. 76:89.Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Healy PJ (2008) The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115(2):502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland RL, Argote L (2003) Transactive memory in dynamic organizations. Day RD, ed. Leading Managing People Dynamic Organizations. 135:162.Google Scholar
• Moskowitz TJ, Vissing-Jørgensen A (2002) The returns to entrepreneurial investment: A private equity premium puzzle? Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(4):745–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Munkres J (1957) Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. J. Soc. Industry Appl. Math. 5(1):32–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pelz DC, Andrews FM (1966) Autonomy, coordination, and stimulation, in relation to scientific achievement. Behav. Sci. 11(2):89–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT (2001) Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 26(2):298–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Håkonsson DD (2015) Valve’s way. J. Organ. Design 4(2):2–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Alexy O, Reitzig M (2014) What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Acad. Management Rev. 39(2):162–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapp TL, Bachrach DG, Rapp AA, Mullins R (2014) The role of team goal monitoring in the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance. J. Appl. Psych. 99(5):976.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Zuckermann E, McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(1):101–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ruef M, Aldrich HE, Carter NM (2003) The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 68(2):195–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauermann H, Cohen WM (2010) What makes them tick? Employee motives and firm innovation. Management Sci. 56(12):2134–2153.Link, Google Scholar
• Seabright MA, Levinthal DA, Fichman M (1992) Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management J. 35(1):122–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shimizu K (2012) Risks of corporate entrepreneurship: Autonomy and agency issues. Organ. Sci. 23(1):194–206.Link, Google Scholar
• Shin SJ, Kim TY, Lee JY, Bian L (2012) Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Acad. Management J. 55(1):197–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon M, Houghton SM, Gurney J (1999) Succeeding at internal corporate venturing: Roles needed to balance autonomy and control. J. Appl. Management Stud. 8(2):145.Google Scholar
• Sitkin SB (1992) Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Res. Organ. Behav. 14:231–266.Google Scholar
• Steffens P, Terjesen S, Davidsson P (2012) Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Bus. Econom. 39(3):727–743.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson LL (2000) Making the Team: A Guide for Managers (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Sci. 32(5):590–607.Link, Google Scholar