Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New Venture Team (NVT) composition, processes and their impact on
team performance: A Conceptual model for Software Firms
Mita Brahma
Research Scholar, Strategic Management Area,
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +91-9810150778
Shiv S Tripathi
Assistant Professor, Strategic Management Area
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +91-9999875146
Key words: new venture teams, corporate entrepreneurship, team cohesion, team conflict,
software industry
New Venture Team (NVT) composition, processes and their impact on
team performance: A Conceptual model for Software Firms
Abstract
This paper explores the team composition, conflicts and cohesion in new venture teams and
their effect on the performance of New Venture Teams (NVTs). It also studies the
relationship amongst team composition, the managerial or interpersonal conflicts and
cohesion amongst the team members. The paper presents a review of extant literature,
develops hypothesis to test the constructs and proposes a model for testing the relationship
amongst team composition, conflicts and cohesion and their effect on performance of NVTs.
The scope of the paper is related to Indian software firms based NVTs which take their
existing products to new markets. The paper adds value to the present literature by exploring
the above dimensions in detail and proposing a model to test the effect of these dimensions
on the performance of NVTs that can be tested in a future research.
Introduction
In today’s dynamic, technology driven and global environment, the success of a new venture
team in the market and process innovations it is able to execute, helps the parent organization
build a sustainable competitive advantage (Kuratko et al., 2001). Companies therefore, select
their best talent exploring new markets, supervise and nurture the New Venture Team (or
NVT) with this perspective (Teal and Hofer, 2003). At the same time for the team members
selected for a new venture, it is an opportunity to work across functions, get exposure to
different markets, and contribute to the growth of their organization (Ireland et al., 2001).
The team leader for the new venture has to face an uncertain market, address unknown level
of acceptance of product or service by the customers or whose true needs are not yet
understood, still get the right resources on board, and manage expectations of the
organization (Amason et al., 2005). The style and characteristics of the team leader, and
organizational support extended to his team become critical to success of the new venture.
For new markets, the team allocated may be cross functional in its composition, which gives
rise to its own complexities, given the barriers between separate functions due to their own
distinct perspectives (Holland et al., 2000). The team leader’s style of leadership and
interactions with the various members of the team help the diverse team get aligned to the
vision of the new venture (Carland & Carland, 2012).
The Research Gaps
The success of a NVT decides firm’s further course of action regarding the new market and
the products offered to customers. Since the success of the NVT will constitute the success or
failure of the entrepreneurial event, the factors of such success and failure have been the
subject for research for quite some time. However, the research on internal team factors and
processes, particularly their effect on success or outcome factors of the venture (Hitt et al.,
1999) is inadequate. Also, most research papers focus upon new firms being floated and not
on NVTs of existing organizations going to new markets, which is the subject matter of this
paper. The interactions between the team leader and the team members have also not been
sufficiently explored so far. Moreover, these is no research that explores these issues in the
context of software firms based NVTs.
This paper explores the dimensions of team composition, team conflict, team cohesion and
the performance of NVTs in detail to propose a number of hypothesis and a model showing
these relationships.
Major concepts related with New Venture Teams
New Venture Teams (NVTs)
A new venture team is a strategic initiative of a firm in charge of a new product, market, or
service. In the resource based view, “the resources and capabilities of a firm are the central
considerations in formulating its strategy” (Grant, 1991). The resources of the firm in terms
of its products, patents, brand, human capital, technological capabilities are all utilized to
advantage through the new venture as a strategic initiative of the firm. Greene et al. (1999)
have used the resource based framework to draw parallels between individual entrepreneurs
and corporate “venture champions” and have discussed various corporate ventures, start ups
and the concept of “intrapreneurship”. Foss et al. (2008) used resource based approach
(Penrose, 1959) and the modern resource based views, and found entrepreneurial initiatives to
be “creative team acts”. They recommend using the team as a unit of analysis, and examining
the composition, internal dynamics, and outcomes for all ventures in terms of the team.
While a team is a group of individuals that have a shared objective towards achievement of a
common goal, a new venture team (hereafter NVT) is especially chosen for the task of
achieving business success in a new area and thus its members share a commitment for
success of the new venture (Klotz et al., 2014). The NVT has to fulfill all the functions of
setting up the venture, staffing, infrastructure, regulatory and legal requirements, branding
and marketing, acquiring customers, fulfillment of orders, collection of dues, managing
reviews and reports, and relationship with headquarters. This paper explores NVTs for
corporate ventures into a new market, where the team members get selected and allocated by
the parent firm on the basis of their contribution to the parent organization.
The team leader
The team leader of a NVT has a shared and overall responsibility for the team. Also high
level management capabilities are required in such a team for creating a shared long term
vision, and coordinated effort in implementing the same (Ensley et al., 2000). One of the
main responsibilities of the NVT leader is to drive a shared perspective of the purpose of the
team, the opportunities and constraints, the accountabilities and responsibilities. This
collective perspective is referred to as “entrepreneurial top collective cognition” (ETCC) and
shows a strong correlation between ETCC and firm performance (West, 2007). Hambrick
(2007) observed that leadership was a shared activity, and the senior members of a team
needed to be studied as a collective rather than the individual members for explanations of
team outcomes. Upper Echelon Theory argues that top management team diversity has a
strong impact on the strategic choice of firms on innovation fields, and that such focus then
drives new product portfolio innovativeness and firm performance (Talkea et al.., 2010).
Drawing analogy from it, the team leader and the diversity of the team affects the
performance of the team. This paper adopts a similar approach, and explores both leadership
style of the team leader, as well as composition of the new venture team.
In contrast, there is a growing recognition in research for the fact that strategic thinking for
new ventures, and action in terms of setting goals, making and reviewing decisions and
allocating resources are increasingly being done at a unified team level rather than a single
leader. Thus, decisions are usually shared, with overall coordination and facilitation by the
designated member (West, 2007). Groups may also adopt leadership by rotation,
collaboration or by consensus. Ensley and Pearce (2001) showed in their work, the
importance of the process of sharing individual mental models during the development of
strategy. They found the group process of developing shared strategic cognition was even
more important than the process outcome, contributing as it does to group performance.
The leadership style
The style of leadership of team leader depends upon the culture of the parent organization,
the team composition of the new venture, and the cultural context of the new venture.
Rickards and Moger (2000) used the team development model (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977)
and integrated it with project teams that have a mission to execute. They arrived at a model of
creative leadership with the following factors: creating a platform for sharing, a shared
vision, a positive climate, resilience, ownership for and commitment to ideas, network
activators, and learning from experience. Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) model was known for
its form-storm-norm-perform sequence to which a fifth was later added: adjourn.
Chen (2007) showed with a survey across new ventures, that an entrepreneurial leadership –
that is of a leader who is risk taking, proactive and innovative – can stimulate greater
creativity in their teams. Wakefield et al. (2008) explored the models of conflict and
leadership styles for conflict resolution in complex teams, where they chose virtual teams as
their focus. They quoted the Theory of Behavioural Complexity in Leadership (Denison et
al., 1995) to explain that leaders in complex and dynamic environments should be able to
draw upon a reservoir of knowledge, understanding of situations, and appropriate behavior in
a transparent and open style. Darling and Leffel (2010) explored the two interactive styles of
assertiveness and responsiveness, in the light of the four leadership styles of Analyzer,
Director, Creator and connector. They gave a framework for enhanced interactions with team
members for greater effectiveness. Davis and Eisenhardt (2011) found that a rotating
leadership process with alternating decision control, and changing styles actually built for
more technologically innovative organizations. They suggested that this format reduced
competitive tensions, and there was more trust, interaction and greater learning. There was
greater recombination of knowledge between the members. There was also greater
mobilization of diverse partners.
Team composition
There have been various definitions on what constitutes a new venture team. While some
define the team in terms of financial interest, others include all those who are operationally
involved in the venture (Francis & Sandberg, 2000). A recent definition is given by Klotz et
al. (2014) that define a NVT member being one that takes strategic decisions for, and is a
member of the team accountable for all major operations.
As in other teams, trust and mutual sharing amongst team members contributes to success of
the team. Francis and Sandberg (2000) have explored the effects of pre-existing friendship
between founder members on team interactions, collective decision making, and on team
performance. They suggested further that effect of friendships developed after the formation
of new venture teams should similarly be explored.
The literature suggests that team leadership and team composition have a strong effect on
team processes. Further, that team leadership and team composition have a strong association
with team performance (Gardner et al., 2012). Internal team dynamics factors and processes
like team consensus and team cohesion act as contingency factors (Vissa & Chacar, 2009).
There are also pitfalls in joint coordination by specialists in a team, however, exceptional the
members may be individually investigated for two such pitfalls of coordinated exploration:
mutual confusion and joint myopia, essentially arising from the fact that feedback to one such
specialist agent may be misread by another (Knudsen and Srikanth, 2014).
Team conflicts
Generally two kinds of team conflict are found, viz., task conflict, which stems from
ambiguity of roles, tasks, processes, roles and responsibilities, perceived fairness of policies;
and emotional conflict, which stems from interpersonal clashes accompanied by anger or
frustration. It has been found that while task conflicts may lead to higher performance of the
venture, emotional conflicts take their toll and lead to poorer performance of the team venture
(Pelled et al., 1999). Team members however, evolve their own systems of communication
and control; and conflicts are managed as they occur (Lundberg, 1991).
Kamm et al. (1990) mention team dynamics as one of the most important components of
success of a new venture. They have discussed the importance of interpersonal skills like
active listening and conflict management, for success of the venture. Francis & Sandberg
(2000) have explored the consequences of a pre-existing friendship between the top team to
its subsequent working, and management of conflict. They have also categorized conflict in
two main areas, calling them cognitive conflict and affective conflict. Cognitive conflict
arises out of differences on how to achieve common goals. Affective conflict arises out of
interpersonal incompatibility.
If not managed well, team conflicts affect strategic decision making within the team as well
as implementation of those decisions, and as such, they affect team performance. Ensley et al.
(2002) used the upper echelon theory perspective, to explain team performance as a function
of conflict and cohesion within the top management team. West (2007) explored the world
view of the founding entrepreneurial team and observed that team members may differ on
strategic issues like the potential of an opportunity, allocation of resources to it, and priorities
in execution. If the team is able to proceed towards a common perspective, the process of
managing conflicts helps to bring about a strategic consensus.
Francis & Sandberg (2000) explored composition of teams that had known each other, and
found that teams managed to resolve their conflicts only when they could focus on shared
higher level objectives, and raise them above “personal incompatibilities”. So even when
there is a pre-existing friendship, the dynamics of a new venture will require the team leader
to keep the team focused on the task.
A NVT that is put together for a new market, passes through various stages of team
development. Okhuysen & Bechky (2009) found that conflicts usually appear because of a
lack of clarity of roles, accountability, ambiguities in reporting, authority and command lines
being diffuse, and interdependencies in the work. In addition, sub groups may be formed
based on team members’ social identity, resources or knowledge; creating additional
‘faultlines’ within the team. (Carton & Cummings (2012)
Team cohesion
Three components of team cohesion are of due importance, viz. interpersonal attraction
among the members of the group, task commitment towards their goals, and group pride
(Notgrass et al., 2013). Strategic decisions in a new venture are often made collectively by
the team (West, 2007) in the face of perceived opportunities and challenges in the new
environment. While individual perspectives may differ, a collective team decision is made.
Both during the decision process, or while implementing the same, conflicts arise which need
to be handled. Where managed well, the process brings greater cohesion to the team and
focuses them on the task. Where not managed well, it may even lead to exits from the team
(Ucbasaran et al., 2003).
Francis & Sandberg (2000) found that bringing team conflicts to the table, and active
discussion to bring greater clarity, brings benefit to the strategic decision making process in
the team. However, the team has to be careful and avoid affective conflicts causing
interpersonal problems in the team. The coordination and facilitation to manage this have to
be executed well by the team leaders.
A survey of 52 R&D teams suggested that the quality of Team-Member Exchange (TMX) is
related to increased intention among team members to share knowledge and to increased
commitment to the team (Liu et al.., 2011). They also found that such team-member
exchanges do not have a positive impact on the performance of team at the work-unit level
but it does have a positive impact at the team level.
Team performance
There can be several measures to judge the performance of NVTs in the context of taking
new products to new market segments e.g. new technologies and intellectual property
created, new and improved products and platforms developed, market acceptance of products
and brand awareness, product performance vis-à-vis chief competitors, and so on. The
common measures used across all business domains can be new venture profitability, growth
in sales and growth in employee presence (Ensley et al., 2002).
Schjoedt et al. (2009) made a point that the performance of an entrepreneurial team has to be
measured both in terms of the external as well as internal parameters of operations, like
workgroup effectiveness.
Indian software firms
Vissa and Chacar (2009) investigated strategic consensus on key goals and ways to
implement them, and team cohesion for Indian software ventures. They found that internal
team performances as well as external networks jointly shape performance of these ventures.
While they explored external networks of the teams, they observed that team demographics
and team networks would complement each other, and suggested greater exploration of the
team composition. Literature on new ventures has often focused on strategies of software
firms, e.g. Cooney (2009) explored emergent strategies and structures of high growth
software firms; Mueller & Gemunden (2009) suggested that a marketing orientation and
success in new markets was one of the prime drivers of growth for software ventures, and
further researched about founder team interaction. There are several instances of
geographically distributed software firms, whether for product sales, product support,
customer support, quality assurance, software development, gathering customer
specifications, and so on. The literature has used geographically distributed functioning of the
software industry to research on task and team familiarity in the face of new environmental
conditions (Espinosa et al.., 2007, Huckman et al.., 2009). This paper suggests a model
incorporating the above issues that can be tested across software firms.
Objective of present research
The objective of proposed research is to test the effect of factors related with leadership
effectiveness, NVT composition, conflicts and cohesion on NVT performance, both
independently and combined and discusses the implications for software firms exploring new
markets with their existing offerings.
Hypotheses
NVT Composition
Composition of NVTs and their performance have been studied in literature, though not with
reference to internal ventures of corporate firms. Kamm et al. (1990) have explored
dimensions like the size of the venture team, the industry it is in, the timing for entry and exit
of members, and the presence and contribution of family members for family owned firms.
Eisenhardt and Schoonhovens (1990) have proposed that team composition factors like
greater previous joint work experience and greater founding team size contribute to growth of
the firm.
H1a: Small size of New Venture Team (NVT) affects the performance of the NVT in a positive
manner.
H1b: Previous joint work experience among members of the NVT leads to positive
performance the NVT.
Leary and DeVaughn (2009) identified the following as characteristics of a founding team for
success, though their survey was limited to a single industry: the ownership structure of the
founding team, prior founding experience, occupational diversity of the team, prior shared
experience, and prior individual industry experience. Klotz et al. (2014) identified the
following as input factors of the new venture team for further team interactions: prior
experience, social capital, personality, general mental ability. Gardner et al. (2012) used the
resource based view of the firm to examine how teams use their resources to integrate
knowledge of members and work towards higher performance. They concluded that the
relational and experiential resources of a team are positively associated with team’s
knowledge integration capability. Further that a team’s knowledge integration capability is
positively associated with team performance.
Espinosa et al. (2007) found that team familiarity helped offset some of the problems
associated with team coordination in a complex environment. They found that team
familiarity had a positive effect on team performance and also that team familiarity helped
narrow the differences in performance between small and large teams. Based on the above
observations the following hypotheses are derived:
H1c: Prior founding experience among members of the NVT is has a positive impact on the
performance of NVT.
H1d: Greater occupational diversity of NVT members has a positive effect on the performance
of NVT.
H1e: Prior industry experience (same or related) of NVT has a positive effect on the
performance of NVT.
NVT Processes
Pelled et al. (1999) found linkages between workgroup team diversity, conflict and cohesion,
however the relationships were complex. While task conflict was driven by functional
diversity, emotional conflict was driven by race and tenure diversity. Also, task conflict had a
positive association with performance. Our hypothesis is that a new venture team is a
microcosm of the parent firm, and these relationships will hold for the NVT as well.
Wakefield et al. (2008) while studying virtual teams, found that greater a team member
perceives his leader to be performing the role of a monitor, coordinator, facilitator or mentor,
the less task conflict is perceived by the member. The relationships were found to hold for
relational conflicts as well. We propose:
H2a: Cognitive conflict within the NVT has a positive effect on performance of the NVT.
H2b: Affective conflict within the NVT has a positive effect on performance of the NVT.
Mullen & Copper (1994) explored the relationship between group cohesiveness and
performance. They found the chief contributors of group cohesiveness to be interpersonal
attraction commitment to the task, and group pride. There was a strong correlation to
performance, with a stronger effect for smaller groups. Ensley et al. (2002) also found that a
more cohesive team implies lower levels of affective conflict, a greater commitment and
builds for a higher level of performance. Beal et al. (2003) further found that all three original
components of cohesion- interpersonal attraction, task commitment, and group pride- each
bore significant relation with performance across several criterion categories. They also
found that groups who take the most advantage of cohesion typically engage in more
intensive workflow. NVTs by their nature have a high commitment and the pride of being a
selected in a high achievement group. We propose:
H2c: Interpersonal attraction amongst the NVT members affects the performance of NVT
positively.
H2d: Task commitment within the NVT has a positive impact on performance of the NVT.
H2e: Group pride within the NVT has a positive influence on performance of the NVT.
Entrepreneurial leadership which may reside in a named leader, or a rotating or consensual
form of leadership will result in enhanced creative performance of the team. This is of
particular importance for a new venture given that the team is dealing with unfamiliar
markets (Chen, 2007). Research has been done in distributed teams, virtual teams, teams
dealing with complexity and uncertainty on leader effectiveness. Wakefield et al. (2008)
discuss the behavioural complexity theory, BCL (Denison, 1995) and also showed that leader
effectiveness was associated with team performance. We propose:
H2f : Leadership effectiveness has a positive effect on the performance of NVT.
Based on the above discussion, and proposed hypothesis, a model is proposed for testing the
role of various factors related with NVTs on performance of NVTs as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Proposed model for testing the role of various factors on NVT performance
Methodology
Survey method will be used for data collection through a structured questionnaire having a
targeted sample size of 300. The target population comprises of respondents who are a part of
any NVT of select software firms operating in India. The results would be validated though
focus group interviews of team members of two such new venture teams belonging to two
different software firms. Pre-validated constructs will be used to measure each of the
elements of NVT composition, processes and performance to empirically test the proposed
model and hypotheses. The scope is limited to a convenient sample of NVTs of software
firms exploring new markets with their existing offerings.
Discussion
A new venture team does not have the autonomy of an individual entrepreneur. Nor does the
NVT have the stability and presence in the market as the parent firm. The leader of the NVT
is in charge of group processes and certain customer decisions in the new market, and
accountable for them. However the NVT leader is guided by instructions from the parent
NVT Composition
Team Size Joint work experience
Prior founding experience Occupational Diversity
Prior industry experience
NVT Processes
Cognitive Conflict Affective Conflict
Interpersonal attraction Task commitment
Group Pride Leadership Effectiveness
NVT Performance
Revenue generation by the NVT No. of new products / services
launched by the NVT
office for decisions in several areas. NVT performance is crucial to the NVT members and
the parent firm in a significant way and is different from performance of the parent firm in its
home market. While the NVT performance may depend on factors of NVT composition and
NVT processes, it would also depend on factors prevailing in the NVT’s own external
environment, as well as on the performance of the parent firm. This paper has defined the
scope of its study to some of these factors, but doing so has brought into focus several other
areas waiting to be explored.
Findings of the study will have implications for selection processes of NVT members and for
their training and mentoring requirements. It will also have implications on processes for
monitoring and evaluation of NVT performance. Parent firms will have to take into
cognizance complexities of NVTs, their similarities and differences as opposed to other
teams like project teams and product teams.
Conclusion
Companies seek success in new markets, emerging markets, or new customer segments, in
their pursuit for growth. Employees selected to lead or be a part of new venture teams with
their firms no doubt do what they think is best for their own performance, for that of the NVT
and for the parent firm. The process of conception of such teams, their deployment,
subsequent guidance, training, management, evaluation, rewards and recognition by the
parent firm may be in part similar to such practices in the parent firm for other teams.
However, as the body of research and findings about complexities of NVTs grow, firms
would be able to build guidelines for management of such teams.
Research into the working of NVTs is a novel and growing area, and will doubtless build
upon concepts in strategic management, entrepreneurship, conflict management, diversity
studies, human resources, leadership, innovation and social exchange theories, among others.
This paper has suggested a model and further study for software firms. Studies for NVTs in
other business domains may explore more or different factors relevant to NVT performance
in those domains, adding to the complexity and richness of the subject.
Contribution of present research
At times NVTs can be quite heterogeneous groups, therefore, even though each NVT is
backed up by the parent organisation, the composition, different kind of conflicts, level of
cohesion amongst the team members and leadership effectiveness, plays an instrumental role
in making the NVT successful. The research contributes to the existing literature on NVTs by
throwing light on these aspects through results of the hypotheses testing and suggesting effect
of various factors on NVT performance individually as well collectively. It will also help the
software firms understand these issues better and enable them take right decisions in order to
make sure that their NVTs perform better. It also adds to the literature of corporate
entrepreneurship by giving certain pointers towards organized efforts of corporate
entrepreneurship in the context of NVTs of software firms.
References
Amason, A. C., Shrader, R. C. & Tompson, G. H. (2006). Newness and novelty: relating top
management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing.
Vol. 21. pp.125-148.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J. & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and
performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Vol. 88. No. 6. pp. 989-1004.
Carland, J. C. & Carland, J. W. (2012). A model of shared entrepreneurial leadership.
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal. Vol. 18. No. 2. pp. 71-81.
Carton, A. M. & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of
Management Review. Vol. 37. No.3. pp. 441-470.
Chen, M. H. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in
entrepreneurial teams. Creativity and Innovation Management. Vol. 16. No. 3. pp. 239-249.
Cooney, T. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial teams: comparing high growth software firms through
structure and strategy. Management Research News. Vol. 32. No. 6. pp. 580-591.
Darling, J. & Leffel, A. (2010). Developing the leadership team in an entrepreneurial venture:
A case focussing on the importance of styles. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship. Vol. 23. No. 3. pp. 355-371.
Davis, J. P. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation:
Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol.
56. No. 2. pp. 159-201.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R. & Quinn, R. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a
theory of behavioural complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science. Vol. 6. No.
5. pp. 524-540.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding
team, strategy, environment, and growth among U. S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988.
Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 35. pp. 504-529.
Ensley, M. D., Carland, J. W. & Carland, J. C. (2000). Investigating the existence of the lead
entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business Management. October Issue. pp. 59-77.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W. & Amason, A. C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new
venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict and new venture performance. Journal of
Business Venturing. Vol. 17. pp. 365-386.
Ensley, M. D. & Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams:
Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. Vol. 22.
No. 2. pp. 145-160.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E. & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Familiarity,
complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development.
Organization Science. Vol. 18. No. 4. pp. 613-630.
Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y. & Mahoney, J. T. (2008). Entrepreneurship, subjectivism,
and the resource based view: toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.
Vol. 2. pp. 73-94.
Francis, D. H. & Sandberg, W. R. (2000). Friendship within entrepreneurial teams and its
association with team and venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. Winter
Iss. pp. 5-25.
Gardner, H. K., Gino, F. & Staats, B. R. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in
teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 55.
No. 4. pp. 998-1022.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review. Spring issue. pp. 114-135.
Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G. & Hart, M. M. (1999). The corporate venture champion: A
resource based approach to role and processes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Spring Issue. pp. 103-122.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management
Review. Vol. 32. No. 2. pp. 334-343.
Hitt, M. A., Nixon, R. D., Hoskisson, R. E. and Kochhar, R. (1999). Corporate
entrepreneurship and cross-functional fertilization: activation, process and disintegration of a
new product design team. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Spring Issue. pp. 145-167.
Holland, S., Gaston, K. & James, G. (2000). Critical success factors for cross-functional
teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol.
2. Iss. 3. pp. 231-259.
Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R. & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and
performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science. Vol. 55.
January Issue. No. 1. pp. 85-100.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M. & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship
& staretgic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive.
Vol. 15. No. 1. pp. 49-63.
Kamm, J. B., Shuman, J. C., Seeger, J. A. & Nurick, A. J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in
new venture creation: a research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. Summer
Issue. pp. 7-17.
Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H. & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture
teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management.
Vol. 40. No. 1. pp. 226-255.
Knudsen, T. & Srikanth, K. (2014). Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by
multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Administrative Science
Quarterly. Vol. 20. pp. 1-33.
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D. & Hornsby, J. S. (2001). Improving firm performance through
entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of
Management Executive. Vol. 15. No. 4. pp. 60-71.
Leary, M.M. and DeVaughn, M.L. (2009). Entrepreneurial team characteristics that influence
the successful launch of a new venture. Management Research News, Vol.32, Issue 6, pp.
567-579.
Liu, Y., Keller, R.T. & Shih, H.A. (2011). The impact of team member exchange,
differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team
performance, R&D Management, 41(3), pp. 274-287.
Lundberg, C. (1991). Team entrepreneurship by Alex Stewart. Administrative Science
Quarterly. Vol. 36. No. 2. pp. 324-326.
Mueller, T. A. & Gemunden, H. G. (2009). Founder team interaction, customer and
competitor orientation in software ventures. Management Research News. Vol. 32. No. 6. pp.
539-554.
Mullen, B. & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance:
An integration. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 115. No 2. pp. 210-227.
Notgrass, D., Conner, C. & Bel III, T. J. (2013). Leading external auditing teams: The
correlation between leaders’ behaviours and team dynamics of cohesion and conflict.
International Journal of Business and Public Administration. Volume 10. Fall Issue. No. 2.
pp. 1-14.
Okhuysen, G. A. & Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative
perspective. The Academy of Management Annals. Vol. 3. No. 1. pp. 463-502.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an analysis of
work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 44.
pp. 1-28.
Penrose, E.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.
Rickards, T. & Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team development:
an alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management. Vol. 11. pp. 273-
283.
Schjoedt, L. & Kraus, S. (2009). Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors.
Management Research News. Vol. 32. No. 6. pp. 513-524.
Talkea, K., Salomob, S. & Rost, K. (2010). How top management team diversity affects
innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields,
Research Policy, 39 (7), pp.907-918.
Teal, E. J. & Hofer, C. W. (2003). The determinants of new venture success: strategy,
industry structure, and the founding entrepreneurial team. The Journal of Private Equity. Fall
Issue. pp. 38-51.
Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited.
Group and Organization Management. Vol. 2. Iss. 4. pp. 419-427.
Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M. & Westhead, P. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder
teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.
Winter Issue. pp. 107-127.
Vissa, B. & Chacar, A. S. (2009). Leveraging ties: The contingent value of entrepreneurial
teams’ external advice networks on Indian software venture performance. Strategic
Management Journal. Vol. 30. pp. 1179-1191.
Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E. & Garrison, G. (2008). A model of conflict, leadership and
performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research. Vol. 19. No. 4. pp. 434-455.
West, G. P. (2007). Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make
decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, pp. 77-102.
