Social Contexts in Team Formation: Why Do Independent Start-Ups and University Spin-Offs Form Teams Differently?

Although the entrepreneurial team has gained increasing attention as a unit of analysis, we still do not understand much about how these teams form. Previous research has focused either on existing social relationships and their role in the search for potential team members or on criteria for selecting team members. Consequently, we do not yet understand the interplay of search and selection. Another long-neglected aspect that is being increasingly recognized in entrepreneurship research is that the entrepreneurial process is influenced by its social context beyond existing social relationships. This social context is another important factor that has to be considered to properly understand team formation. To analyze how specific characteristics of one particularly relevant social context – namely, the entrepreneurial field – impact the search for and selection of team members, I conducted a qualitative, multiple-case study that compares innovative new ventures in Berlin. The study shows that different types of ventures in different phases exhibit different team formation patterns based on their different and changing social contexts. From these patterns, I have derived different team-formation mechanisms and propositions about the conditions under which they apply

Did COVID lockdowns harm entrepreneurship? Not exactly

The prevalent view is that COVID lockdowns have severely harmed entrepreneurship, but have they? Gorgi Krlev, Katharina Scheidgen, Franziska Günzel-Jensen, Miriam Wolf, and Ali Aslan Gümüsay write that physical distancing created new digital spaces and led to unconventional ways of integrating new people, new products, and new purpose into entrepreneurship. They observed instances in which entrepreneurs opened their mind in fundamental ways to provide services which deviated clearly from their original mission

Degrees of integration: how a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem promotes different types of entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs) are expected to support high growth entrepreneurship. Yet, little is known about how they actually promote entrepreneurial activities. Based on Giddens’ structuration theory, this paper takes the entrepreneurs’ perspective to understand how they actually use the resources provided by an EE. Based on semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and other relevant actors in the Berlin EE along with participant observation at entrepreneurship events, this case study focuses on the resourcing practices of different types of entrepreneurs. It shows that the Berlin EE comprises two distinct subsystems. On the basis of this evidence it is proposed that EEs can have different degrees of integration and that this characteristic strongly impacts how entrepreneurscanactuallyacquireresourcesfromtheEEandthushowspecificEEs promote different types of entrepreneurs. Heterogeneous structures therefore do not only exist between EEs but also within EEs. This heterogeneity needs to be recognized in order to understand how EEs function, enhance the comparability of research results, and design suitable political instruments to promote entrepreneurship effectively

Demystifying Silicon Valley: Unequal entry thresholds between entrepreneurial ecosystems

Silicon Valley is widely recognised as a leading entrepreneurial ecosystem as it provides a plethora of key resources that promote entrepreneurship. Although the existing ecosystem debate implicitly assumes that entrepreneurs have equal access to resources, we argue that this is not necessarily the case. We explore how entrepreneurs access ecosystem resources, specifically risk capital, and compare Silicon Valley with Berlin. We find that each ecosystem has a different ecosystem entry threshold at which start-ups become investable and can access financial resources. Entrepreneurs share an understanding of investors’ criteria: in Silicon Valley, start-ups must demonstrate venture traction, meanwhile in Berlin a strong founding team is sufficient. Consequently, they undertake legitimizing activities to fulfil these anticipated investment criteria accordingly prior to fundraising. Therefore, our study demonstrates how Silicon Valley is a highly selective and demanding ecosystem, and argues that it excludes many entrepreneurs, fosters inequality, and leads to homogeneity among start-ups.Output Status: Forthcomin

Berlin is Hotter Than Silicon Valley! How Networking Temperature Shapes Entrepreneurs’ Networking Across Social Contexts

Our study contributes a contextual perspective on entrepreneurs’ networking, shifting focus from individual-level network structure and networking activities toward understanding networking as a multilevel process involving individual and contextual mechanisms. Through a multiple case study of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and Berlin, we introduce networking temperature as novel concept that captures context-bound templates for how entrepreneurs should network, ranging from colder to warmer. As core implications, networking temperature enables a contextualized understanding of tie quality, to explain why networking takes different forms in different contexts, and why entrepreneurs gain more cumulative advantage from their existing relationships in warmer than colder contexts

Demystifying Silicon Valley: Unequal entry thresholds between entrepreneurial ecosystems

Silicon Valley is widely recognised as a leading entrepreneurial ecosystem as it provides a plethora of key resources that promote entrepreneurship. Although the existing ecosystem debate implicitly assumes that entrepreneurs have equal access to resources, we argue that this is not necessarily the case. We explore how entrepreneurs access ecosystem resources, specifically risk capital, and compare Silicon Valley with Berlin. We find that each ecosystem has a different ecosystem entry threshold at which start-ups become investable and can access financial resources. Entrepreneurs share an understanding of investors’ criteria: in Silicon Valley, start-ups must demonstrate venture traction, meanwhile in Berlin a strong founding team is sufficient. Consequently, they undertake legitimizing activities to fulfil these anticipated investment criteria accordingly prior to fundraising. Therefore, our study demonstrates how Silicon Valley is a highly selective and demanding ecosystem, and argues that it excludes many entrepreneurs, fosters inequality, and leads to homogeneity among start-ups

Team Entrepreneurial Network(ing)

We argue that the combination of co-founders’ personal networks forms an impactful network structure between the individual and organizational level: team entrepreneurial network, that is, the team-level configuration of entrepreneurial team members’ individual networks. This team entrepreneurial network is not just a function of networking behavior by a single entrepreneur, but rather reflects the complex interplay of all team members’ networking behaviors: team entrepreneurial networking—the team-level configuration of entrepreneurial team members’ networking activities. We aim to explain how the team entrepreneurial network—a teamlevel social structure—is shaped by team entrepreneurial networking—a team activity, and vice versa. We go on to argue that the team entrepreneurial network influences resource access, and that team entrepreneurial networking shapes this team entrepreneurial network

Crises and entrepreneurial opportunities : Digital social innovation in response to physical distancing

As physical distancing is a core measure of containing the spread of COVID-19, this pandemic is a crisis that has uprooted social interaction. While current research mainly focuses on crises as a challenge for entrepreneurial ventures and potential regulatory response mechanisms, we complement this research by addressing the question of how crises in general—and COVID-19's physical distancing measures in particular—shape entrepreneurial opportunities for social innovation. Based on two rounds of data collection—desktop research mapping out 95 entrepreneurial activities in Germany and four focus groups—we find first that entrepreneurs are proactive agents in alleviating the negative consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. They do so by creating two types of digital social innovation: digital brokering and digitized services. Second, we note that negative societal consequences of crises can be buffered by shifts in entrepreneurs’ strategic orientation through improvised venturing, rapid pivoting and pro-social product extension. Third, we note variance in the persistence of changes with consequences for entrepreneurial opportunities and social innovation: Whereas some social innovation are rather ephemeral, others might endure and promise long-term impacts. We offer key insights for the literature on crisis, social innovation and hybrid organizing as well as on the implications for entrepreneurship practice and policy