Fire in the Belly? Employee Motives and Innovative Performance in Startups Versus Established Firms
In: NBER Working Paper No. w23099
28 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: NBER Working Paper No. w23099
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of vocational behavior, Band 66, Heft 2, S. 273-303
ISSN: 1095-9084
In: Research policy: policy, management and economic studies of science, technology and innovation, Band 53, Heft 4, S. 104985
ISSN: 1873-7625
In: Research Policy, Band 53, Heft 4
SSRN
SSRN
In: Research Policy, Band 49, Heft 6, S. 103987
In: NBER Working Paper No. w22241
SSRN
In: Research Policy, Band 43, Heft 1, S. 1-20
In: Research Policy, Band 43, Heft 1, S. 32-47
In: Organization science, Band 24, Heft 3, S. 889-909
ISSN: 1526-5455
A growing body of research views industrial and academic science as characterized by conflicting institutional logics. However, other scholars have long claimed that stark differences between the two sectors exist in theory but not in practice. Drawing on both views and the broader organizational literature, we develop a conceptual framework to compare and contrast industrial and academic science along four interdependent dimensions: (1) the nature of work, (2) characteristics of the workplace, (3) characteristics of workers, and (4) the disclosure of research results. We then employ detailed survey data on a sample of more than 5,000 research-active life scientists and physical scientists to examine key aspects of the framework empirically. Our results suggest that the conflicting logics view tends to overstate differences across sectors while ignoring important heterogeneity within sectors. We further advance the understanding of institutional logics by examining the relationships among dimensions of science, including the degree to which differences in the nature of work explain differences in how work is organized and results are disclosed. We discuss directions for future research on the institution of science as well as implications for managers and policy makers concerned with scientific activity within and across sectors.
In: Research policy: policy, management and economic studies of science, technology and innovation, Band 42, Heft 3, S. 688-703
ISSN: 1873-7625
In: Research Policy, Band 42, Heft 1, S. 273-286
In: Research policy: policy, management and economic studies of science, technology and innovation, Band 39, Heft 3, S. 422-434
ISSN: 1873-7625
In: Research policy: policy, management and economic studies of science, technology and innovation, Band 39, Heft 3, S. 422-434
ISSN: 0048-7333
In: Organization science, Band 27, Heft 4, S. 801-824
ISSN: 1526-5455
A growing body of research explores how employees' organizational context shapes their entrepreneurial activity. We add to this work by examining how "educational mismatch"—when a job does not utilize the skills an employee has acquired during education—relates to subsequent transitions into entrepreneurship. While prior research has focused on mismatch due to labor market frictions, workers may also enter mismatches for other reasons, such as family obligations or a change in career interests. Different reasons, in turn, may relate in distinct ways to wages and job satisfaction and thus to the opportunity costs of entering entrepreneurship. Moreover, mismatch may also affect human capital development, including the formation of a broader range of skills that is beneficial in entrepreneurship. Using longitudinal data from over 25,000 scientists and engineers, we document a broad range of reasons for educational mismatch and show that the relationships between educational mismatch and wages, job satisfaction, and skill variety differ significantly depending upon the reason for a mismatch. Mismatched individuals are more likely to enter into entrepreneurship in a subsequent period, an effect that goes beyond higher labor mobility per se. Both lower opportunity costs—primarily low job satisfaction—and greater skill variety appear to link educational mismatch to subsequent entrepreneurship. We discuss implications for research, managers, and policy makers.