Considerable research has demonstrated that small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who obtain institutionalized third-party endorsements experience higher performance. In this study, we develop an important boundary condition around this process. Drawing on institutional logics, we introduce the novel concept of founding logics. We then develop and test a theory in which founding logics play a role in both an SME’s decision to seek a third-party endorsement for the firm’s technology and then the likelihood that the SME will generate revenues based on the technology receiving the endorsement. Notably, our theory and results suggest that a founding logic that may compel an SME to seek technology validation can also impede the SME’s ultimate commercialization ability.
AgleBRMitchellRKSonnenfeldJA (1999) Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal42: 507–525.
2.
AgrawalA (2006) Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal27: 63–79.
3.
AhlersGCummingDGuentherCet al. (2015) Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39: 955–980.
4.
AlbertSWhettenDA (1985) Organizational Identity. Research in Organizational Behavior7: 263–295.
5.
AllisonP (1995) Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
6.
AllisonPD (2014) Event History and Survival Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
7.
AlmandozJ (2012) Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal55: 1381–1406.
8.
AlmandozJ (2014) Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly59: 442–473.
9.
AmitRBranderJZottC (1998) Why do venture capital firms exist? Theory and Canadian evidence. Journal of Business Venturing13: 441–466.
10.
ArmstrongJSOvertonTS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research14: 396–402.
11.
BakerTMinerASEesleyDT (2003) Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy32: 255–276.
12.
BaronJNHannanMTBurtonMD (1999) Building the iron cage: Determinants of managerial intensity in the early years of organizations. American Sociological Review64: 527–547.
13.
BaruchYHoltonBC (2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations61: 1139–1160.
14.
BattilanaJ (2006) Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization13: 653–676.
15.
BattilanaJDoradoS (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal53: 1419–1440.
16.
BeckmanCMBurtonMDO’ReillyC (2007) Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing22: 147–173.
17.
BesharovMLSmithWK (2014) Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review39: 364–381.
18.
BiggartNW (1991) Explaining Asian economic organization. Theory and Society20: 199–232.
19.
BricksonSL (2005) Organizational identity orientation, forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly50: 576–609.
20.
BrutonGDChahineSFilatotchevI (2009) Founders, private equity investors, and underpricing in entrepreneurial IPOs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice33: 909–928.
21.
BurrisV (2004) The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review69: 239–264.
22.
BurtonMDBeckmanCM (2007) Leaving a legacy: Position imprints and successor turnover in young firms. American Sociological Review72: 239–266.
23.
BusenitzLWFietJOMoeselDD (2005) Signaling in venture capitalist – New venture team funding decisions: Does it indicate long-term venture outcomes?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice29: 1–12.
24.
CarterNMGartnerWBShaverKGet al. (2003) The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing18: 13–39.
25.
ChoiYRShephardDA (2005) Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management31: 573–596.
26.
CloggCCPetkovaEHaritouA (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology100: 1261–1293.
27.
CohenJCohenPWestSGet al. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
ColomboMGGrilliL (2005) Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy34: 795–816.
29.
ColomboMGGiannangeliSGrilliL (2012) Public subsidies and the employment growth of high-tech start-ups: Assessing the impact of selective and automatic support schemes. Industrial and Corporate Change22: 1273–1314.
30.
ConnellyBLCertoSTIrelandRDet al. (2011) Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management37: 39–67.
31.
DanneelsE (2002) The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal23: 1095–1121.
32.
DarroughMNStoughtonNM (1986) Moral hazard and adverse selection: The question of financial structure. Journal of Finance41: 501–513.
33.
DasguptaPDavidPA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy23: 487–521.
34.
De ClercqDVoronovM (2009) Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. International Small Business Journal27: 395–419.
35.
De ClercqDVoronovM (2011) Sustainability in entrepreneurship: A tale of two logics. International Small Business Journal29: 322–344.
36.
DesaiVM (2016) Third-party certifications as an organizational performance liability. Journal of Management. Epub ahead of print 18July. DOI: 0149206316659112.
37.
DjupdalKWestheadP (2013) Environmental certification as a buffer against the liabilities of newness and smallness: Firm performance benefits. International Small Business Journal33: 148–168.
38.
DotyDHGlickWH (1998) Does common methods variance really bias results?Organizational Research Methods1: 374–406.
39.
DoughertyD (1990) Understanding new markets for new products. Strategic Management Journal11: 59–78.
40.
DubinskasFA (1985) The culture chasm: Scientists and managers in genetic-engineering firms. Technology Review88: 24–30.
41.
DufaysFHuybrechtsB (2016) Where do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations. International Small Business Journal34: 777–796.
42.
DurandRBruyakaOMangematinV (2008) Do science and money go together? The case of the French biotech industry. Strategic Management Journal29: 1281–1299.
43.
EbrahimABattilanaJMairJ (2014) The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior34: 81–100.
44.
EddlestonKALadgeJJMittenessCet al. (2016) Do you see what I see? Signaling effects of gender and firm characteristics on financing entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice40: 489–514.
45.
EisenhardtKMSchoonhovenCB (1990) Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among United-States semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly35: 504–529.
46.
ElitzurRGaviousA (2003) Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: A model of entrepreneurs, ‘angels’, and venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing18: 709–725.
47.
FiniRToschiL (2016) Academic logic and corporate entrepreneurial intentions: A study of the interaction between cognitive and institutional factors in new firms. International Small Business Journal34: 637–659.
48.
GansJSSternS (2003) The product market and the market for ‘ideas’: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy32: 333–350.
49.
GansJSHsuDHSternS (2008) The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: Evidence from patent grant delays. Management Science54: 982–997.
50.
GeorgeGBockA (2008) Inventing Entrepreneurs: Technology Innovators and Their Entrepreneurial Journey. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
51.
GittelmanMKogutB (2003) Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science49: 366–382.
52.
GolishBLBesterfield-SacreMEShumanLJ (2008) Comparing academic and corporate technology development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management25: 47–62.
53.
GreeneWH (2003) Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54.
GreenwoodRRaynardMKodeihFet al. (2011) Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals5: 317–371.
55.
GreveHRZhangCM (2017) Institutional logics and power sources: Merger and acquisition decisions. Academy of Management Journal60: 671–694.
56.
GruberMFauchartE (2011) Darwinians, communitarians and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal54: 935–957.
57.
HallJKDanekeGALenoxMJ (2010) Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing25: 439–448.
58.
HayterCS (2011) In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer36: 340–352.
59.
HayterCS (2015) Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer40: 1003–1015.
Heras-SaizarbitoriaIBoiralO (2013) Symbolic adoption of ISO 9000 in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of internal contingencies. International Small Business Journal33: 299–320.
62.
HoffmanAJOcasioW (2001) Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science12: 414–434.
63.
HörischJKollatJBriegerSA (2017) What influences environmental entrepreneurship? A multilevel analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurs’ environmental orientation. Small Business Economics48: 47–69.
64.
HowellST (2017) Financing innovation: evidence from R&D grants. The American Economic Review107: 1136–1164.
65.
HwangHPowellWW (2009) The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly54: 268–298.
66.
JainSGeorgeGMaltarichM (2009) Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy38: 922–935.
67.
JohnsonV (2007) What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera 1. American Journal of Sociology113: 97–127.
68.
KirchbergerMAPohlL (2016) Technology commercialization: A literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. Journal of Technology Transfer41: 1077–1112.
69.
KoryakOMoleKFLockettAet al. (2015) Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. International Small Business Journal33: 89–105.
70.
KraatzMSBlockES (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In: GreenwoodROliverCSahlinKet al (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage, pp.243–375.
71.
LawKSWongCSMobleyWH (1998) Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review23: 741–755.
72.
LeeMSBattilanaJ (2014) How the zebra got its stripes: Imprinting of individuals and hybrid social ventures. HBS Working paper 14-005, July. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
73.
LernerJ (1999) The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business72: 285–318.
74.
LibaersDMeyerM (2011) Highly innovative small technology firms, industrial clusters and firm internationalization. Research Policy40: 1426–1437.
75.
LohrSL (1999) Sampling: Design and Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
76.
LounsburyM (2007) A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal50: 289–307.
77.
LounsburyMGlynnMA (2001) Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal22: 545–564.
78.
MallonMDuberleyJCohenL (2005) Careers in public sector science: Orientations and implications. R&D Management35: 395–407.
79.
MarchJG (1994) A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.
80.
MarkhamSK (2002) Moving technologies from lab to market. Research-Technology Management45: 31–42.
81.
MaurerIEbersM (2006) Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: Lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Administrative Science Quarterly51: 262–292.
82.
MeekWRPachecoDFYorkJG (2010) The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing25: 493–509.
83.
MertonRK (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review22: 635–659.
84.
MitchellWSinghK (1996) Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal17: 169–195.
85.
MossTWShortJCPayneGTet al. (2011) Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice35: 805–830.
86.
Muñoz-BullónFCuetoB (2011) The sustainability of start-up firms among formerly wage-employed workers. International Small Business Journal29: 78–102.
87.
NandaRSorensenJB (2010) Workplace peers and entrepreneurship. Management Science56: 1116–1126.
88.
NatshehAASaheedAGAnttiRet al. (2015) Identifying the challenges in commercializing high technology: A case study of quantum key distribution technology. Technology Innovation Management Review5: 26–36.
89.
PacheA-CSantosF (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal56: 972–1001.
90.
PaternosterRBrameRMazerollePet al. (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology36: 859–866.
91.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJYet al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 879–903.
92.
PowellWWColyvasJA (2008) Microfoundations of institutional theory. In: GreenwoodROliverCSahlinKet al (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.276–298.
93.
PowellWWSandholtzKW (2012) Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal6: 94–115.
94.
ReichES (2013) US research firms put under pressure to sell. Nature499: 137–138.
95.
RogelbergSGStantonJM (2007) Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods10: 195–209.
96.
SandersWGTuschkeA (2007) The adoption of institutionally contested organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal50: 33–56.
97.
SauermannHStephanP (2013) Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science24: 889–909.
98.
ScarlataMZacharakisAWalskeJ (2015) The effect of founder experience on the performance of philanthropic venture capital firms. International Small Business Journal34: 618–636.
99.
SchoonhovenCBEisenhardtKMLymanK (1990) Speeding products to market: Waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Administrative Science Quarterly35: 177–207.
100.
ShahriarAZMSchwarzSNewmanA (2016) Profit orientation of microfinance institutions and provision of financial capital to business start-ups. International Small Business Journal34: 532–552.
101.
ShaneS (2004) Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
102.
ShinnTLamyE (2006) Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy35: 1465–1476.
103.
SiegelDSWessnerC (2012) Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. Journal of Technology Transfer37: 404–415.
104.
SineWDDavidRJMitsuhashiH (2007) From plan to plant: Effects of certification on operational start-up in the emergent independent power sector. Organization Science18: 578–594.
105.
SingerJDWillettJB (2003) Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
106.
SinghPJPowerDChuongSC (2011) A resource dependence theory perspective of ISO 9000 in managing organizational environment. Journal of Operations Management29: 49–64.
107.
Small Business Innovation Research Program Policy Directive (2002) 67 Federal Register (60072, 24September). Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration.
108.
StephanPELevinSG (1992) Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place and Time. New York: Oxford University Press.
109.
StevensRMorayNBruneelJ (2015) The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39: 1051–1082.
110.
SunHChengT-K (2002) Comparing reasons, practices and effects of ISO 9000 certification and TQM implementation in Norwegian SMEs and large firms. International Small Business Journal20: 421–442.
111.
TakaloTTanayamaT (2010) Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies?Journal of Technology Transfer35: 16–41.
112.
TaylorSEFiskeST (1975) Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology32: 439–445.
113.
ThorntonPH (2004) Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Education Publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
114.
ThorntonPHOcasioW (1999) Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology105: 801–843.
115.
ThorntonPHOcasioWLounsburyM (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
116.
TooleAACzarnitzkiD (2009) Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science55: 101–114.
117.
WadeJBPoracJFPollockTGet al. (2006) The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal49: 643–660.
WallstenSJ (2000) The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. Rand Journal of Economics31: 82–100.
120.
WilliamsLJCoteJABuckleyMR (1989) Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?Journal of Applied Psychology74: 462–468.
121.
WilsonNWrightMAltanlarA (2013) The survival of newly-incorporated companies and founding director characteristics. International Small Business Journal32: 733–758.
122.
WryTYorkJ (2017) An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review42: 437–460.
123.
ZabuskySEBarleySR (1997) ‘You can’t be a stone if you’re cement’: Reevaluating the emic identities of scientists in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior19: 361–404.
124.
ZuckerLGDarbyMRArmstrongJS (2002) Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science48: 138–153.
