Social-cognitive antecedents of ambidextrous orientation in family-owned startups: The role of family ties, achievement motivation, and internal locus of control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore "new ideas", exploit "old certainties" and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research —achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.

Social-cognitive Antecedents of Ambidextrous Orientation in Family-owned Startups: The Role of Family Ties, Achievement Motivation, and Internal Locus of Control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore “new ideas”, exploit “old certainties” and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research --achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.

Three empirical essays on startups' survival using the Kauffman Firm Survey

This dissertation studies newly founded U.S. firms' survival using three different releases of the Kauffman Firm Survey. I study firms' survival from a different perspective in each chapter. ^ The first essay studies firms' survival through an analysis of their initial state at startup and the current state of the firms as they gain maturity. The probability of survival is determined using three probit models, using both firm-specific variables and an industry scale variable to control for the environment of operation. The firm's specific variables include size, experience and leverage as a debt-to-value ratio. The results indicate that size and relevant experience are both positive predictors for the initial and current states. Debt appears to be a predictor of exit if not justified wisely by acquiring assets. As suggested previously in the literature, entering a smaller-scale industry is a positive predictor of survival from birth. Finally, a smaller-scale industry diminishes the negative effects of debt. ^ The second essay makes use of a hazard model to confirm that new service-providing (SP) firms are more likely to survive than new product providers (PPs). I investigate the possible explanations for the higher survival rate of SPs using a Cox proportional hazard model. I examine six hypotheses (variations in capital per worker, expenses per worker, owners' experience, industry wages, assets and size), none of which appear to explain why SPs are more likely than PPs to survive. Two other possibilities are discussed: tax evasion and human/social relations, but these could not be tested due to lack of data. ^ The third essay investigates women-owned firms' higher failure rates using a Cox proportional hazard on two models. I make use of a never-before used variable that proxies for owners' confidence. This variable represents the owners' self-evaluated competitive advantage. ^ The first empirical model allows me to compare women's and men's hazard rates for each variable. In the second model I successively add the variables that could potentially explain why women have a higher failure rate. Unfortunately, I am not able to fully explain the gender effect on the firms' survival. Nonetheless, the second empirical approach allows me to confirm that social and psychological differences among genders are important in explaining the higher likelihood to fail in women-owned firms.^