Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The contribution of board experience to opportunity development in high-tech ventures

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the board of directors’ contribution to opportunity development in high-tech ventures. Based on the dynamic managerial capabilities perspective, we argue that more experienced boards will contribute more to opportunity development. Furthermore, building on the attention-based view, we argue that this effect will be moderated by structural and situational factors that affect board members’ attention to the venture’s opportunity development process. Using hand-collected data on 179 high-tech ventures in Belgium, we find that board experience has a stronger relationship with the board’s contribution to opportunity development when board size decreases, when board tenure increases and when the venture underperforms. These findings offer a contribution to the literature on opportunity development in new ventures and to research on the boards of directors’ role in new ventures. They also have important implications for entrepreneurs who are trying to develop opportunities and their stakeholders.

Plain English summary While experienced board members have the potential to contribute to opportunity development in high-tech ventures, they often refrain from leveraging this experience due to the structure of the board and the situation of the venture. When high-tech ventures try to develop new opportunities, they mostly rely on the experience of the top management team. As this could limit the range of opportunities they see, bringing in experienced board members may seem a fruitful way of getting new information and a broader perspective. This study indeed shows that, in the context of high-tech ventures, more experienced boards can contribute more to opportunity development. However, even if board members have relevant experience, they are not always motivated to use this experience to the benefit of the venture. In fact, they are less likely to leverage their experience when boards are bigger in size, when board members have spent less time sitting together on the board, and when the venture performs better. The implication of this study is that high-tech ventures should be aware that board members can potentially contribute to opportunity development, but that their actual contribution depends on structural and situational factors that direct board members’ attention to opportunity development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability of data and material

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to agreements with the respondents regarding confidentiality and data management.

Code availability

The code is available from the corresponding author on request.

References

  • Åberg, C., & Shen, W. (2019). Can board leadership contribute to board dynamic managerial capabilities? An empirical exploration among Norwegian firms. Journal of Management and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09460-6.

  • Åberg, C., & Torchia, M. (2019). Do boards of directors foster strategic change ? A dynamic managerial capabilities perspective. Journal of Management and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09462-4.

  • Åberg, C., Bankewitz, M., Knockaert, M., & Huse, M. (2019). Service tasks of boards of directors: A critical literature review and research agenda. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.006.

  • Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.331.

  • Allen, & Overy. (2012). Corporate Governance Compartive Study. Brussels: Allen & Overy LLP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andries, P., Debackere, K., & Van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1170.

  • Angus, R. W. (2019). Problemistic search distance and entrepreneurial performance. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3068.

  • Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Less likely to fail: Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0446.

  • Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0424.

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.

  • Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boivie, S., Graffin, S. D., & Pollock, T. G. (2012). Time for me to fly: predicting director exit at large firms. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.1083.

  • Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014.

  • Burgel, O., Fier, A., & Licht, G. (2004). Internationalisation of young high-tech firms. An empirical analysis in Germany and the United Kingdom. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Valïkangas, L. (2005). Managing internal corporate venturing cycles. Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantner, U., Goethner, M., and Stuetzer, M. (2010). Disentangling the effects of new venture team functional heterogeneity on new venture performance. Jena Economic Research Papers no. 2010–2029. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute of Economics. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/32628

  • Castanias, R. P., & Helfat, C. E. (2001). The managerial rents model: Theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700604.

  • Certo, S. T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196754.

  • Chen, M. J., Lin, H. C., & Michel, J. G. (2010). Navigating in a hypercompetitive environment: The roles of action aggressiveness and TMT integration. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.891.

  • Choi, Y. R., Lévesque, M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). When Should entrepreneurs expedite or delay opportunity exploitation? Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.11.001.

  • Corbett, A. C. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.10.001.

  • Cowling, M. (2003). Productivity and corporate governance in smaller firms. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022931020438.

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

  • Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002.

  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6.

  • Diestre, L., Rajagopalan, N., & Dutta, S. (2015). Constraints in acquiring and utilizing directors’ experience: An empirical study of new-market entry in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2215.

  • Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00196.x.

  • Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00423.x.

  • Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(98)00003-8.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/113.0.CO;2-E.

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037.

  • Fiegener, M. (2005). Determinants of board participation in the strategic decisions of small corporations. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00101.x.

  • Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2005). The Corporate Governance Life-cycle. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202133.

  • Forbes, D. P., Korsgaard, M. A., & Sapienza, H. J. (2009). Financing decisions as a source of conflict in venture boards. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.03.001.

  • Fredriksen, O., & Klofsten, M. (1999). CEO vs board typologies in venture capital – entrepreneurship relationships (pp. 335–348). Wellesley: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furr, N., Cavarretta, F., & Garg, S. (2012). Who changes course? The role of domain knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1137.

  • Gabrielsson, J. (2007). Correlates of board empowerment in small companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00195.x.

  • Garg, S. (2013). Venture boards: Distinctive monitoring and implications for firm performance. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0193.

  • Garg, S., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2016). Unpacking the CEO-board relationship: How strategy-making happens in entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0599.

  • Garg, S., & Furr, N. (2017). Venture boards: Past insights, future directions, and transition to public firm boards. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1258.

  • Garg, S., Li, Q. J., & Shaw, J. D. (2019). Entrepreneurial firms grow up: Board undervaluation, board evolution, and firm performance in newly public firms. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3036.

  • Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0055.

  • Gordon, I. M., Hrazdil, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Corporate governance in publicly traded small firms: a study of Canadian venture exchange companies. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.07.005.

  • Greve, H. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040661.

  • Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2013). Escaping the prior knowledge corridor. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0721.

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallen, B. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2012). Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0620.

  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096.

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Statistical models for discrete panel data. Chicago: Department of Economics and Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2014). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314561301.

  • Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2247.

  • Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. (2008). Directors’ multiple identities, identification, and board monitoring and resource provision. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0355.

  • Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.582.

  • Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463938.

  • Knockaert, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2013). The service role of outside boards in high-tech start-ups: A resource dependency perspective. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00787.x.

  • Knockaert, M., Bjornali, E. S., & Erikson, T. (2015a). Joining forces: top management team and board chair characteristics as antecedents of board service involvement. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.05.001.

  • Knockaert, M., Foo, M., Erikson, T., & Cools, E. (2015b). Growth intentions among research scientists: A cognitive style perspective. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.12.001.

  • Kor, Y. Y., & Sundaramurthy, C. (2009). Experience-based human capital and social capital of outside directors. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321551.

  • Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models (International ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533229.

  • Li, H., Terjesen, S., & Umans, T. (2020). Corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic review and research agenda. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0118-1.

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159610.

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.

  • March, & Simon. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12049.

  • Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation: Insights from an explorative study. R&D Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12076.

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K.

  • Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.001.

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

  • Ranft, A. L., & O’Neill, H. M. (2001). Board composition and high-flying founders: Hints of trouble to come? Academy of Management Executive. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4251562.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (3rd ed.). New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Northampton: E. Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Khurana, K. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.3.519.

  • Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611.

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Chicago: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23466005.

  • Snihur, Y., Reiche, B. S., & Quintane, E. (2017). Sustaining actor engagement during the opportunity development process. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1233.

  • Srinivasan, S., & Richardson, S. A. (2005). Consequences of financial reporting failure for outside directors: Evidence from accounting restatements and audit committee members. Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679x.2005.00172.x.

  • Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12091.

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.

  • Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.909.

  • Titus Jr., V. K., & Anderson, B. (2018). Firm structure and environment as contingencies to the corporate venture capital-parent firm value relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12264.

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tuggle, C., Schnatterly, K., & Johnson, R. (2010a). Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion on entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468687.

  • Tuggle, C., Sirmon, D., Reutzel, C., & Bierman, L. (2010b). Commanding board of director attention: Investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.847.

  • Van Peteghem, M., Bruynseels, L., & Gaeremynck, A. (2018). Beyond diversity: A tale of faultlines and frictions in the board of directors. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51818.

  • Vandenbroucke, E., Knockaert, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2016). Outside board human capital and early stage high-tech firm performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12141.

  • Vogel, P. (2017). From venture idea to venture opportunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12234.

  • Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Decisions, actions, and performance: do novice, serial, and portfolio entrepreneurs differ? Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00144.x.

  • Withers, M. C., Hillman, A. J., & Cannella, A. A. (2012). A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311428671.

  • Yu, J., Engleman, R. M., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2005). The integration journey: An attention-based view of the merger and acquisition integration process. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057071.

  • Zahra, S., & Newey, L. (2009). Maximizing the impact of organization science: Theory-building at the intersection of disciplines and/or field. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00848.x.

  • Zahra, S., & Pearce, J. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: a review and integrative model. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500208.

  • Zahra, S., Neubaum, D., & Huse, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship in Medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00064-7.

  • Zahra, S., Neubaum, D., & Naldi, L. (2007). The effects of ownership and governance on SMEs’ international knowledge-based resources. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9025-y.

  • Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.09.001.

  • Zelner, B. A. (2009). Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.783.

  • Zona, F., Zattoni, A., & Minichilli, A. (2013). A contingency model of boards of directors and firm innovation: the moderating role of firm size. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00805.x.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Jolien Roelandt, Petra Andries & Mirjam Knockaert

  2. Entrepreneurship Research Institute, Technical University of Munich, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Mirjam Knockaert

Authors
  1. Jolien Roelandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petra Andries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirjam Knockaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.R. managed the data collection and took the lead in developing the paper. M.K. and P.A. developed the initial research question and research methodology, and reworked the paper and provided advice over multiple rounds.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jolien Roelandt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 13.8 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roelandt, J., Andries, P. & Knockaert, M. The contribution of board experience to opportunity development in high-tech ventures. Small Bus Econ 58, 1627–1645 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00460-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00460-1

Keywords

JEL classifications

Search

Navigation