Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die Berücksichtigung von Heterogenität in der Forschung zu unternehmerischen Teams

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Kreativität, Innovation, Entrepreneurship

Zusammenfaussung

Die Forschungsergebnisse hinsichtlich der Wirkung der Heterogenität von unternehmerischen Teams auf Teamprozesse sowie Team- bzw. Unternehmenserfolg sind inkonsistent. Ein Grund für diese unterschiedlichen Ergebnisse dürften die unterschiedlich verwendeten Konzepte und Operationalisierungen von Heterogenität sein. Dieser Beitrag widmet sich der Heterogenität in unternehmerischen Teams und gibt einen kurzen Überblick über Konzepte, die bei der Erforschung von unternehmerischen Teams Berücksichtigung finden sollten. Dabei werden drei unterschiedliche Formen der Heterogenität (Separation, Varietät, Disparität) vorgestellt, die sich in Bezug auf Inhalt und Muster sowie Konzeption, Interpretation und Operationalisierung unterscheiden. Theorien, welche zur Erklärung dieser drei Heterogenitätsformen herangezogen werden können, werden ebenfalls dargestellt. Der Beitrag trägt somit zum besseren Verständnis der Konzeption von Forschungsdesigns zu unternehmerischen Teams bei.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Die mittlere euklidische Distanz bzw. der mittlere euklidische Abstand ist der durchschnittliche Abstand zwischen allen Beobachtungen.

  2. 2.

    Intervallskalierte Daten weisen ein metrisches Messniveau auf. Die Ausprägungen der Daten lassen sich in Form von Zahlen abbilden, sie haben aber keinen natürlichen Nullpunkt. Es sind Abstände bzw. Differenzen zwischen diesen Ausprägungen definiert und diese Differenzen lassen sich auch vergleichen.

  3. 3.

    Auf die Darstellung der Berechnung von q wird an dieser Stelle verzichtet und auf Biemann und Kearney (2010) verwiesen.

  4. 4.

    Bei nominal skalierten Daten können die Ausprägungen in verschiedene Kategorien abgebildet werden. Die verschiedenen Ausprägungen unterliegen jedoch keiner natürlichen Rangordnung, d. h. die Daten können nicht geordnet werden.

  5. 5.

    Ratioskalierte Daten (oder verhältnisskaliert) weisen ein metrisches Messniveau auf und haben einen natürlich gegebenen Nullpunkt (z. B. das Alter, Einkommen). Bei ratioskalierten Daten sind auch die Verhältnisse der Ausprägungen vergleichbar. So ist eine Person, die 60 Jahre alt ist wirklich doppelt so alt als eine Person, die 30 Jahre alt ist.

Literatur

  • Aldrich HE, Kim PH (2007) Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strat Entrepren J 1(1–2):147–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen NA, Stanley DJ, Williams HM, Ross SJ (2007) Assessing the impact of nonresponse on work group diversity effects. Organ Res Meth 10(2):262–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almer-Jarz DA, Schwarz EJ, Breitenecker RJ (2008) New venture teams: the relationship between initial team characteristics, team processes and performance. In: Landström H, Crijns H, Laveren E, Smallbone D (Hrsg) Entrepreneurship. Sustainable growth and performance. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, Northampton, S 163–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Amason AC, Shrader RC, Tompson GH (2006) Newness and novelty: relating top management team composition to new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 21(1):125–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote L, Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):150–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin JR (2003) Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. J Appl Psychol 88(5):866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker C (2005) Cultural studies: theory and practice. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Biemann T, Kearney E (2010) Size does matter: how varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity. Organ Res Methods 13(3):582–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birley S, Stockley S (2000) Entrepreneurial teams and venture growth. In: Sexton DL (Hrsg) The Blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship. Blackwell, Oxford, S 287–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom M (1999) The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Acad Manag J 42(1):25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom M, Michel JG (2002) The relationship among organizational context, pay dispersion, and managerial turnover. Acad Manag J 45(1):33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitenecker RJ, Schwarz EJ, Claußen J (2011) The influence of team heterogeneity on team processes of multi-person ventures: an empirical analysis of highly innovative academic start-ups. Int J Entrepren Small Bus 12(4):413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brettel M, Heinemann F, Sander T, Spieker M, Strigel M, Weiß K (2009) Erfolgreiche Unternehmerteams: Teamstruktur – Zusammenarbeit – Praxisbeispiele, 1. Aufl. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer M (1991) The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 86:307–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne D (1971) The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler GN, Lyon DW (2001) Entrepreneurial teams in new ventures: composition, turnover and performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Washington, DC, August 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler GN, Honig B, Wiklund J (2005) Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. J Bus Ventur 20(5):705–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman JA (1991) Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Admin Sci Q 36(3):459–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman JA, Flynn F (2001) The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad Manag J 44(5):956–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury S (2005) Demographic diversity for building and effective entrepreneurial team: is it important? J Bus Ventur 6(20):727–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse B, Moray N (2004) A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off. J Bus Ventur 19(1):55–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clore GL, Byrne DA (1974) A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In: Huston TL (Hrsg) Foundations of interpersonal attraction. Academic Press, New York, S 143–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor of the executive suite. J Manag 23(3):239–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney TM (2005) Editorial: what is an entrepreneurial team? Int Small Bus J 23(3):226–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper AC, Bruno AV (1977) Success among high-technology firms. Bus Horiz 20(2):16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1985) Distributive justice: a social psychological perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Schoonhoven CB (1990) Organizational growth – linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. Semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Admin Sci Q 35(3):504–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley MD, Carland JW, Carland JC (1998) The effect of entrepreneurial team skill heterogeneity and functional diversity on new venture performance. J Bus Entrepren 10(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley MD, Hmieleski KM (2005) A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Res Policy 34(7):1091–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley MD, Pearson AW (2005) An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepren Theor Pract 29(3):267–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley MD, Pearson AW, Amason AC (2002) Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 17(4):365–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferriani S, Cattani G, Baden-Fuller C (2009) The relational antecedents of project-entrepreneurship: network centrality, team composition and project performance. Res Policy 38(10):1545–1558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S, Hambrick D (1996) Strategic leadership: top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul West Publishing Company, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes DP, Borchert PS, Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Sapienza HJ (2006) Entrepreneurial team formation: an exploration of new member addition. Entrepren Theor Pract 30(2):225–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George JM (1990) Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. J Appl Psychol 75(2):107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grusky DB (1994) The contours of social stratification. In: Grusky DB (Hrsg) Social stratification: class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. Westview Press, Boulder, S 3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper DA (2008) Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. J Bus Ventur 23(6):613–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1199–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull 121:43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg MA, Terry DJ (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad Manag Rev 25(1):121–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger UR, Anderson N, Salgado JF (2009) Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. J Appl Psychol 94(5):1128–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S, May E, Whitney K (1995) Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In: Guzzo R, E. S. Associates (Hrgs) Team decision making effectiveness in organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, S 204–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson SE, Brett JF, Sessa VI, Cooper DM, Julin JA, Peyronnin K (1991) Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. J Appl Psychol 76(5):675–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL (2003) Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J Manag 29(6):801–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Admin Sci Q 40(2):256–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA, Rispens S, Thatcher SMB (2010) The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Acad Manag J 53:596–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney E, Gebert D, Voelpel S (2009) When and how diversity benefits teams: the importance of team members’ need for cognition. Acad Manag J 52:581–598)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazear E, Rosen S (1981) Rank-order tournaments as optimum labour contracts. J Polit Econ 89:841–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear EP (1995) Personnel economics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary MM, DeVaughn ML (2009) Entrepreneurial team characteristics that influence the successful launch of a new venture. Manag Res News 32(6):567–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechler T, Gemünden HG (2003) Gründerteams. Chancen und risiken für den unternehmenserfolg. Physica, Heidelberg, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? Psychol Sci Publ Interest 6(2):31–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L (2008) Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag 34(3):410–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgrath JE, Berdahl JL, Arrow H (1995) Traits, expectations, culture and clout: the dynamics of diversity in work groups. In: Jackson SE, Ruderman MN (Hrsg) Diversity in work teams: research paradigms for a changing workplace. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, S 17–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb TM (1961) The acquaintance process. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Packalen KA (2007) Complementing capital: the role of status, demographic features, and social capital in founding teams’ abilities to obtain resources. Entrepren Theor Pract 31(6):873–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Langton N (1993) The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: evidence from college and university faculty. Admin Sci Q 38(3):382–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips DJ, Zuckerman EW (2001) Middle status conformity: theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. Am J Sociol 107(2):379–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premack SL, Wanous JP (1985) A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. J Appl Psychol 70(4):706–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schenkel MT, Garrison G (2009) Exploring the roles of social capital and team-efficacy in virtual entrepreneurial team performance. Manag Res News 32(6):525–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schjoedt L, Kraus S (2009a) Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors. Manag Res News 32(6):513–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schjoedt L, Kraus S (2009b) The heart of a new venture: the entrepreneurial team. Manag Res News 32(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schjoedt L, Monsen E, Pearson A, Barnett T, Chrisman JJ (2013) New venture and family business teams: understanding team formation, composition, behaviors, and performance. Entrepren Theor Pract 37(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider B (1987) The people make the place. Pers Psychol 40(3):437–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB (1995) The ASA framework: an update. Pers Psychol 48(4):747–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz E, Almer-Jarz D, Harms R, Breitenecker R (2008) Strukturen und Prozesse in Gründerteams als Determinanten des frühen Unternehmenserfolgs. In: Letmathe P, Eigler J, Welter F, Kathan D, Heupel T (Hrsg) Management kleiner und mittlerer unternehmen. Gabler, Wiesbaden, S 45–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz EJ, Grieshuber E (2003) Vom Gründungs- zum Jungunternehmen: Eine explorative Analyse. Springer, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manag 32(1):29–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H (1981) Human groups and social categories: studies 2007 harrison and klein 1227 in social psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S (Hrsg) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brookes/Cole, Monterey, S 33–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Talaulicar T, Grundei J, von Werder A (2005) Strategic decision making in start-ups: the effect of top management team organization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness. J Bus Ventur 20(4):519–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tihula S, Huovinen J, Fink M (2009) Entrepreneurial teams vs management teams: reasons for team formation in small firms. Manag Res News 32(6):555–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner J (1985) Social categorization and the self concept: a social cognitive theory of group behaviour. Advances in group processes, Bd 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, S 77–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Ucbasaran D, Lockett A, Wright M, Westhead P (2003) Entrepreneurial founder teams: factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepren Theor Pract 28(2):107–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanaelst I, Clarysse B, Wright M, Lockett A, Moray N, S’Jegers R (2006) Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theor Pract 30(2):249–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter S, Rack O (2006) Eine anwendungsbezogene Einführung in die Hierarchisch Lineare Modellierung (HLM). In: Albers S, Klapper D, Konradt U, Walter A, Wolf J (Hrsg.) Methodik der empirischen Forschung. Gabler, Wiesbaden, S 293–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J Manag 27(2):141–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman MA (2008) The influence of top management team heterogeneity on the capital raised through an initial public offering. Entrepreneurship Theor Pract 32(3):391–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alpen-Adria Universität, Klagenfurt, Österreich

    Robert J. Breitenecker & Mohammad Saud Khan

Authors
  1. Robert J. Breitenecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Saud Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Breitenecker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Klagenfurt/Celovec, Austria

    Diana E. Krause

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Breitenecker, R.J., Khan, M.S. (2013). Die Berücksichtigung von Heterogenität in der Forschung zu unternehmerischen Teams. In: Krause, D. (eds) Kreativität, Innovation, Entrepreneurship. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02551-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02551-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-02550-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-02551-9

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation