Advertisement

Abstract

In this chapter, the fundamental terms and concepts of the research are explained and defined. The key requisites for this investigation are the notion of “young companies”, “management”, “teams”, “competence”, and “company development”. This chapter is important to assure a common understanding.28 Especially terms like management can be misleading in the context of young companies and entrepreneurship. Popular terms like “competence”, “management”, and “young companies” often have diverse or even conflicting meaning. In this light, the following sections establish the fundament of the subsequent research.

Keywords

Venture Capitalist Initial Public Offering Process Perspective Term Management Entrepreneurship Literature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 28.
    Carland, J.W., et al., 1988b, 36.Google Scholar
  2. 29.
    Other similar terms referring to technology based companies are high-technology company or science based company. Here the term new technology based firms (NTBF) will be applied, which has gained common acceptance in the Anglo-American sphere. Roure, J.B. and Keeley, R.H., 1990, 203.Google Scholar
  3. 30.
    Refer to chapter 6.2. See also Duncan, J.W. and Handler, D.P., 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 31.
    Kulicke, M. and al., e., 1993, 73; Picot, A., et al., 1989, 119; Hunsdiek, D., 1987, 57–59.Google Scholar
  5. 32.
    BMBF, 2006; Pleschak, F. and Werner, H., 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 33.
    Taylor, G.S. and Banks, M.C., 1992, 25; Aldrich, H.E. and Martinez, M.A., 2001, 44,Alvarez, S.A. and Busenitz, L.W., 2001, 758.Google Scholar
  7. 34.
    Samson, K.J., 1991, 79, Maisberger, P., 1998, 22; Hunsdiek, D., 1987, 63; Kulicke, M., 1987, 146; Baaken, T., 1990, 15.Google Scholar
  8. 35.
    Aldrich, H.E. and Martinez, M.A., 2001, 46; Kollmann, T. and Kuckertz, A., 2003, 7. In a study by Maisberger, P., 1998, 56 about half of the surveyed founders assess that financing is a problem for the company.Google Scholar
  9. 36.
    Ravasi, D. and Turati, C., 2005, 138; Wupperfeld, U., 1993, 9.Google Scholar
  10. 37.
    Maisberger, P., 1998, 59.Google Scholar
  11. 38.
    Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965.Google Scholar
  12. 39.
    Wupperfeld, U., 1993, 9.Google Scholar
  13. 40.
    Dreier, C., 2001, 30–31.Google Scholar
  14. 41.
    Just about 50% of the innovations developed in new ventures are protected by patents or trademarks Kulicke, M., 1987, 225; Hunsdiek, D., 1987, 59.Google Scholar
  15. 42.
    This definition includes input-and output oriented aspects as suggested by other definitions as well. Baaken, T., 1989; Steinkühler, R.H., 1993, 9; Dietz, J.W., 1989, 110. Scheidt, B., 1995, 31. The affiliation to high technology fields is another wide-used principle to distinguish high technology ventures. Nerlinger, E.A., 1998, 75–77; Scheidt, B., 1995, 31. Concerning limitations of this measure refer to Kulicke, M. and al., e., 1993, 15.Google Scholar
  16. 44.
    Rüggeberg, H., 1997, Bantel, K.A., 1998; Müller, T.A., 2003, 120; Herron, L. and Sapienza, H.J., 1992, 8; Hansen, E.L. and Bird, B.J., 1997, 116; Klocke, B., 2004; Little, A.D., 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 45.
    Herron, L., 1994, 19.Google Scholar
  18. 46.
    Refer to Taylor, G.S. and Banks, M.C., 1992, 25; Fallgatter, M.J., 2002, 25; Man, T.W.Y., et al., 129; Bygrave, W.D. and Hofer, C.W., 1991, 13; Bygrave, W.D., 1989, 7.Google Scholar
  19. 47.
    Carland, J.W., et al., 1988b, 33; Ripsas, S., 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 48.
    Herron, L. and Robinson, R.B.J., 1993, 285.Google Scholar
  21. 49.
    For a more detailed presentation of the Entrepreneur refer to Bretz, H., 1991, 277–278.; Ripsas, S., 1997, 3–4, Lackner, S., 2002, 8–9.Google Scholar
  22. 50.
    Gartner, W.B., 1990, 28; Konrad, E.D., 2000, 28.Google Scholar
  23. 51.
    Gartner, W.B., 1985, 699–700.Google Scholar
  24. 52.
    Bygrave, W.D. and Hofer, C.W., 1991, 12.Google Scholar
  25. 53.
    Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C., 1990, 23.Google Scholar
  26. 54.
    Carland, J.W., et al., 1984; Carland, J.W., et al., 1988a, 34.Google Scholar
  27. 55.
    Carland, J.W., et al., 1988a.Google Scholar
  28. 57.
    E. g. Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C., 1990, 17; Carland, J.W., et al., 1988b, 36.Google Scholar
  29. 58.
    Staehle, W., 1999, 71.Google Scholar
  30. 59.
    Staehle, W., 1999, 71; Steinmann, H. and Schreyögg, G., 2000, 37.Google Scholar
  31. 60.
    Steinmann, H. and Schreyögg, G., 2000, 6.Google Scholar
  32. 61.
    Translated from German: Staehle, W., 1999, 71; Fayol, H., 1916; Terry, G.R., 1982, 38.Google Scholar
  33. 62.
    Staehle, W., 1999, 71.Google Scholar
  34. 63.
    Steinmann, H. and Schreyögg, G., 2000, 6.Google Scholar
  35. 64.
    Dingle, J., 1995, 31. According to Fallgatter’s Theory of Entrepreneurship the management of scarce resources is a key entrepreneurial element. Fallgatter, M.J., 2002, 76.Google Scholar
  36. 65.
    Translation from German. Koreimann, D.S., 1992, 11–12.Google Scholar
  37. 66.
    Koreimann, D.S., 1992, 12.Google Scholar
  38. 67.
    Ensley, M.D., et al., 2000; Faltin, G., 1999, 5.Google Scholar
  39. 68.
    Timmons, J.A., 1999, 239–240.Google Scholar
  40. 69.
    Penrose, E.T., 1996, 44–49.Google Scholar
  41. 70.
    Other studies also question the need for change from the entrepreneur to the manager being an either/or decision. Olson, P.D., 1985.Google Scholar
  42. 71.
    Sadler-Smith, E., et al., 2003, 48; Katz, J.A., et al., 2000, 7; Röpcke, J., 2002, 173.Google Scholar
  43. 72.
    McClelland, D., 1961; McClelland, D. and Winter, D.G., 1969; Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P., 1986; Stewart, W.H.J., et al., 2003.Google Scholar
  44. 73.
    Roberts, E.B., 1991a 256–259; Driessen, M.R. and Zwart, P.S., 1999 19–21.Google Scholar
  45. 74.
    Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P., 1986; Brockhaus, R.H. and Horwitz, P.S., 1986 42–43; Herron, L., 1994, 19–23; Walter, A., et al., 2003, 685; Chandler, G.N. and Hanks, S.H., 1994, 77; Sapienza, H.J. and Grimm, C.M., 1997, 7.Google Scholar
  46. 75.
    Herron, L., 1994, 11; Driessen, M.R. and Zwart, P.S., 1999. However, there is also some literature delineating that traits do evolve over time and can be altered. E.g. Lepisto, L., 1985; Ninot, G., et al., 2005.Google Scholar
  47. 76.
    Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, von Krogh, G. and Roos, J., 1995, 62.Google Scholar
  48. 77.
    Competencia (Latin) refers to the conformity of skills and task. von Krogh, G. and Roos, J., 1995.Google Scholar
  49. 78.
    Boyatzis, R.E., 1982, 12.Google Scholar
  50. 79.
    Man, T.W.Y., et al., 2002, 133.Google Scholar
  51. 80.
    E. g. Boyatzis, R.E., 1982, 12; Loan-Clarke, J., et al., 177; Stuart, R. and Lindsay, P., 1997, 28; Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, XI.Google Scholar
  52. 81.
    Gutenberg, E., 1983, 12–13.Google Scholar
  53. 82.
    Becker, F., 1991, 65–66.Google Scholar
  54. 83.
    Rowe proposes that competence manifests itself in two distinct states: competence and non-competence. Rowe, C., 1995. However, this investigation does not support this view. A competence concept as well as the measurement itself can be designed to allow a more detailed assessment. A corresponding concept and measurement model will be presented in the course of this work. This allows a better analysis than a dichotomous conception of competence.Google Scholar
  55. 84.
    Pickett, L., 1998, 103.Google Scholar
  56. 85.
    Robotham, D. and Jubb, R., 1996.Google Scholar
  57. 86.
    Man, T.W.Y., et al., 2002, 133; Herron, L. and Robinson, R.B.J., 1993; Bird, B., 1995.Google Scholar
  58. 87.
    Robotham, D. and Jubb, R., 1996, 26f.Google Scholar
  59. 88.
    Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, XI.Google Scholar
  60. 89.
    Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, XI.Google Scholar
  61. 90.
    Smith, A., et al., 1999, 557. However, there are as well other authors who view close relationships between the qualification and competence concepts. Gerig, V., 1998, 83.Google Scholar
  62. 91.
    Gilmore, A. and Carson, D., 1996.Google Scholar
  63. 92.
    Carson, D. and Gilmore, A., 2000, 365.Google Scholar
  64. 93.
    Robotham, D. and Jubb, R., 1996, 27; Man, T.W.Y., et al., 2002, 133.Google Scholar
  65. 94.
    Norburn, D. and Birley, S., 1988, 225–226; Man, T.W.Y., et al., 2002, 133.Google Scholar
  66. 95.
    Robotham, D. and Jubb, R., 1996; Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, XIX.Google Scholar
  67. 96.
    Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, XI.Google Scholar
  68. 97.
    Wunderer presents a variety of sources for misevaluations in the practitioner’s field. Wunderer, R., 2000, 390–394.Google Scholar
  69. 98.
    Erpenbeck, J. and von Rosenstiel, L., 2003a, XIX.Google Scholar
  70. 99.
    Penrose, E.T., 1996, 46.Google Scholar
  71. 100.
    Kamm, J.B., et al., 1990, 7; Watson, W.E., et al., 1995, 393; Wicher, H., 1994, 1003.Google Scholar
  72. 101.
    Wurst, K., 2001, 8; Högl, M., 1998, 10–12; Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E., 1996, 4.Google Scholar
  73. 102.
    Högl, M., 1998, 10; Helfert, G., 1998.Google Scholar
  74. 103.
    Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P., 1992, 272–273; Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L., 1990.Google Scholar
  75. 104.
    Dreier, C., 2001, 23–27; Müller, T.A., 2003, 15.Google Scholar
  76. 105.
    Other terms used referring to the executive team in a new firm are ‘venture team’ Ochani, M., 1996 or ‘founding team’ or ‘entrepreneurial founding team’ Ensley, M.D., 1997; Ensley, M.D., 1999; Teal, E.J., 1998. In this study the terms top management team or executive team are predominantly used to refer to the group heading the new venture.Google Scholar
  77. 107.
    Watson, W.E., et al., 1995, 397. For an analysis of the interaction within small groups refer to Schneider, H.D., 1975.Google Scholar
  78. 108.
    Kamm, J.B., et al., 1990, 7; Watson, W.E., et al., 1995. In most studies the maximum limit of the team-size is numerically specified, but indicated by the terminus “face-to-face”-cooperation. Therefore teams exceeding 12 members are unlikely to work closely together, but will probably form sub-teams. Högl, M., 1998, 10–11; Hackman, J.R., 1987, 327; Goodman, P.S., et al., 1986, 16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Personalised recommendations