A multi‐dimensional view of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial competences, liability of newness and infant survival

Purpose

What entrepreneurial competences can increase the start-ups’ infant survival chances? How can the liability of newness be successfully handled? Positioned in this research stream, which, especially over recent years, has been particularly lively also in the Journal of Management Development, the purpose of this paper is to meet not only the research, but also the education and practice-oriented purposes of the journal.

Design/methodology/approach

How can routines’ exploitation counteract the liability of newness? How can entrepreneurial orientation oppose it? Why is the liability of adolescence important when discussing the performance of start-ups? To address these questions, taken separately into account, the paper presents a set of three case studies from the service industry, each of which is based on a specific research design.

Findings

The authors found that the routines’ exploitation mechanisms, the degree of entrepreneurial orientation of the founding team, and the stock of the initial assets, could be all considered consistent predictors of new ventures’ infant survival. The authors thus believe that the findings may offer a useful contribution both to current and prospective managers and entrepreneurs.

Originality/value

Stinchcombe’s assumption about the tremendous failure rate associated with the earliest stage of start-ups’ life cycle has been proved to be valid at least in the most recent evidence from both Europe and the USA. At the same time, formalizing a checklist of competences appropriate to increase the possibilities of organizational infant survival appears as a priority not yet accomplished. Thus, the study is aimed at providing some useful food for thought on this issue.

Perceived Entrepreneurial Success and Social Power

Based on the leadership, entrepreneurship, and issue selling literature, we hypothesized that entrepreneurs who are perceived to be successful can be differentiated from unsuccessful entrepreneurs based on their degree and type of social power. We conducted a field experiment including 305 Malaysian managers with considerable experience in working with entrepreneurs and in entrepreneurial environments. Entrepreneurs perceived to be successful were ascribed greater referent, information, expert, connection, and reward power; less coercive power; and similar legitimate power than unsuccessful entrepreneurs. These results provide evidence in support of social power as a distinguishing individual characteristic of successful entrepreneurs and make a contribution to theories linking social capital with entrepreneurial success. Aspiring entrepreneurs need to be aware that their social power profile is associated with various degrees of perceived success. Our paper points to the need to investigate variables beyond personality and that are more directly relevant to social and interpersonal interactions that may differentiate entrepreneurs perceived to be successful from those who are not.