Logics, Leaders, Lab Coats: A Multi‐Level Study on How Institutional Logics are Linked to Entrepreneurial Intentions in Academia

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12416
• Author: Caren Klingbeil,Thorsten Semrau,Mark Ebers,Hendrik Wilhelm
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Published date: 01 July 2019

© 2018 Society for the Adv ancement of Managment St udies and John Wiley & Son s Ltd

Logics, Leaders, Lab Coats: A Multi-Level

Study on How Institutional Logics are Linked to

Entrepreneurial Intentions in Academia

Caren Klingbeila, Thorsten Semraub, Mark Ebersa and

Hendrik Wilhelma

aUniversity of Col ogne; bTrier University

ABST RACT Situated in the context of aca demia, this study integrates idea s from institutional

theory, person-envir onment fit theory and leadership resea rch to conceptualize and exami ne

the cross-level li nk between the organizationa l-level institutional logic of researc h commerciali-

zation and the entrepreneur ial intentions of researchers. Multi-level a nalyses based on a sample

of 254 researchers worki ng for 85 research group leader s in 49 German research inst itutes

reveal that two d istinct attributes of research g roup leaders – that is, their track record s of

entrepreneurial beh aviour and their entr epreneurial intentions – play a signif icant role in

transmit ting the organizational- level logic to the indiv idual level. We also observe a comple-

mentary i nteraction between orga nizational-level commercializat ion logic and the entrepre-

neurial tr ack records of leaders. We discuss how these fi ndings advance our understand ing of

science commercial ization through academic entrepreneursh ip and how they inform institu-

tional theory a nd theory development in other domains of entrepreneursh ip research.

Keywo rds: academic entr epreneurship, institutional theor y, leader characterist ics, multi-

level theor y, person-envi ronment fit

INTRODUCTION

Academic entrepreneurship is an individual-level endeavour aimed at evaluating and

exploiting scientific knowledge to create commercial goods and services (Fini et al.,

2018; Shane, 2004). Entrepreneurial intentions are the most proximal predictor of indi-

vidual academics’ engagement in entrepreneurship ( Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010). Given

the importance of research commercialization through academic entrepreneurship for

Journal of Man agement Studi es 56:5 July 2019

doi: 10.1111/ joms .1241 6

Address for re prints : Thorsten Semr au, Trier University, Universitätsring 15, D -54296 Trier, Germa ny

(semrau@un i-trier.de).

930 C. Klingbeil et al.

© 2018 Society for the Adv ancement of Managment St udies and John Wiley & Son s Ltd

improving the economic and social wel fare of societies, a still-growing body of research

has sought to identify factors that contribute to explaining entrepreneurial intentions

and behaviours in academia ( Wright and Phan, 2018).

While prior research has identified a variety of contextual factors at the group, orga-

nizational, community, field and societal levels that foster academic entrepreneurship

(Hmieleski and Powell, 2018; Perkmann et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2007), we still know

little about the interplay of these influences emanating from different levels. This issue

is an important one because lower-level contextual conditions are typically nested in

higher-level contextual structures (Kim et al., 2016; Mathieu et al., 2008b). Thus, solely

focusing on contextual conditions at one particular level of analysis provides only a lim-

ited theoretical account (Hitt et al., 2007). Specifically, studies that focus on the effects

of meso-level factors overlook the macro-level roots from which those effects may origi-

nate (Hitt et al., 2007). Conversely, research that concentrates on the influences of mac-

ro-level factors will fail to identify the meso-level pathways that transmit their influence

to the individual level (Kim et al., 2016). Consequently, scholars have called for research

to adopt a multi-level lens that allows for a more complex understanding of phenomena

of interest in research on entrepreneurship (Kim et al., 2016) and other domains (Hitt

et al., 2007).

Institutional theory features prominently in entrepreneurship research in general (Su

et al., 2017) and in research on academic entrepreneurship (Fini and Toschi, 2016) in

particular. Until now, research in this domain has predominantly been focused on tracing

entrepreneurial activities back to differences in institutional environments at the societal,

field, population or organizational levels of analysis (Bruton et al., 2010; Su et al., 2017;

Tolbert et al., 2011). While this research has generated valuable insights, our knowledge

of the pathways that link higher-level institutions to the individual-level intentions that

eventually generate entrepreneurial activities is still sparse (Kim et al., 2016). A simi-

lar scarcity of studies addressing how institutions influence individual-level phenomena

can be seen in other research domains of institutional theory (Luo, 2007; Zilber, 2002),

sparking calls from researchers to mitigate the macro-micro divide (Aguinis et al., 2011).

The present study responds to these calls by developing and testing multilevel theory to

answer the following research question: Which actors and mechanisms constitute the cross-level

link between the organizational-level institutional logic of science commercialization and the entrepreneur-

ial intentions in academia?

For several reasons, academia offers a particularly fruitful setting for elaborating on

the complex cross-level link between organizational-level institutional conditions and

individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions. First, prior research (Bercovitz and Feldman,

2008; Fini and Toschi, 2016) suggests that the context of academia is a fruitful one for

illuminating contextual drivers of entrepreneurship at different levels. Second, in order

to foster entrepreneurship in academia, funding institutions worldwide have sought to

add to an already established institutional logic of open science (Merton, 1973) an in-

stitutional logic of research commercialization. This logic comprises rules, norms and

cognitions that foster science commercialization by encouraging patent filing, cooper-

ation with industry, licensing or starting new businesses (Abreu and Grinevich, 2013;

Haeussler and Colyvas, 2011; Sauermann and Stephan, 2013). Yet the degree to which

Logics, Leaders, Lab Coats 931

© 2018 Society for the Adv ancement of Managment St udies and John Wiley & Son s Ltd

the commercialization logic has been adopted in academia varies considerably (Brettel

et al., 2013; Haeussler and Colyvas, 2011). This variability may be because across levels,

actors in academia enjoy considerable freedom from higher-level interference. Perhaps

the greatest freedom exists at the level of research organizations. In Germany, for in-

stance, freedom of the arts, science, research and teaching is constitutionally protected by

law (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Artikel 5). Therefore, no public

or private funding institution can dictate to research organizations what and how they

should conduct their scientific activities. This freedom also extends to research group

leaders, who are largely free to decide which research endeavours to pursue. Perhaps

the comparatively lowest degree of freedom exists at the level of individual researchers,

as supervisors influence their work activities. Overall, however, academia constitutes a

setting where actors at each level enjoy considerable autonomy.

As our baseline hypothesis, we first propose that the degree to which a research orga-

nization embodies the institutional logic of research commercialization will be reflected

in the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers working in that particular research or-

ganization. Complementing institutional theory with ideas from person-organization fit

theory (Edwards, 2008; Kristof, 1996), we argue that attraction, selection and attrition

(ASA) processes (Schneider et al., 1995) as well as organizational socialization processes

(Van Maanen and Schein, 1979; Wanous, 1992) effectuate the link between an organiza-

tional level institutional logic of research commercialization and researchers’ entrepre-

neurial intentions. We identify research group leaders as meso-level actors who contribute

to enacting these linking mechanisms. On the one hand, leaders are an important key

element in creating a fit between subordinates and their work environment (Jansen and

Kristof-Brown, 2006). On the other hand, leaders are embedded in organizations that

represent the context for their behaviour (Porter and McLaughlin, 2006). Based on these

notions, and drawing on an emerging stream of research showing that leaders in aca-

demia can inspire entrepreneurial intentions and activities among their subordinate re-

searchers (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008; Brettel et al., 2013; Krabel and Schacht, 2014),

we propose that research group leaders’ track records of entrepreneurial behaviour as

well as their own entrepreneurial intentions will mediate the link between the organiza-

tional-level logic of research commercialization and their researchers’ entrepreneurial

intentions. Building on the notion of a compensatory relationship between dimensions

that are consequential for the fit between individuals and their work environment (Jansen

and Kristof-Brown, 2006), we further suggest that there are negative interactions be-

tween an organizational-level commercialization logic and leaders’ entrepreneurial track

records as well as their entrepreneurial intentions.

We test these hypotheses using a sample of 254 researchers working for 85 research

group leaders in 49 German research institutes. Our evidence supports our baseline

hypothesis. Moreover, our data substantiate the idea that research group leaders trans-

mit an organizational-level commercialization logic to the individual level. Contrary to

our expectations, however, we find that an organizational-level commercialization logic

strengthens the link between research group leaders’ entrepreneurial track records and

researchers’ entrepreneurial intentions.