Search

In 2022, female led ventures received only 1.9% of venture capital funding; a concerning trend that has been steady for years. Furthermore, only 15% of all technology based ventures have female founders. These disquieting trends leads us to question if female-led impact ventures are likely to receive lesser amounts of equity funding than male-led impact ventures? Is this relationship likely to change if the ventures in question are invention-based, where invention-based ventures have historically and stereotypically been male-dominated? Furthermore, what role does a country's cultural masculinity play in this relationship? This study draws upon Gender Role Congruity Theory to examine whether, how, and why women-led impact ventures experience disparity from their male counterparts in the ability to obtain early-stage equity investment. Analysis of survey data collected from 4,206 for-profit impact ventures from 205 impact-oriented accelerator programs across 121 countries was used to explore these phenomena. Results indicate that female-led impact ventures are disadvantaged compared to male-led impact ventures in obtaining equity investment. Furthermore, female-led impact ventures are less likely to be invention-based than male-led impact ventures. Finally, the ingrained culture of masculinity, as measured at the country-level, exacerbates the disadvantages experienced by female founders in obtaining equity funding. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on global entrepreneurial finance from a gender role perspective and is crucial to understanding the challenges female entrepreneurs encounter in obtaining early-stage equity investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resourcing defined as "the creation in practice of assets such as people, time, money, knowledge, or skill; and qualities of relationships such as trust, authority, or complementarity such that they enable actors to enact schemas" (Feldman, 2004, p. 296), is an important concept in organization studies and is relevant to a range of fields including strategy, entrepreneurship, and organization theory. The concept of resourcing suggests that assets are potential resources that become actual resources through actions. This panel symposium brings together a panel of experts in the field of management who will address the importance of resourcing and its relevance to their respective fields. They will delve into various aspects of resourcing, such as how actors define and redefine resources, the role of material objects in the resourcing process, and the impact of social constraints on resourcing. The panelists will also discuss the potential effects of resourcing on agency, power and conflict, and the emergence of a new social order. Through their insights and experiences, the panelists will shed light on how the practices of resourcing have broader organizational and societal implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study how corporate innovators develop their frames over time to legitimize their innovations for internal and external audiences. Existing literature has focused on either internally or externally legitimizing innovations but not on how these processes interact. This interaction is important, however, as innovators often depend on diverse audiences simultaneously. By following four corporate ventures at a healthcare incumbent firm, we find that the initial frame and the sequence of frames determine whether internal and external legitimacy is gained and maintained over time. We found that it was particularly effective to initially emphasize novelty by framing an innovation as distinctive, because that created the most space for revising frames in the future. Familiarity frames, instead, constrained innovators because they inhibited innovators' space to reframe their innovations and address emerging legitimacy threats. This illuminates that framing to gain and maintain internal and external legitimacy depended not only on innovators' initial frames but also on the subsequent sequence of frames over time. For corporate innovators this indicates that they mostly benefit from emphasizing the novelty of their innovations as this enables them to address emerging legitimacy crises over time and maintain the legitimacy they previously acquired. We discuss implications for literature on framing and legitimacy." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the lens of executive life cycle framework, we theorize that the innovation performance of founders versus agent CEOs unfolds differently over time. In our study, founder CEOs not only consistently outperformed agent CEOs in generating innovation outputs, but also derived higher value from their innovations over the course of their tenure. As organizations grew in size, founders' innovation performance declined at a faster pace as compared to that of agent CEOs; however, it consistently remained at a higher level than that of agent CEOs. Our findings have theoretical and practical implications for how performance differences evolve between founders and agent CEOs, and underscores the importance for differently evaluating the two over the course of their tenures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is resource cognition or capability cognition? How do managerial attention and cognition differ, in continuous capability development, versus when there is a need to radically shift the entire capability development portfolio? What is the role of agents' prior knowledge in how firm resources and capabilities are viewed? What are the challenges that managers face and the logical fallacies they engage in when inferring successful capabilities and competent organizational units? This interactive panel symposium is organized into two parts. In the first part, we define resource cognition and examine how resource assessments differ based on whether the firm's focus is on continuous capability development or on shifting their entire portfolio. In the second half, we drill down on how characteristics of individual decision makers influence resource cognition. We specifically identify the role of agents' prior knowledge in how firm resources and capabilities are viewed and also address the common fallacies decision makers engage in when identifying firm competences. We conclude the symposium by emphasizing the need for decision makers in firms to reassess their capabilities on a continuous basis to address market opportunities. The proposed symposium brings together renowned scholars, with considerable theoretical knowledge and empirical research experience, which will contribute to the interactive nature of this panel. We propose to set directions for future research and practice on firm capabilities and resource recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]