Academic Entrepreneurship The Roles of Identity Motivation Championing Education Work Life Balance and Organizational Justice

r Academy of Management Perspectives
2018, Vol. 32, No. 1, 21–42.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0127
S Y M P O S I U M
ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THE ROLES OF IDENTITY,
MOTIVATION, CHAMPIONING, EDUCATION, WORK-LIFE
BALANCE, AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
RACHEL BALVEN
VIRGIL FENTERS
DONALD S. SIEGEL
DAVID WALDMAN
Arizona State University
The burgeoning literature on academic entrepreneurship primarily incorporates macro-

level ideas and tools from fields such as economics, sociology, strategy, and public
policy. Most of this research focuses on institutional, economic, and demographic var-
iables from a macro perspective, rather than examining micro processes that may be
associated with academic entrepreneurship. The literature also tends to stress formal, as
opposed to informal, mechanisms of academic entrepreneurship. We assert that a con-
sideration of various micro-level processes is also useful for improving our understanding
of academic entrepreneurship. We draw heavily on the organizational behavior literature
to consider how micro processes, specifically processes associated with identity, moti-
vation, leadership/championing, education, work-life balance, and organizational justice,
may help explain scientists’ engagement in academic entrepreneurship. We present some
preliminary qualitative findings that support this perspective.
The passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in the United by a federal research grant (e.g., by the National
States in 1980 resulted in a substantial increase in Institutes of Health, the National Science Founda-
patenting, licensing, and start-up creation at U.S. re- tion, or another federal agency) are required to dis-
search universities (Grimaldi, Kenney, Siegel, & close their inventions to the university. Research
Wright, 2011). This commercialization of university- universities, in turn, have established technology
based research is often referred to by scholars as aca- transfer offices (TTOs) to manage the commerciali-
demic entrepreneurship (AE). The Bayh-Dole Act zation of university-owned intellectual property
stipulates that university researchers who are funded (Link, Siegel, & Wright, 2015). Successful univer-
sity technology transfer requires that faculty and
Comments from seminar participants at SUNY-Stony university administrators (especially TTO person-
Brook, the University of Connecticut, the Rochester In- nel) work together to patent, license, or start a new
stitute of Technology, the 2016 Technology Transfer So- company aimed at commercializing an invention or
ciety Meetings at Arizona State University, and the AMP discovery.
symposium on “The Commercialization of Science: An The rise in university technology commercializa-
Integrative Research Agenda on Managing the Science- tion has attracted considerable attention from man-
Business Interfaces” at the 2016 Academy of Management
agement scholars seeking to understand the variables
Conference in Anaheim, CA; two reviewers; Maryann
that enhance AE. Most of these studies have been con-
Feldman; John Ettlie; Tim Folta; Manuel London; John
Mathieu; Gerrit Wolf; and the co-editor, Mike Wright, are ducted by researchers in three fields of management:
greatly appreciated. entrepreneurship, technology innovation management,
Financial support from the National Science Founda- and strategic management. Academics in other social
tion (the Science of Science and Innovation Policy Pro- sciences, including economics, sociology, political
gram) is gratefully acknowledged. science, and public policy, have also made significant
21
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
22 Academy of Management Perspectives February
contributions to the analysis of AE (for comprehen- understanding of AE by examining micro processes

sive reviews, see Perkmann et al., 2013; Rothaermel, at the intra-individual, relational, and organizational
Agung, & Jian, 2007; Siegel & Wright, 2015). levels as they pertain to the context of academic en-
AE scholars have exhibited methodological di- trepreneurship. We begin by selectively reviewing
versity (e.g., employing both quantitative and how macro-level research in AE suggests the need to
qualitative methods) and have examined AE in examine such processes for both formal and informal
many different countries and institutional con- technology transfer. Next, we show how various
texts. However, academic research on AE has not micro processes from the organizational behavior
demonstrated the same type of breadth with respect literature can be examined within the context of AE,
to levels of analysis. While there are examples of including both formal and informal technology
research on AE at the micro level (e.g., Jain et al. transfer. Finally, we provide some qualitative evi-
2009; studies reviewed in Perkmann et al., 2013), dence from an ongoing project funded by the Na-
the majority of research on AE has a macro-level tional Science Foundation (NSF). The qualitative
orientation. Furthermore, the scholars who have data are derived from 30 interviews of faculty and
engaged in micro-level research have largely ex- TTO officials at two major research universities that
amined individual characteristics associated with highlight the importance of micro processes in AE.
AE (e.g., empirical studies of the propensity of ac- We use our perspective, in conjunction with the
ademics to patent and engage with industry; see qualitative evidence we present, to put forward
Perkmann et al., 2013; Rothaermel et al., 2007). some preliminary ideas for future research in this
However, we contend that there are many micro area.
processes that may be critical drivers of individ-
ual decisions related to AE that have yet to be ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP STUDIES
investigated. WITH MICRO-LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
In this paper, we argue that a lack of scholarly
Micro Processes and Formal Versus Informal
emphasis on various micro processes, and how these
Technology Transfer
processes are influenced by the technology transfer
context, has limited our understanding of AE. This is Before presenting a brief review of AE studies with
the case even though, as we subsequently explicate, micro implications, we wish to define some terms we
at least some AE research points to the importance of will use in the remainder of the article. First, our key
considering micro processes in the context of tech- unit of observation for adopting a micro perspective
nology transfer. of AE is the faculty member. Throughout this article,
In addition to limited investigation of micro pro- we will use faculty member as a generic term. This
cesses, scholarship on AE has largely examined only term refers to all of the scientists and engineers, in-
formal, as opposed to informal, mechanisms of AE. cluding postdocs, who engage in university research.
This may be due in part to the availability of sys- Second, consistent with Snijders and Bosker
tematic data on university-based patents, licenses, (2012), we define micro-level variables as those
and start-ups, which constitute proxies for formal that measure phenomena related to the primary unit
technology transfer efforts (e.g., benchmarking data of observation for a given AE system. For these sys-
collected on an annual basis by the Association of tems, we consider the individual faculty member (or
University Technology Managers, or AUTM; see other individual engaged in research at the univer-
AUTM, 2016). In contrast, data regarding informal sity) to be the key unit of observation. We also take
technology transfer processes are not readily avail- into consideration the role of other individuals, such
able in annual public reports, and thus are diffi- as department chair and center director, and TTO
cult to obtain. No matter the reasons, a significant employees. Faculty members and their relationships
portion of AE may not involve formal, university- with such individuals represent the most basic level
approved mechanisms (Kumar, 2010; Markman at which decisions to engage in AE, along with
et al., 2005). Therefore, it is important to examine whether to use formal or informal AE processes, are
both formal and informal mechanisms of AE, as well made. Thus, when considering micro processes, we
as the micro processes involved in individuals’ are referring to cognition (or perceptions) and be-
decisions to use one over the other—or to even en- havior that unfold over time and affect the extent to
gage in AE at all. which AE behavior materializes.
The purpose of this article, thus, is to begin a Notably, our paper differentiates among three dif-
conversation aimed at achieving a more complete ferent types of micro processes within AE. First, there
2018 Balven, Fenters, Siegel, and Waldman 23
are micro processes that are self-contained within the in AE research. Table 1 summarizes some of the most
individual, which we refer to as intra-individual. They widely cited articles on AE, which have most fre-
incorporate cognitive or affective phenomena that quently focused on the TTO or the university as the
could ultimately influence AE behavior. Second, at unit of analysis. For each of these studies (which are
the relational level, micro processes reflect the in- arranged in chronological order), we identify the unit
teraction between individual scientists and other of observation, the aspects of AE analyzed, the dis-
individuals, such as department chairs and TTO ciplinary orientation of the authors (e.g., economics,
personnel. Third, there are micro processes that are sociology, strategy, or public policy), and the arti-
associated with how organizational-level factors, cle’s key results. Consistent with the extant litera-
such as a university’s technology transfer policies, ture, the focus of the majority of these articles is at
influence individual faculty members in their AE the macro/institutional level. However, as shown in
endeavors. Table 1, many of the article findings suggest that
Another important distinction is the one be- micro-level processes may also have a significant
tween formal and informal technology transfer. impact on AE.
As noted earlier, in the United States, the Bayh- A number of studies of AE have focused on the role
Dole Act requires researchers to disclose an of the TTO as an agent of the university. As noted
invention that arises from federally funded re- earlier, universities established TTOs to manage the
search. Additional laws and policies have been commercialization of intellectual property arising
established by other countries and states, as well from federally funded research. Faculty members
as by each individual university. These regula- who wish to patent, license, or form a new company
tions establish a specific path by which faculty based on this intellectual property are required by
and others engaged in university research are re- law and/or contractual obligations to work through
quired to proceed to commercialize a technology. the university TTO. We refer to this process as
We consider formal technology transfer to have “formal” technology transfer because the faculty
taken place when individuals have chosen to fol- member formally discloses his or her inventions to
low this path. the university via the TTO. An advantage of en-
When individuals transfer technology via a gaging in formal technology transfer is that tech-
different path, informal technology transfer has nology transfer officers may be able to connect
taken place. It is important to note that choosing faculty with others who are involved in similar
not to follow the formalized path does not neces- technology development to more widely exploit
sarily mean that an individual has broken any the knowledge base. Such an “open innovation”
laws or even technically violated university pol- approach may lead to quicker technology transfer
icy. For example, a faculty member who advances and increased benefits for all parties involved
a technology through research with a graduate (Lichtenthaler, 2011).
student, gives the technology to the graduate stu- Articles that examine TTOs typically focus on
dent upon graduation, and then is hired as a con- modeling and explaining TTO performance. That is
sultant by the company the graduate student starts not surprising because, until recently, management
based on that technology has not violated any laws and commercialization of intellectual property at
or policies. In such an instance we would argue universities was a relatively new activity. Thus,
that the scientist did engage in informal technol- there was substantial academic, practitioner, and
ogy transfer. government interest in identifying best practices and
optimal institutional and public policies to support
effective commercialization. Interest in performance
The Role of the Technology Transfer Office
and benchmarking issues has risen as universities
Unlike a corporate setting, which may rely on or- expand their economic development initiatives and
ganizational designs that allow for an integrated and do more to promote entrepreneurship on campus
networked research and development group, faculty and in the surrounding region.
members are often disconnected from the research Studies of AE have also focused on two specific di-
that occurs in other departments (DeSanctis, Glass, mensions of commercializing university research:
& Ensing, 2002). As such, a TTO may serve to con- patenting and licensing. Thursby and Thursby (2002)
nect faculty members to individuals both within and estimated a production function to show that the
outside the university. This important entity has be- growth in university patenting and licensing can be at-
come one of the most commonly studied aspects tributed to an increase in the willingness of professors
TABLE 1
Selected Articles on Academic Entrepreneurship (AE)
Disciplinary
orientation of the
Author(s) Unit of observation Aspects of AE analyzed authors Key results
Zucker, Darby, and Biotech start-ups Connections of these firms Sociology and The location of star
Brewer (1998) to university “star economics scientists predicts firm
scientists” entry in biotechnology.
Bercovitz, Feldman, University (TTO) Patents and licenses Strategy An analysis of different
Feller, and Burton organization structures
(2001) for technology transfer at
Duke, Johns Hopkins, and
Penn State demonstrated
that differences in
structure are related to
technology transfer
performance.
Shane and Stuart (2002) A single university (MIT) University- based start-ups Sociology and An event history analysis of
economics MIT start-ups reveals that
the social capital of
company founders is an
important endowment for
start-ups.
Thursby and Thursby University (TTO) Patents and licenses Economics Growth in university
(2002) licensing and patenting
can be attributed to
an increase in the
willingness of professors
to patent and license, as
well as outsourcing of
R&D by firms.
Siegel, Waldman, and University (TTO) Patents and licenses Economics Qualitative data
Link (2003) demonstrated that
organizational practices
explain a significant
percentage of the
variation in AE
performance, and that
many faculty members
are not disclosing
inventions.
Link and Siegel (2005) University (TTO) Patents and licenses Economics Higher royalty shares for
faculty members are
associated with greater
licensing income.
Lockett and Wright University (TTO) University-based start-ups Regression analysis/ A university’s rate of start-
(2005) strategy up formation is positively
associated with its
expenditure on IP
protection and TTO
business development
capabilities and the extent
to which its royalty
distribution formula
favors faculty members.
Link, Siegel, and Faculty scientists and Informal AE Public policy Considering three types of
Bozeman (2007) engineers informal AE by faculty
members (knowledge
transfer to industry, joint
publications with
industry scientists, and
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Disciplinary
orientation of the
consulting), male and

tenured faculty are more
likely to engage in all
three forms of informal
technology transfer, and
academics who allocate
more time to grants are
more likely to engage in
informal AE.
Bercovitz and Feldman Faculty Invention disclosures Strategy The propensity of faculty
(2008) members to disclose
inventions is positively
related to the propensity
of their department chairs
to disclose.
Grimpe and Fier (2010) Faculty scientists and Informal AE Public policy Same findings as Link,
engineers Siegel, and Bozeman
(2007) in a German
context. “Research group
leaders” are more
likely to engage in
commercialization and
consulting.
D’Este and Perkmann Faculty scientists and Informal AE Public policy Most faculty members
(2011) engineers engage with industry to
advance their research,
not to further
commercialization. The
primary mechanisms for
this activity are joint
research with industry
scientists, sponsored
research, and consulting.
Kenney and Patton University University-based start-ups Public policy Inventor ownership
(2011) universities are more
efficient in generating
spin-offs. Computer
science and electrical
engineering generate
more spin-offs than life
and physical sciences.
Zheng, Miner, and A single university Licensing agreement Organizational An event history analysis of
George (2013) associated with learning patenting licensing at
university patents a single university
provides empirical
support for an integrated
model of organizational
learning. Specifically, the
authors find that learning
occurs when both internal
failure and success occur
across levels. They offer
a framework for
multilevel internal
learning from experience.
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Disciplinary
orientation of the
Rasmussen, Mosey, and University start-up (8 case University-based start-ups Strategy Although universities have
Wright (2014) studies) developed policies to
promote start-ups, they
must be reinforced by
academic departments
“on the ground.”
Academic departments
can vary substantially on
how enthusiastically they
endorse university
policies on start-ups, as
well as how they allocate
resources to these
activities.
Rasmussen, Mosey, and University start-up (4 case University-based start-ups Strategy In an analysis of social
Wright (2015) studies) networks among
academic entrepreneurs,
both strong and weak
network ties are shown
to be critical to the
emergence and growth of
new ventures, including
the development of key
entrepreneurial
competencies.
Huyghe, Knockaert, Faculty scientists and Informal AE Strategy Some bypassing activity
Piva, and Wright engineers may be due to a lack
(2016) of awareness of the
university TTO.
Goel and Göktepe- Scientists at the Max Informal AE Economics Greater interaction with
Hultén (2017) Planck Institutes in industry increases the
Germany likelihood of TTO
bypassing. Group
research leaders are less
likely to engage in
bypassing.
to patent, without a concomitant fundamental professors may view AE as a very low priority. Thus,
change in the type of research they conduct (i.e., a to encourage AE, organizations might need to ex-
shift away from basic research toward more applied amine how to help faculty construct and enhance the
research). That pattern of behavior by professors importance of an entrepreneurial identity (see
implies that at least two micro processes, occurring Brenner, Serpe, & Stryker, 2014; Navis & Glynn,
at the individual level, are relevant. The first micro 2011). Additionally, universities may need to struc-
process involves identity construction and impor- ture AE activities in such a way that professors do not
tance (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Ashforth perceive it as interrupting their ongoing research
& Mael, 1989). A professor may not identify as being and, thus, interrupting their work-life or role
an entrepreneur, or if that identity does exist, it may balance.
be subordinate to that of being a researcher or fac- Siegel, Waldman, and Link (2003) used stochastic
ulty member. frontier estimation to assess and explain the relative
The second micro process involves life balancing. productivity of 113 university TTOs in the United
When deciding how to allocate their time and States. Contrary to conventional economic models,
effort (e.g., work-life balance or role balance), these they found that variation in relative AE performance
cannot be completely explained by environmental which in turn have been associated with various
and institutional variables. Thus, these authors positive outcomes such as organizational commit-
concluded that organizational variables must be ment, task performance, and organizational citizen-
critical in explaining why some universities out- ship behavior (see Colquitt et al., 2013). Thus,
perform others. To further explore the role of organizational practices, though important, are only
organization practices in AE performance, the part of the picture. As these studies imply, an un-
authors supplemented their econometric research derstanding of the micro processes through which
with qualitative data from 55 structured, in-person such practices translate to individual behavior is the
interviews of 100 professors, university adminis- other critical piece.
trators, and local firms and entrepreneurs at
five research universities in Arizona and North
Formal Versus Informal Technology Transfer
Carolina.
This research allowed Siegel et al. (2003) to iden- Although there exists research on how contextual
tify intellectual property policies and organizational factors, such as economic or political institutions,
practices that can potentially enhance AE. They may affect technology transfer decisions (Autio,
identified three key impediments to AE with strong Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014), in this
micro implications: (1) informational and cultural section we specifically review the literature con-
barriers between universities and firms, especially cerning how individual-level variables may affect
for small firms, (2) insufficient rewards for faculty these decisions. When working through the formal
involvement in AE, including both pecuniary and technology transfer process, AE typically begins
nonpecuniary rewards, such as credit toward pro- with an invention disclosure by a researcher working
motion and tenure, and (3) human resource man- on a federal grant. However, based on extensive in-
agement problems with licensing officers in the terviews with academic scientists in the United
TTO, including a high rate of turnover, a lack of in- States, Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, and Link (2004)
centive compensation, and insufficient business, found that many faculty members were not disclos-
marketing, and entrepreneurial experience. ing their inventions to the university TTO or were
In a subsequent paper, Link and Siegel (2005) creatively bypassing the TTO even after disclosing
found that a particular organizational practice, the inventions. This finding is in line with survey re-
royalty distribution formula, which stipulates the search by Thursby, Jensen, and Thursby (2001) and
fraction of revenue from licensing that is allocated to research by Markman, Gianiodis, and Phan (2008),
a faculty member who develops the new technology, which documented that many technologies are in-
can potentially enhance technology licensing. Link deed “going out the back door” instead of being
and Siegel found that universities that allocate commercialized through formal processes. Also, as
a higher percentage of royalty payments to faculty noted earlier, many faculty members may be re-
members tend to be more effective in technology luctant to engage in either formal or informal AE
transfer activities. Thus, organizational incentives processes for a variety of reasons, including in-
for university technology transfer appear to be im- sufficient incentives and human resource manage-
portant. This finding was independently confirmed ment problems in the TTO.
by Friedman and Silberman (2003) and Lach and As shown in Table 1, there have been several major
Schankerman (2004), using slightly different studies of informal AE (e.g., D’Este & Perkmann,
methods and data. 2011; Goel & Göktepe-Hultén, 2017; Grimpe & Fier,
Though the best practices that were examined by 2010; Huyghe, Knockaert, Piva, & Wright, 2016;
Siegel et al. (2003) and Link and Siegel (2005) are Link, Siegel, & Bozeman, 2007). Note that these
considered organizational-level variables (i.e., macro), studies are based on surveys conducted at the indi-
research suggests that they influence the behavior of vidual (faculty member) level. However, they did not
the individuals who are responsible for initiating AE examine the micro processes that we identify later in
(i.e., university professors) through processes associ- this paper. These studies also go beyond commer-
ated with motivation and justice. For example, an cialization to assess broader notions of engagement
increase in motivation through rewards and com- by academics with industry, such as coauthoring
pensation has been associated with an increase in with industry scientists, sponsored research, and
individual performance (see Gerhart & Fang, 2015). consulting. They report a relatively high level of in-
Also, policies regarding how rewards are distributed formal technology transfer activity. For example,
are relevant to individual perceptions of justice, D’Este and Perkmann (2011) found that most faculty
members engage with industry to advance their re- scientists and firm scientists have a positive effect on
search, not to further commercialization or AE more these three dimensions of research productivity, as
generally. Indeed, there have also been several major well as on other aspects of firm performance and
academic studies (not shown in Table 1) that focus rates of entry in the U.S. biotechnology industry. It is
on co-authoring and patenting activity involving interesting to note that the authors also discovered
university and industry scientists (e.g., Azoulay, that some of these scientists resigned from the uni-
Ding, & Stuart, 2007; Haeussler & Colyvas, 2011). versity to establish a new firm, or kept their faculty
We conjecture that deciding to engage in AE, position but worked very closely with industry
whether formally or informally, is a within-person scientists.
phenomenon with important consequences. If a fac- The Zucker et al. (1998) study highlighted the need
ulty member chooses not to engage in AE, even to enhance our understanding of the micro processes
though she or he might have a technology that could that make collaborations between academic and in-
benefit society, then his or her research activity dustry scientists effective. For example, is the sa-
(which is typically funded by the federal govern- lience of an entrepreneurial identity (see Forehand,
ment, a foundation, or industry) results in little value Deshpandé, & Reed, 2002; Navis & Glynn, 2011)
to key stakeholders (e.g., investors, businesses, uni- reduced in an academic setting (as opposed to an
versity, society in general). Also, the transferring of industry setting), and are there fewer knowledge
technology through informal rather than formal spillovers when faculty members work in academic
processes has the potential to deny universities ac- labs? Does working with industry provide higher
cess to potentially lucrative streams of revenue gen- motivation for star scientists to commercialize their
erated by successful technology commercialization. technology, or does it streamline the process of
Though certainly influenced by macro variables, the commercialization, thus making it possible for fac-
decision to engage in AE and to use informal tech- ulty members with low motivation to patent their
nology transfer processes is an individual-level de- technology? Do industry leaders inspire scientists to
cision, and thus cannot be fully understood without commercialize by presenting a picture of what the
examining the micro processes associated with scientist could be (e.g., wealthy or famous; see Pratt,
technology transfer. 2000), while academic leaders do not? It seems likely
that industry leaders would champion commercial-
ization, given that such activity could yield a com-
University-Based Start-ups
petitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Jacobson, 1992),
TTOs are increasingly focusing on the start-up while many academic leaders do not have the same
dimension of university technology transfer. This focus and therefore may not champion technology
increase in start-up activity has also attracted con- transfer. These questions have important implica-
siderable attention from scholars in recent years. As tions for how to structure academic–industry scien-
shown in Table 1, most empirical studies of entre- tific partnerships. However, micro-level research in
preneurial activity at universities are based on the the field of AE is necessary to address them.
TTO or the university as the unit of analysis. Lockett and Wright (2005) examined the relation-
Although not specifically focused on universities, ship between the resources and capabilities of TTOs
seminal articles by Lynne Zucker, Michael Darby, in the United Kingdom and the rate of start-up for-
and various collaborators explored the role of “star” mation at their respective universities. In so doing,
scientists in the life sciences in the creation and lo- the authors applied the resource-based view of the
cation of new biotechnology firms in the United firm (Barney, 1991) to the university. This perspec-
States and Japan. A star scientist is defined as a re- tive asserts that an organization’s superior perfor-
searcher who has discovered more than 40 genetic mance is related, at least in part, to its internal
sequences, and affiliations with firms are defined resources and capabilities. Lockett and Wright
through coauthoring between the star scientist and (2005) used the resource-based view to distinguish
industry scientists. Zucker, Darby, and Brewer empirically between a university’s resource inputs
(1998) assessed the impact of these university sci- and its routines and capabilities. Based on estima-
entists on the research productivity of U.S. firms. tions of count regressions (Poisson and negative bi-
They measured research productivity using three nomial), the authors concluded that there is
proxies: (1) number of patents granted, (2) number of a positive relationship between start-up formation
products in development, and (3) number of prod- and the university’s expenditure on intellectual
ucts on the market. They found that ties between star property protection, the business development
capabilities of TTOs, and the extent to which its physical sciences, and engineering), department
royalty distribution formula favors faculty members. chairs, and TTO officials at two major research uni-
These findings imply that universities wishing to versities located in the eastern and western regions of
spawn numerous start-ups should devote greater at- the United States. For these interviews, we de-
tention to the selection and development of technol- veloped a protocol of open-ended questions that
ogy transfer officers with broad-based commercial were based on our primary research question re-
skills. garding why faculty members may choose to engage
Findings presented in O’Shea, Allen, and in informal technology transfer. Each interview was
Chevalier (2005), Lockett and Wright (2005), and conducted by two of the authors and lasted between
Markman, Phan, Balkin, and Gianiodis (2005) imply 30 and 60 minutes. Data were collected until theo-
that universities and TTO personnel should select retical saturation was accomplished (Charmaz,
employees with experience in industry. TTOs that 2014). All interviews were recorded and tran-
hire such employees can be expected to capitalize on scribed so that they could be continually referred to
this industry-based knowledge, which will enable throughout the data collection and analysis process.
them to be highly productive. However, these stud- The authors engaged in initial and focused coding
ies also suggest that TTO employees are focused on (Charmaz, 2014) to identify common themes that
short-term financial gains, while faculty may have emerged from the data. The authors found similar
a more long-term focus. Thus, it would seem that themes across interviewees, then discussed each
effective leadership at the TTO and academic theme in terms of meaning and theoretical grounding
department/university level is necessary to provide until agreement was reached.
guidance and direction to both TTO personnel and These themes point to various micro processes
faculty. Additionally, it appears that educating fac- that influence faculty members’ AE decisions. Fur-
ulty on the functions, focus, and capabilities of the ther, we found that many of the experiences of fac-
TTO would also enhance the TTO employee– ulty members were reinforced by data gathered from
scientist relationship. In other words, micro studies leaders (i.e., department chairs) and TTO employees.
may prove useful in encouraging the coordination It is important to note that the micro processes
and success of AE, which is inherently a collabora- identified in our study are by no means exhaustive.
tion involving TTO employees and faculty. However, as stated earlier, the goal of this article is to
begin the conversation regarding how such pro-
cesses can influence AE at the individual level. Our
KEY MICRO PROCESSES IN
hope is that this article will encourage other re-
ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP
searchers, both in AE and in other fields, to consider
Our qualitative inquiry was driven by one primary how micro-level research can advance our un-
research question: Why do faculty members engage in derstanding of AE, both theoretically and empiri-
technology transfer, especially informal practices? To cally. The remainder of this article uses the interview
answer this question, we drew from literature rooted data to inform our understanding of how micro
in organizational behavior. Because technology processes affect technology transfer behavior, espe-
transfer decisions are ultimately dependent on the cially the bypassing of the TTO through informal
actions of the individual faculty members themselves, technology transfer. Specifically, we provide exam-
our aim was to investigate various micro processes ples of various micro processes that may influence
that may dictate such decisions. faculty members’ decisions about how they engage
As discussed previously, the AE literature reveals in technology transfer.
several areas in which an examination of micro
processes may help increase our understanding of
Informal Technology Transfer
AE. Through a series of interviews with individuals
involved in technology transfer, we identified vari- As suggested in an earlier section, some faculty
ous micro processes that may be especially relevant members find creative ways to circumvent the for-
to technology transfer. These constructs are based on mal technology transfer process when attempting
preliminary data from our broader, ongoing NSF- to commercialize (Siegel et al., 2004). Indeed,
funded project. Below we discuss our data collection Markman et al. (2008) documented that 42% of fac-
methods. ulty members who patent have chosen to circumvent
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 or bypass the university at least once. Our interview
faculty members (e.g., individuals in life sciences, data indicate that methods for bypassing the TTO
are often creative and do not always happen before engaging in technology transfer, we look to various
disclosing an invention to the TTO. For example, micro processes of organizational behavior to help
one faculty member said: explain how and why individual faculty members
engage in either formal or informal technology
“I know of some faculty members who have gotten so transfer.
bogged down in the [formal technology transfer]
process that they simply just tried to run an end-
around and take [their technology] out [of the formal Micro Processes and Future Research Agendas
system]. They basically frame it in a way that they
The micro processes relevant to AE are presented
hoped would be different enough from an invention
in Table 2. For each micro process, we identify the
disclosure that they already filed to get it off the radar
level, its definition in the context of AE, and its po-
of the university [so they could] take it forward
tential impact on academic entrepreneurship. In the
independently.”
remainder of the paper, we discuss how these micro
Additionally, bypassing behavior may involve other processes—identity, motivation, leadership, TTO
individuals aside from the faculty. For instance, communication, work-life balance, and justice—
when asked about methods of bypassing, one faculty may affect faculty members’ propensity to engage in
member responded: both formal and informal technology transfer. It is
important to note the large role that the AE context
“I also know faculty members who just won’t patent plays in each of these micro processes. The context of
anything. Flat out. [They say] ‘If I have a good idea, I a study can be as important as the study itself (Johns,
will give it to an undergraduate student because [uni- 2006), and in the case of AE, this point is especially
versity policies] can’t cover them. [Undergraduates]
salient as such micro processes occur at the indi-
can go off and do whatever they want.’ They literally
vidual, relational, and organizational levels. Below
bypass the whole system in a nutshell.”
we discuss how, within the context of AE, micro
Interestingly, faculty who circumvent formal processes can lead to important outcomes.
technology transfer processes, and thus engage in Identity and identification. The first set of micro
informal technology transfer, do not always do so processes that we present occur strictly at the intra-
intentionally. Research regarding bypassing under- individual level. Here we discuss the role of a faculty
scores an intentionality to avoid appropriate uni- member’s identity in AE. Identity is “a self-
versity procedure on the part of the faculty members referential description that provides contextually
who are trying to commercialize. However, we use appropriate answers to the question ‘Who am I?’ or
the blanket term of informal technology transfer ‘Who are we?’” (Ashforth et al., 2008, p. 327), and has
to refer to actions taken by faculty members— been conceptualized on at least three different levels.
regardless of intentionality—that circumvent the Personal identity is “a person’s unique sense of self”
TTO when transferring technology. Thus, informal (Postmes & Jetten, 2006, p. 260). Social identity in-
technology transfer includes intentional bypassing volves defining oneself in terms of different groups to
as well as unintentional sidestepping of formal which one may belong (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
technology transfer processes. Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). An example of
There has been little theoretical or empirical re- this would be a faculty member defining herself or
search on the factors that may drive faculty to engage himself as part of the generic research team. Indeed,
in various forms of informal technology transfer. We even defining oneself as a faculty member is a social
suggest that often it may be due to a communication identity because one’s sense of self is, in part, de-
breakdown between the university and its faculty pendent upon the perceived characteristics that are
members. Such a breakdown may result from a lack represented by “scientist.” Finally, organizational
of communication efforts from either the TTO or identity (Whetten, 2006) involves how individuals
university leadership, or both entities. For example, perceive themselves in terms of the collective or their
when asked about TTO communication, one de- role within an organization (Ashforth et al., 2008).
partment chair stated, “I just got an email very For example, both a faculty member and a TTO em-
recently—within the past week, maybe—about pat- ployee may say, “We are ABC University.” In so
ents that looked boring, and I haven’t read it.” To doing, they would be expressing a shared organiza-
study communication failures and other such rea- tional identity.
sons why faculty members may either intentionally Identification is an individual’s “perception of
or unintentionally not use formal procedures when oneness or belongingness to” a given target
TABLE 2
Micro Processes Relevant to Academic Entrepreneurship (AE)
Micro process Level Definition in the context of AE Potential impact on AE
Identity and identification Intra-individual Asking the question “Who am I?,” If a faculty member’s identity is
which is especially important in strongly entrepreneurial, he or she
the context of AE because faculty may be more likely to attempt to
members have many roles: faculty commercialize his or her
member, researcher, teacher, invention.
inventor, and entrepreneur
Motivation Intra-individual The impetus for faculty members Understanding what motivates
and TTO personnel to engage in faculty members and TTO
AE efforts (patenting, licensing, personnel to engage in AE, as well
start-up companies) as how each individual’s
motivation interacts within
a team, may point to specific
structures and incentives that can
help increase AE efforts.
Leadership/championing Relational When a department chair acts as an If a department chair serves as an
AE champion by taking action in advocate/champion for faculty
promoting AE and shepherding commercialization efforts, this
commercialization through the may reduce the probability that
technology transfer process faculty engage in informal
technology transfer.
TTO communication and Relational Continual efforts by the TTO to If a faculty member lacks knowledge
educational campaigns inform faculty members of their of the existence of a TTO, or lacks
services. This type of education is knowledge of services provided
executed by individual TTO by the TTO, he or she may choose
personnel and is especially to engage in informal technology
important when a faculty member transfer out of ignorance.
is hired by the university.
Work-life and role balance Organization–individual Whether a faculty member believes When work-life or role balance
that he or has an appropriate issues arise, a faculty member
workload or work requirements may choose to withdraw
relative to responsibilities that commercialization efforts to
stem from other work duties or spend more time on other
personal duties and/or interests activities.
Distributive justice Organization–individual Whether faculty members believe A faculty member’s perception of
that they are being rewarded the fairness of the rewards system
(compensated/recognized) fairly may influence his or her
propensity to engage in AE (both
to initiate the process and to
circumvent the TTO).
Procedural justice Organization–individual Whether faculty members perceive A faculty member who believes that
that they are being treated in an the university procedures are
unbiased and consistent manner unfair may be more likely to
by the TTO and the university circumvent the TTO and engage in
informal technology transfer.
Interpersonal justice Relational Whether faculty members perceive If faculty members believe they are
that they are treated with dignity being treated with a lack of respect
and respect when interacting with by university administrators (due
their department chair and/or to administrators ignoring them,
TTO personnel or delayed responses), they may
be more likely to circumvent the
TTO and engage in informal
technology transfer.
Informational justice Relational Whether faculty members perceive If information is withheld or
that they have received complete, delivered at inappropriate times,
timely information from faculty may perceive this as unfair
university administrators and possibly circumvent the
system as a result.
TABLE 2
(Continued)
Micro process Level Definition in the context of AE Potential impact on AE
Deontic justice Organization–individual A faculty member’s desire to see his Faculty members with a strong
or her research used in a manner deontological perspective may
that benefits society be more likely to engage in
technology transfer, but they may
do so informally if they believe
that formal technology transfer
procedures hinder their chances
of speedy commercialization.
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 21). Identification is academic career may be critical, as academia often
different from identity in that identity involves actively discourages entrepreneurship both formally
a self-concept, while identification involves a cog- (e.g., promotion and tenure criteria) and infor-
nitive and affective evaluation as to whether or not mally (e.g., organizational and institutional norms). It
that self-concept matches a given target’s (group, follows that even conducting the type of applied re-
organization, profession, and so forth) characteris- search that might lead to entrepreneurial opportuni-
tics and attributes (Ashforth et al., 2008; Besharov, ties would be eschewed. As one faculty member put it:
2014; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Perhaps “But by and large, in our training we’re not encouraged
the most prolific type of identification in the man- to invent anything because that requires that you focus
agement literature is organizational identification on applied research, as opposed to basic research.”
(see Mael & Ashforth, 1992). However, like identity, Indeed, there seems to be a general assumption em-
identification can exist at several levels, with the bedded at some research universities that academics
work group being one of, if not the most, salient simply do not want to engage in entrepreneurial ac-
(Ashforth & Rogers, 2012). tivity. One senior university official, when asked
Identity and identification both have the poten- about faculty members’ desire to become entrepre-
tial to illuminate important processes in AE. In neurs, went so far as to say, “I think they’re faculty
addition to the implications in the macro literature members for a reason and . . . they want to remain
regarding the need for identity-based research (see faculty members,” indicating her perception that fac-
Table 1), our interview data also indicate the im- ulty members are largely not interested in becoming
portance of identity. Of the themes that emerged entrepreneurs.
from our interview data, two of the more prominent Research suggests that, at least to some extent, the
ones are identity and motivation. In fact, in virtu- groups and organizations in which individuals work
ally every interview, these concepts emerged un- help shape their identity (Tajfel, 1978). Given the
solicited. Perhaps the most frequent theme is that negative, or at best neutral, perception of entrepre-
faculty members who were involved in entrepreneurial activity by academic units within universi-
neurial activities either before or at the very be- ties, it seems unlikely that such an identity will be
ginning of their careers were more likely to engage developed (if it is not already there) once faculty
in AE. One faculty member, when asked the reasons members begin their academic careers. However,
for being so heavily involved in technology trans- this lack of identification is in direct conflict with the
fer, said, “So, I have been an entrepreneur since my intentions of the Bayh-Dole Act and most universi-
Ph.D. thesis. My Ph.D. thesis spun out the first ties’ policies regarding AE. To address this issue,
company that I was involved with at [Research future research is needed to answer questions such
University].” This same faculty member later as these: How can academic departments actively
added, “I’m a serial entrepreneur.” These state- build entrepreneurial identities among faculty
ments support other research in entrepreneurship members? How can new faculty members’ entre-
that suggest that previous entrepreneurial experience preneurial identities be strengthened? What factors
is an indicator of future entrepreneurial activity will encourage faculty members who do not have an
(Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). entrepreneurial identity to engage in AE? In sum,
However, in the case of academics, developing investigations of identity as a micro process are
an entrepreneurial identity before starting an needed to help build, maintain, or mitigate a lack of
entrepreneurial identification among academic best seen in the following statement from a faculty
scientists. member:
Motivation. The next micro process we consider
“I think it’s a lot about money. Sometimes [faculty
here is motivation, which is also an intra-individual
members] feel like the tech transfer [office] wants
level phenomenon. Motivation is defined as “a set of their money. . . . That’s what it is to them. It’s a busi-
energetic forces that originate both within as well as ness deal, and the people up high, they don’t look at
beyond an individual’s being” that determine the the faces of the [faculty], they don’t look at the small
intensity and duration of behavior (Pinder, 1998, p. 11). businesses. They say that ‘oh this will cost this, this
Motivation has been categorized in various ways will cost this,’ and that’s it. That’s what I’ve been told
(see Latham & Pinder, 2005, for a review), with per- by a lot of people.”
haps the most common categorization being intrinsic
TTO personnel confirmed this perception. For ex-
versus extrinsic motivation (see Gerhart & Fang,
ample, one senior TTO official stated:
2015). Extrinsic motivation involves behavior that is
related to the attainment of some separable outcome “So most tech transfer offices say . . . ‘Give us your
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). For example, the less risky mission statement,’ or ‘What are you trying to do?’
possibility of financial gain in the form of a share of Most will say, ‘Well, we’re there to protect intellectual
the royalties from a licensing agreement may induce property and basically to bring in money to the
TTO personnel to encourage faculty members to university.’”
license technology, as opposed to the more risky act The majority of TTO employees and faculty
of starting a company. This may be one reason why members believe that, strictly from a motivational
Markman et al. (2005) found that universities focus perspective, formal technology transfer is better than
on short-term cash maximization. Indeed, it may not informal technology transfer because it generates
be the university itself with such a focus, but instead additional revenue for the university (which,
the individual TTO employees who would prefer according to the Bayh-Dole Act, should be “rein-
a quick, and relatively certain, payout that can be had vested” in academic research). However, there were
through licensing, instead of waiting to see if a busi- some divergent views that indicated that informal
ness becomes profitable. However, it is not possible technology transfer may actually generate even more
to extract such details using a macro approach to AE revenue. These individuals gave two main reasons for
research. their view. First, informal processes (e.g., working
Intrinsic motivation involves behavior that is done with private equity and venture capital firms) were
because there is inherent satisfaction in the behavior perceived to be more efficient. Thus, the process of
itself (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Almost every faculty patenting, licensing, and start-ups would happen
member we interviewed indicated that this is their faster and have a greater chance of success. Second,
primary form of motivation for both becoming an because of the perception that the informal route had
academic and engaging in AE. As one faculty mem- a greater chance of success, there was a better chance
ber expressed it: that the inventors would gain wealth and then donate
money to the university. One TTO official sums this
“So I think a lot [about] our motivation. . . . We have
up by saying, “There is a train of thought in . . . tech
a device that can help people. There are people dying
transfer offices: ‘We don’t mind if people go out
in Africa from diseases we could treat, but we don’t
through the back door, because if they make a lot of
have the kind of assessment out there that’s needed.
money, they tend to give the money back to the
So working on [commercializing this invention]—I
university.’”
think a lot of the motivation is just in that realm,
The above ideas and quotes highlight several areas
[rather] than trying to make money.”
in AE that are in need of research regarding micro
Interestingly, the vast majority of faculty members processes. Although changes in the level of a faculty
had the perception that the TTO and other uni- member’s motivation may be a micro process that
versity officials were extrinsically motivated to occurs primarily at the individual level, future re-
engage in AE. In other words, faculty members search on motivation within the AE context may
perceived that TTO employees helped them pat- investigate how motivation is affected by relational
ent, license, or start a company almost exclusively processes as well. For example, at the relational
because the employee and the university made level, how does the interplay between the primar-
money from doing so. This perception is perhaps ily intrinsic motivation of faculty members and
extrinsic motivation of TTO employees affect their example, Howell and Shea (2001, p. 15) defined
interaction as an entrepreneurial team? Because re- champions as “individuals who informally emerge in
ceiving external rewards for intrinsically motivated an organization and make a decisive contribution to
activities may reduce an individual’s intrinsic mo- the innovation by actively and enthusiastically pro-
tivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999), it is possible moting its progress through the critical [organiza-
that working with the university TTO may actually tional] stages.” Similarly, Clarysse and Moray (2004)
hinder future AE by academics. Research regarding described a champion as an individual who drives an
the interpersonal relationships of faculty members idea and manages it all the way through completion.
and TTO employees is needed to illuminate this With that said, we argue that championing be-
issue. haviors can be applied to more than one project. In-
Second, does the external motivation of TTO em- deed, it is inconsistent that definitions of a champion
ployees result in a larger number of patents at the cost are based largely on how an individual acts regarding
of having fewer start-up companies? We encourage a particular project, while many of the descriptors
researchers to investigate TTO employees who are used in these definitions involve traits and actions
intrinsically motivated (e.g., want to help society) as that would carry over to multiple projects or even to
well as those who are extrinsically motivated by a more encompassing cause. For example, because
money. Such efforts may reveal any differences in champions are internal entrepreneurs who take cre-
both their short-term production of patents versus ative ideas and bring them to life (Tushman & Nadler,
spin-off companies and their long-term revenue 1986), we assert that these characteristics of someone
generation for the university. exhibiting championing behavior could cross over to
Finally, it is important to investigate the attitudes more than just one project. In other words, we view
and behavior of senior TTO and university officials. championing in the context of AE to be a more gen-
If, as one official indicated, it is more profitable for eralized quality of the leader, specifically de-
the university to let individuals engage in informal partment chairs.
technology transfer, then perhaps policies preventing There are several aspects of such generalized
this behavior should be changed (e.g., encouraging championing behavior that may be relevant to de-
forms of informal technology transfer that do not vi- partment chairs as champions of AE. First, there is
olate laws). Moreover, perhaps TTO officials should outward demonstration of efforts to advance AE.
be selected based on these attitudes and beliefs. If, Second, there is an aspect of risk taking in AE
however, the conventional view of requiring faculty championing because it may run counter to pre-
to go through formal technology transfer processes is dominant academic norms (e.g., norms of publish-
more beneficial, then personnel selection and/or ing). In other words, the department chair who
leadership processes may need to be changed to en- champions AE may find herself having to defend
sure congruence between the university’s and TTO’s policies and individuals that go against the grain of
intentions and practices. academic traditions. Third, to be an effective cham-
Leadership and championing behaviors. An- pion, the department chair may have to network or
other factor we propose as relevant to AE is leader- form coalitions with others. That is, chairs may not
ship. We categorize leadership as a micro process have the authority to push innovations through the
that takes place at the relational level, as it captures university bureaucracy. But if they are able to in-
the interplay between the faculty member and other volve others, such as deans and TTO officials, then
individual technology transfer stakeholders. Al- the projects they are promoting are more likely to be
though leadership may be relevant at different orga- moved through the system.
nizational levels, we argue specifically that university In a university setting where red tape and bu-
department chairs who take on a champion role may reaucracy often surround the technology transfer
play an important part in faculty decisions to engage process, we assert that having a champion could
in technology transfer. Championing is defined as significantly affect faculty members’ attempts to
supporting or defending a cause. However, within the commercialize their technologies. Although such
management literature, championing is primarily as- a champion may exist in many forms, department
sociated with supporting the progression of a new chairs inherently represent a position that is critical
technological development or innovation (see Schon, to the role of champion. As leaders of their academic
1963). Notably, most descriptions of champion be- units, it is their responsibility to manage and account
havior focus on the champions themselves, rather for work-related activities of faculty members. De-
than delineating the behavior in particular. For spite this assertion, department chairs sometimes
limit themselves in their championing roles because and negotiation that exist between the inventor or
they place a low priority on AE or have busy sched- scientist on one hand and representatives of
ules or a lack of information regarding their own the receiving organization on the other (Rogers,
faculty members, as indicated by this statement from 2002). Despite the necessity of this two-way
a department chair after he was asked if any faculty communication, there may be a breakdown in
in his relatively small department are engaged in the flow of information. Specifically, a faculty
technology transfer: “I haven’t really kept up on what member may participate in informal technology
folks are doing. I have only been chair for a year. [AE] transfer because he or she is unaware of the TTO
hasn’t really been a priority; I’ve had other things on and the full range of its services, or because of poor
my plate to deal with.” Table 2 presents some addi- communication experiences with individuals as-
tional examples regarding the role of department sociated with the TTO. As one faculty member
chairs as champions of AE. stated:
These results are consistent with the findings of
“[T]he problem is that for many [faculty members],
Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) (see Table 1), who
we’re in our little silos. You know, we’re in our little
found that the propensity of faculty members to
cubbyholes in terms of what we do. There’s no pro-
disclose inventions is positively related to the pro- active encouragement whatsoever from tech transfer
pensity of their department chairs to disclose. Ac- or any other [university] office.”
cordingly, faculty members may see their department
chairs as role models for disclosure behavior. This This sentiment was not uncommon. We found that
ability of a department chair to affect individual fac- a lack of information or even miscommunication is
ulty members’ decision making regarding technology prevalent between faculty members and personnel
transfer reflects the importance of micro processes who work for the TTO. Furthermore, this two-way
that occur at the relational level. Thus, scholarly work communication between the faculty member and
in AE may benefit from future research that examines TTO personnel may be hampered by biases a faculty
leadership in the context of technology transfer. member may have when it comes to innovation and
TTO communication and educational efforts. involving outside sources. Such biases may be due to
Another micro process at the relational level that the faculty member’s perception of technology
may influence AE is TTO communication and edu- transfer officers as outsiders who have little value to
cation efforts. We argue that the extent to which the add (Antons & Piller, 2015). Alternatively, there
TTO attempts to educate faculty members regarding could exist a symbiotic relationship between a fac-
formal mechanisms of technology transfer may affect ulty member and a technology transfer officer, such
faculty members’ decisions to pursue commerciali- that both together are able to add value to and ad-
zation, as well as what path (formal or informal) they vance a project toward commercialization. The no-
use for this pursuit. We define educational efforts as tion that the relationship between a technology
actions undertaken by the TTO to increase aware- transfer officer and a faculty member may be the
ness of the office and its services. Such education difference between a scientist engaging in technol-
emphasizes the notion that innovation and com- ogy transfer or not is another indication of how par-
mercialization of intellectual property are important amount relational-level micro processes are to AE.
to the university and underscore the need for a bal- Future research may explore the intricacies of the
ance between research and commercial goals dyadic relationship between a TTO agent and a fac-
(Pillegaard, Moroz, & Neergaard, 2010). This, in turn, ulty member to shed light on both the positive and
may aid in creating a mutual understanding that negative aspects of the relationship between uni-
technological discoveries on the part of faculty should versity faculty members and the TTO.
be shared, and potentially commercialized, within Work-life and role balance. We identified issues
the bounds of formal mechanisms of the university. surrounding work-life and multiple role balancing as
We recognize that TTO educational campaigns another set of micro processes that may affect tech-
may be formulated at the university level (most nology transfer in a university setting. Work-life
TTOs are university-wide entities). Thus, this balance generally refers to organizational support
theme may be studied at the organizational level. for aspects of an employee’s personal life, such as
However, we focus on TTO educational campaigns flexible work hours, dependent care, and family/
at the relational level, given that such initiatives personal leave (Beauregard & Henry, 2009; Estes &
are implemented by individuals. Fundamental to Michael, 2005). Work-life and role balance is de-
AE are the two-way communication, understanding, pendent on the interaction of organizational factors
and personal factors; thus, we categorize this theme patenting, licensing, or starting a company. A
as a micro process that stems from organizational- statement representative of this sentiment is:
level forces. The idea of balance has a strong pres-
“[T]here really is no way to . . . be a full-time faculty
ence in the organizational behavior literature, and
member and be president of a company. In fact, those
prior research has elicited organizational changes
two activities are not compatible. So you either need
that support a better balance between work and to take a leave of absence from your academic posi-
personal responsibilities. For example, many orga- tion, or you need to find somebody else to run your
nizations have implemented policies such as family- company.”
leave programs, job sharing, and on-site childcare to
offer their employees more personal support. Al- This notion that there is not room to be fully en-
though issues of work-life balance have long plagued gaged in both academic and entrepreneurial activi-
organizations, we assert that such issues are espe- ties demonstrates how organizational factors, such
cially salient in the context of university–industry as support in the form of allowing a leave of absence,
technology transfer. may affect AE. Future scholarly work in AE may
In 1977, Kanter stated that having separate worlds consider how these micro processes regarding work-
for work and personal life is a myth, as the two life and role balance are swayed by university policy.
are unavoidably connected. Today, the workforce Organizational and deontic justice. Organiza-
deals with this issue even more as technology has tional justice is the final type of micro process we
brought about boundaryless organizations (Kreiner, consider, with regard to the interaction between
Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009). Though such connect- individual- and organizational-level factors. Orga-
edness may have made certain aspects of work eas- nizational justice involves a cognitive process that is
ier, unintended consequences such as the toll of internal to the individual. However, this cognition
managing multiple emotional roles between home occurs in relation to events or policies that occur in
and the workplace may adversely affect employees the greater organization, so we broadly categorize
(Wharton & Erickson, 1993). Furthermore, the shift of this theme as a micro process pertaining to the or-
household and child-rearing responsibilities from ganizational level—although separate dimensions of
female-centered to a model that leans toward greater justice, as discussed below, occur at the relational
shared responsibilities introduces various new level. Organizational justice is the umbrella rubric
complexities in the way fatherhood affects the under which four different justice dimensions fall,
workplace (Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, & Harrington, and it has received much attention as an explanatory
2015). mechanism of important organizational outcomes in
In a similar vein, issues may also arise as in- the management literature (e.g., Colquitt, 2001;
dividuals struggle to balance their work roles. As Colquitt & Rodell, 2011). The basic idea can be
a unique type of knowledge worker, faculty members couched in terms of social exchange (Masterson,
are placed in a position where they not only have Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Specifically, when
to manage their personal lives with respect to individuals perceive fair treatment on the part of an
their work responsibilities, but they have to also organization, they will be more likely to feel an ob-
manage the different roles within their work ligation to reciprocate by helping to further the goals
responsibilities. A faculty member may be a pro- of the organization (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007;
fessor, researcher, teacher, inventor, and entrepre- Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Although a justice-
neur, and these roles may conflict with one another. oriented perspective on university technology
Adding to this burden is the reality that faculty transfer phenomena has yet to be explored, we be-
members are complex, in terms of identification lieve that the justice-based micro processes un-
(discussed further below) and levels of organiza- derlying the technology transfer context are very
tional commitment (Benson & Brown, 2007). For important.
example, faculty members are typically more com- The four traditional justice dimensions shown in
mitted to their academic field than to their de- Table 2 are distributive, procedural, interpersonal,
partment or university. As one of our interviewees and informational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Rupp &
put it, “[I]t’s really a question of when you go to Cropanzano, 2002). Distributive justice involves the
develop the technology and commercialize it. That extent to which an individual’s outcomes (i.e., re-
becomes difficult in conjunction with being a full- wards, recognition, and so forth) are perceived to be
time academic.” Several faculty members stated in line with the effort, accomplishments, and other
that they would not give up research to pursue contributions of the individual to the organization.
Procedural justice pertains to the extent to which an and the treatment of others, it plays an important role
individual perceives consistency and lack of bias in in understanding how individual employees are
the determination of his or her attained outcomes relevant to the implementation of corporate social
from the organization. Interpersonal justice describes responsibility (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, &
whether individuals perceive that they are treated Williams, 2006). Thus, we suggest that knowledge
with dignity and respect by others. Finally, informa- workers, such as faculty members, may be especially
tional justice pertains to whether procedures and in- sensitive to deontological justice infringements
formation are explained in a candid, timely, and (Sauermann & Roach, 2014).
individualized or personalized manner. To a large extent, faculty members work to further
Early justice conceptualizations (e.g., Greenberg, technological development to better society or the
1987) emphasized distributive and procedural justice. quality of human life. Thus, they may have a vested
Procedural justice has been studied in the context of interest or sincere desire to see their ideas quickly put
entrepreneurship, but not specifically in the realm of into practice through commercialization. For exam-
AE or university technology transfer. For example, ple, consumer-focused technologies, such as self-
Sapienza and Korsgaard (1996) and Sapienza, service technologies, may elicit strong deontological
Korsgaard, Goulet, and Hoogendam (2000) examined motives from inventors because their ultimate goal is
procedural justice in relationships between entrepre- to create something that makes life easier for society
neurs and their investors. In the context of technology (Bitner, Ostrom, & Meuter, 2002). Sauermann and
transfer, distributive justice might pertain to whether Cohen (2010) found that even scientists and engineers
the faculty member perceives that he or she receives with doctorate degrees working in the private sector
a fair distribution of rewards (e.g., royalties), perhaps as considered the value of their research to society to be
compared to what the greater university receives based fairly important. Enthusiasm to see society use the
on intellectual production. Relevant to the technology innovation or technology may engender frustration
transfer processes, procedural justice might involve and weariness when dealing with formal technology
perceived inadequacies (e.g., lack of timeliness) in how transfer channels (e.g., TTOs) because the potential
a TTO operates in relation to faculty. red tape involved in commercializing their technol-
The interpersonal and informational components ogy may be perceived as an unnecessary barrier to
of organizational justice also play an important role. accomplishing the ultimate goal of serving society. In
These two justice dimensions are associated more short, faculty members who are deeply concerned
closely with micro processes at the relational level. about deontic justice issues may attempt to circum-
For instance, a faculty member might perceive invent TTOs by engaging in informal technology trans-
justice if he or she is not treated with respect by fer. Interestingly, at least one TTO official seemed to
a TTO, or if reasons for pursuing (or not pursuing) support such attempts, stating:
commercialization are not clearly and thoroughly
“You know, in some sense, there is a theoretical ar-
explained. Indeed, when asked if he felt respected by
gument here, because we are funded by the taxpayers
TTO employees, one faculty member in our sample
for the benefit of the taxpayers. Is it really [that] bad
responded, “I think it’s respect, I mean I had to go to that a scientist went out through the back door and
[a senior faculty member] just to get respect.” This made a product that benefits society? What’s the
faculty member went on to describe how his per- bigger goal?”
ceptions of interpersonal injustice made it highly
unlikely that he would work with the TTO again, Clearly, at both the relational and organizational
inducing him to consider leaving the university. levels, there are various factors that affect how and
In addition to these traditional ways of conceiving why faculty members engage in technology transfer.
organizational justice, in Table 2 we also recognize Future research in this area may juxtapose deontic
that a more recent, deontological perspective of jus- justice with the other justice dimensions to see
tice may be relevant to AE (Cropanzano, Goldman, & whether there is a potential divergence in technology
Folger, 2003). In contrast to the above justice di- transfer decisions based on how these dimensions
mensions, which stress the individual’s personal influence one another.
needs or interpersonal factors, deontic justice em-
phasizes the role that morality and the needs of
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
others (e.g., society as a whole) can play in justice
perceptions (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Folger, 2001). According to Zahra and Wright (2011), we need
Because deontic justice takes into account morality additional research on AE, given its important
managerial and public policy implications. As noted processes will lead to a better understanding of which
by Siegel and Wright (2015), many studies of TTOs universities and academic departments have the best
and the AE literature in general have focused on organizational climate for AE.
university-level data. Those studies that have been Unfortunately, the paucity of research regarding
based on individual-level data have not focused on micro processes involved in AE restricts our un-
key micro processes, as addressed in the organiza- derstanding regarding faculty members’ decisions to
tional behavior literature. Here, we have shown the either bypass the university TTO when engaging in
importance of several micro processes that can en- AE or to simply not engage in any type of commer-
hance our understanding of AE, including the de- cialization (formal or informal) of university-based
cision to engage in informal technology transfer. research. At a time when many universities are ag-
These micro processes include identity, motiva- gressively promoting new initiatives to stimulate AE
tion, leadership/championing, TTO communication (via both faculty and others involved in the research
and education efforts, work-life balance, and orga- enterprise), this lack of understanding may lead to
nizational justice. To understand how changes in the implementation of either ineffective or even det-
these factors can influence AE, we have drawn rimental policies. We hope that the examples pro-
heavily on the organizational behavior literature. We vided here demonstrate the importance and potential
assert that a focus on these factors will help us better fruitfulness of micro-level organizational behavior
understand why university faculty members engage research in the area of academic entrepreneurship.
in either formal or informal technology transfer.
We also outline a research agenda on micro processes
REFERENCES
in the context of AE. In addition to the specific questions
we offer to inspire future research, we also note that the Antons, D., & Piller, F. T. (2015). Opening the black box of
various themes presented here could be juxtaposed “Not invented here”: Attitudes, decision biases, and
against one another. For example, there are various behavioral consequences. Academy of Management
ways through which the university may affect work-life Perspectives, 29, 193–217.
and role balance issues. Also, at the relational level, Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008).
exploring the influence that technology transfer offi- Identification in organizations: An examination of
cers have in the success of a faculty member’s com- four fundamental questions. Journal of Management,
mercialization efforts may shed light on changes in 34, 325–374.
various psychological factors of the faculty member, Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory
such as justice perception, identity, and motivation. and the organization. Academy of Management Re-
A new focus on micro processes in AE could rad- view, 14, 20–39.
ically change how we view the AE process. Instead of Ashforth, B. E., & Rogers, K. M. (2012). Is the employee-
a focus on institutions, strategy, and public policy, organization relationship misspecified? The centrality
our approach could shed greater light on the human of tribes in experiencing the organization. In L. M. Shore,
dimension of AE. More specifically, it would shift J. A. Coyle-Shapiro, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employee-
more attention to the key “supplier” of AE, the fac- organization relationship: applications for the 21st
century (pp. 23–53). New York: Routledge.
ulty member. A greater emphasis on the human di-
mension of AE would result in better theoretical Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM).
understanding and empirical research on AE by en- (2016). The AUTM licensing survey, Fiscal Year 2015.
abling researchers to draw on theories such as social Norwalk, CT: AUTM, Inc.
exchange theory, social cognitive theory, and con- Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M.
cepts of identity and organizational justice that we (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance
have introduced in this paper. of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.
For instance, in future research, we hope to analyze Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The de-
the relationship between organizational justice and terminants of faculty patenting behavior: De-
identity. Social exchange theory (Bandura, 1988) sug- mographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic
gests that these two sets of variables should be related. Behavior & Organization, 63, 599–623.
On the empirical side, a greater focus on the human Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social
aspect of AE is also likely to lead to better explanations cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management,
of AE performance. This is important because, as noted 13, 275–302.
earlier, the first wave of AE studies was focused on this Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained compet-
variable. We also believe that an emphasis on micro itive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A meta-analytic
between work-life balance practices and organiza- review of experiments examining the effects of ex-
tional performance. Human Resource Management trinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Review, 19(1), 9–22. Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2007). Knowledge workers: What Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal
keeps them committed; what turns them away. Work, pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
Employment and Society, 21, 121–141. behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepre- DeSanctis, G., Glass, J. T., & Ensing, I. M. (2002). Organi-
neurs: Organizational change at the individual level. zational designs for R&D. Academy of Management
Organization Science, 19, 69–89. Perspectives, 16, 55–66.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics en-
Organizational structure as a determinant of academic gage with industry? The entrepreneurial university
patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study and individual motivations. Journal of Technology
of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Transfer, 36, 316–339.
Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organiza-
21–35. tional images and member identification. Adminis-
Besharov, M. (2014). The relational ecology of identifica- trative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
tion: How organizational identification emerges when Estes, S. B., & Michael, J. (2005). Work-family policies and
individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Man- gender inequality at work. Philadelphia: The Work
agement Journal, 57, 1485–1512. and Family Researchers Network. Retrieved from
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Meuter, M. L. (2002). https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/wfrn-repo/object/
q8hs4no9i934jm6r
Implementing succesful self-service technologies.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 16, 96–108. Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland,
D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in so-
Brenner, P., Serpe, R., & Stryker, S. (2014). The causal or-
cial issues in management (pp. 3–31). Greenwich, CT:
dering of prominence and salience in identity theory:
Information Age.
An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 77, 231–252. Forehand, M. R., Deshpandé, R., & Reed, A. (2002).
Identity salience and the influence of differential
Brewer, M., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels
activation of the social self-schema on advertising
of collective identity and self representations. Journal
response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
1086–1099.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University tech-
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. nology transfer: Do incentives, management, and
Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of en- location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer,
trepreneurial team formation: The case of a research- 28(1), 81–85.
based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2015). Pay, intrinsic motivation,
55–79. extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organiza- the workplace: Revisiting long-held beliefs. Annual
tional justice: A construct validation of a measure. Review of Organizational Psychology and Organiza-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. tional Behavior, 2, 489–521.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and Goel, R., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2017). What drives aca-
trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating demic patentees to bypass TTOs? Evidence from a large
three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Manage- public research organization. Journal of Technology
ment Journal, 54, 1183–1206. Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-017-9595-7
Colquitt, J., et al. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice
later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22.
affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psy- Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M.
chology, 98, 199–236. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing aca-
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic demic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40,
justice: The role of moral principles in workplace 1045–1057.
fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university tech-
1019–1024. nology transfer: A comparison between the United
States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research,
35, 637–650. current debates, and future directions. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 25, 75–93.
Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory
tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based
in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40, 41–54. growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of
organizational incentives on university-industry
Howell, J. M., & Shea, C. M. (2001). Individual differences,
technology transfer. European Journal of Finance,
environmental scanning, innovation framing, and
11, 169–182.
champion behavior: Key predictors of project perfor-
mance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An em-
18, 15–27. pirical analysis of the propensity of academics to en-
gage in informal university technology transfer.
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Piva, E., & Wright, M. (2016). Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 641–655.
Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology
transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness. Small Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). The Chicago
Business Economics, 47(3), 589–607. handbook of university technology transfer. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jacobson, R. (1992). The “Austrian” school of strategy.
Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities,
Academy of Management Review, 17, 782–807.
risk capital and the creation of university spin-out
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.
entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modifica-
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma
tion of university scientists involved in commerciali-
mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of or-
zation activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935. ganizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on orga- Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
nizational behavior. Academy of Management Re- Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-
view, 31, 386–408. time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Trans-
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: actions on Engineering Management, 55, 29–36.
A critical review and agenda for research and policy. Markman, G. D., Phan, P., Balkin, D., & Gianiodis, P.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2011). Does inventor ownership technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing,
encourage university research-derived entrepreneur- 20, 241–263.
ship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S.
40(8), 1100–1112. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on
Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work- work relationships. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 738–748.
home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy
of Management Journal, 52, 704–730. Navis, C., & Glynn, M. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness
and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on in-
Kumar, M. (2010). Ethical conflicts in commercialization
vestor judgments of new venture plausibility. Acad-
of university research in the post-Bayh-Dole era.
emy of Management Review, 36, 479–499.
Ethics & Behavior, 20, 325–351.
O’Shea, R., Allen, T., & Chevalier, A. (2005). Entrepre-
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and neurial orientation, technology transfer, and spin-off
technology licensing in universities. Journal of the performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy,
European Economic Association, 2, 252–264. 34(7), 994–1009.
Ladge, J. J., Humberd, B. K., Watkins, M. B., & Harrington, Perkmann, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and
B. (2015). Updating the organization man: An exami- commercialization: A review of the literature on
nation of involved fathering in the workplace. Acad- university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2),
emy of Management Perspectives, 29, 152–171. 423–442.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation Pillegaard, M., Moroz, P. W., & Neergaard, H. (2010). An
theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first auto-ethnographic perspective on academic entre-
century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516. preneurship: Implications for research in the social
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking sciences and humanities. Academy of Management
a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social Perspectives, 24, 46–61.
exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target simi- Pinder, C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational be-
larity model. Journal of Management, 33, 841–866. havior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2006). Reconciling individuality practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the com-
and the group. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), In- mercialization of university technologies. Journal
dividuality and the group: Advances in social identity of Engineering and Technology Management, 21,
(pp. 258–269). London: Sage. 115–142.
Powell, W. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and Siegel, D., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the
the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. impact of organizational practices on the relative
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, productivity of university technology transfer offices:
253–277. An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
Pratt, M. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology
Managing identification among Amway distributors. transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. In A. Link,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493. D. Siegel & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influ- university technology transfer and academic entre-
ence of university departments on the evolution of preneurship (pp. 1–40). Chicago: University of Chi-
entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. cago Press.
Research Policy, 43(1), 92–106. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis:
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2015). The trans- An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel
formation of network ties to develop entrepreneurial modeling (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publishers.
competencies for university spin-offs. Entrepreneur- Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and
ship and Regional Development, 27(7-8), 430–457. social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
Rogers, E. M. (2002). The nature of technology transfer. between social groups: Studies in the social psychol-
Science Communication, 23, 323–343. ogy of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Aca-
demic Press.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., & Jian, L. (2007). University
entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. In- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of
dustrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791. intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24).
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
of social exchange relationships in predicting work-
place outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objec-
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- tives, characteristics and outcomes of university li-
cesses, 89, 925–946. censing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A.
(2006). Employee reactions to corporate social re- Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the
sponsibility: An organizational justice framework. ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537–543. Management Science, 48, 90–104.
Sapienza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). Procedural Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for inno-
justice in entrepreneur-investor relations. Academy of vation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74–92.
Management Journal, 39, 544–574. Wharton, A. S., & Erickson, R. J. (1993). Managing emotions
Sapienza, H. J., Korsgaard, M. A., Goulet, P. K., & Hoogendam, on the job and at home: Understanding the conse-
J. P. (2000). Effects of agency risks and procedural quences of multiple emotional roles. Academy of
justice on board processes in venture capital-backed Management Review, 18(3), 457–486.
firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Whetten, D. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited:
12, 331–351. Strengthening the concept of organizational identity.
Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2014). Not all scientists pay to Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219–234.
be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in in- Zahra, S., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act.
dustrial employment. Research Policy, 43, 32–47. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 67–83.
Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new in- Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Hills, G. (2005). The mediating role of
ventions. Harvard Business Review, 41(2), 77–86. self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial in-
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments tentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1265–1272.
and the performance of university start-ups. Manage-
Zheng, Y., Miner, A. S., & George, G. (2013). Does
ment Science, 48(1), 154–170.
the learning value of individual failure experience
Siegel, D., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. depend on group-level success? Insights from a uni-
(2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer versity technology transfer office. Industrial and Cor-
of scientific knowledge from academicians to porate Change, 22(6), 1557–1586.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). In- Donald Siegel ([email protected]) is a professor of
tellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. bio- public policy and management and director of the School
technology enterprises. American Economic Review, of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. He received
88(1), 290–306. his Ph.D. in business economics from Columbia Univer-
sity. Don has published 112 articles in leading journals in
economics and management. In 2016, he was elected a
Fellow of the Academy of Management.
Rachel Balven ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in David A. Waldman ([email protected]) is a professor

management at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Ari- of management in the W. P. Carey School of Business
zona State University. Her research interests include be- at Arizona State University. He received his Ph.D.
havioral ethics, corporate social responsibility, and decision from Colorado State University. His research interests in-
making. clude leadership, organizational neuroscience, and micro-
based issues in academic entrepreneurship and social
Virgil Fenters ([email protected]) is a doctoral student responsibility.
in management at the W. P. Carey School of Business at
Arizona State University. His research interests include
identity, teams, and multi-team systems.

Academic Entrepreneurship The Roles of Identity Motivation Championing Education Work Life Balance and Organizational Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Entrepreneurship The Roles of Identity Motivation Championing Education Work Life Balance and Organizational Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Entrepreneurship The Roles of Identity Motivation Championing Education Work Life Balance and Organizational Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

r Academy of Management Perspectives

2018, Vol. 32, No. 1, 21–42.

The burgeoning literature on academic entrepreneurship primarily incorporates macro-

contributions to the analysis of AE (for comprehen- understanding of AE by examining micro processes

consulting), male and

Rachel Balven ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in David A. Waldman ([email protected]) is a professor

You might also like