Corporate venture capitalists: Autonomy,obstacles, and performance

This report presents the results of a formal study of the corporate venture capital community in the United States, and is based upon responses to a questionnaire completed by 52 corporate venture capitalists (CVCs).The central question addressed in this study involves which approach to corporate venture capital is most likely to produce successful results.This question was addressed via cluster analysis which segregated the CVC community into two broad classes—“pilots,” which are marked by substantial organizational independence and “copilots,” which are highly dependent on corporate management with respect to venture funding and decision authority.Pilots achieve equal or higher levels of performance, and are plagued by far fewer obstacles, than their highly dependent counterparts. The results suggest the following: 1. The corporate venture fund should be established as an independent entity and should have access to a committed, separate pool of funds. This will enable CVCs to respond aggressively to, and manage, investment opportunities with minimal corporate interference. Such an independent entity will defuse justifiable concerns on the part of entrepreneurs related to such interference. 2. The fund should be managed by skilled venture professionals who may be drawn from the independent venture community or the small but growing pool of experienced CVCs. Corporate executives may comprise a part of the management team. 3. If the corporate venture fund hopes to attract top quality managers, it must be prepared to offer compensation and authority commensurate with their skill level. In short, corporate venture capitalists should be treated like independent venture capitalists. By organizing the fund as an independent entity, the political problem associated with establishing compensation levels above those of the corporation can be minimized. 4. All CVCs should establish a primary focus on the realization of financial objectives (i.e., return on investment). Strategic benefit objectives are not necessarily ill advised so long as they do not interfere with sound financial decision making. When they do, the corporate venture capital process is likely to become less effective. For instance, a corporate venture fund should only confine itself to investing in a few industries if there are sufficient high-grade investment opportunities within those industries to ensure adequate deal flow. The venture fund should not be pressured. Investments that appear exciting from a corporate perspective, for technological or marketing reasons, but are not financially attractive may well drain resources rather than produce opportunities. 5. Venture proposals failing on financial criteria might be referred to other parts of the corporation with the purpose of exploring an alternate relationship (e.g., a development contract or joint venture). If this is appealing to the corporation, a mechanism such as a corporate liaison or reporting system might be established to facilitate the flow of information. 6. A corporation should be willing to make a complete commitment of talent and capital if it establishes its own corporate venture fund. The corporation should then be willing to accept a limited role. If the corporation is unable to accept a limited role with respect to its own fund, it may be best for it to participate as an investor in a traditional fund, where such limitations will be enforced. However, this latter approach may significantly dilute or eliminate potential for strategic benefits.     

The CEO,venture capitalists,and the board

An element in the never-ending debate about the process of funding highpotential businesses is the extent to which venture capitalists add value besides money to their portfolio companies. At one end of the spectrum, venture capitalists incubate start-ups and nurture hatchlings, while at the other extreme, so-called “vulture” capitalists feed on fledgling companies. A very important way in which venture capitalists add value other than money to their portfolio companies is by serving on boards of directors. Hence, by studying the role of outside directors, especially those representing venture capital firms, we were able to shed light on the issue of value-added.In the first phase of the research, we studied 162 venture-capital-backed high-tech firms located in California, Massachusetts, and Texas. In the second phase (with data from 98 of the 162 firms), the lead venture capitalists on the boards were classified according to whether or not they were a “top-20” firm.Board Size The average board size was 5.6 members, which was somewhat less than half the size of the board of a typical large company. Board size increased from 3 to 4.8 members with the first investment of venture capital.Board Composition and Control The typical board comprised 1.7 inside members, 2.3 venture capital principals, .3 venture capital staff, and 1.3 other outsiders. Insiders constituted 40% or less of the members of 82% of the boards, while venture capitalists made up over 40% of members of 55% of the boards. When a top-20 venture capital firm was the lead investor, then 55% of the board members were venture capitalists; in contrast, when the lead was not a top-20 firm, only 23% of board were venture capitalists.Value-Added Overall, our sample of CEOs did not rate the value of the advice of venture capitalists any higher than that of other board members. However, those CEOs with a top20 venture capital firm as the lead investor, on average, did rate the value of the advice from their venture capital board members significantly higher—but not outstandingly higher—than the advice from other outside board members. On the other hand, CEOs with no top-20 as the lead investor found no significant difference between the value of the advice from venture capitalists and other outside board members. Hence, in our sample, we could not say that there was a noticeable difference in the value of valueadded by top-20 boards and non-top-20 boards.The areas where CEOs rated outside board members (both venture capitalists and others) most helpful were as a sounding board, interfacing with the investor group, monitoring operating performance, monitoring financial performance, recruiting/replacing the CEO, and assistance with short term crisis. That help was rated higher for early-stage than later-stage companies.Our findings have the following implications for venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and researchers.Venture Capitalist The main product of a venture capital firm is money, which is a commodity. It's impossible to differentiate a commodity in a martetplace where the customers have perfect information. As venture capitalists learned since the mid-1980s, their customers (entrepreneurs) now have an abundance of information that, while it may not be perfect, is certainly good enough to make a well-informed decision when selecting a venture capital firm. Hence, value-added may be the most important distinctive competence with which a venture capital firm—especially one specializing in early-stage investments—can differentiate itself from its competitors. If that is the case, then venture capital firms need to pay more attention to their value-added, because CEOs, overall, do not perceive that it has a great deal of value to their companies. The top-20 appear to be doing a somewhat better job in that area than other venture capital firms.Entrepreneurs If an entrepreneur wants outside board members who bring valueadded other than money, it appears that they can do as well with non-venture capitalists as with venture capitalists. The entrepreneurs we talked to in our survey gave the impression that board members with significant operating experience are more valued than “pure” financial types with no operating experience. If venture capital is an entrepreneur's only source offunding, then the entrepreneur should seek out firms that put venture capitalists with operating experience on boards. It also appears that an entrepreneur, will, on average, get more value-added when the lead investor is a top-20 firm, but there is a drawback: when a top-20 is the lead investor, it is more likely that venture capitalists will control the board. No entrepreneur should seek venture capital solely to get value-added from a venture capitalist on the board, because outside board members who are not venture capitalists give advice that is every bit as good as that given by venture capitalists.Researchers Value-added is a fruitful avenue of research. From a practical perspective, if valueadded exists it should be measurable. So far the jury has not decided that issue. Some finance studies of the performance of venture-capital-backed initial public offerings (IPOs) claim to have found valueadded, some claim to have found none, and at least one study claims to have found negative value- added. From a theoretical perspective, value-added is relevant to agency theory, transaction cost economics, and the capital asset pricing model. It also is relevant to strategic analysis from the viewpoint of distinctive competencies.     

Market attractiveness,resource-based capabilities,venture strategies,and venture performance

This research seeks to identify variables that should be related to venture performance. It is hypothesized that both market attractiveness and resource-based capabilities are directly related to new venture performance. In addition, specific resource-based capabilities are hypothesized to be directly related to the competitive strategies chosen by a firm. Finally, the “fit” between strategies and resource-based capabilities is hypothesized to be related to venture performance.The sample consisted of all manufacturing businesses (SIC codes 20–39) started or reorganized in the corporate form between 1980 and 1991 in nine counties in northwestern Pennsylvania, as identified by a major marketing research service. Of the 800 companies surveyed, completed questionnaires were returned for 155, representing a 19% response rate. The 155 responding companies had a median age of 5 years with a median of 15 employees. The major products of companies in the sample included flour, lumber, household and office furniture, plastic containers, tools and dies, ready mixed concrete, pipe fittings, measuring devices, paint and varnish, machine tools, electroplate, carbon and graphite composite products, plastic laminated products, circuit boards, electronic components, and parts for internal combustion engines.In general, the results confirm the validity of the measures of environmental and organizational characteristics as we have adapted them for new ventures. As hypothesized, perceived market attractiveness and the overall abundance of resource-based capabilities were significantly related to venture performance. Also, in two of three cases, the evidence suggests that specific resource-based capabilities are related to the firm's stated competitive strategies. Finally, although the relationship between “fit” and performance is not supported in all cases, the performance of the emerging manufacturing ventures included in this sample appears to be enhanced when resource-based capabilities are supportive of a cost leadership strategy and when firms seeking to differentiate based on product and service quality have the resource-based capabilities to support that strategy. The results of this emerging research stream will make an important contribution to our understanding of the factors that impact firm performance. For scholars the results provide additional information needed to develop comprehensive new venture performance models. A clear understanding of the factors that have a strong influence on venture performance will enable practitioners to better identify viable business opportunities and academicians to provide potential business founders with tools to help them recognize opportunity. In addition, the identification of appropriate levels of abstraction will provide building blocks for future research that seeks to integrate environmental and firm-level constructs.     

The dynamics of switching between governmental and independent venture capitalists: theory and evidence

Small Business Economics - In this paper, we study the switching dynamics between independent VCs (IVCs) and governmental VCs (GVCs) by means of a theoretical model and an empirical analysis. By...     

Social capital of venture capitalists and start-up funding

How does the social capital of venture capitalists (VCs) affect the funding of start-ups? By building on the rich social capital literature, we hypothesize a positive effect of VCs?? social capital, derived from past syndication, on the amount of money that start-ups receive. Specifically, we argue that both structural and relational aspects of VCs?? social networks provide VCs with superior access to information about current investment objects and opportunities to leverage them in the future, increasing their willingness to invest in these firms. Our empirical results, derived from a novel dataset containing more than 1,500 first funding rounds in the Internet and IT sector, strongly confirm our hypotheses. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of venture capital and entrepreneurship, showing that the role and effect of VCs?? social capital on start-up firms may be more complex than previously argued in the literature.     

How venture capitalists respond to unmet expectations: The role of social environment

In this paper, we seek to explain venture capitalists' reactions to disappointments caused by entrepreneurs. Our basic assumption is that venture capitalists' social environment, defined as exposure to venture capital and business communities, will influence their responses to problematic situations. The results of our study suggest that venture capitalists with strong ties to their colleagues and with managerial experience are more inclined to use active and constructive approaches than venture capitalists with a lesser exposure to the venture capital and business communities.     

The critical relationship between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs: Planning,decision-making,and control

On the basis of preliminary interview and survey data, evidence suggests that venture capitalists (VCs) are less involved with their affiliated new venture organizations than may be necessary for long term survival. The dual core model of innovation that emphasizes the need of a technical and administrative core for continued innovation is used as the foundation of this perspective. In the post investment relationship between the venture capitalist and the new venture, it is expected that the new venture has a well developed technical core. However, the administrative needs are often ignored by the new venture entrepreneurs. Therefore, it is recommended that VCs become more involved in the administrative component of the new venture organization (NVO) through either direct involvement or through the recruiting of key personnel. As the NVO moves through its life cycle the addition of an administrative component to its technical core provides for continued innovation necessary for long term survival and growth.     

When do venture capitalists collaborate? Evidence on the driving forces of venture capital syndication

Using a sample of 2,373 unique capital contributions from 437 venture capitalists (VCs) over subsequent rounds into 961 start-ups during the period 1995–2005 in Germany we disentangle the circumstances under which lead VCs engage in syndicate relationships with partner VCs. The results indicate that syndication is more pronounced when VCs face higher risks that need to be diversified and capital burdens are larger. Moreover, we document that industry investment experience lends legitimacy to lead VCs, allowing them to enter syndicate relationships to enhance their network positions. In general, greater industry experience is associated with more syndication. Lastly, the results show that lead VCs involve new/additional partners in subsequent financing rounds to leverage their idiosyncratic skills and knowledge to improve deal selection and/or provide a better quality of managerial advice.     

Structuring deals and governance after the IPO: Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in high tech start-ups

In an effort to better understand the effects of venture capital investment on selected firm governance and financing structures, we examined the post-IPO experiences of 190 biotechnology and healthcare firms (see appendix). Our study revealed that in virtually all cases, the involvement of venture capitalists reduced the role of the founder-entrepreneur in strategic decision making. This was illustrated by the larger proportion of outside directors when venture capitalists invested and the smaller proportion of entrepreneurs who remained officers or in board positions after the IPO. We also found that venture capitalists rarely invested alone, and preferred to structure deals in which venture capital partners share both risks and rewards.     

Dynamic capabilities and firm performance in a financial crisis

In this study, an organization means an active actor that can, at least to some extent, adapt to the environment, mainly within the limits of its resources and capabilities. The article enhances understanding of and explains organizational adaptive behavior in weathering the storm in the business environment resulting from the global financial crisis of 2008. The literature on dynamic capabilities, organizational change, and innovation in the context of organizational performance and survival captures this kind of adaptive behavior. The empirical study builds on a quantitative survey and a qualitative case study covering the food processing, maritime, and media industries. Structural equation modeling, group analysis, and qualitative case comparisons shed light on the connection between the constructs in question. Implications for theory and practice culminate in suggestions for future research.     

Microfoundations of dynamic new venture partnering capabilities

Managing relationships with new venture suppliers require the adaptation of supplier management practices and routines. This research builds upon the dynamic capabilities perspective to explicate the ability to partner effectively with new venture suppliers as a dynamic capability. We argue that new venture partnering capability (NVPC) encompasses sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities. Firms with sensing capabilities can interpret new ventures' value propositions and then match them to the needs of their business units. Seizing capabilities allow firms to coordinate and develop the relationship with a new venture supplier to capture value. Transforming capabilities enable firms to adapt resources and reconfigure their sensing and seizing capabilities. Our findings suggest that firms accelerate the transformation and strengthen dynamic NVPCs by applying entrepreneurial behavior through high-quality and regular interactions with new venture suppliers and embedding a dedicated new venture function. We also find that dynamic NVPCs can reside at different levels and that entrepreneurial managers can stimulate the development of organizational NVPCs. In general, we provide further empirical evidence on how buying firms can more effectively leverage the potential of new venture suppliers.     

Signaling in science-based IPOs: The combined effect of affiliation with prestigious universities,underwriters, and venture capitalists

This paper studies the combined effect of affiliation with prestigious universities, underwriters, and venture capitalists on the valuation of biotech ventures at IPO and their post-IPO performance. We argue that affiliation to a prestigious university provides the affiliated firm with a quality signal in the scientific domain. The pure quality signaling effect of the affiliation is isolated from the substantive benefits it provides by performing a difference-in-difference approach based on the scientific reputation of scientists in firms' upper echelons. The signal is stronger the weaker is the scientific reputation of scientists of the focal IPO-firm and is additive to those provided by prestigious venture capitalists and underwriters. Results for a sample of 254 European biotech ventures that went through an IPO between 1990 and 2009 confirm our predictions.     

International new venture performance: Role of international entrepreneurial culture,ambidextrous innovation,and dynamic marketing capabilities

International new ventures (INVs) contend with environmental dynamism in global markets, compelling firms to enhance their innovation and marketing capabilities. While the INV literature is growing, it is not informative as to how INVs develop and utilize dynamic capabilities to overcome resource-constraints to enhance performance. We utilize the concept of international entrepreneurship culture (IEC) to better understand how INVs advance innovation and dynamic marketing capabilities to succeed in their internationalization activities. Building on the dynamic capabilities view (DCV), we empirically examine the relationships among IEC, ambidextrous innovation, dynamic marketing capabilities, and INV performance under varying levels environmental dynamism. The findings highlight that IEC influences both ambidextrous innovation and dynamic marketing capabilities; and, together, these link to INV performance gains. Furthermore, this research finds support for the mediating effects of ambidextrous innovation and dynamic marketing capabilities in the IEC – INV performance relationship. Additionally, the results indicate an international entrepreneurial culture is of greater significance in developing ambidextrous innovation when environmental dynamism is present. The study context is a sample of 286 high-technology INVs from India, a large and dynamic emerging market.     

Studying resource and capability effects on export venture performance

While extant research has welcomed the resource and capability perspectives as valuable lenses to study international business phenomena, there have been scant attempts to study the role of comprehensive sets of firm resources and capabilities on different aspects of export venture performance and even less the role of their interactions. This study examines the impact of experience, scale of operation and financial resources as well as informational, customer relationship and product development capabilities on dimensions of export venture performance. The results suggest an interesting role of knowledge factors. Each one of experience and informational capabilities has a U-shaped effect on export venture performance, while their interaction negatively impacts the same, denoting that the two factors are antagonistic. Scale of operation and financial resources have a U-shaped and a negative effect respectively on adaptability only, while neither customer relationship nor product development capabilities directly influence export venture performance. Finally, the interaction of product development with informational capabilities has a positive impact only on efficiency. Practitioners are offered specific suggestions as to where they should place emphasis when pursuing particular performance objectives.     

Developing the selection and valuation capabilities through learning: The case of corporate venture capital

The objective of this paper is to examine the impacts of experience intensity, experience diversity and acquisitive experience on the development of selection and valuation capabilities that help the parent (investor) company generate higher short-term financial returns and improve long-term strategic performance. Based on our analysis of 2110 cases of CVC investments in the VenureXpert data base, we find that industry diversity of a CVC program's experience is positively related to its selection of portfolio companies with relatively high financial potential. The CVC program's experience intensity, stage diversity of its experience, and syndication improve its selection of portfolio companies with greater strategic potential. In addition, stage diversity may enhance valuation capability. We also find that experience accumulation is more effective when a CVC program invests in a portfolio company in the later stage rather than in the early stage.     

Innovative capabilities: Their drivers and effects on current and future performance

This study investigates the role of a firm's orientation, both customer and competitor, in driving innovative capabilities and the impact of those capabilities on a firm's current and future performance. The study's contribution is threefold in that it (1) examines market-related exploitative and explorative capabilities in conjunction with product development exploitative and explorative capabilities in terms of their strategic drivers (firm orientation) and performance outcomes; (2) disentangles the effects of exploitative and explorative capabilities on current and future performance; and (3) examines the role of innovative capabilities within the particularly relevant, but understudied, context of exporting. The findings suggest that, although customer orientation relates to both exploitative and explorative capabilities, competitor orientation relates only to exploitative capabilities. Exploitative capabilities affect current performance, whereas explorative capabilities affect future performance. These findings are of crucial relevance to export managers in their quest to identify, extend, and create new market opportunities.     

Dynamic capabilities and e-service

The rapid, pervasive growth of Internet use for business purposes has had a noticeable effect on numerous firms' business strategies. This type of perturbation among competitors results in a more dynamic market. To be successful in such a market often requires a firm to reexamine how it competes. In recent years, two strategic management theories—the resource-based view (RBV) and the dynamic capabilities theory (DCT)—have been advanced by proponents as being the key to developing successful competitive advantage. We argue that the DCT is a logical extension of the RBV. Operationalization has been a critical issue for both theories, and this paper fills a gap in the literature by offering a method of operationalizing dynamic capabilities. Copyright © 2009 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Earliness of internationalization and performance outcomes: Exploring the moderating effects of venture age and international commitment

This study examines the impact of early foreign market entry on new ventures’ performance outcomes. Venture age and international commitment are theorized as moderators to address the inconsistent findings of previous research surrounding the performance implications of early internationalization. Results from a sample of international new ventures in China found that the earliness of internationalization positively contributes to firm performance in terms of sales growth, but not innovation and profitability. The performance advantage of early internationalization becomes obsolete as young ventures become mature, especially among those with a low level of international commitment. This study highlights the importance of incorporating time-based dimensions of international venturing for a better understanding of the performance implications of early internationalization.     

A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance

Venture capitalists, “angel” investors, and experienced, successful entrepreneurs, when asked to identify the most important determinant of new venture performance, will undoubtedly answer “the entrepreneur.” Likewise, prominent academic scholars responsible for the accelerating development of entrepreneurship theory and research would almost always agree. Unfortunately, empirical and theoretical understanding of the influence of the entrepreneur on new venture performance (NVP) has long been stymied. Studies of entrepreneurial characteristics have failed to demonstrate convincing links with entrepreneurial states of being or with NVP, though studies of the former have shown more promise than have those of the latter. In an attempt to explain the failure to link entrepreneurial characteristics with performance and thus to stimulate and modify research agendas, this paper derives a structural, causal model of the relationships between entrepreneurial characteristics and performance. This derivation draws upon current psychological, management, economic, and entrepreneurship theory.Though there is considerable controversy in the field of psychology concerning the ability of personality traits to explain behavior, it is accepted by many that such traits do exist, that they are stable over time, and that they explain behaviors if the level of aggregation is wide enough. In 1988, Hollenbeck and Whitener noted that one of the problems in using personality traits to explain job performance was that such traits are mediated by motivation and moderated by abilities in their causal connection to performance. Thus personality traits are somewhat removed from performance in the causal chain of events. Applied to the study of the entrepreneur, this research suggests that an initial model of the “entrepreneurial characteristics → NVP” relationship must include the mediating role of motivation and the moderating role of entrepreneurial management abilities.This paper further redefines this emerging model of “entrepreneurial characteristics → NVP” by drawing upon other literature from the field of psychology. This literature suggests that “entrepreneurial behavior” and the context in which it is performed both intervene between motivation and ability in their relation to NVP. The paper concludes this section with a psychology-based model of the “characteristics → NVP” relationship that is more comprehensive and realistic than prior models in the entrepreneurship literature.The paper next draws from strategic management, entrepreneurship, and economics literature along with Sandberg's (1986) model of NVP [NVP = f(E,IS,S)] to show that any model of the connection between entrepreneurial characteristics and NVP must further recognize the relationship between strategy and NVP as well as industry structure and NVP. The resultant model suggests strategy and industry structure are “context” variables that interdependently interact with entrepreneurial behaviors to influence NVP. This adaptation of the model is reinforced and expanded by reviewing the management literature on matching managers to situations which in turn implies that the effects of entrepreneurial behaviors on NVP are contingent upon strategy and industry structure. Thus strategy and industry structure, though ultimately determined by entrepreneurial behavior, are themselves important inputs to the behavioral context of entrepreneurship.The last part of the paper examines decision-making, skills, aptitudes, and training as components helping to refine our understanding of the role of motivation as a mediator and ability as a moderator in a model of the “entrepreneurial characteristics → NVP” relationship. The intent here is to identify specific variables that can be studied or acted upon [in an applied sense] to improve the NVP impact of entrepreneurial behaviors.It is hoped that explication of this model will encourage future entrepreneurship research that seeks to examine causes of NVP to reintroduce “the entrepreneur” as the focus or a focus of the research. Hopefully a more fully developed model that includes motivations, abilities, skills, aptitudes, and training as elements in “modeling” entrepreneurial behavior along with the need for strategy and industry structure contexts provides a more compelling and risk-worthy starting point for such research. This should provide an impetus to put the entrepreneur back. into a central position in entrepreneurship research, where both theory and practitioners say he/she belongs.