Anda di halaman 1dari 14

Management Research News

Entrepreneurial teams vs management teams: Reasons for team formation in small firms
Sanna Tihula Jari Huovinen Matthias Fink
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sanna Tihula Jari Huovinen Matthias Fink, (2009),"Entrepreneurial teams vs management teams",
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

Management Research News, Vol. 32 Iss 6 pp. 555 - 566


Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170910962984
Downloaded on: 03 November 2015, At: 13:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1898 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Leon Schjoedt, Sascha Kraus, (2009),"Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors",
Management Research News, Vol. 32 Iss 6 pp. 513-524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170910962957
María Isabel Delgado Piña, Ana María Romero Martínez, Luis Gómez Martínez, (2008),"Teams in
organizations: a review on team effectiveness", Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 Iss 1/2 pp. 7-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860177
Myleen M. Leary, Michael L. DeVaughn, (2009),"Entrepreneurial team characteristics that influence the
successful launch of a new venture", Management Research News, Vol. 32 Iss 6 pp. 567-579 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170910962993

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:522611 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0140-9174.htm

Entrepreneurial teams vs Reasons for team


formation in
management teams small firms
Reasons for team formation in small firms
Sanna Tihula and Jari Huovinen 555
Department of Business and Management, University of Kuopio, Kuopio,
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

Finland, and
Matthias Fink
Department of Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship,
Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration,
Vienna, Austria
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to answer whether or not entrepreneurial teams and
management teams are a common phenomenon in small firms and to identify differences in the
reasons for the formation of these different kinds of joint management. Additionally the impact of
joint management on the performance of small businesses is tested.
Design/methodology/approach – To answer the research question a questionnaire survey
(n ¼ 119, response rate ¼ 48 per cent) of small firms (20-49 employees) in Eastern Finland was
supplemented by a secondary data collection on financial issues.
Findings – The results show that in nearly four-fifths of the firms a team was involved in the
management. The logistic regression model revealed statistically significant differences between
firms with entrepreneurial teams and such with management teams regarding the formation motives
turnover, liability distribution and efficiency. Even though secondary data suggested that the firms
managed by management teams were bigger, more profitable and faster growing, the differences were
not statistically significant.
Research limitations/implications – This study suggests that teams are common in the
management of small firms, and that the future research in this field should focus more on the small
firm context.
Practical implications – The importance of teams in the management of small firms has to be
realized by entrepreneurs, their employees, the consultants as well as by those who create the legal
and institutional condition for the creation and development of businesses.
Originality/value – Although the impact of management teams and entrepreneurial teams has been
widely studied in large-firm settings, the studies in the field of small business are rare. With its multi-
perspective approach and its focus on small firms this study breaks new ground in this research field.
Keywords Teams, Entrepreneurialism, Managers, Small enterprises, Finland
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
This study provides a comparative analysis of entrepreneurial teams and management
teams and focuses on the differences of these two kinds of joint management in small
firms. It also examines the reasons for team formation and their effects on business
performance. Here, the term joint management is used as an umbrella term comprising
entrepreneurial teams and management teams. Hence, we speak of joint management if
management tasks are fulfilled by a collection of individuals who are interdependent in
their tasks but who share the responsibility of the outcomes, who see themselves and who Management Research News
Vol. 32 No. 6, 2009
are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in a larger social entity – the firm. pp. 555-566
The importance of teams has been largely recognized in recent management and # Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0140-9174
entrepreneurship research (e.g. Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005; Ucbasaran et al., DOI 10.1108/01409170910962984
MRN 2003). Several studies have suggested that firms founded and managed by teams are
on average more successful than firms founded and managed by single persons
32,6 (Lechler, 2001; Rosa and Scott, 1999; Vyakarnam et al., 1999; Kamm and Shuman, 1990;
Roure and Madique, 1986). Firms with a diverse range of management skills and
competencies, i.e. management functions covered by individuals in the team, have a
significantly greater propensity to survive (Westhead et al., 1995). Although the impact
of teams involved in management has been widely studied in large-firm settings, the
556 studies in the field of small business are rare. As Welsh and White (1981) put it, ‘‘a
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

small business is not a little big business’’, and findings cannot be generalized over
firm size. The few empirical studies on management teams and entrepreneurial teams
in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (e.g. van Gils, 2005; Weinzimmer, 1997;
Nicholson and Cannon, 2000; Reuber and Fischer, 1997) have revealed that joint
management is more common than earlier believed (van Gils, 2005; Lechler, 2001;
Kamm et al., 1990). For example, on the basis of the few empirical studies of the
prevalence of teams, about two thirds of SMEs have a management team or an
entrepreneurial team (Cooper et al., 1990). Also in this study nearly 80 per cent of all
small firms were team managed.
Obviously, joint management is most common in large firms, where the size of the
firm requires several managers, and where the firm’s performance demands multiple
skills and experiences of its managers. Joint management has, however, become an
important strategic option also in smaller firms, where management teams are even
more often at the centre of survival, growth and development. In this study, the focus is
on small firms, because little is known about joint management in this type of firms.
The aim of this study is twofold: firstly, it examines the commonality of entrepreneurial
teams and management teams in small firms (Research question 1). Secondly, it identifies
and compares the reasons for the formation of entrepreneurial teams and management
teams in small firms. Thus, we determine team formation reasons, or antecedents, in
entrepreneurial teams and management teams (Research question 2).
The paper is organized as follows: after delimitating the term ‘‘team’’ from its
superordinate term ‘‘group’’ and defining the terms ‘‘entrepreneurial team’’ and
‘‘management team’’, we set out to discuss reasons for team formation against the
background of relevant literature. Subsequently, we present the design and the results
of a large-scale empirical study. The logistic regression analysis shows that there are
fewer differences in the motives for forming entrepreneurial teams and management
teams than expected. The paper closes with a discussion, directions of further research
and limitations of the study.

Entrepreneurial teams and management teams


Katzenbach and Smith (1993) describe a team as a small number of people with
complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals
and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Teams are special
types of groups, but they rely more than a group on discussion, debate and decision,
sharing information and best-practice performance standards. Teams produce discrete
work products through the joint contributions of their members, being a special form
of a group that has highly defined tasks and roles. They also demonstrate high group
commitment (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Tosi et al., 2000, p. 223; Levi, 2001).
The term ‘‘team’’ has largely replaced the term ‘‘group’’ in the literature, but still the
word ‘‘group’’ predominates in some studies, because they use ‘‘group’’ as their root
word (e.g. group dynamics, inter-group relations etc.) (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996).
Sometimes teams and groups have been separated by the definition and purpose; Reasons for team
sometimes they are used interchangeably in the group dynamics literature out of
convenience. However, not all groups can be considered teams. Katzenbach and Smith
formation in
(1993) believe that the concept of a team should be limited to a fairly small number of small firms
people with complementary skills who interact directly. This helps to distinguish
teams from work groups, whose members jointly do the same tasks but who do not
require integration and coordination to perform the tasks. The most critical element in
this separation seems to be the interdependence (Levi, 2001), which exists when an
557
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

individual cannot perform a given task or a set of responsibilities without the


assistance of others.
We follow the definition put forward by Cohen and Bailey (1997), who define a team
as a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share the
responsibility of the outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an
intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems (e.g. the firm), and
who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries.
A management team is a small group of managers, including the managing director
and the managers from different functional areas and other key persons, who give a
firm its general direction and who specialize in running the business. In a management
team, the managers with complementary skills are at the same organizational level,
report to the same person, hold leadership position in the firm, and share information
that helps them perform their individual jobs more effectively (McIntyre, 1998;
Finkelstein, 1992; Keck and Tushman, 1993). Thus, the team members are not only
responsible for their own functions, but also ‘‘wear another hat’’ in the firm leadership
(Nadler, 1992). The team members meet regularly to make CEO-conducted key
decisions that affect the entire organization or department, and to help the firm to
achieve its goals (McIntyre, 1998; Nadler, 1997; Nadler and Spencer, 1997). Although
those who are involved in the management of a small firm often hold some equity in the
firm (i.e. a small ownership position), this is not always the case (Stumpf et al., 2002). In
this study a management team is defined as a team which participates in the firm
management, but not in the working groups operating on lower levels or consultants. It
consists of a minimum of three members, of which at least one operates as an
appointed manager (hired outside the firm) without ownership. Teams that have the
described characteristics, but only consist of members, who hold a financial stake in
the firm, are referred to as entrepreneurial teams.
An entrepreneurial team is often characterized as two or more individuals with
financial interest jointly launching, actively participating and developing a business
(Kamm et al., 1990; Watson et al., 1995; Cooney, 2005). Team members are involved in
pre-start-up activities and they establish and share ownership of the new organization.
Watson et al. (1995) argue and add that in an entrepreneurial team individuals jointly
found a business and are involved in operating it jointly. According to Ucbasaran et al.
(2003), members of an entrepreneurial founding team are individuals with an equity
stake in the business who have a key role in the strategic decision making of the
venture at the time of founding.
Thus, a main difference between a management team and an entrepreneurial team
is shared entrepreneurial risk. In fact, there are differences in the positions of the
members in entrepreneurial teams and management teams: entrepreneurial team
members hold ownership and control positions, whereas in management teams they
work in leadership positions. Moreover, entrepreneurial team members have a shared
commitment to each other and to the venture’s future. According to Ucbasaran et al.
MRN (2003), entrepreneurial team members may have a clearer incentive to leverage their
human capital to enhance organizational performance.
32,6
Reasons for teamwork
The motivation to form teams has been analyzed from a functional perspective
(suggesting that people join groups because groups are able to accomplish things that
individuals cannot accomplish working alone) and an interpersonal perspective
558 (suggesting that working in teams fulfils the social needs of people) (Stewart et al.,
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

1999). For testing whether or not there are different reasons for the formation of
entrepreneurial teams and management teams, we focus on a selection of reasons
based on a multi-perspective approach.

Environmental factors
The functional theory of the formation posits that groups and teams are the only way
to survive the demands of the environment (Stewart et al., 1999). External demands,
such as more complex organizations, a turbulent environment and succession politics,
have accelerated the shift from a single leader to joint management (e.g. Nadler, 1992;
Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Levi, 2001, p. 296). As jobs become more complex due to
technology or other factors, teams become a good way to handle the complexity (Levi,
2001). Moreover, joint management has a strong ability to attract capital beyond the
founder’s or owner’s resources from private and venture capital backers (Timmons,
1999). Some financiers or even the shareholders require an active team in the
management of the firm in return for the financing.

Poor performance, crisis and survival


The urge to try something new and to change the course of action increases when the
performance is low (Boone et al., 2004). Literature on organizational decline and
turnaround strategies and organizational change has pointed out that poor
performance, troubles and even crises in the firm have been seen as a reason for
teamwork in the management of firms (e.g. Spillan and Hough, 2003; Pearson and Clair,
1998).
These teams are responsible for planning for the crises before they occur, but
sometimes joint management is formed as a reaction to crises (Spillan and Hough,
2003). An effective team is seen as one of the few general success factors in SMEs
(Ghosh et al., 2001). It is generally recognized that a firm’s joint management takes on
particular importance during periods of declining performance (Lohrke et al., 2004).
Boone et al. (2004) expect poor performance to stimulate hiring more dissimilar
managers, or prevent dissimilar managers from leaving a team. The resulting team
diversity is assumed to be associated with willingness and openness to change
(Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996). Nonetheless, only a few studies have investigated
the importance of joint management in turnaround situations (e.g. Lohrke et al., 2004;
Mueller and Barker, 1997; Barker et al., 2001).

Growth
The importance of a team responsible for the management in SMEs has been
suggested to be crucial especially in growth firms (e.g. Wiklund, 1998; Brush and
Vanderwerf, 1992). An entrepreneur’s ability to build a strong and effective team is
seen as one of the key issues of growth (Eisenhardt and Schoohoven, 1990; Vyakarnam
et al., 1999) as a small business owner may not have the sufficient knowledge and skills
to ensure significant organizational growth (Weinzimmer, 1997). When the firm size Reasons for team
increases, more people are needed for effective management (Weltman, 2001). Storey
(1994) claims that building a strong team for the management of the SME is seen as
formation in
one of the four most important key elements of growth and survival. small firms

Profitability and better firm performance


The benefits of teamwork in management relate to both work and firm performance
(e.g. Hunsaker, 2001; Eisenstat and Cohen, 1990). Since the manager’s perceptions are
559
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

limited and the job of managing a large or complex organization overburdens a single
individual, a joint management can significantly improve the management
performance and this way influence the firm’s performance and success (Vyakarnam
et al., 1999; Eisenstat and Cohen, 1990). Thus, an important way of improving the
strategic capacity is through a diverse composition of the team (Jarzabkowski and
Searle, 2004). The variety of experience, knowledge and expertise among team
members provides a synergic effect, which can be applied to the increasingly complex
problems of firms (Eisenstat and Cohen, 1990). However, team diversity may also
increase the frequency and intensity of conflicts, which may influence the decision
making process and the firm’s performance negatively.

Social issues
Another set of reasons for teamwork in management includes social issues,
companionship, support and status. Companionship can help in problem solving and
to diminish demanding working conditions as support arises among the team
members (Hunsaker, 2001). They allow people to care for each other, provide social
support for individuals in times of stress and make the efforts more efficient and thus
help to improve the quality of life and to complete common tasks more quickly (Stewart
et al., 1999).
A team responsible for the management of a firm has also a symbolic role. By being
a member of such a team, the individual’s status and esteem is heightened, and the
members are likely to identify with the groups or organizations that enhance their self-
esteem (Lester et al., 2006; Li et al., 2002). From an interpersonal perspective, people are
seen as having a need for affiliation with others and they join groups to provide
themselves with the opportunity to fulfill their needs (e.g. exercising power over others)
(Stewart et al., 1999). People may support joining a team, because it gives them the
opportunity to receive more than by working alone (Stewart et al., 1999).
Team members are more likely to be committed to the decisions made and their
implementation because the members are likely to understand and support decisions
they had a part in determining (Tosi et al., 1999; Eisenstat and Cohen, 1990). When
people are given responsibility, they act in a much more responsible way (Haynes,
1997). And a team’s decision is more likely to represent the wide range of interests that
exists in organization. Generally, employees frequently report higher job satisfaction
when they work in teams rather than independently as individuals (Stewart et al.,
1999), which improves staff morale and decreases its turnover. However, it is worth
considering that not everybody has a need for affiliation with others.
Finally, learning, communication and coordination are factors for shifting from a
single leader to joint management. When many people work on an organizational
problem, more organization members will see the need for change. Team setting
develops the skills of the team members and promotes both formal and informal
learning in the organization because of their diverse knowledge and skills (Hunsaker,
MRN 2001). Common activities, communication and coordination among the major parts of
32,6 the organization would improve if there is teamwork at the top (Eisenstat and Cohen,
1990).

Methodology
For this study small firms with 20 to 49 employees operating in the regions of Northern
560 Savo, Southern Savo and Northern Karelia were chosen as the relevant population from
the Salesleads-register maintained by Blue Book TDC Index which is a national
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

register that summarizes information gathered from various sources such as Business
Register of Statistics Finland, Suomen Asiakastieto Oy and Finnish Tax
Administration. Firms with less than 20 employees were excluded, as they might not
have an organizational structure that allows for the identification of teams involved in
management processes. Firms with over 50 employees were also excluded as the
prevalence of management teams automatically increases with the rising formality of
the teamwork at the top level of management. In firms with 20 to 49 employees team
formation is current in regard of the firm’s life cycle, and multiplicity of different teams
occurs.
In the Salesleads-register, there were 287 firms. As we were interested in
independently managed firms without direct external influences on their management,
some industries like electricity, gas and water supply firms owned by municipalities or
central-corporation-led retail trades, and subsidiaries of large corporations were
excluded from the study. These characteristics also made the firms studied more
comparable to each other. The final sampling size was 245 firms. The persons
responsible in the firms participated in the study either by mail or online. After the
second wave of questionnaires, 119 cases could be included in the statistical analysis,
which represents a response rate of over 48 per cent. In addition to the subjective data
gathered in the questionnaire survey, also objective information from financial
statements was taken from the Inoa database, which is a public database of Finnish
firms.
Logistic regression analysis was the primary methodological approach (Ben-Akiva
and Lerman, 1985). Logistic regression provides a multidimensional picture of the
variables explaining the prevalence of the teams, their connections and interaction to
the examined phenomenon. In the analysis the dependent variable divided the firms
into the two categories: firms with a management team (0 ¼ management team) and
firms with entrepreneurial teams (1 ¼ entrepreneurial team). The goal was to create
one model that avoids an oversimplification of the research object (Vyakarnam and
Handelberg, 2005) and in which the characteristics of the firms as well as the reasons
behind the team formation could be considered as broadly as possible. At the same
time, special attention was paid not to choose irrelevant independent variables (based
on the phenomenon of interest) or not to increase the number of the independent
variables compared to the number of the observations. The independent variables
chosen for the logistic regression analysis are featured in Table I.

Findings
The research revealed the prevalence of teams in the management of the firms
employing 20-49 persons. 79.8 per cent of the 119 firms participating in the study were
team managed. 45.3 per cent of these firms had a management team, and 54.7 per cent
an entrepreneurial team.
Independent variables Description of variables Reasons for team
formation in
Background characteristics small firms
Vocational education 0 ¼ at most college degree/1 ¼ at least polytechnic
Industry 0 ¼ Service/1 ¼ Manufacturing
Family business 0 ¼ No/1 ¼ Yes
Turnover 0 ¼ 5 Meur or under/1 ¼ over 5 Meur
Reasons for team formation
561
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

Firm growth Three-level scale: 1 ¼ Not at all, 3 ¼ Very strongly


Controlling the businessa
Liability distribution
Poor performance Table I.
Efficiency Logistic regression
Expectations of financiers analysis (dependent
variable: management
Note: aA team has been seen important in the firm management teams vs other teams)

The logistic regression model explains the researched phenomenon reasonably well, as
79.5 per cent of all observations were classified correctly (management teams 62.5 per
cent, entrepreneurial teams 90.2 per cent). Also the 2-test quantity suggested the
reliability of the model was good. As a result of the analysis the variables turnover,
liability distribution and efficiency may be seen as statistically significant. Table II
shows the results of the logistic regression analysis.

Firm size as an explaining factor for teams


The financial statements gathered in this study suggested that the firms managed by
management teams were bigger and more profitable than other firms. In addition, the
turnover of these firms had been growing more quickly than that of others. The

Variables B SE Sig.

Background characteristics
Vocational education 0.656 0.573 0.253
Industry 0.466 0.532 0.381
Family business 0.721 0.575 0.210
Turnover 0.986 0.582 0.091*
Reasons for team formation
Firm growth –0.429 0.458 0.349
Controlling the business 0.286 0.501 0.569
Liability distribution –1.191 0.525 0.023**
Poor performance 0.754 0.537 0.160
Efficiency 1.148 0.570 0.044**
Expectations of financiers 0.006 0.583 0.992 Table II.
Constant –1.671 2.297 0.467 Logistic regression
2 ¼ 0.037 analysis (dependent
df ¼ 10, n ¼ 83 variable: management
teams vs entrepreneurial
Notes: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05 teams)
MRN differences were, however, not statistically significant with any variable, and all firms
32,6 participating in this study may be considered very profitable (Table III).
Turnover was made a dichotomous variable for the logistic regression model in
order to clarify the tendency towards management teams and towards entrepreneurial
teams in firms of different sizes. In the logistic model, the turnover emerged as a
statistically significant variable that separated firms from each other. Regarding the
turnover in smaller sized firms, management teams were clearly less common than
562 entrepreneurial teams. In the firms with a turnover of a maximum of 5 million euros
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

less than one third of the teams were management teams (30.0 per cent), whereas in
bigger firms management teams were nearly as frequent as entrepreneurial teams (45.7
per cent). This may be considered rather natural, as with the increase in firm size also
the probability of a more formal management system and activities usually increases
as well (e.g. Lubatkin, 2006) and the owners are likely to hire outside managers
resulting in a shift in responsibilities for the firm from the owners (entrepreneurial
team) to a team consisting of professional managers (management team). Often the
development of a firm requires different kinds of skills than the founding of one (Forbs,
2005), and for example substantial knowledge of the industry as such is not sufficient,
but business skills and visions are required in addition. If the owner does not have the
necessary skills, compensation by hiring knowledge from outside or by shifting the
responsibility to skilled employees is necessary.

Reasons for team formation


The liability distribution was more significantly emphasized as a reason for team
formation behind management teams than behind entrepreneurial teams. Instead,
efficiency objectives were significantly more often reasons for the formation of
entrepreneurial teams (Table II). The liability distribution behind the formation of
management teams may tell about the natural growth of the firms and the resulting
need to define the various operations more clearly. In practice this means that the
responsibility for the operations is more clearly decentralized to different persons
responsible for sales, financial administration or production and services. This result is
supported by the above-mentioned observations of the prevalence of management
teams in firms with a higher turnover. The liability distribution as a reason for team
formation may thus mean that the operations are developed into a more professional
direction, in which some key operations and managers responsible for them can clearly
be recognized. However, statistically significant differences between the growth rate
and the profitability of the firms could not be observed (Table III).
Formation of entrepreneurial teams because of efficiency objectives are difficult to
interpret. The result may be understood in at least two principal ways: On one hand, it
may be a question of firm financial problems and whose solution requires
strengthening the operations and the forming of entrepreneurial teams. If those who
are involved in managing the firm also have a stake in the firm, they might rather work

Management teams Entrepreneurial teams


n Mean SD n Mean SD

Table III. Turnover (1,000 e) 33 6,349.03 6,038.07 41 5,587.83 7,462.53


Means and frequencies Growth (%) 29 23.29 44.07 39 13.40 21.10
of surveyed firms Profit (1,000 e) 34 345.68 511.84 42 201.02 418.93
together with others in order to secure the value of their investment. Also, the Reasons for team
suggestion that poor performance was considered a more significant reason for the formation in
team formation in the firms managed by entrepreneurial teams than in the firms
managed by a management team may refer to this (Table I). However, the difference small firms
was not statistically significant. The objective data did not suggest that the firms
would be financially unprofitable, either (Table III). On the other hand, it may also be a
question of a much more positive situation, where the firm operates for example in the 563
field of high technology, and where from the beginning diverse knowledge and team-
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

like methods are required for success. It may also be a question of sharing the
ownership between several persons, in which case the share of the firm may be a
motivating factor and contribute to the achievement of the efficiency objectives.

Discussion
The results support the conception that joint management is more common in bigger
firms, where managing the operations requires a clear definition of responsibilities and
more formal managing methods. The reasons for the formation of management teams
and entrepreneurial teams were slightly different. The main reason for the formation of
a management team was the sharing of responsibility, whereas the formation of
entrepreneurial teams was influenced by efficiency objectives. According to the results,
the formation of management teams is explained by the natural growth of the firms
than by poor performance or the requirements of the financiers. Entrepreneurial teams
seem to be common in situations where the operations require diverse knowledge from
the beginning. A poor financial situation did not have a significant role in team
formation, either based on the subjective or the objective data. At the same time, the
results support the previous observations about the positive influence of teams on the
success of firms.
This study suggests that teams are common also in the management of small firms,
and that the future research in this field should focus more on the small firm context.
So far, the formation of management teams and entrepreneurial teams has been seen
solely as a decision made by the entrepreneurs (e.g. Nadler and Spencer, 1997;
Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Edmondson et al., 2002). However, the formation of
management teams may also be observed through entrepreneurship. In such cases, an
entrepreneur-like employee in a small firm may through his/her actions create the
prerequisites for growth, and through that for his/her ascending.
We acknowledged the challenges concerning the definitions of management teams
and entrepreneurial teams. However, comparative studies like this are justified,
because they may allow a better understanding of the subject at hand. We also
acknowledged that the examination of the reasons for team formation cannot be
inclusive. Moreover, since the study was explorative in its nature, answers to all
questions were in the theoretical discussion could not be determined through these
initial empirical findings. This limitation also provides opportunities for future
research. Issues raised in this study should be examined in more detail from a
qualitative point of view. In addition, since the study was restricted to firms in Eastern
Finland, the results cannot necessarily be generalized across other geographical areas.
The firms and especially the entrepreneurs in Eastern Finland, and for example in the
capital of Finland, differ from each other to some extent (e.g. average age of
entrepreneurs). This may have the effect that the results in some other region may be
different.
MRN References
32,6 Barker III, V.L., Patterson, P.W. and Mueller, G.C. (2001), ‘‘Organizational causes and strategic
consequences of the extent of top management team replacement during turnaround
attempts’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 235-69.
Boone, C., van Olffen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A. and De Brabander, B. (2004), ‘‘The genesis of top
management team diversity: selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch
newspaper publishing, 1970-1994’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5,
564 pp. 633-56.
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

Brush, C. and Vanderwerf, P. (1992), ‘‘A comparison of methods and sources of obtaining
estimates of new venture performance’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, pp. 157-70.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), ‘‘What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90.
Cooper, A.C., Dunkelberg, W.C., Woo, C.Y. and Dennis, W.J. (1990), ‘‘New business in America: the
firms and their owners’’, National Foundation of Independent Businesses, Washington, DC.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. (1990), ‘‘Organizational growth: linking founding team,
strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures (1978-1988)’’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 504-29.
Eisenstat, R. and Cohen, S. (1990), ‘‘Top management groups’’, in Hackman, J.R. (Ed.), Groups that
Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork, Jossey-Bass
Publications, San Francisco, CA, pp. 78-86.
Finkelstein, S. (1992), ‘‘Power in top management teams: dimensions, measurement, and
validation’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 505-38.
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1996), Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects
on Organizations, West Publishing, St Paul, MN.
Forbs, D. (2005), ‘‘Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others?’’ Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 623-40.
Ghosh, B.C., Liang, T.W., Meng, T.T. and Chen, B. (2001), ‘‘The key success factors, distinctive
capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore’’, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 51, pp. 209-21.
Guzzo, R.A. and Dickson, M.W. (1996), ‘‘Teams in organizations: recent research on performance
and effectiveness’’, Annual Reviews Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 307-38.
Haynes, N. (1997), Essential Business Psychology: Successful Team Management, 1st ed.,
International Thomson Business Press, London.
Hunsaker, P.L. (2001), Training in Management Skills, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Searle, R. (2004), ‘‘Harnessing diversity and collective action in the top
management team’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 37, pp. 399-419.
Kamm, J.B. and Shuman, J.C. (1990), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: a research
agenda’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 7-17.
Kamm, J.B., Shuman, J.C., Seeger, J.A. and Nurick, A.J. (1990), ‘‘Entrepreneurial teams in new
venture creation: a research agenda’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 7-17
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams. Creating the High-performance
Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Bosten, MA.
Keck, S.L. and Tushman, M. (1993), ‘‘Environmental and organizational context and executive
team structure’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1314-44.
Lechler, T. (2001), ‘‘Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success’’,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 263-78.
Lester, R.H., Certo, S.T., Dalton, C.M., Dalton, D.R. and Cannella, Jr., A.A. (2006), ‘‘Initial public Reasons for team
offering investor valuations: an examination of top management team prestige and
environmental uncertainty’’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26. formation in
Levi, D. (2001), Group Dynamics for Teams, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. small firms
Li, J., Xin, K. and Pillutla, M. (2002), ‘‘Multi-cultural leadership team and organizational
identification in international joint ventures’’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 320-37.
565
Lohrke, F.T., Bedeian, A.G. and Palmer, T.B. (2004), ‘‘The role of top management teams in
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

formulating and implementing turnaround strategies: a review and research agenda’’,


International Journal of Management Reviews, Vols. 5-6, No. 2, pp. 63-90.
McIntyre, M.G. (1998), The Management Team Handbook. Five Key Strategies for Maximizing
Group Performance, Jossey-Bass Publishing, SF.
Mueller, G.C. and Barker III, V.L. (1997), ‘‘Upper echelons and board characteristics of turnaround
and nonturnaround declining firms’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 39, pp. 119-34.
Nadler, D.A. (1992), ‘‘High performance executive teams’’, Corporate Board, Vol. 13 No. 75,
pp. 20-25.
Nadler, D.A. (Ed.) (1997), Executive Teams, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nadler, D.A. and Spencer, L.J. (Eds) (1997), Executive Teams, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nicholson, N. and Cannon, D. (2000), ‘‘Two views from the bridge: how CFOs and SME leaders
perceive top team dynamics’’, European Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 367-76.
Pearson, C.M. and Clair, J.A. (1998), ‘‘Reframing crisis management’’, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 59-76.
Reuber, A.R. and Fischer, E. (1997), ‘‘The influence of the management team’s experience on the
internationalization behaviors of SMEs’’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 807-25.
Rosa, P. and Scott, M. (1999), ‘‘The prevalence of multiple owners and directors in the SME sector:
implications for our understanding of start-up and growth’’, Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Roure, J.B. and Madique, M.A. (1986), ‘‘Linking pre-funding factors and high-technology venture
success: an exploratory study’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 295-306.
Spillan, J. and Hough, M. (2003), ‘‘Crisis planning in small businesses: importance, impetus and
indifference’’, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 398-407.
Stewart, A., Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1999), Team Work and Group Dynamics, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New York, NY.
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
Stumpf, S.A., Doh, J.P. and Clark, K.D. (2002), ‘‘Professional services firms in transition:
challenges and opportunities for improving performance’’, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 259-79.
Sutcliffe, K.M. (1994), ‘‘What executives notice: accurate perceptions in top management teams’’,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1360-75.
Timmons, J.A. (1999), New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century, McGraw-Hill,
Boston, MA.
Tosi, H.L., Mero, N.P. and Rizzo, J.R. (2000), Managing Organizational Behaviour, 4th ed.,
Blackwell Business, Oxford.
Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M. and Westhead, P. (2003), ‘‘Entrepreneurial founder teams:
Factors associated with member entry and exit’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 107-27.
MRN Van der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005), Learning and performance in multidisciplinary
teams: the importance of collective team identification’’, Academy of Management Journal,
32,6 Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 532-47.
van Gils, A. (2005), ‘‘Management and governance in Dutch SMEs’’, European Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 583-9.
Vyakarnam, S. and Handelberg, J. (2005), ‘‘Four themes of the impact of management teams on
organizational performance: implication for future research of entrepreneurial teams’’,
566 International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 236-56.
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

Vyakarnam, S., Jacobs, R. and Handelberg, J. (1999), ‘‘Exploring the formation of entrepreneurial
teams: the key to rapid growth business?’’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 153-65.
Weinzimmer, L.G. (1997), ‘‘Top management team correlates of organizational growth in a small
business context: a comparative study’’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 1-9.
Welsh, J.A., and White, J.F. (1981), ‘‘A small business is not a little big business’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 18-32.
Weltman, B. (2001), J.K. Lasser’s Finance and Tax for Your Family Business, Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Wiklund, J. (1998), Small Firm Growth and Performance: Entrepreneurship and Beyond, Ark
Tryckaren, Jönköping.

About the authors


Sanna Tihula is a Researcher and a Lecturer of Management of SMEs at the University of Kuopio,
Department of Business and Management. Ms Tihula holds a Master’s degree in Business and
Management and she is a PhD student. Her main research interests are management teams,
management in SMEs, entrepreneurship and family business. Sanna Tihula is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: sanna.tihula@uku.fi
Jari Huovinen holds a PhD and Master’s degrees in Entrepreneurship from the University of
Kuopio, Department of Business and Management. He has published several journal articles and
conference papers concerning entrepreneurship and SME management. His main research
interests are habitual entrepreneurship, effects of entrepreneurial experience, entrepreneurial
learning and academic entrepreneurship. Currently, he is working at the Confederation of
Finnish Industries EK as an advisor of SME affairs.
Matthias Fink is Assistant Professor at the Department for Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship of the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria,
where he also received his university degrees in Economics and International Management and a
PhD in SME Management and Entrepreneurship. He holds a triannual scholarship (APART –
Austrian Program for Advanced Research and Technology) granted by the Austrian Academy of
Sciences. Furthermore, he is Senior Researcher at the Research Institute for Co-operation and
Co-operatives (RiCC).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. Francine Schlosser. 2015. Identifying and Differentiating Key Employees from Owners and Other
Employees in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 53:10.1111/jsbm.2015.53.issue-1, 37-53.
[CrossRef]
2. Sharon Loane, Jim Bell, Isobel Cunningham. 2014. Entrepreneurial founding team exits in rapidly
internationalising SMEs: A double edged sword. International Business Review 23, 468-477. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HUNGARY At 13:12 03 November 2015 (PT)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai