The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists

TLDR: In this article, the authors study the impact of university culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions, including intentions to spin off a company, to engage in patenting or licensing and to interact with industry through contract research or consulting.

Abstract: Over the past decades, universities have increasingly become involved in entrepreneurial activities. Despite efforts to embrace their ‘third mission’, universities still demonstrate great heterogeneity in terms of their involvement in academic entrepreneurship. This papers adopts an institutional perspective to understand how organizational characteristics affect research scientists’ entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, we study the impact of university culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions, including intentions to spin off a company, to engage in patenting or licensing and to interact with industry through contract research or consulting. Using a sample of 437 research scientists from Swedish and German universities, our results reveal that the extent to which universities articulate entrepreneurship as a fundamental element of their mission fosters research scientists’ intentions to engage in spin-off creation and intellectual property rights, but not industry-science interaction. Furthermore, the presence of university role models positively affects research scientists’ propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities, both directly and indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Finally, research scientists working at universities which explicitly reward people for ‘third mission’ related output show higher levels of spin-off and patenting or licensing intentions. This study has implications for both academics and practitioners, including university managers and policy makers.

Figures

Figure 1: Theoretical model

Table 2: OLS regression model coefficients (standard errors in parentheses)

Figure 2: Diagram of the mediation effect

Full text

City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Huyghe, A. and Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture
and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 40(1), pp. 138-160. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9333-3
This is the accepted version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published
version.
Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/18793/
Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9333-3
Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City,
University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral
Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from
City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.
Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study,
educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or
charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are
credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page
and the content is not changed in any way.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk
City Research Online

THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE ON
ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS AMONG RESEARCH SCIENTISTS
Annelore Huyghe
University of Ghent
Tweekerkenstraat 2
9000 Gent, Belgium
E-mail: annelore.huyghe@ugent.be
Tel: +32 9 264 35 37
Fax: +32 9 264 78 88
&
Mirjam Knockaert
University of Ghent
Tweekerkenstraat 2
9000 Gent, Belgium
and University of Oslo
Centre for Entrepreneurship
Norway
E-mail: mirjam.knockaert@ugent.be
Tel: +32 9 264 34 59
Fax: +32 9 264 78 88

2
THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE ON
ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS AMONG RESEARCH SCIENTISTS
ABSTRACT
Over the past decades, universities have increasingly become involved in entrepreneurial activities. Despite
efforts to embrace their ‘third mission’, universities still demonstrate great heterogeneity in terms of their
involvement in academic entrepreneurship. This papers adopts an institutional perspective to understand
how organizational characteristics affect research scientists’ entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, we
study the impact of university culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions, including intentions to spin
off a company, to engage in patenting or licensing and to interact with industry through contract research or
consulting. Using a sample of 437 research scientists from Swedish and German universities, our results
reveal that the extent to which universities articulate entrepreneurship as a fundamental element of their
mission fosters research scientists’ intentions to engage in spin-off creation and intellectual property rights,
but not industry-science interaction. Furthermore, the presence of university role models positively affects
research scientists’ propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities, both directly and indirectly through
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Finally, research scientists working at universities which explicitly reward
people for ‘third mission’ related output show higher levels of spin-off and patenting or licensing intentions.
This study has implications for both academics and practitioners, including university managers and policy
makers.
Keywords Entrepreneurial intentions – Academic entrepreneurship - Organizational culture –
Organizational climate – Institutional theory
JEL Classification L26 - M13 - O32

3
1. INTRODUCTION
Universities do not only engage in research and teaching, but are increasingly active in the
commercialization of research results, or their so-called ‘third mission’ related to entrepreneurship and
economic development (Etzkowitz 2003; Rasmussen et al. 2006). This entrepreneurial tendency is inspired
by decreasing university budgets and pressure from policy makers who view the commercialization of
research as a key driver of national competitiveness (Ambos et al. 2008). ‘Third stream’ entrepreneurial
activities go beyond the traditional, scientific dissemination mechanisms, such as publications (Van Looy
et al. 2011), and include university spin-offs, patenting and licensing activities, contract research and
consulting (Abreu and Grinevich 2013; Wright et al. 2008).
As a result of universities’ growing interest to fulfill their ‘third mission’, the academic literature has devoted
considerable attention to academic entrepreneurship. We refer to Rothaermel et al. (2007), Markman et al.
(2008) and Djokovic and Souitaris (2008) for excellent reviews of the literature. In summary, the academic
entrepreneurship literature includes studies at macro-level (studying the role of government and industry),
meso-level (focusing on the university and the technology transfer office) and micro-level (studying firms
and individual entrepreneurs) (Djokovic and Souitaris 2008). Only recently, scholars have started to explore
research scientists’ entrepreneurial intentions (e.g., Mosey et al. 2012; Prodan and Drnovsek 2010).
Entrepreneurial intentions are considered the single best predictor of entrepreneurial behavior (Bird 1988;
Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) and have been widely studied as outcome variable in diverse contexts (Krueger
et al. 2000; Souitaris et al. 2007).
Studying entrepreneurial intentions in an academic context is important given the presence of
entrepreneurial potential in scientific knowledge (Obschonka et al. 2012). Academic research has been a
crucial ingredient for the development of new products and processes (Mansfield 1988) and about 70% of
inventions require further involvement by the research scientist in order to be successfully commercialized
(Jensen and Thursby 2001). Academic entrepreneurship provides a critical contribution of research
scientists to the national economy and society (Ping 1980) and is often considered crucial for competitive

4
advantage (OECD 2003). Nevertheless, it is recognized that commercializing research results is difficult.
At the heart of the problem is the inherent tension between academic and commercial demands (Hackett
2001; West 2008). Universities have tried to overcome this tension in a number of ways, for instance, by
establishing technology transfer offices (TTOs) (Siegel et al. 2007). Consequently, it may be valuable for
resource-constraint boundary spanners (such as TTOs) to identify those research scientists who are most
likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities in order to focus their attention on a specific target group. While
analyzing the drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in academia is relevant and has recently received
scholarly attention, this paper is motivated by two important gaps in the academic entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intention literatures.
First, the notion of academic entrepreneurship has so far been used in a relatively narrow understanding
(Abreu and Grinewich 2013; Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000; Link et al. 2007). Prior research has tended
to equate commercialization of academic research to the creation of university spin-offs, defined as new
ventures initiated within a university setting and based on technology derived from university research
(Rasmussen and Borch 2010). While spin-offs represent a significant commercialization avenue for
universities, other types of academic entrepreneurship must also be taken into consideration (Jain et al. 2009;
Link et al. 2007). Specifically, following Abreu and Grinevich (2013), we define academic entrepreneurship
as any activity that occurs beyond the traditional roles of teaching and research, which is innovative and
comprises an element of risk, and may lead to financial rewards for the individual or the institution. In their
seminal work, Louis et al. (1989, p. 110) adopt a similar broad definition and refer to academic
entrepreneurship as “the attempt to increase individual or institutional profit, influence, or prestige through
the development and marketing of research ideas or research-based projects”. Along the same lines, Klofsten
and Jones-Evans (2000) conceptualize academic entrepreneurship as all commercialization activities outside
of the regular university duties of basic research and teaching, and Jain et al. (2009) denote that any form of
technology transfer which has some commercial benefit can be defined as academic entrepreneurship.
Accordingly, consistent with the classifications by Wright et al. (2008) and Abreu and Grinevich (2013),

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists" ?

This papers adopts an institutional perspective to understand how organizational characteristics affect research scientists ’ entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, the authors study the impact of university culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions, including intentions to spin off a company, to engage in patenting or licensing and to interact with industry through contract research or consulting. This study has implications for both academics and practitioners, including university managers and policy makers. Furthermore, the presence of university role models positively affects research scientists ’ propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities, both directly and indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. 

Q2. What are the main factors that influence the entrepreneurial intentions of research scientists?

the authors show that elements of organizational culture, namely university mission and the presence of role models,24just as organizational climate, including the extent to which the university reward system values entrepreneurial activities, have an important effect on research scientists’ entrepreneurial intentions. 

Q3. What is the role of social identity in determining entrepreneurial intentions?

Goethner et al. (2012) showed that attitudes and perceived control were key determinants of entrepreneurial intentions in an academic context, whereas Obschonka et al. (2012) identified social identity as a central factor in explaining entrepreneurial intentions. 

Q4. What is the relationship between organizational culture and entrepreneurial intentions?

organizational culture, acting through institutional belief systems and norms, can be a very effective means of directing the attitude and behavior of organizational members towards entrepreneurial activities. 

Q5. What is the effect of university role models on research scientists’ entrepreneurial intentions?

the presence of university role models positively affects research scientists’ propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities, both directly and indirectly through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. 

Q6. What is the role of institutions in shaping actors’ goals and beliefs?

Institutions are instrumental in shaping actors’ goals and beliefs (Scott 1987) and in turn, affect motivational forces and behaviors (De Long and Fahey 2000; Szulanski 1996). 

Q7. What is the impact of organizational culture on research scientists’ intentions?

given that organizational culture may exist for a whole organization but also simultaneously in the form of subcultures (De Long and Fahey 2000; Schneider et al. 2013), a strong entrepreneurial spirit at the institutional level without support from local levels might have a less effective impact on research scientists’ entrepreneurial intentions. 

Q8. What is the importance of academic entrepreneurship in the mission of a university?

the authors argue that the more universities highlight academic entrepreneurship as a fundamental part of their mission, the greater research scientists’ intentions to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. 

Q9. What could be done to increase the level of entrepreneurship in universities?

university management could ensure that role models make public appearances more frequently and as such, focus research scientists’ attention on academic entrepreneurship as an ongoing and accepted organizational practice.