This paper empirically examines the evaluations of 537 ventures in high-growth industries performed by 251 experienced entrepreneurs, investors, and executives. These experts evaluated ventures by reading succinct summaries of the ventures without meeting the founding teams, and their evaluations were not disclosed to the entrepreneurs. We find that experts can differentiate among early-stage ventures on grounds of quality beyond the explicit venture and entrepreneur characteristics contained in the written summaries. They can only do so effectively, however, for ventures in the hardware, energy, life sciences, and medical devices sectors; they cannot do so for ventures in the consumer products, consumer web and mobile, and enterprise software sectors. Our results highlight sector-specific heterogeneity in the information needed to effectively screen ventures, a finding that has implications for the design of optimal investment strategies. This paper was accepted by Gustavo Manso, finance.

We track high-growth ventures from the idea stage to commercialization and investigate the nature of the gender gap early in the venture lifecycle. Using data on 651 venture ideas that collectively attracted over $700 million in venture financing, we find a significant gender gap among ventures without documented intellectual assets at the earliest stage of founding but not among ventures that already possess intellectual assets. We also find a gender gap in entrepreneurs' readiness to commit to their venture ideas full-time. Conditional on such commitment, there are no significant differences in ventures' access to venture financing or rate of commercialization.

A central premise of research in the strategic management of innovation is that start-ups are able to leverage emerging technological trajectories as a source of competitive advantage. But, if the potential for a technology is given by the fundamental character of a given technological trajectory, then why does entrepreneurial strategy matter? Or, put another way, if the evolution of technology is largely shaped by the strategic choices entrepreneurs make, then why do technological trajectories exhibit systematic patterns such as the technology S-curve? Taking a choice-based perspective, this paper illuminates the choices confronting a start-up choosing their technology by resolving the paradox of the technology S-curve through a reformulation of the foundations of the technology S-curve. Specifically, we reconceptualize the technology S-curve not as a technological given but as an envelope of potential outcomes reflecting differing strategic choices by the entrepreneur in exploration versus exploitation. Taking this lens, we are able to clarify the role of technological uncertainty on start-up strategy, the impact of constraints on technological evolution, and how technology choice is shaped by the possibility of imitation. Our findings suggest that staged exploration may stall innovation as a result of the replacement effect, increasing the strategic importance of commitment.

No abstract

No abstract