Investigating the process of entrepreneurial team member exits: a systematic review and future research directions

Abstract

Entrepreneurial teams are dynamic entities that frequently experience the exit of individual team members. Such entrepreneurial team member exits (ETMEs) entail serious consequences for the exiting individual, the remaining team, and the performance of the affected venture. While ETMEs are receiving increasing scholarly attention, the research landscape is still considerably fragmented. This is the first article to take stock, analyze, and discuss this crucial and emerging field of research by providing a systematic review of the literature on ETMEs. We identify central themes comprising of antecedents, routes, consequences, and the contextual embeddedness of ETMEs and integrate them into a comprehensive processual framework. Based on this framework, we contribute to the research on ETMEs by discussing the themes in the light of promising theoretical perspectives, introducing novel ideas, concepts, and approaches to enrich future avenues. Specifically, we propose to expand the concept of team heterogeneity to advance our understanding of antecedents as well as to investigate power relations and negotiation behavior within ETME routes. In addition, we offer ways to resolve the sometimes inconsistent findings in terms of venture consequences and present a fertile approach for a more in-depth cultural contextualization of the phenomenon.

Ambidextrous structures paving the way for disruptive business models: a conceptual framework

“…In line with previous studies (Cacciotti and Hayton 2015;Bouncken et al 2015;Gregori and Parastuty 2021), our literature review follows the systematic process recommended by Tranfield et al (2003) towards our research goal of understanding how ambidextrous structures enable incumbents to reduce these barriers to disruptive business models. Applying this transparent and systematic approach to reviewing relevant literature generates reliable, verifiable, and reproducible findings (Booth et al 2016;Aguinis et al 2018;Sageder et al 2018).…”

“…1). We used the Web of Science Core Collection (indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, and ESCI) and EBSCO Host Business Source Premier (Sageder et al 2018;Gregori and Parastuty 2021). Both databases offer access to reputable journals dedicated to the topic of disruptive innovation, such as the Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Management Studies, and Academy of Management Perspectives (Kawamoto and Spers 2019).…”

“…Since established companies are primarily struggling with disruptive innovation, we seek to provide an overview of ambidextrous structures that promote disruptive business models rather than other forms of innovative business models. The terms are then searched in the title, abstract, and keywords of studies (Sageder et al 2018;Gregori and Parastuty 2021). Moreover, we set the filters "peer-reviewed", "academic journals", "English language", and "business economics" as subject areas to ensure the quality of the sample and to further limit the scope to relevant academic studies (Bouncken et al 2015;Gregori and Parastuty 2021;Fernandes and Ferreira 2022).…”

“…The terms are then searched in the title, abstract, and keywords of studies (Sageder et al 2018;Gregori and Parastuty 2021). Moreover, we set the filters "peer-reviewed", "academic journals", "English language", and "business economics" as subject areas to ensure the quality of the sample and to further limit the scope to relevant academic studies (Bouncken et al 2015;Gregori and Parastuty 2021;Fernandes and Ferreira 2022). Following common practice (e.g., Petzold et al 2019;Mueller et al 2020), we additionally included articles from the leading practitioner-oriented journals MIT Sloan Management Review, California Management Review, and Harvard Business Review satisfying the above-mentioned inclusion criteria.…”

“…Third, we recognize that our sample may be limited, with potentially relevant research findings being disregarded due to our quality criterion of "peer-reviewed journal articles" for inclusion in our systematic literature review. Through the additional search strategy of including practitioneroriented articles as well as backward and forward reference searches, however, our study should comprehensively reflect extant knowledge on ambidextrous structures leveraging disruptive business models in established companies (Bouncken et al 2015;Gregori and Parastuty 2021). Last, which structure is appropriate for a company depends on a multitude of internal and external factors, such as the heterogeneity of the market (Khanagha et al 2018) or the "disruptiveness" of the new business model (Markides 2013), that were not investigated in this study.…”