Technology Entrepreneurs’ Human Capital and Its Effects on Innovation Radicalness

By Matthew R. Marvel, G. Lumpkin. 2007

650 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Business and International Management, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db1f67ae44d14ad83c80276f02d3be745f75759b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Mike Wright
2. Igor Filatotchev
3. Xiaohui Liu
4. Jiangyong Lu
5. Jintong Tang
6. Robert A. Baron
7. P. Ganotakis
8. J. Love

In Business and International Management

1. Jintong Tang
2. Robert A. Baron
3. A. Yu
4. Mike Wright
5. J. Love
6. Y. Wu
7. Gjalt de Jong
8. Y. Wang

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. Mike Wright
2. Jintong Tang
3. Robert A. Baron
4. A. Yu
5. Igor Filatotchev
6. P. Ganotakis
7. J. Love
8. Xiaohui Liu

Citations in the corpus

• Which Entrepreneurs Bribe and what do they Get from It? Exploratory Evidence from Vietnam (2012, positive): “In line with human capital theory (Marvel & Lumpkin, 2007), we suggest that welleducated entrepreneurs would see and capture bribery opportunities better than lesseducated entrepreneurs because of their superior cognitive skills.”
• Does Founders' Human Capital Matter for Innovation? Evidence from Japanese Start‐ups (2015, positive): “A related paper is Marvel and Lumpkin (2007), which studied the effects of technology entrepreneurs’ human capital on innovation radicalness using a sample of 145 technology entrepreneurs operating within university-affiliated incubators.”
• Entrepreneurial alertness: Exploring its psychological antecedents and effects on firm outcomes (2021, positive): “A multitude of research has examined the role of entrepreneurs’ human capital such as prior knowledge and experience in innovation (Gruber et al., 2013; Marvel, 2013; Marvel et al., 2020; Tang & Murphy, 2012) with a particular focus on radical innovation (Marvel & Lumpkin, 2007).”
• Born to be alive? The survival of innovative and non-innovative French micro-start-ups (2014, neutral): “However this result needs to be qualified by the one found by Marvel & Lumpkin (2007): in innovative companies the higher the education level is the better the prognosis for survival is.”
• Founders’ human capital and the performance of UK new technology based firms (2012, positive): “Finally, experience in similar markets can benefit a firm through the existence of past relationships with suppliers/customers and a familiarity with more appropriate sales techniques and capital requirements (which can differ from sector to sector) ( Marvel and Lumpkin 2007 ).”
• Knowledge spillovers through human mobility across national borders: Evidence from Zhongguancun Science Park in China (2011, positive): “Supporting these arguments, Marvel and Lumpkin (2007) find for a sample of firms in university-based incubators that formal education and prior knowledge of technology were the most important factors associated with the innovativeness of products and services developed by technology-based new…”
• Determinants of innovativeness in SMEs: disentangling core innovation and technology adoption capabilities (2017, neutral): “7 level of studies is one of the personal characteristics which tend to appear in the literature linked to innovative success (Koellinger, 2008; Marvel and Lumpkin, 2007) and economic performances in small firms (Kangasharju and Pekkala, 2002; Robinson and Sexton, 1994).”