IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v8y2018i2p2158244018779106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Entrepreneurial Team Decisions: Measuring Team Members’ Influences With The Metricized Limit Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ronny Baierl

Abstract

Contextualizing research on entrepreneurial team decisions (ETDs) is closely related to elaborating the influence of several team members (TMs) on group decisions. Therefore, this study shows how the metricized limit conjoint analysis (MLCA) provides a method to more accurately determine TMs’ influences. For doing so, this study introduces a new approach as a suitable alternative to directly ask for TMs’ influences by utilizing a detailed step-by-step instruction for further research. Moreover, this study theoretically underlines the usability and preferableness of this new approach and validates it with a simulation of 45,000 assessments nested within 5,000 artificial respondents. The results indicate a diverse application potential for researching ETDs in several contexts. In addition, an illustrative example shows how this conjoint approach can be of value in subsequent research projects. Therefore, the MLCA is of increased interest for both researchers and practitioners when focusing on ETDs in several contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronny Baierl, 2018. "Understanding Entrepreneurial Team Decisions: Measuring Team Members’ Influences With The Metricized Limit Conjoint Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:2:p:2158244018779106
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244018779106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018779106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244018779106?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Franke, Nikolaus & Hippel, Eric von, 2003. "Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1199-1215, July.
    3. Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Individual or team decision-making--Causes and consequences of self-selection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 259-270, August.
    4. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    5. Arnaud De Bruyn & John C. Liechty & Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh & Gary L. Lilien, 2008. "Offering Online Recommendations with Minimum Customer Input Through Conjoint-Based Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 443-460, 05-06.
    6. Bao, Yeqing & Fern, Edward F. & Sheng, Shibin, 2007. "Parental style and adolescent influence in family consumption decisions: An integrative approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 672-680, July.
    7. Franke, Nikolaus & Gruber, Marc & Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "What you are is what you like--similarity biases in venture capitalists' evaluations of start-up teams," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 802-826, November.
    8. Srivastava, Abhishek & Lee, Hun, 2005. "Predicting order and timing of new product moves: the role of top management in corporate entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 459-481, July.
    9. Darmon, Rene Y. & Rouzies, Dominique, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 67-81, September.
    10. Stevenson, Howard H. & Muzyka, Daniel F. & Timmons, Jeffry A., 1987. "Venture capital in transition: A Monte-Carlo simulation of changes in investment patterns," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 103-121.
    11. Riquelme, Hernan & Rickards, Tudor, 1992. "Hybrid conjoint analysis: An estimation probe in new venture decisions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 505-518, November.
    12. Amason, Allen C. & Shrader, Rodney C. & Tompson, George H., 2006. "Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 125-148, January.
    13. Dimitratos, Pavlos & Jones, Marian V., 2005. "Future directions for international entrepreneurship research," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 119-128, April.
    14. Smith, Anne & Houghton, Susan M. & Hood, Jacqueline N. & Ryman, Joel A., 2006. "Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 622-629, May.
    15. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    16. Flurry, L. A. & Burns, Alvin C., 2005. "Children's influence in purchase decisions: a social power theory approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(5), pages 593-601, May.
    17. Oppewal, Harmen & Louviere, Jordan J. & Timmermans, Harry J. P., 2000. "Modifying Conjoint Methods to Model Managers' Reactions to Business Environmental Trends: An Application to Modeling Retailer Reactions to Sales Trends," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 245-257, December.
    18. DeTienne, Dawn R. & Shepherd, Dean A. & De Castro, Julio O., 2008. "The fallacy of "only the strong survive": The effects of extrinsic motivation on the persistence decisions for under-performing firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 528-546, September.
    19. Bennett, Peter D & Moore, Noreen Klein, 1981. "Consumers' Preferences for Alternative Energy Conservation Policies: A Trade-Off Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(3), pages 313-321, December.
    20. Fernando Muñoz-Bullon & Maria J. Sanchez-Bueno & Antonio Vos-Saz, 2015. "Startup team contributions and new firm creation: the role of founding team experience," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1-2), pages 80-105, January.
    21. L. Jeff Hong & Guangwu Liu, 2009. "Simulating Sensitivities of Conditional Value at Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 281-293, February.
    22. Leon Schjoedt & Erik Monsen & Allison Pearson & Tim Barnett & James J. Chrisman, 2013. "New Venture and Family Business Teams: Understanding Team Formation, Composition, Behaviors, and Performance," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(1), pages 1-15, January.
    23. Dominique Rouzies & René Y. Darmon, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Post-Print hal-00537590, HAL.
    24. Garcia, Rosanna & Rummel, Paul & Hauser, John, 2007. "Validating agent-based marketing models through conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 848-857, August.
    25. Kay Blaufus & Renate Ortlieb, 2009. "Is Simple Better? A Conjoint Analysis of the Effects of Tax Complexity on Employee Preferences Concerning Company Pension Plans," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 61(1), pages 60-83, January.
    26. Vag, Andras, 2007. "Simulating changing consumer preferences: A dynamic conjoint model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 904-911, August.
    27. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    28. Ozer, Muammer, 2007. "Reducing the demand uncertainties at the fuzzy-front-end of developing new online services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1372-1387, November.
    29. Christian Schade, 2005. "Dynamics, Experimental Economics, and Entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 409-431, October.
    30. Ulgado, Francis M. & Lee, Moonkyu, 2004. "The effects of nationality differences on manufacturing location in the US: a conjoint analysis approach," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 503-522, August.
    31. G. Page West III, 2007. "Collective Cognition: When Entrepreneurial Teams, Not Individuals, Make Decisions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(1), pages 77-102, January.
    32. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    33. Talaulicar, Till & Grundei, Jens & Werder, Axel v., 2005. "Strategic decision making in start-ups: the effect of top management team organization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 519-541, July.
    34. Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
    35. William B. Gartner & Kelly G. Shaver & Elizabeth Gatewood & Jerome A. Katz, 1994. "Finding the Entrepreneur in Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 18(3), pages 5-9, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    2. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    3. Linlin Jin & Kristen Madison & Nils D. Kraiczy & Franz W. Kellermanns & T. Russell Crook & Jing Xi, 2017. "Entrepreneurial Team Composition Characteristics and New Venture Performance: A Meta–Analysis," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(5), pages 743-771, September.
    4. Dong, Songting & Ding, Min & Huber, Joel, 2010. "A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-32.
    5. Breugst, Nicola & Patzelt, Holger & Rathgeber, Philipp, 2015. "How should we divide the pie? Equity distribution and its impact on entrepreneurial teams," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-94.
    6. Ye Dai & Gukdo Byun & Fangsheng Ding, 2019. "The Direct and Indirect Impact of Gender Diversity in New Venture Teams on Innovation Performance," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(3), pages 505-528, May.
    7. Petty, Jeffrey S. & Gruber, Marc, 2011. ""In pursuit of the real deal": A longitudinal study of VC decision making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 172-188, March.
    8. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Xie, Xiao-Yun & Feng, Wen & Hu, Qiongjing, 2020. "Does new venture team power hierarchy enhance or impair new venture performance? A contingency perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(6).
    10. Dawson, Alexandra, 2011. "Private equity investment decisions in family firms: The role of human resources and agency costs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 189-199, March.
    11. Stefanie Weniger & Svenja Jarchow, 2023. "Between benefit and risk: how entrepreneurs evaluate corporate investors," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(5), pages 783-816, July.
    12. Achleitner, Ann-Kristin & Lutz, Eva & Mayer, Judith & Spiess-Knafl, Wolfgang, 2011. "Disentangeling gut feeling: Assessing the integrity of social entrepreneurs," CEFS Working Paper Series 2011-03, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).
    13. JoAnne Yong–Kwan Lim & Lowell W. Busenitz & Laku Chidambaram, 2013. "New Venture Teams and the Quality of Business Opportunities Identified: Faultlines between Subgroups of Founders and Investors," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(1), pages 47-67, January.
    14. Elli Diakanastasi & Angeliki Karagiannaki & Katerina Pramatari, 2018. "Entrepreneurial Team Dynamics and New Venture Creation Process: An Exploratory Study Within a Start-Up Incubator," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, June.
    15. Park, Chan Su, 2004. "The robustness of hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis under alternative measurement scales," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1092-1097, October.
    16. Stefano Ciliberti & Simone Del Sarto & Angelo Frascarelli & Giulia Pastorelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Contracts to Govern the Transition towards Sustainable Production: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Analysis in the Durum Wheat Sector in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Lukas Kornher & Martin Schellhorn & Saskia Vetter, 2019. "Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Sielaff, Christian & Blaufus, Kay & Kiesewetter, Dirk & Weimann, Joachim, 2010. "The name game for contributions: Influence of labeling and earmarking on the perceived tax burden," Discussion Papers 2010/12, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    19. Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2015. "Harsh Evaluations of Entrepreneurs Who Fail: The Role of Sexual Orientation, Use of Environmentally Friendly Technologies, and Observers' Perspective Taking," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 253-284, March.
    20. Aguinis, Herman & Lawal, Sola O., 2012. "Conducting field experiments using eLancing's natural environment," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 493-505.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:2:p:2158244018779106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.