Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1248

Research has examined the process of “entrepreneurial migration,” whereby employees from successful industry incumbents move to new ventures. This phenomenon has been linked to direct benefits to entrepreneurial firms, offering valuable knowledge and routines obtained by employees during their tenure at incumbent firms. We propose a theoretical framework in which shared experience—a common background in beneficial knowledge management practices—creates a “cohort effect,” facilitating direct ties and innovation benefits to new ventures receiving inventors from the same incumbent firms. Analyzing longitudinal data on inventor migration to 658 new biotech ventures tracked from 1990 to 2013, we find shared migration ties increase knowledge and market overlap between firms, enhancing their likelihood of direct engagement through alliances and employee hiring as well as the quality of knowledge they develop. Our core theoretical contribution is the identification of a migration cohort effect, in which inventors who share contemporaneous experiences at incumbent firms and migrate to new ventures create unique relationships between those ventures. Where prior research on spawning and migration has focused primarily on the direct benefit of human capital transfer from incumbents to new ventures, we explore the broader network implications of similarities and interactions between firms receiving this human capital.

REFERENCES

  • Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 501–522.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425–455. Google Scholar
  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 197–220. Google Scholar
  • Aime, F., Johnson, S., Ridge, J. W., & Hill, A. D. 2010. The routine may be stable but the advantage is not: Competitive implications of key employee mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 75–87. Google Scholar
  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. 2001. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25: 107–136. Google Scholar
  • Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., & Pennings, J. M. 1996. Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 151–166. Google Scholar
  • Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. 2001. Labor pains: Change in organizational models and employee turnover in young, high-tech firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 960–1012. Google Scholar
  • Basu, S., Sahaym, A., Howard, M. D., & Boeker, W. 2015. Parent inheritance, founder expertise, and venture strategy: Determinants of new venture knowledge impact. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 322–337. Google Scholar
  • Beckman, C. M. 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 741–758.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Beckman, C. M., Burton, M. D., & O’Reilly, C. 2007. Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 147–173. Google Scholar
  • Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Phillips, D. J. 2004. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15: 259–275. Google Scholar
  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. 2011. The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40: 81–93. Google Scholar
  • Berry, H. 2015. Knowledge inheritance in global industries: The impact of parent firm knowledge on the performance of foreign subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1438–1458.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Boeker, W. 1989. Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 489–515.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Boeker, W. 1997. Executive migration and strategic change: The effect of top manager movement on product-market entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 213–236. Google Scholar
  • Boivie, S., Graffin, S. D., Oliver, A. G., & Withers, M. C. 2016. Come aboard! Exploring the effects of directorships in the executive labor market. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1681–1706.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bower, D. J. 2003. Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm. R&D Management, 33: 97–106. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 1983. Corporate profits and cooptation: Networks of market constraints and directorate ties in the American economy. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 349–399. Google Scholar
  • Campbell, B. A., Ganco, M., Franco, A. M., & Agarwal, R. 2012. Who leaves, where to, and why worry? Employee mobility, entrepreneurship and effects on source firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 65–87. Google Scholar
  • Campbell, B. A., Saxton, B. M., & Banerjee, P. M. 2014. Resetting the shot clock: The effect of comobility on human capital. Journal of Management, 40: 531–556. Google Scholar
  • Carnahan, S., & Somaya, D. 2013. Alumni effects and relational advantage: The impact on outsourcing when a buyer hires employees from a supplier’s competitors. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1578–1600.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 167–199. Google Scholar
  • Castilla, E. J. 2005. Social networks and employee performance in a call center. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1243–1283. Google Scholar
  • Chatterji, A. K. 2009. Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 185–206. Google Scholar
  • Chen, G. 2015. Initial compensation of new CEOs hired in turnaround situations. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 1895–1917. Google Scholar
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152. Google Scholar
  • Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. 2010. Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The reverse transfer of knowledge through mobility ties. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 159–181. Google Scholar
  • Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56: 159–201. Google Scholar
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160. Google Scholar
  • Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. 2010. Social capital for hire? Mobility of technical professionals and firm influence in wireless standards committees. Organization Science, 21: 677–695. Google Scholar
  • Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11: 147–162. Google Scholar
  • Drori, I., Ellis, S., & Shapira, Z. 2013. The evolution of a new industry: A genealogical approach. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Eckardt, R., Skaggs, B., & Lepak, D. 2017. An examination of the firm-level performance impact of cluster hiring in knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 919–944. Google Scholar
  • Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2013. Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Research Policy, 42: 128–138. Google Scholar
  • Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47: 117–132. Google Scholar
  • Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 443–475. Google Scholar
  • Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. 1998. Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 1193–1201. Google Scholar
  • Gardner, T. M. 2005. Interfirm competition for human resources: Evidence from the software industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 237–256.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gompers, P., Lerner, J., & Scharfstein, D. 2005. Entrepreneurial spawning: Public corporations and the genesis of new ventures, 1986 to 1999. Journal of Finance, 60: 577–614. Google Scholar
  • Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 109–122. Google Scholar
  • Groysberg, B., Lee, L.-E., & Nanda, A. 2008. Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance. Management Science, 54: 1213–1230. Google Scholar
  • Gulati, R. 1995. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 619–652. Google Scholar
  • Gulati, R., Lavie, D., & Singh, H. 2009. The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1213–1233. Google Scholar
  • Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. 2007. Different knowledge, different benefits: Toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1133–1153. Google Scholar
  • Hand, J. R. 2007. Determinants of the round-to-round returns to pre-IPO venture capital investments in U.S. biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 1–28. Google Scholar
  • Hedlund, G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N‐form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2): 73–90. Google Scholar
  • Hess, A. M., & Rothaermel, F. T. 2011. When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 895–909. Google Scholar
  • Hilbe, J. M. 2007. Negative binomial regression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Hoetker, G., & Agarwal, R. 2007. Death hurts, but it isn’t fatal: The postexit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 446–467.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. 2009. Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55: 85–100. Google Scholar
  • Inkpen, A. C., & Dinur, A. 1998. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 9: 454–468. Google Scholar
  • Kapoor, R., & Klueter, T. 2015. Decoding the adaptability–rigidity puzzle: Evidence from pharmaceutical incumbents’ pursuit of gene therapy and monoclonal antibodies. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1180–1207.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1183–1194.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kim, J. Y., Howard, M., Cox Pahnke, E., & Boeker, W. 2016. Understanding network formation in strategy research: Exponential random graph models. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 22–44. Google Scholar
  • King, G., & Zeng, L. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9: 137–163. Google Scholar
  • Klepper, S. 2001. Employee startups in high‐tech industries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 639–674. Google Scholar
  • Klepper, S. 2007. Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capital of the U.S. automobile industry. Management Science, 53: 616–631. Google Scholar
  • Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. 2005. Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51: 1291–1306. Google Scholar
  • Kotha, R., Zheng, Y., & George, G. 2011. Entry into new niches: The effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1011–1024. Google Scholar
  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461–477. Google Scholar
  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. 2004. Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal (London), 114: 441–465. Google Scholar
  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 131–150. Google Scholar
  • Lavie, D. 2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1187–1212. Google Scholar
  • Lavie, D., Haunschild, P. R., & Khanna, P. 2012. Organizational differences, relational mechanisms, and alliance performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1453–1479. Google Scholar
  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. 1981. A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2: 307–333. Google Scholar
  • Li, G.-C., Lai, R., D’Amour, A., Doolin, D. M., Sun, Y., Torvik, V. I., Yu, A. Z., & Fleming, L. 2014. Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010). Research Policy, 43: 941–955. Google Scholar
  • Madhavan, R., Gnyawali, D. R., & He, J. 2004. Two's company, three's a crowd? Triads in cooperative-competitive networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 918–927.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. 2010. Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 602–628. Google Scholar
  • Marx, M., Strumsky, D., & Fleming, L. 2009. Mobility, skills, and the Michigan non-compete experiment. Management Science, 55: 875–889. Google Scholar
  • Mawdsley, J. K., & Somaya, D. 2016. Employee mobility and organizational outcomes: An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Management, 42: 85–113. Google Scholar
  • McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  • Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. 2001. The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
  • Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. 2007. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 308–326. Google Scholar
  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. In E. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and social capital: 119–157. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar
  • Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27: 367–377. Google Scholar
  • Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14–37. Google Scholar
  • Ofek, E., & Sarvary, M. 2001. Leveraging the customer base: Creating competitive advantage through knowledge management. Management Science, 47: 1441–1456. Google Scholar
  • Olsen, A. Ø., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. 2016. Coordinated exploration for grand challenges: The role of advocacy groups in search consortia. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 2232–2255.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Oxley, J. E., & Sampson, R. C. 2004. The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 723–749. Google Scholar
  • Ozmel, U., Reuer, J. J., & Gulati, R. 2013. Signals across multiple networks: How venture capital and alliance networks affect interorganizational collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 852–866.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pfeffer, J. S., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  • Phillips, D. J. 2002. A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The parent–progeny transfer among Silicon Valley law firms, 1946–1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 474–506. Google Scholar
  • Porter, M. E., & Clark, G. L. 2000. Locations, clusters, and company strategy. In G. L. ClarkM. P. FeldmanM. S. GertlerK. Williams (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic geography: 253–274. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116–145. Google Scholar
  • Rao, H., & Drazin, R. 2002. Overcoming resource constraints on product innovation by recruiting talent from rivals: A study of the mutual fund industry, 1986–1994. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 491–507.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Voros, A., & Preciado, P. 2015. Manual for SIENA version 4.0 (February 23, 2016). Retrieved from http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/siena/ Google Scholar
  • Rogers, E. M. 2010. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Google Scholar
  • Rogers, E. M., & Larsen, J. K. 1984. Silicon Valley fever: Growth of high-technology culture. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  • Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49: 751–766. Google Scholar
  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287–306. Google Scholar
  • Sahaym, A., Howard, M. D., Basu, S., & Boeker, W. 2016. The parent’s legacy: Firm founders and technological choice. Journal of Business Research, 69: 2624–2633. Google Scholar
  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 63–76. Google Scholar
  • Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53: 1113–1126. Google Scholar
  • Shane, S., & Cable, D. 2002. Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48: 364–381. Google Scholar
  • Shaver, J. M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44: 571–585. Google Scholar
  • Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18: 20–38. Google Scholar
  • Singh, J., & Agrawal, A. 2011. Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management Science, 57: 129–150. Google Scholar
  • Sjöstrand, S.-E. 1992. On the rationale behind “irrational” institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 26: 1007–1040. Google Scholar
  • Snijders, T. A. B. 2005. Models for longitudinal network data. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis: 215–247. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. 2008. Manual for Siena version 3.2 ICS, University of Groningen, Groningen; Department of Statistics. Oxford, U.K.: University of Oxford. Google Scholar
  • Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. 2010. Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32: 44–60. Google Scholar
  • Somaya, D., Williamson, I. O., & Lorinkova, N. 2008. Gone but not lost: The different performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators versus competitors. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 936–953.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. 2003. Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science, 49: 351–365. Google Scholar
  • Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. 2001. Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 1546–1588. Google Scholar
  • Spender, J. C. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 45–62. Google Scholar
  • Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Organizations and social structure. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 142–193. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Google Scholar
  • Stuart, T. E. 1998. Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 668–698. Google Scholar
  • Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. 2003. Liquidity events and the geographic distribution of entrepreneurial activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 175–201. Google Scholar
  • Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  • Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 996–1004.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674–698. Google Scholar
  • Uzzi, B., & Lancaster, R. 2003. Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49: 383–399. Google Scholar
  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. 2010. Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21: 931–951. Google Scholar
  • Wasserman, S., & Pattison, P. 1996. Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs and p*. Psychometrika, 61: 401–425. Google Scholar
  • Weisman, R. 2015. How Genzyme became a source of biotech executives. Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/07/11/genzyme-family-tree-how-henri-termeer-spawned-network-genzyme-alums-leading-dozens-biotechs-from-cambridge-stockholm/Dkoz2zcLlNz3N6OZbOvN4L/story.html. Accessed November 20, 2016. Google Scholar
  • Wezel, F. C., Cattani, G., & Pennings, J. M. 2006. Competitive implications of interfirm mobility. Organization Science, 17: 691–709. Google Scholar
  • Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  • Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. 2008. Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 333–362. Google Scholar
  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27: 185–203.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1090–1102. Google Scholar