University research is where innovative technological breakthroughs originate. As a result, a number of proactive universities provide substantial resources and support to their academic researchers to help increase the number of all ventures. However, despite receiving this extensive support and having access to the best scientific knowledge, many academic entrepreneurs are not as successful as their corporate counterparts. While this sounds like a contradiction, there is enough empirical evidence explaining just why this could be happening.
With this in mind, Professor Alex Coad from the Waseda Business School, Waseda University, Japan, critically analyzes the differences between Corporate Startup Entrepreneurs (CSEs) and University Startup Entrepreneurs (USEs) to answer the question as to why CSEs outperform USEs. “My analysis is part literature review, and part ‘appreciative theorizing,’ which comes from applying rigorous theoretical frameworks from previous literature,” explains Coad. Accordingly, his comparison of the two entrepreneurship types relies on different theories and perspectives about motivations, knowledge base and search routines, culture, and personal identity, among others. The results of this extensive study were published online in The Journal of Technology Transfer on June 17, 2025.
According to the study, USEs refer to faculty, staff, or students from universities and public research institutes who innovate in an academic research context and subsequently found a firm based on that research. Similarly, CSEs refer to those who launch their businesses after leaving their previous employment in a private firm and utilize the knowledge gained from it.
One of the main characteristic differences between USEs and CSEs is their entrepreneurial motivation that influences their paths and outcomes. While USEs are driven by monetary rewards, their main motivation often comes from undertaking intellectually stimulating research that might lead to more academic achievements. University jobs often have plenty of autonomy, hence USEs often steer towards being opportunity entrepreneurs because they will not leave academia to start a firm for want of autonomy. On the other hand, CSEs may be driven by the desire to escape employment frustrations in the pursuit of workplace autonomy. This can lead to a focus on lifestyle motivations (autonomy, flexible working style, etc.) for entrepreneurship.
Cultural orientation is another factor that shapes entrepreneurial behavior. USEs tend to be more communitarian or missionary, wherein they focus more on creating societal impact and being valued in the community, rather than their financial performance. Whereas, CSEs often adopt a Darwinian approach, with an emphasis on commercial success and gaining a competitive edge.
Furthermore, while USEs possess valuable scientific knowledge, they often lack commercial acumen. They mostly rely on codified knowledge found in published resources, and their specialized knowledge is not applicable across different industries. In contrast, CSEs possess tacit business knowledge learned through their experiences, with specialized understanding of market opportunities and industry networks that are transferable across sectors.
Another driving factor is USEs’ notion of identity. The transition from an academic identity to a profit-seeking, entrepreneurial identity is complicated and challenging for USEs, often becoming psychologically inhibiting and resulting in lower success rates. Finally, USEs tend to prefer technical roles, while shirking from managerial and regulatory tasks, and connecting with customers, which can create an organizational power imbalance. Even their problem-solving approach is more analytical as opposed to the practical approach taken by CSEs.
Although these inherent traits place USEs at a disadvantage against CSEs, for example, regarding knowledge of customer needs, Coad believes that they can be overcome with the right guidance and policy mechanisms. “Mentoring and peer networks can help USEs smoothly transition and adapt to their entrepreneurial role. Support institutions, like incubators and accelerators, can encourage them to adopt lean startup principles to test the market. After all, understanding user needs is not ‘rocket science,’ but early-stage activities that are within the grasp of USEs, if only they are willing,” Coad concludes.
***
Reference
Author: Alex Coad
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-025-10228-4
Affiliation: Waseda Business School, Waseda University
About Waseda University
Located in the heart of Tokyo, Waseda University is a leading private research university that has long been dedicated to academic excellence, innovative research, and civic engagement at both the local and global levels since 1882. The University has produced many changemakers in its history, including eight prime ministers and many leaders in business, science and technology, literature, sports, and film. Waseda has strong collaborations with overseas research institutions and is committed to advancing cutting-edge research and developing leaders who can contribute to the resolution of complex, global social issues. The University has set a target of achieving a zero-carbon campus by 2032, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2015.
To learn more about Waseda University, visit https://www.waseda.jp/top/en
About Professor Alex Coad
Dr. Alex Coad is a Professor at Waseda Business School, Waseda University, Japan. He is interested in the areas of firm growth, firm performance, entrepreneurship, and innovation policy. He has published about 100 articles in international peer-reviewed journals, over 14 thousand citations and an H-index of over 50. He is an Editor at Research Policy and Small Business Economics and an Associate Editor at Industrial and Corporate Change. Prof. Coad has previously held academic positions at the Max Planck Institute, Aalborg University, University of Sussex, and CENTRUM Graduate Business School, and was an Economic Analyst at the European Commission. He received the 2016 Nelson Prize at the University of California, Berkeley.
END