Chapter 7
Building, Managing, and Motivating Great
Teams
Arthur A. Boni, PhD1, Gergana Todorova, PhD2 and Laurie R. Weingart, PhD3
1
John R. Thorne Distinguished Career Professor of Entrepreneurship, Emeritus, Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA, United States, 2Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, CA, United States, 3Richard M.
and Margaret S. Cyert Professor of Organizational Behavior and Theory, Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
United States
Chapter Outline
Fundamentals of Entrepreneurial Process Related to Teams
The Importance of Building And Maintaining an
Entrepreneurial Culture
Summary of “Lessons Learned” (Further Experiential
Perspective)
Key Questions to Ask When Building the Team—The Academic
Perspective
Building a Biotechnology Organization
This chapter focuses on the essentials of building and
growing effective, diverse, collaborative, team-based
organizations that are capable of creating both disruptive
and sustained innovations in the biotechnology industry.
Entrepreneurs and innovators, who found, build, and grow
knowledge-based organizations that are technologically
driven, must be market-focused. Although the technology
is very important for the solution and may in fact define
the company, it is the caliber and experience of the team
that will determine whether or not the company is suc-
cessful. Therefore it is critical for the entrepreneur to
focus on developing collaborative teams with diverse skill
sets and areas of expertise. We specifically focus on bio-
technology organizations, but our approach is pertinent to
most technology-driven businesses. The entrepreneurs
pursuing opportunities in the biotechnology and biomedi-
cal fields are faced with special constraints that must be
addressed by the leadership team and network partners.
Biotechnology organizations are characterized by long
industry life cycles and time to market. Moreover, they
are highly capital and risk intensive, are regulated by a
set of complex and changing government systems, and
are constrained in their profitability due to reimbursement
Biotechnology Entrepreneurship. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815585-1.00007-3
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
86 Finding and Hiring Good People 93
What Makes Teams Work, or not? 93
87 Understanding Factors That Motivate Teams 95
Framework for an Entrepreneurial Team Motivation Model 95
89 Summary and Conclusion 97
Acknowledgments 97
91 References 97
92
from third parties. These issues compound and confound
the entrepreneurial challenges of any start-up. In any
start-up organization, the founding team is challenged to
reduce risk—technology, market, team, and business
model. Due to this, we advocate building an interdisci-
plinary, collaborative team that can manage and balance
the science with the business issues, while including the
capacity to interact effectively with partners, investors,
and a multitude of service providers to successfully com-
mercialize and validate their business model.
Equally important are the following two issues that
are related to any knowledge-based, human-intensive
business. The first issue of importance is building and
growing an entrepreneurial culture. The second and
closely related issue is incorporating mechanisms to con-
tinually motivate the highly creative talent at the core of
the enterprise. We present a framework for motivation
that includes ownership, defined to include both equity
participation for potential capital gain, and also psycho-
logical ownership of the direction and future of the orga-
nization itself. The culture created and nurtured by the
founders and early employees and their investors evolves
organically and guides the company through the changes
85
86 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component
in team composition due to the diversity of challenges
that occur across the company life cycle. The entrance
and exodus of key personnel as the organization grows
through its life cycle are the challenges the leadership
team must address proactively.
In this chapter, we identify and discuss the principles
and best practices for building entrepreneurial companies
from two perspectives: (1) “experiential learning,” and (2)
“academic learning.” Our perspective thus blends real-
world lessons from building and growing early stage
companies but filtered through and framed by a more
scholarly approach based on case literature and research-
based studies.
This balanced “theory and practice” of building a bio-
technology company is framed to emphasize the entire com-
pany life cycle—start-up, development stage, clinical stage,
market entry, growth, and exit. We want to begin with a
description of the entrepreneurial process and note the impor-
tance of high-performance teams in building and growing the
organization. We want to stress that an effective organization
incorporates as a foundation, building and growing a culture
that encourages and rewards collaborative interdisciplinary
teams for their contributions to the success of the venture.
The principles outlined are applicable to “fully integrated
emerging and maturing companies” as well as to those orga-
nizations that employ “open-innovation” business models
that are businesses that rely on partnering for outsourcing
and developing new products and services, and for bringing
them to market. We want to outline, from an academic and
experiential perspective, those fundamental issues that must
be addressed when building teams such as tasks to be per-
formed, people/skills required, norms, and processes. We
also include a “lessons learned” summary based on inter-
views and experiences with numerous early stage teams and
their investors. This summary incorporates the principles that
guide team formation, management, and motivation. In par-
ticular, how do you find, hire, and motivate teams that are
effective or ineffective in the biopharmaceutical industry?
Fundamentals of Entrepreneurial Process
Related to Teams
Building an entrepreneurial team for a biotechnology
company incorporates a daunting set of challenges and
tasks. We frame the entrepreneurial process on the fol-
lowing three components (as described by Timmons [1]):
1. Identifying the opportunity and developing a strategy
capable of creating sustained and differentiated com-
petitive advantage.
2. Acquiring the resources needed to develop the oppor-
tunity, thereby developing, creating, and capturing
value in the marketplace, for example, financing and
partnerships for market access (channels) and cus-
tomer relations.
3. Building the team needed to exploit the opportunity.
In science-based companies, teams must include peo-
ple with expertise in science/technology, in business,
and in other related “tasks,” for example, product
development, laboratory and clinical testing, and intel-
lectual property (IP) development.
In addition, and most importantly, great leadership is
essential to continually balance the opportunity with the
resources and the team needed to exploit it. The entrepre-
neurial leadership team needs to evolve throughout the
entrepreneurial process, continuously and seamlessly as the
organization engages in the innovation process—inspira-
tion, ideation, and implementation—and evolves through
the company life cycle stages of start-up, development, clin-
ical testing, and market introduction/growth. Another essen-
tial responsibility of the leadership team is to create the
appropriate culture consistent with the vision and mantra
and to maintain that culture through growth and “turbu-
lence” expected during company development; for example,
both internal and external factors must be managed.
Entrepreneurial leadership should not be viewed as a
top-down vertical influence process but instead is seen to
be a horizontal influence process shared among team
members. Shared leadership is reflected by how much
leadership influence and initiative are displayed by indi-
vidual team members [2], and it is “an emergent and
dynamic team phenomenon whereby leadership roles and
influence are distributed among team members” [3]. In a
recent study of start-ups, involving 166 creators and man-
agers of new innovative businesses, Krieger showed that
only 12% of start-ups are run with just one person making
all of the strategic decisions, whereas in 72% of cases,
these decisions are made by two or three partners [4].
Thus most of the leadership decisions and functions are
often shared by entrepreneurial teams. Research demon-
strates that shared leadership enhances team performance,
and it is especially important for diverse entrepreneurial
teams that incorporate “associative thinking” as an impor-
tant component of the innovation culture. The distribution
of leadership responsibilities and influence among multi-
ple team members stimulates the sharing and elaboration
of diverse information among those with different exper-
tise and experiences (Fig. 7.1).
An important component of a strong leadership team
is the presence, guidance, and mentoring provided by
external parties such as advisors and the board of direc-
tors (BOD). It is essential that the founders and key man-
agement team members and their advisors create a vision
that establishes the culture and strives to grow and main-
tain that culture. All organizations grow and adapt as con-
tinuing challenges are faced, handled, and new ones arise.
 Building, Managing, and Motivating Great Teams Chapter | 7
Opportunity Resources
Team
Leader
FIGURE 7.1 The entrepreneurial process model. Adapted from
Timmons JA, Stephen S. New venture creation, entrepreneurship for the
21st century. 7th ed. McGraw Hill Irwin; 2007.
The competitive landscape, the financing environment,
the regulatory environment, and the human motivations
and ambitions are but a few of the variables that must be
dealt with effectively and in a timely manner.
A key objective for the founders of the start-up organiza-
tion is to create significant, differentiable, and sustainable
value through the underlying technology. The entrepreneurial
team is charged with the development of the business model
to deliver the product or offering, and its inherent value to
the marketplace, while returning shared value in the form of
wealth and return on investment for the innovators, entrepre-
neurs, investors, and partners. We, as others, would argue
that the team composition, incorporating the skills, wills, and
fit, and leadership in new ventures are perhaps the most
important determinants of the ultimate success of the venture.
The entrepreneurial team must be developed with the ability
to function as a successful leadership team in the entrepre-
neurial context of a high-risk competitive environment, deal-
ing with complex incentive and financial structures.
Additional team-building challenges for entrepreneurs
and innovators are emerging as a result of pressures in the
pharmaceutical space such as diminishing product pipe-
lines, regulatory failures, and the lack of capital availabil-
ity. Therefore in today’s economy, there is a recognition
that the start-up team would be well served to utilize
“open-innovation” approaches to leverage expertise, to
gain the needed skills, and to commercialize complex
technologies while preserving capital to ensure good
returns on investment for all constituencies. An important
corollary is that it is also important to ensure that rewards
are apportioned to those who create value and who assume
risk, that is, entrepreneurs and investors as well as partners
and employees. We hypothesize that entrepreneurs and
their organizational team members are more highly moti-
vated by ownership that includes both psychological fac-
tors, such as the ability to influence the direction of “their
firms,” as well as financial factors via equity ownership.
Given the challenges to innovate, the industry is begin-
ning to see a trend toward creation of more “virtual compa-
nies” (an “extreme” version of “open innovation”) whereby
87
a small but highly experienced core team leverages the
expertise and resources of an extended network of partners,
collaborators, and resources. Successful firms are increas-
ingly reliant on open innovation, which involves interac-
tions with outside agents such as investors, partners,
customers, and experts to obtain ideas, technologies, exper-
tise, and access to market channels. Accordingly, entrepre-
neurial firms may be nested or embedded within multiple
external networks with different structures and flows of
capital (human and financial) and services. Research on
teams and innovation uses the term “boundary-spanning
activities” to denote the interactions of team members with
external agents including all activities of team members
related to the flows of resources between the team and
external agents. We illustrate some of these principles in a
mini-case study later in the chapter.
A Kauffman Foundation study focused on collabora-
tion surveyed firms in the first 4 years of their operations
from 2004 to 2007 [5]. The authors reported that 25% of
competitive advantage is attributed to collaboration with
another firm, and 8% of competitive advantage was due
to collaboration with a government laboratory or with uni-
versities, respectively. We would expect these numbers to
be even higher in biotechnology (and in other industries
with long, capital intensive commercialization pathways).
While the Kauffman study [2] and other work discuss the
trend toward the development and adoption of open-
innovation business models, the literature does not discuss
in any detail the motivation of entrepreneurial teams/firms
to leverage and share expertise and capital returns within
these networked models of innovation. The open-
innovation framework [6,7] suggests that technology com-
panies adopt a networked approach to high-performance
innovation sustainably and efficiently—so that companies
exchange ideas, information, and technologies and bring
new products to market through alliances and other forms
of interfirm collaborations. While ecosystems of shared
values enhance innovation [8,9], these distributed or net-
worked organizations are expected to add to the complex-
ity of the team challenges involved (Fig. 7.2).
We have taken a team design perspective in our search
for a better understanding of the interactions of entrepre-
neurial firms at both the firm level and extending to
include interactions with external agents (i.e., boundary-
spanning activities in networks). We have sought to better
understand the motivational nature of teams and colla-
borations to highlight the internal and external predictors
of success of entrepreneurial firms.
The Importance of Building and Maintaining an
Entrepreneurial Culture
The onset of company formation starts with the vision of
the founders and the articulation of the culture that they
88 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component

FIGURE 7.2 (A) The science-based

(A) Emerging innovation ecosystem and (B) an open-
Spin offs cos. innovation network for sustained and
disruptive innovation. Adapted from
B2B
Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West
J, editors. Open innovation: research-
ing a new paradigm. Cambridge, MA:
Channels University Seed, Harvard University Press; 2006.
to /National Capital development,
Consumers and growth
market labs

B2C
Manufacturers
Producers

(B) Spin offs for other

Technology firm’s markets or
In-licensing new markets
Out-licensing
Acquisitions for
current or new markets

R&D Products
Internal or Current markets
external
technologies
Partners for
Partners for development,
technology manufacturing,
and distribution

want to build into the “DNA” of the start-up organization.
The goal is to build and then sustain that vision and cul-
ture as the company grows through its life cycle. While
each company is different in regard to its culture and mis-
sion, the challenge faced by the founders can be reduced
to the following ingredients articulated by Boni [10] in a
review of the book written by the second chief executive
officer (CEO) of Amgen, and Binder [11], who had the
opportunity and challenge of following the legendary
George Rathmann:
G Build a talented and balanced management team in a
culture that incorporates an interdisciplinary, team-
based, and collaborative approach with leadership
throughout.
G Encourage and reward performance.
G Organize around autonomy and innovation.
G Tolerate risk and learn from failure.
All of us can learn a few lessons from Amgen that is
arguably one of the most successful biotechnology
companies in the relatively short history of the industry.
We suggest that in building a management team, there are
some best practices that have proven to be successful over
the years. First and foremost is the challenge and principal
objective to build an entrepreneurial culture that incorpo-
rates the necessary values and ingredients to capture and
grow market share and utilize the principles of sustained
or disruptive innovation including business model innova-
tions. We focus on the “secret sauce of innovation” that is
the human capital and processes needed to create and
deliver innovations to the market and capture value for the
organization sustainably.
The following additional cultural traits are required
for successful organizations:
G A focus on the market is needed first, which comes
from being close to the customer or user.
G Implementation of a reward system that values contri-
bution and success and incorporates both psychologi-
cal ownership of the outcome and equity ownership.
 Building, Managing, and Motivating Great Teams Chapter | 7
G Embrace an open-innovation model to take advantage
of ideas and collaborations beyond the “borders” of
the company itself.
The second challenge is to imbue in this culture the
following values as identified in a recent Harvard Business
Review article by Steve Prokesch, entitled “How GE
Teaches Teams to Lead” [12] (Fig. 7.3).
G challenge and involvement,
G freedom,
G trust and openness,
G time for ideas,
G playfulness and humor,
G conflict (creative tension but not destructive),
G idea support,
G debate, and
G risk-taking.
These common principles form the basis for building
an effective innovation team. Phil Jackson, the most win-
ning professional basketball coach in history, said, “the
strength of the team is each individual member—the
strength of each member is the team.”
McVicker [13] wrote “Starting Something: An
Entrepreneur’s Tale of Control, Confrontation &
Corporate Culture” to illustrate his experience in building
and growing an entrepreneurial culture. His company,
Neoforma, was one of the first e-commerce companies in
the healthcare space, so the lessons are applicable to bio-
technology companies or to any other technology-driven
but market-focused (or customer-centric) company. The
book describes an insider’s perspective that provides both
the “dark and bright sides” of corporate culture. In a final
chapter, titled Afterthoughts, McVicker includes 12 things
(which we paraphrase next) to keep in mind when starting
Challenge/involvement
Risk
taking
Freedom
Debate
Trust/
openness
Idea
support
Time for ideas
Conflict
Playfulness/humor
FIGURE 7.3 Attributes of an effective organizational culture. Adapted
from S. Prokesh, How GE Teaches Teams to Lead Change, Harvard
Business Review, 23 (3), 2009.
89
and growing something—most of which deal with corpo-
rate culture. McVicker advises aspiring entrepreneurs to
focus on the team and the culture.
1. Be who you are—otherwise your company’s culture
will suffer, as will you.
2. Hire for culture first, experience second—if someone
feels wrong, they are.
3. Communicate empowerment—don’t waste the poten-
tial of any employee.
4. Learn to release, without letting go—enable but
monitor progress.
5. Balance is not always found in the middle—commu-
nicate decisions clearly, even if you need to change
your position.
6. Do one thing well and then do it better—focus.
7. Regularly “wear your customer’s clothes”—don’t for-
get that’s why you’re in business.
8. The unsatisfied customer is the most important
customer—that’s where the opportunity lies.
9. Never let your competitors drive your business
decisions—stay focused and listen to your customers.
10. Never let your investors drive your business deci-
sions—keep the long-term view.
11. Listen to all advice, but trust what you know—ideas
that require customers to change behavior often take
10 or more years to implement.
12. Enjoy yourself—it is fun to create something new
and useful.
Summary of “Lessons Learned” (Further
Experiential Perspective)
We provide, in this section, a “practitioner-originated”
summary of issues regarding building and growing teams
in biotech companies. In this regard, one of us (Boni) is
the cofounder and national cochair of an Entrepreneurship
Boot Camp started in 2005. It is hosted and logistically
managed by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization
at its annual meetings. One session deals with a moder-
ated interview of a company CEO, chief technical or sci-
entific officer (CTO/CSO), and one of their BOD
members/investors. Different companies are incorporated
into each boot camp, so the following represents a sum-
mary of the “hot topics” that are consistently discussed
each year. Over the years the following topics and brief
summary of recommendations gather most of the ques-
tions and discussion:
1. Virtual start-ups versus “bricks and mortar.”
Acquiring capital is very difficult if not impossible until
a considerable amount of risk (technology, IP, clinical,
and team) is reduced. However, progress must be made
to interest investors and partners. Therefore founders
90 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component
most often need to acquire nonequity resources (govern-
ment, economic development, and selling of services)
or funding from individual angels to raise limited seed
capital. It is also beneficial to do so to increase market
cap and reduce dilution. So, reducing the amount of
capital needed is recommended by leveraging
resources, for example, the use of academic facilities,
outsourcing product development, and clinical work to
others. It is recommended not to invest in facilities
except for the bare minimum, instead invest in key
people who may or may not join the company for full
time, and have founders fill multiple functions on the
management team. “Cash is king” so use it wisely.
Eventually, you will need some facilities so consider
locating in an incubator or leveraging common space
with existing organizations in a research park. Invest in
“hard assets” only when this is justifiable after evolv-
ing down the commercialization path.
2. The first hires and building a BOD. Start with a small
core team that originally consists of the founders (two
or three) and a few part-time consultants—noted earlier.
Identify key advisors and directors who can provide
you with good advice and credibility and pay them with
equity (it’s worth the dilution). Find an attorney that
will work on a contingent basis (not always possible)
and consult with them on creative and legal ways to
handle compensation, stock, and corporate partnering
issues. However, ensure that vesting is used for stock
options. Alternately, issue restricted stock. Consider
what happens to the stock if key people leave. If it is
gone with the departing person, it will dilute those who
remain since the person has to be replaced. Pay the core
team less-than-competitive salaries until funds are
raised—the early stage employees will make up for
their reduced compensation with their stock grants.
Hire for the essential tasks that need to get done but
make sure the fit is good (see later). Use mentors to
help you and to locate advisory board members and
directors. Initially, you should have no more than three
to five science/business advisory board members (non-
fiduciary positions) and three board members (with at
least one outside, credible, and experienced person).
Advisors and directors surrounding and supporting
(and mentoring) the core team will facilitate progress
with commercialization and will lead to downstream
success with fund raising and partnering.
Hiring progression/priority will generally proceed
in the following order of priority:
G business, scientific/technical, market/business
development leadership team;
G clinical/medical, regulatory, and IP expertise (can
be outsourced with inside leadership via a key
employee at the appropriate time);
G personnel to contribute to the scientific and busi-
ness agenda associated with commercialization
according to the organizational priorities (generally
product development and customer/user develop-
ment); and
G financial management (once significant funds are
raised, especially A-round financing).
Keep in mind that as new team members join, they
must buy into the culture that has been created by the
founders. So, these first members are the key and will
build and preserve the corporate culture. We highlight
that “fit,” shared values, and relevant experience and
ability to execute are all important considerations.
A subset of this discussion always revolves around
the issue of “splitting the equity pie” and dilution. We
could write an entire article on this topic; suffice it to
say that the initial equity should be split among the
founders and early hires (if any) based on what they
have contributed to the company formation, what they
will contribute going forward, and the level of risk
each person takes. We encourage the founders to
engage a good lawyer to help with this because it is
always a contentious issue as to who contributed what
and who will do so going forward. Most prominent
among the contentious issues is the debate about the
weighting of science versus business in equity partici-
pation. Make sure that the founders get rewarded for
their founding contributions (value is attributed to
both technology and business acumen), and make sure
that those who take the risk and actually join the com-
pany are rewarded for that as well. Small equity pools
are then created for advisors/directors and for stock
options for employees to be hired prior to the next
funding tranche—typically 15% 20% of the total for
all parties. The pool will then be replenished prior to
the next equity raise (investors will most often insist
that the dilution will be taken by the insiders and not
the investors). Many entrepreneurs worry excessively
about dilution. For those who have been through this
many times, however, there is a realization that creat-
ing value that builds the capitalization of the company
is the key outcome to be pursued, and taking outside
money is essential to value creation and risk reduction,
that is, a “small piece of a large pie” is better than the
alternative. Getting to the end game is the objective.
3. Balancing science and commercialization. In biotech-
nology and biomedical companies, there is always
the need to continually advance the science (to prove
principle, build the platform and the IP portfolio).
However, progress down the commercialization path-
way is necessary to generate the funding that will be
needed to attract subsequent team members. Therefore
priorities and a sense of urgency to advance the
 Building, Managing, and Motivating Great Teams Chapter | 7
technology and business have to be established early
on at the founder and board level and managed care-
fully by the CEO and CTO/CSO of the company.
Many organizations maintain close ties to a university
where scientific advances can be handled (but be care-
ful of IP and conflict-of-interest issues).
Commercialization involves clinical demonstration in
parallel with product development, which is difficult
in a regulated environment. Once funding is raised
make sure to allocate a small portion to advance the
science and also consider some government augmenta-
tion (via the Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program) to achieve those objectives. While
SBIR funding is nondilutive, sometimes the timing is
not consistent with commercialization priorities.
4. Managing through transitions. Along the commer-
cialization pathway, company leadership and the
board will need to deal with evolution of the team as
people join the team and leave the team—either vol-
untarily or involuntarily. Sometimes founders play
“lesser roles” as new leadership is required to move
forward thru the clinic and into the marketplace, or to
raise venture capital and/or partnership funding. We
have not found the perfect formula for dealing with
these issues. One thing that can be counted on is that
it will happen in virtually every company. In order to
manage this process the right people must be on the
board or on the advisory group to assist with the peo-
ple issues—the addition or subtraction as well as the
team remaining. Nothing can destroy team chemistry
faster than a mismanaged transition. The best advice
is to handle the situation quickly and professionally
with good communication to all of the constituencies
of the company appropriate to the specific situation. It
is rare that a founder who becomes the CEO of a bio-
technology start-up can survive through to the acquisi-
tion or Initial Public Offering (IPO).
We consider using more capital-efficient business
models that can be achieved via various methods, for
example, outsourcing, partnering, and use of agile methods
borrowed from software development. Capital-efficient,
agile development is essential for biotechnology and bio-
medical companies where it is important to reduce techni-
cal, market, and team risks prior to bringing in the
extensive amounts of capital required. As noted, the
formation of win win partnerships, while maintaining the
ability to share significantly in the value that has been cre-
ated by the team, is recommended. For example, iterative
product and market development can lead to lower capital
expenditures and faster time to market (even though the
regulatory authorities tend to slow down the cycle time—
this is not as much of an issue for other technology compa-
nies where lean and agile methods are being employed).
91
Also consider creating value and reducing risk via proof-
of-principle demonstration in a clinical setting (even if off-
shore) prior to raising large amounts of capital. An exten-
sive discussion on this topic is beyond the scope of the
current article; however, suffice it to say that virtual com-
panies can be created to leverage expertise by using open-
innovation principles to partner for technology, market
access, product development and clinical testing,
manufacturing, and even management teams. Why build
capacity that already exists? Sharing value might be a bet-
ter option. The challenge is to build a core team that is
equipped with the processes and networks to access and
effectively manage these relationships. However, keep in
mind that it will be necessary to have expertise on the
extended team to manage the partnered or outsourced
tasks. This will require the existence of talent that has
experience with product development, clinical testing, etc.
Keep in mind that the overall objective in building a team
is to address one key component of risk reduction for the
organization—demonstration of the ability to execute.
Key Questions to Ask When Building the
Team—the Academic Perspective
Building a team is comprised of three phases summarized
by Thompson [14], each of which must be revisited as the
organization and the team transitions through develop-
ment and commercialization stages, to market launch and
growth.
Phase One—Task analysis. Specifically, what is the
work that needs to be performed and what is its focus,
how much authority and autonomy do the team have to
manage its own work, what is the degree of interdepen-
dence among the team members, and are the team mem-
bers’ interests aligned or competitive?
Phase Two—People required. What skill sets are
needed to perform the tasks to achieve at least the next
milestone or two. Consider the blend of technical, task
management; what interpersonal skills and diversity are
optimal for the team?
Phase Three—Processes and procedures required.
What are the explicit and implicit norms required for the
performance, how are ineffective norms revised, and how
much structure is required? We would suggest that a team
contract be employed to provide a framework for the
norms of behavior expected with the team (Fig. 7.4).
Underlying these tasks, people, and processes is the
entrepreneurial culture that is desired. It indicates the
organizational characteristics and norms noted previously
and the “expected entrepreneurial style of the people
engaged,” for example, willingness to assume “some”
risk, thriving on chaos, not controlling, positive,
92 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component
Work tasks to be Performed
People skills needed
Customer need
Processes
MVP Market
development development Team and
Fundraising advisor
Product collaboration
development
Change
management
FIGURE 7.4 Three phases of building an effective team.
passionate, perseverant, and motivated to make an impact,
or perhaps even to change the world.
Building a Biotechnology Organization
Most early stage biotechnology companies, as with most
technology companies, start with two or three founders.
The founders bring their passion, and vision for a new
company, along with the needed expertise, skill sets, and
networks to provide leadership for the two key and critical
dimensions: (1) technology advancement and (2) business/
market development. In effect, upon founding, the task
analysis and people required phases occur simultaneously,
and the founders form the kernel of a viable start-up. The
focus on developing and advancing the technology and the
market in parallel is the “essential task, or job to be done,”
and the founders are the key people who perform those
tasks that are organization specific. This initial founding
team (and their advisors added as needed) then evolves
through Phases One and Two of the Thompson “model” in
parallel where team members are acquired to evolve the
technology and the market/industry dimensions while
advancing the commercialization process and developing
the business model. It is understood that they must also
acquire the needed financial resources to move forward. In
most biotechnology start-ups where both technology and
business leaderships are essential, decisions are most often
made informally and by consensus, with input and per-
spective from both dimensions, but overtime, these roles
evolve into a more formal structure, with decisions by the
CEO and CTO or CSO. In most technology-enabled orga-
nizations (including biotechnology) the task analysis indi-
cates that leadership is required to
G provide vision, strategic direction, fund raising, team
building, and overall leadership;
G lead scientific advancement, technology commerciali-
zation, and product development; and
G lead business development and partnering.
In addition, for biotechnology companies specifically,
it will be necessary to add the capacity to deal with the
following activities:
G regulatory compliance and clinical demonstration,
G IP development, and
G reimbursement.
Early on these tasks can be accomplished by the mem-
bers of the founding team and/or by part-time talent and
appropriate expertise from qualified consultants. These
people expand from the kernel that comprises the core of
the start-up and development-stage team—most often
there are perhaps two C-level positions designated to han-
dle inside and outside functions—these include simulta-
neous development of the product while working in
parallel to more thoroughly understand and address cus-
tomer/user need and the external environment/fund rais-
ing. Acquiring human assets in biotechnology/tech
companies is as important as acquiring financial assets,
but one is required to accomplish the other—while
advancing the opportunity and proposed solution. In effect
an additional key task is developing the organization—
most often consuming a significant part of the CEO’s
time allocation, along with acquiring funding.
The team that comprises an early stage organization
is not complete without developing its “periphery”—
team members who serve in a more advisory function
and contribute to the organization on an as-needed
basis. It is critical for early stage organizations to
develop a set of directors/advisors that bring specialized
expertise, connections, and access to networks for fund-
ing, partnering, hiring, etc. Most important is the need
to institute a formalized, but small, BOD of at least
three people, including independent director(s) perhaps
growing to five as equity investments occur. The BOD
is responsible for fiduciary control, provides overview
of strategic direction and operations, and also ensures
that corrective actions based on internal and external
changes and issues are addressed in a timely manner.
Note that an advisory board is also important in that it
performs different functions from a BOD. Although the
BOD will have fiduciary responsibility, other boards
can be formed, which are advisory only—most often
providing specialized knowledge and guidance such as
science/technology and clinical development. These
bridges between the internal organization and the exter-
nal environment also provide credibility and validation
of the opportunity being pursued via the reputation of
the people engaged with the organization. These direc-
tors and advisors are most often compensated via equity
using industry norms as guidelines for a directors’ and
advisors’ stock option pool.
Therefore the leadership team consists of both the
core members (i.e., the people on the ground) who have
committed and are willing to take risks to join the com-
pany, as well as the peripheral members, the BOD/advi-
sory board. This extended team is expected to provide
 Building, Managing, and Motivating Great Teams Chapter | 7
expertise, networks, perspective, and discipline as
follows:
G
Access to people, capital, partners, and markets/
customers.
G
Access to counsel and expertise for IP, regulatory,
reimbursement, clinical trials, and corporate
agreements.
G
Advice, experienced perspective, and mentoring.
G
Adherence to plan and fiduciary responsibility.
As noted earlier, the characteristics of this extended
team include the knowledge, skills, and expertise, coupled
with the requisite interpersonal skills (diversity, collabora-
tive, and communicative), and a shared value system (a
common purpose and vision, trust, and sense of humor).
In addition, since in many technology-based organiza-
tions, one is dealing with large egos, it is advisable to be
able to “check your egos at the door.”
Finding and Hiring Good People
Finding and hiring good team members is the most impor-
tant challenge faced by any company, let alone a start-up
or early stage organization. Especially at the earliest
stages of any organization, the CEO and other founders
must be personally engaged in the hiring process since
the “organizational DNA” or culture is imprinted starting
with the hiring process. Selecting the right people “with
the right DNA” is important to building the desired cul-
tural norms—both spoken and unspoken. All start-ups
should strive to hire only “A players,” since excellence is
essential to company success. Don’t just hire to get the
job done, make sure that the person “fits” and can also do
the current task or job as well as grow with the organiza-
tion. Hiring is expensive and time consuming, so do it
wisely. A bad fit can be harmful for the organization, and
replacing someone is also problematic as well as expen-
sive. But if the replacement is necessary, do it quickly
and professionally; otherwise, the “bad fit” will affect the
organization itself.
Diversity is good since there are many skill sets
required to build a successful company, and diverse per-
spectives and experience sets provide more enlightened
and innovative solutions. In a biotechnology or biomedi-
cal company, diversity includes various scientific back-
grounds, business development/industry knowledge, and
expertise ranging from IP to regulatory to reimbursement.
In addition, one must deal with perspectives gathered in
small companies as well as in larger, more mature organi-
zations, for example, pharmaceutical or large medical
device companies. All of these key elements of the
extended management team need to be integrated into the
entrepreneurial and innovative culture being built. We
advise embracing diversity, but not leaving the synergies
93
to chance as the team is built up over the life cycle of the
company. It is important to build mechanisms and pro-
cesses to manage diversity not only internally but also
across the boundaries of the firm as networked innovation
and partnering emerge as a norm in the biotechnology/
biopharmaceutical industry. This open-innovation busi-
ness model is becoming increasingly important as indus-
try convergence continues, blurring the boundaries
between the pharmaceutical and the biotechnology organi-
zations. The team, culture, and vision sharing are as
important as skill sets so that there is trust, liking, and
respect (unspoken norms) across the team and organiza-
tion. Most successful organizations build this mentality
into the hiring process and walk away from talented peo-
ple if the cultural fit is not there.
It is important to understand and deal with factors that
motivate entrepreneurs and to address them individually
with team members as the team is built and expanded.
We have previously discussed entrepreneurial characteris-
tics that are pertinent to biotechnology and technology
companies, including Boni’s review of Binder’s book [5].
What Makes Teams Work, or Not?
To discuss what works and what does not, from an aca-
demic perspective, we need to deal with three key factors:
(1) the structure of the team, which includes roles and
routines; (2) behavioral integration—managing the diver-
sity; and (3) team norms—goals and shared values, team
motivation, and processes for coordinating, communicat-
ing, managing conflict, making decisions, running meet-
ings, and enforcing norms.
Larson and LaFasto [15] list the following necessary
conditions for effective teamwork:
G a clear, shared, and elevating goal,
G a results-driven structure that includes the following:
G clear roles and accountabilities,
G an effective communication system,
G monitoring of individual performance and provid-
ing feedback, and
G fact-based judgments.
G competent team members (technical and interpersonal),
G unified commitment,
G collaborative climate,
G standards of excellence,
G external support and recognition, and
G principled leadership.
We refer the reader who is further interested in build-
ing effective teams to several good Harvard Business
Review articles by Gulati and DeSantola [16], Haas and
Mortensen [17], Billington [18], and Katzenbach and
Smith [19]. While these articles are not targeted specifi-
cally at knowledge-based biotechnology companies, the
94 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component
authors address the issue of what makes the difference
between teams that perform and those that don’t. These
are universal lessons. To be effective a team must go
beyond just being a group or collective of individuals.
The team is defined as “a small number of people with
complementary skills (competence) who are committed to
a common purpose, set of performance goals, and an
approach for which they hold themselves mutually
accountable.” The Billington article points out that mutual
accountability differentiates a team from a group. In a
team, if the team fails (or the company), all fail together.
If the team succeeds, all are rewarded in proportion to
their contributions. Another way to keep motivation high,
something that is important in any start-up organization,
is for the leadership team (and its Board) to establish and
maintain a sense of urgency. Kotter identifies the sense of
urgency as the first and essential step in his eight-step
process for leading change identified in extensive case
studies [20]. From a practical perspective, we advise that
the team consider spending a lot of time together outside
of the workplace and inside (which is inevitable in a start-
up environment).
Mini-case analyses of emerging open-innovation
organizational structures in biotechnology
Previously, in this chapter, we emphasized the challenges
faced by teams in “nontraditional” organizational firms.
Historically, most biotechnology companies (and their
pharmaceutical counterparts) have been built up and devel-
oped as “vertically integrated organizations”—most if not
all functions of the organization accomplished internally
with teams contained within the organization. However, it
is important to recognize that a new paradigm has emerged
with the recognition of open collaboration/innovation, and
the introduction of virtual companies and networked orga-
nizations. We also note that the evolution of “the Pharma
3.0 model” is driven by the need to improve the efficiency
of the biopharmaceutical innovation process through
engagement of a broader set of ideas, technologies,
resources, and capabilities. Collaboration across organiza-
tional and geographical boundaries is expected to provide
a more capital-efficient, shorter development and approval
cycle, with a higher success rate. However, no benefits are
achieved without challenges. In this case the complexity of
creating high-performance collaborative, cross-boundary
teams adds new dimension to the challenge.
Next, we discuss several examples of promising models
for bringing complex, high-risk, long development cycle
biopharma products thru commercialization. We close with
a short summary of selected issues dealing with building
teams to lead and grow these new organizations. We also
note that at the time of this writing, this new approach to
innovation is still evolving, so whether or not these forms
will be effective as a solution to the “biopharma innovators
dilemma” is yet to be proven or demonstrated.
(Continued )
(Continued)
Inherent in these emerging organizational models is the
ability to identify and source opportunities by assembling
diverse and disparate resources that permit the identifica-
tion and exploitation of promising disruptive technologies
that address significant market need while validating the
need, efficacy, and safety in close collaboration with corpo-
rate partners, for example, extant pharmaceutical organiza-
tions. As such, the market-first approach to
commercialization proceeds in parallel with developing
and validating key parts of the business model, including
the partnerships, channels to market, and customer interac-
tion components (channels and customer communications).
Team development in these new organizational forms
also proceeds via a multistep process. However, now the
leadership team can comprise the following:
G Industry leaders who are very experienced in commer-
cialization and have thorough understanding of both
the technology and the business aspects;
G Individuals who are well networked in the industry and
financial communities (and perhaps academic commu-
nity); and
G Those who really understand the market need and most
probably include pharmaceutical partners.
These leadership teams can then build, acquire, and
mentor multiple founding scientific teams who would then
pursue specific commercialization opportunities with ideas,
technologies, and capabilities acquired from the overall
network (including clinical testing and manufacturing). The
coupled management leadership team and scientific team
(s) can then be linked to partner corporations (e.g., pharma-
ceutical companies) and early stage investors—both well
known to the leadership management team.
We illustrate several promising emerging organizations
using such an approach, but we highlight only two for brev-
ity. The first organization highlighted, Enlight BioSciences
[14], illustrates some essential features dealing with innova-
tion in a networked environment. The second organization
highlighted in this mini-case is summarized in some recent
undertakings led by David U’Prichard and others—Druid
BioVentures [15] and then BioMotiv LLC [16]. Taken
together, they illustrate partnering across the entire value
chain of biopharma and incorporate disparate sources of
participants ranging from technology sourcing, to commer-
cialization expertise, and to efficient channels to the
market.
Enlight BioSciences, a Boston-based company, was
founded by PureTech Ventures, a life science venture capi-
tal firm, and a team of industry leaders and academic lumi-
naries in 2007 [21]. Enlight and PureTech provide the team
leadership and early stage financing to identify new tech-
nologies to meet identified market need. They then develop
the scientific leadership team to form a dedicated new
company(s) to commercialize the opportunities in several
areas of focus. Investment funding is provided by PureTech
and a series of pharma partners that include Abbot, Johnson
(Continued )
 Building, Managing, and Motivating Great Teams Chapter | 7
(Continued)
& Johnson, Eli Lilly and Co., Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.
This investment and leadership group provided initial fund-
ing of $78M plus in-kind expertise to Endra Holdings, LLC,
which then in turn invests in Endra, Inc. as the commercial-
ization entity. Endra, Inc. is one of a series of companies
that are expected to emerge to pursue specific commerciali-
zation opportunities in the suite of areas of interest identi-
fied by the Enlight BioSciences team and their partners.
For the start-up company, Endra, Inc., the venture crea-
tion model consists of a “seasoned management team”
assigned from Enlight, coupled with a team of founding
scientists who have been recruited from a laboratory (e.g., a
university or government lab) as part of the founding team.
Considering this specific case, we would highlight the chal-
lenges of team interactions, motivations at several, coupled
levels, and “boundary-spanning activities” involving the
management team from Enlight, PureTech Ventures, their
partners and advisory boards, the science team from the
start-up (i.e., the boundary-spanning activities), and teams
from the supporting network of investors and corporate
partners. Indeed, it is a very complex undertaking. All of
the team dynamics are present here, but as noted, compli-
cated by the various interests of the participating parties
and their respective corporate cultures.
Other so-called virtual organizational models have been
discussed and pursued in recent years. David U’Prichard,
former Chair of Global R&D at SmithKline Beecham (now
GlaxoSmithKline) and ICI/Zeneca, has pioneered two
recent undertakings [22,23]. The need for these organiza-
tions is driven by several trends: (1) the lack of capital for
pharmaceutical innovation in the “valley of death”
(between early stage development and clinical validation),
hence the need for capital efficiency; and (2) shrinking of
the “pharma pipeline.” There has been a shift from a fully
integrated product company (FIPCO) model, in which the
sponsor “owns” the entire drug development process from
synthesis to marketing, toward a networked model of inno-
vation, referred to as a FIPNet (or fully integrated pharma-
ceutical network). FIPNets engage all of the major
stakeholders involved in the drug development process,
blending the core competencies of each to leverage capa-
bilities, enhance efficiency, and boost output.
The Harrington Project is a multihundred-million-dollar
national initiative to accelerate breakthrough discoveries
into medicines. A national consortium of academic medical
centers (the Harrington Discovery Institute and an
Innovation Center) translates promising discoveries into
BioMotiv, which is a national bioaccelerator to promote
commercialization and entrepreneurship in medicine.
BioMotiv is a for profit entity that is an “evergreen” holding
company that invests in and manages a portfolio of early
projects, each structured as a virtual, single-asset develop-
ment corporation. A full-time staff in Cleveland, Ohio is
(Continued )
95
(Continued)
complemented by a larger group of very senior pharmaceu-
tical consultants in greater Philadelphia and in Oxford, the
United Kingdom. BioMotiv “sources” the best opportunities
from around the country, leveraging nonprofit assets, uti-
lizes a team of experienced and connected advisors, and
accelerates development to exit via partnership with phar-
maceutical companies (at the late discovery stage thru
Phase Ib). They anticipate significant and sustained financial
returns from developing a portfolio of programs. Dr. David
Pritchard is the CSO and Chairman of BioMotiv, Baiju Shah
(former President and CEO of BioEnterprise in Cleveland) is
the CEO, and they have assembled a very impressive team
of consultants and advisors. The intent of the Harrington
Project is to accelerate breakthrough discoveries into medi-
cines and cross the valley of death with informed partner-
ships after reducing risk in the early development stages.
To summarize, in both mini-cases, we note boundary-
spanning flows of knowledge, ideas, and financial resources
across teams nested in networks. In these more complex
organizational structures, it is important to understand the
factors that enhance or inhibit these boundary-spanning
flows with a focus on motivation. In particular, how does
the role of employee ownership (psychological and finan-
cial) affect performance? It is our hypothesis that ownership
structure and motivation in entrepreneurial firms affect the
distribution of risk and reward across networks and value
chains. Interest alignment that determines the competitive
advantage [24] is particularly complex in highly novel,
multiagent, and uncertain contexts such as these.
Understanding Factors That Motivate
Teams
There are a variety of team-related motivational factors
that lead to increased innovation throughput and capital
efficiency in entrepreneurial firms. We have attempted to
better define the role of team motivation through
“employee ownership,” both psychological and financial.
We have focused first on how the team optimizes its
performance. The approach outlined next incorporates a
design that may be extended to deal with the more
complex issue of how the performance is optimized in the
supporting network.
Framework for an Entrepreneurial Team
Motivation Model
In this subsection, we present a model that attempts to
frame the issues involved in motivating team members
and partners. Our basic assumption is that the young
entrepreneurial firm can be modeled as an entrepreneurial
96 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component

FIGURE 7.5 Framework for motivation of entrepre-

Employee ownership
neurial teams incorporating employee ownership
Psychological ownership
Organizational citizenship
Identification

Internal processes:
Resources information & idea sharing;
conflict; social loafing;
- Expertise diversity shared cognition
- Team resources
External (boundary
- Team structure: role spanning) interactions in
ambiguity; network: information &
specialization, idea sharing, cooperative
interdependence norms and culture
Innovation
- Firm Performance:
Innovativeness, quality,
viability, speed, value
creation
-Employee satisfaction

Context: Network characteristics:

open innovation: interdependence, size

Environment characteristics:
ambiguity; uncertainty/risk; novelty

team, because of its small size and the high interdepen- resources) between the firm/team nested in open innova-
dence of activities within the firm. Note that this approach tion networks and the key external agents.
could be extended to incorporate later stage companies
These hypotheses were tested using a quasiexperimental
and collaborative networks (Fig. 7.5).
approach and two-group comparison. Group 1 was composed
We investigated whether employee ownership in
of start-up company teams initiated by the Carnegie Mellon
terms of financial ownership was reflected in psycholog-
University graduate students, and group 2 was composed of
ical ownership; that is, citizenship behaviors or
a parallel cohort of graduate students performing entrepre-
voluntary contributions to the firm and identification
neurial projects sponsored by external companies [25,26].
with the firm/team. Based on the literature, and using
The first group represented entrepreneurial firms with high
the IPMO (input, process, moderators, and output)
employee ownership (financial), whereas the second group
framework for the study of teamwork, we developed
represented entrepreneurial firms with low employee owner-
hypotheses about employee ownership (both financial
ship (financial). Our preliminary findings using statistical
and psychological) and its effects on team interactions
analysis are summarized briefly, which are as follows:
and team performance.
We hypothesized that the choice of ownership struc- Finding 1: In support of Hypothesis 1, we found that
ture plays a pivotal role in team motivation. Employee psychological ownership was significantly higher for the
ownership was expected to promote value-creating teams with high employee ownership (financial) than for
dynamics of interactions of entrepreneurial firm/team the teams with low employee ownership (financial).
members both with insiders and outside stakeholders. Employee ownership (financial) also increased the volun-
We tested the following hypotheses about the role of tary contributions of team members (higher citizenship
motivation via employee ownership: behaviors) and the identification with the team.
Lesson learned 1: Employee ownership (financial)
Hypothesis 1: Employee ownership (financial) leads
improves team motivation. It increases psychological
to high psychological ownership, more citizenship
ownership, voluntary contributions of team members (i.e.,
behaviors, and higher identification with the firm.
citizenship behaviors), and identification with the team.
Hypothesis 2: Employee ownership (both financial
Finding 2: In support of Hypotheses 2 and 3, we
and psychological) enhances the internal processes of
found that higher level of employee ownership (both
information and idea sharing, and divergent task con-
financial and psychological) led to enhanced team interac-
flict in the firm/team.
tions. In teams with higher level of employee ownership,
Hypothesis 3: Employee ownership (both financial and
there were higher internal idea sharing, higher external
psychological) enhances boundary-spanning (external)
idea sharing, and higher creative conflict.
interactions (flows of knowledge, ideas, and financial
 Building, Managing, and Motivating Great Teams Chapter | 7
Lesson learned 2: Both financial and psychological
employee ownerships improve innovation—enhancing
team processes such as idea sharing (both internal and
external) and creative conflict.
Finding 3: In support of Hypothesis 4, we found that
higher psychological ownership was related to higher
satisfaction (both with the team and with the project). We
also noted that team satisfaction is important because it
predicts the willingness of the team members to stay with
the team and thus enhances its longevity. Psychological
ownership also had a positive effect on value added in
terms of “usability” of innovation project outcome—
whether the innovation outcome fills need, has utility, and
has favorable timescale of return.
Lesson learned 3: Psychological ownership represents
an important motivating factor in teams because it
improves team satisfaction and “usability” of innovations.
Since employee ownership (financial) increases psycho-
logical ownership as per Finding 1, both financial and
psychological employee ownerships represent essential
motivating factors in entrepreneurial teams. In the future,
we plan to examine how the open-innovation network
characteristics influence the importance of ownership in
enhancing innovation in extended networks.
Summary and Conclusion
In this chapter, we have discussed about building and grow-
ing collaborative, interdisciplinary teams that identify and
commercialize promising biotechnology innovations and
ultimately grow successful companies. From a practical per-
spective, we have emphasized one significant conclusion:
the importance of the team in generating a successful out-
come cannot be overemphasized. We also highlight the
necessity of building and sustaining an entrepreneurial cul-
ture as a means to differentiate and sustain successful orga-
nizations. We further again stress that leadership must
recognize and reward team (and partner) contributions to
company value creation, and to incorporate mechanisms
and processes to encourage employees to “own” and iden-
tify with their organization. The principles underlying build-
ing and growing high-performance teams apply in both
traditional and emerging organizational structures. New
organizational forms are evolving, and these require collab-
orative, networked partnerships that present human resource
management challenges regarding (extended) team develop-
ment, management, and performance.
Acknowledgments
The content of this article was previously published by Boni AA,
Weingart LR. Building teams in entrepreneurial companies. J Commer
Biotechnol 2012;18(2). doi:10.5912/jcb507 and is incorporated into
this chapter as modified by the authors with the approval of the pub-
lisher of the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology.
97
The authors acknowledge that the framework for motivation of
entrepreneurial teams incorporating employee ownership was sup-
ported by the Foundation for Enterprise Development (FED), La
Jolla, CA. We appreciate the input and support of Mary Ann
Beyster, CEO. Dr. Boni also acknowledges the leadership and team-
building lessons learned early in his entrepreneurial career as part of
the leadership team led by Dr. J. Robert Beyster, founder and chair-
man of FED and of Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). During a decade of high growth at SAIC, spanning early
stage to the largest US employee-owned technology-based company
was a great learning experience on building and working with geo-
graphically dispersed high-performance teams.
References
1 Timmons JA, Stephen S. New venture creation, entrepreneurship
for the 21st century. 7th ed. McGraw Hill Irwin; 2007.
2 Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR, D’Innocenzo L, Reilly G. Modeling
reciprocal team cohesion performance relationships, as impacted
by shared leadership and members’ competence. J Appl Psychol
2015;100:713 34.
3 D’Innocenzo L, Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR. A meta-analysis of
different forms of shared leadership team performance relations. J
Manage 2016;42:1964 91.
4 Krieger E. The term ‘entrepreneur’ isn’t usually associated with
teams—how does an entrepreneurial team work? ,www.ivyexec.com/
executive-insights/2017/efficient-entrepreneurship-teams/.; 2017.
5 Robb A, Ballou J, DesRoches D, Potter F, Zhao Z, Reedy EJ. An
overview of the Kauffman firm survey: results from the 2004 2 2007
data. Kauffman Foundation of Entrepreneurship webpage. ,www.
kauffman.org.; 2009.
6 Chesbrough H. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating
and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press; 2003.
7 Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J, editors. Open innovation:
researching a new paradigm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press; 2006.
8 Kramer MR, Pfizer MW. The ecosystems of shared value. Harv
Bus Rev 2016;80 90.
9 Ihrig M, McMillan I. How to get ecosystem buy-in. Harv Bus Rev
2017;102 7.
10 Boni AA. Science lessons: what biotech taught me about manage-
ment.” A book review of Gordon Binder and Philip Bashe. J
Commer Biotechnol 2009;15(1):86 91.
11 Binder G, Bashe P. Science lessons—what the business of biotech
taught me about management. Harvard Business Press; 2008.
12 Prokesh S. How GE teaches teams to lead change. Harv Bus Rev
2009. Reprint R0901J.
13 McVicker WW. Starting something an entrepreneur’s tale of con-
trol, confrontation, and corporate culture. Los Altos, CA: Ravel
Media, LLC; 2005.
14 Thompson L. Making the team. A guide for managers. 4th ed.
Prentice Hall; 2011.
15 Larson CE, LaFasto FMJ. Teamwork: what must go right, what can
go wrong. Newberry Park, CA: Sage; 1989.
16 Gulati R, DeSantola A. Start-ups that last. Harv Bus Rev
2016;54 62.
17 Haas M, Mortensen M. The secrets of great teamwork. Harv Bus
Rev 2016;70 8.
98 SECTION | III The Human Capital Component
18 Billington J. The three essentials of an effective team. Harv Bus
Rev 1997. Reprint U9701A.
19 Katzenbach JR, Smith DK. The discipline of teams, Harv Bus Rev
2005. Reprint R0507P.
20 Kotter JP. Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press; 1996.
21 Ernst & Young. In: Giovannetti GT, Gautam J, editors. Beyond bor-
ders, global biotechnology. Ernst & Young; 2010.
22 U’Prichard DC. Private communication from BIO Entrepreneurship
Bootcamp organized by Boni and Steve Sammut; 2013. Held in
Chicago, IL.
23 U’Prichard DC. New paradigms in drug R&D: a personal perspec-
tive. J Commer Biotechnol 2012;18(2):11 18.
24 Gottshalg O, Zollo M. Interest alignment and competitive advan-
tage. Acad Manage Rev 2007;32:418 38.
25 Boni AA, Weingart LR, Evenson S. Innovation in an academic
setting: designing and leading a business through market-focused,
interdisciplinary teams. Acad Manage Learn Educ
2009;8:407 17.
26 Boni AA, Emerson ST. An integrated model of university technol-
ogy commercialization and entrepreneurship education. In:
Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and eco-
nomic growth, Elsevier, vol. 16. 2005. p. 241 74.