Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Introduction
Level of Analysis
Discussion and Conclusion
Implications for Research and Practice
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Marketing

Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy

Profile image of Donald F. KuratkoDonald F. KuratkoProfile image of Jeffrey CovinJeffrey Covin

2009, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-6520.2008.00279.X
visibility

…

description

28 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Our knowledge of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) continues to expand. However, this knowledge remains quite fragmented and non-cumulative. Herein, we conceptualize CE strategy as a useful focal point for integrating and synthesizing key elements within CE's intellectual domain. The components of our CE strategy model include (1) the antecedents of CE strategy (i.e., individual entrepreneurial cognitions of the organization's members and external environmental conditions that invite entrepreneurial activity), (2) the elements of CE strategy (i.e., top management's entrepreneurial strategic vision for the firm, organizational architectures that encourage entrepreneurial processes and behavior, and the generic forms of entrepreneurial process that are reflected in entrepreneurial behavior), and (3) the outcomes of CE strategy (i.e., organizational outcomes resulting from entrepreneurial actions, including the development of competitive capability and strategic repositioning). We discuss how our model contributes to the CE literature, distinguish our model from prior models, and identify challenges future CE research should address.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. CE strategy integrates individual cognitions, environmental conditions, and organizational outcomes for effective corporate entrepreneurship.
  2. The model delineates three CE strategy components: strategic vision, organizational architecture, and entrepreneurial processes.
  3. Top management's pro-entrepreneurship cognitions significantly influence the emergence of an entrepreneurial strategic vision.
  4. Competitive intensity, technological change, and product-market evolution are key environmental triggers for CE strategy.
  5. Successful CE strategy implementation requires alignment and integration among its core elements.

Related papers

The Impact of Strategy and Organizational Factors on Corporate Entrepreneurship
JOHAN HOUGH

Corporate Ownership and Control

Large companies create new businesses as an innovative way of solving challenging problems but also see new internal ventures as a way of increased entrepreneurial behaviour and sustained differentiation. However, strategic leadership is crucial to develop an organizational environment needed to increase the entrepreneurial orientation and motivation in established businesses. This paper focus on strategic leadership and selected salient organizational factors that aid in the development of corporate entrepreneurship (CE). A cross sectional telephone survey of 315 South African companies indicated that strategic leadership of an enterprise is crucial to create the right environment and develop and support organizational structures and CE. Strategic leadership which encourages autonomy and provides rewards for entrepreneurial behaviour creates a supportive organizational structure to strengthen corporate entrepreneurship.

View PDFchevron_right
An integrative model of corporate entrepreneurial behavior
B. Gailly

Based on extensive literature review and empirical validation this paper aims to develop and test an integrative model of corporate entrepreneurial behavior. Indeed, how much do we know about the tactics that corporate entrepreneurs employ to promote entrepreneurial projects? Entrepreneurial behavior is generally defined as the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Still, more investigation is needed to understand the specific actions behind the words discover, evaluate, or exploit, especially in the context of an existing corporation. First, the paper accumulates and confronts findings from research on corporate entrepreneurship and venturing, independent entrepreneurship and specific relevant organizational behaviors. Second, as a result, it offers an integrative four-category model that allows a systematical consideration of corporate entrepreneurial behavior. Third, the proposed model is enriched and challenged by an analysis of case studies used for the purposes of teaching corporate entrepreneurship in top business schools. The analysis provided evidence that most of the activities corporate entrepreneurs engage in could be assigned to one of the four dominating activities which are discovery, evaluation, enrolment and exploitation and that a four-category integrative model might be used for a systematic analysis of corporate entrepreneurial practices. On top, the paper offeres several insights into the strategies intrapreneurs employ to develop their projects.

View PDFchevron_right
Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions
Phillip Phan

Journal of Business Venturing, 2009

In this paper, we suggest future research on the processes and knowledge-based resources in corporate entrepreneurship (CE), argue for the need to appreciate the heterogeneity of CE in relation to new contexts, and suggest appropriate strategies for such contexts. First, we highlight the key contributions of the papers in this special issue, with a particular focus on how they provide insights into structural and process contingencies, the role of management at multiple levels, and organizational and managerial capabilities. We then discuss the limits to the applicability of theories developed in other contexts to CE. Finally, we suggest some future research, with particular emphasis on the corporate governance mechanisms that foster CE and the requisite managerial roles and skills in instigating and supporting entrepreneurial activities at different levels of the organization.

View PDFchevron_right
Corporate entrepreneurial activity: Distilling the concept
Renier Steyn

2015

Background: Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is credited for many positive organisational outcomes, including systemic growth and increased revenue. Several terms associated with CE, including strategic renewal, corporate venturing and intrapreneurship are frequently used interchangeably and often confuse scholars, researchers and practitioners. The lack of clarity about the exact meaning of these terms is detrimental to the synergy in the current body of knowledge and the development of models involving these concepts. Objective: The aim of this paper was to describe CE as a unique concept, distinguishable from related concepts. Methodology: Several definitions of CE as well as the related terms were dissected, to identify core elements associated with each of them. The validity of these comprehensive definitions was tested by requesting 68 master's degree students to classify the definitions. Inter-rater reliabilities were calculated in order to assess the level of agreement in the classification of the constructs. Results: The results indicate that CE is difficult to distinguish from strategic renewal and corporate venturing, but that intrapreneurship seems to be better defined and separate from the other constructs. Conclusion: These results emphasise the conceptual confusion that exists around CE and the need for further clarification of terminology.

View PDFchevron_right
Unlocking the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance
Ahmet M . Fiş, Dilek Cetindamar

2009

Corporate entrepreneurship is the implementation of a value creation process in an organizational setting. Consistent with the Schumpeterian understanding of entrepreneurship, a "new combination" that should directly affect the performance of the firm is formed; and the process of forming this new combination manifests itself as an outcome of a complex social mechanism affected by internal and external factors. However, in spite of the biasing anecdotal evidence, conventional wisdom, and tendency in favor of entrepreneurship, a "black box" between firm-level entrepreneurship and performance has pervaded the relationship.

View PDFchevron_right
Venturing Corporate entrepreneurship : Current research and future directions
Wee-liang Tan

2009

In this paper, we suggest future research on the processes and knowledge-based resources in corporate entrepreneurship (CE), argue for the need to appreciate the heterogeneity of CE in relation to new contexts, and suggest appropriate strategies for such contexts. First, we highlight the key contributions of the papers in this special issue, with a particular focus on how they provide insights into structural and process contingencies, the role of management at multiple levels, and organizational and managerial capabilities. We then discuss the limits to the applicability of theories developed in other contexts to CE. Finally, we suggest some future research, with particular emphasis on the corporate governancemechanisms that foster CE and the requisite managerial roles and skills in instigating and supporting entrepreneurial activities at different levels of the organization. © 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. 1. Executive summary A longstanding literature has highlighted significan...

View PDFchevron_right
“Entrepreneurial management” as a strategic choice in firm behavior : linking it with performance
Roxanne Zolin

Establishing the core principals of "entrepreneurial management" within an organization describes a certain strategic choice that affects a company in six dimensions, according to . Our aim is to empirically measure entrepreneurial management (it's existence and degree) and to link this measured strategic choice (for or against) entrepreneurial management with firm performance. Our argument here is that companies that follow core principals of entrepreneurial management should outperform other more administrative firms in certain measures of strategic performance. This paper builds on an empirical investigation published by Brown, Davidson & Wiklund (2001), who have developed and tested a reliable measurement instrument for Stevenson's definition of "entrepreneurial management" ). In the first part of our paper we aim to replicate and to some extent improve this study. In the second part we link the measured degree of "entrepreneurial management" with firm performance. To our knowledge, even so Stevenson's definition of entrepreneurial management is commonly acknowledged and Brown et al. developed a reliable instrument to empirically capture this behavioral approach to management, the construct of entrepreneurial management never before has been linked to firm performance in an empirical study. Since most papers on corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance are based on concept of entrepreneurial orientation, we contribute to the literature on corporate entrepreneurship in a novel way, given the fact that the entrepreneurial management dimensions measured in our study can theoretically and empirically be clearly distinguished from the construct of entrepreneurial orientation as defined by Covin & Selvin (1991).

View PDFchevron_right
Ahead of the Curve: Leveraging Antecedents of Corporate Entrepreneurship to Pull Off Competitive Advantage
Ahmad Arsalan

Entrepreneurship is a highly dynamic and important endeavor that spills over to economic, technological, and social canvas of a society in this rapidly changing globalized economy. The purpose of the present quantitative study is to investigate the associations among information and communication technologies, innovation, absorptive capacity, CEO's temporal leadership, and competitive advantage by considering corporate entrepreneurship as a mediator. These factors have been incorporated because they play a predominant role to vie in a competitive environment for entrepreneurial success and economic growth. We used the response of 460 organizations, acquired on a Likert scale, to examine how antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship contribute toward competitive advantage. Structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the measurement and structural relationships including the mediation effects of corporate entrepreneurship. All the relationships with corporate entrepreneurship were found significant except the direct effect of absorptive capacity on competitive advantage. Hence, the results established corporate entrepreneurship as a mediator to predict competitive advantage partially by information and communication technologies (ICT) use, innovation, and temporal leadership. The findings also reveal that absorptive capacity reaps an entire competitive advantage only through corporate entrepreneurship. Practically, the study would be invaluable for organizations, entrepreneurs, and managers to capture a lot of opportunities in effectively managing scarce resources.

View PDFchevron_right
Managers' corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position
Donald F. Kuratko, Jennifer Bott

Journal of Business Venturing, 2009

Are organizational factors that support entrepreneurial action supportive for all? We use the literatures on corporate entrepreneurship and managerial levels to propose that managers differ in structural ability to make the most of their organizational environment. Using a sample 458 managers and moderated Poisson regression analysis we found that the relationship between managers' perceptions of the organizational environment and the number of entrepreneurial ideas implemented varied across managers of different structural levels. Specifically, (1) the positive relationship between managerial support and entrepreneurial action is more positive for senior and middle level managers than it is for lower-(first) level managers, and (2) the positive relationship between work discretion and entrepreneurial action is more positive for senior and middle level managers than it is for first-level managers. These findings suggest that managerial level provides a structural ability to "make more of" organizational factors that support entrepreneurial action. Published by Elsevier Inc.

View PDFchevron_right
Guest editorial: the role of corporate entrepreneurship in the current organizational and economic landscape
Jeffrey Hornsby

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2013

View PDFchevron_right

References (110)

  1. Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776-793.
  2. Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2008). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11-26.
  3. Amit, R.H., Brigham, K., & Markman, G.D. (2000). Entrepreneurial management as strategy. In G.D. Meyer & K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge (pp. 83-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  4. Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 95-106.
  5. Antoncic, B. (2003). Risk taking in intrapreneurship: Translating the individual level risk aversion into the organizational risk taking. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(1), 1-23.
  6. Baden-Fuller, C. & Volberda, H.W. (1997). Strategic renewal: How large complex organizations prepare for the future. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(2), 95-120.
  7. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
  8. Barrett, H. & Weinstein, A. (1998). The effect of market orientation and organizational flexibility on corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 57-70.
  9. Bartlett, C.A. & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The myth of the general manager: New personal competencies for new management roles. California Management Review, 40(1), 92-116.
  10. Block, Z. & MacMillan, I.C. (1993). Corporate venturing: Creating new businesses within the firm. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  11. Burgelman, R.A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244.
  12. Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
  13. Chen, M.J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21, 100-134.
  14. Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22.
  15. Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (1996). Building your company's vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 65-77.
  16. Cooper, A.C., Markman, G.D., & Niss, G. (2000). The evolution of the field of entrepreneurship. In G.D. Meyer & K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 115-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  17. Cornwall, J. & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entrepreneurship. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
  18. Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47-64.
  19. Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217-234.
  20. Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25.
  21. Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (2002). The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 309-
  22. Covin, J.G., Ireland, R.D., & Kuratko, D.F. (2003). The exploration and exploitation functions of corporate venturing. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meetings, Seattle, WA.
  23. Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., & Heeley, M.B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175-210.
  24. Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J., & Lane, P.J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351-378.
  25. Drucker, P.F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2), 9-25.
  26. Dutta, D.K. & Crossan, M.M. (2005). The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 425-449.
  27. Eckhardt, J.T. & Shane, S.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29, 333-349.
  28. Eisenhardt, K.M., Brown, S.L., & Neck, H.M. (2000). Competing on the entrepreneurial edge. In G.D. Meyer & K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 49-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  29. Floyd, S.W. & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154-177.
  30. Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: The renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 123-143.
  31. Garvin, D.A. (2002). A note on corporate venturing and new business creation. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
  32. Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formula- tion.
  33. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
  34. Grimm, C.M. & Smith, K.G. (1997). Strategy as action: Industry rivalry and coordination. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
  35. Guth, W.D. & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue), 5-15.
  36. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 67-76.
  37. Hayton, J.C. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 21-41.
  38. Heller, T. (1999). Loosely coupled systems for corporate entrepreneurship: Imagining and managing the innovation project/host organization interface. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 25-31.
  39. Higdon, L.I. Jr. (2000). Leading innovation. Executive Excellence, 17(8), 15-16.
  40. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
  41. Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1999). Perception of internal factors for corporate entre- preneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 9-24.
  42. Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle managers' perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273.
  43. Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1993). An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29-37.
  44. Ireland, R.D. & Hitt, M.A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 43-57.
  45. Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship actions and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49-63.
  46. Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-989.
  47. Ireland, R.D. & Webb, J.W. (2007a). A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management, 33(6), 891-927.
  48. Ireland, R.D. & Webb, J.W. (2007b). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), 49-59.
  49. Johnson, S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (2002). A framework for entrepreneurial strategy. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 66-85). Oxford, UK.: Blackwell Publishers.
  50. Kazanjian, R.K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M.A. (2002). Implementing strategies for corporate entrepreneurship: A knowledge-based perspective. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 173-199). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.
  51. Kilmann, R., Saxton, M.J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  52. Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 103-113.
  53. Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Bishop, J.W. (2005). An examination of managers' entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(3), 275-291.
  54. Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Goldsby, M.G. (2004). Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship: A proposed model of perceived implementation/outcome comparisons at the organizational and individual levels. Inter- national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 77-89.
  55. Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., & Montagno, R.V. (1993). Implement entrepreneurial thinking in established organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1), 28-39.
  56. Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G., & Hornsby, J.S. (2005). A model of middle-level managers' entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699-716.
  57. Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., & Hornsby, J.S. (2001). The power of entrepreneurial actions: Insights from Acordia Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(4), 1-12.
  58. Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., & Hornsby, J.S. (1990). Developing an entrepreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue), 49-58.
  59. Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and inte- gration. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
  60. Liedtka, J.M. & Rosenblum, J.W. (1996). Shaping conversations: Making strategy, managing change. Cali- fornia Management Review, 39(1), 141-157.
  61. Lovas, B. & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 875-896.
  62. Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurship orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172.
  63. Lumpkin, G.T. & Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451-472.
  64. McGrath, R.G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 13-30.
  65. McGrath, R.G. & MacMillan, I.C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  66. Markides, C.C. (1998). Strategic innovation in established companies. Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 31-42.
  67. Merz, G.R. & Sauber, M.H. (1995). Profiles of managerial activities in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 551-564.
  68. Meyer, G.D. & Heppard, K.A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  69. Miles, G., Heppard, K.A., Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (2000). Entrepreneurial strategies: The critical role of top management. In G.D. Meyer & K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  70. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 27, 770-791.
  71. Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  72. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  73. Mintzberg, H. (1987a). The strategy concept I: Five P's for strategy. California Management Review, 30(1), 11-24.
  74. Mintzberg, H. (1987b). The strategy concept II: Another look at why organizations need strategies. California Management Review, 30(1), 25-32.
  75. Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J.A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257-272.
  76. Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., & Smith, J.S. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 93-104.
  77. Morris, M.H. & Jones, F.F. (1995). Human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical assessment from the USA. International Journal of Human Resource Management 4, 873-896.
  78. Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
  79. Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F., & Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson/SouthWestern Publishers.
  80. Murray, J.A. (1984). A concept of entrepreneurial strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 1-13.
  81. Muzyka, D., De Koning, A., & Churchill, N. (1995). On transformation and adaptation: Building the entrepreneurial corporation. European Management Journal, 13(4), 346-362.
  82. Nelson, R.R. (1991). Why do firms differ and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(Winter Special Issue), 61-74.
  83. Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  84. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
  85. Reynolds, P. (1987). New firms: Societal contribution versus survival potential. Journal of Business Venturing 2, 231-246.
  86. Russell, R.D. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: A cognitive mapping approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 65-84.
  87. Russell, R.D. & Russell, C.J. (1992). An examination of the effects of organizational norms, structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management 18, 639-656.
  88. Sathe, V. (1988). From surface to deep corporate entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, 27(4), 389-411.
  89. Sathe, V. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Top managers and new business creation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  90. Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  91. Schindehutte, M., Morris, M.H., & Kuratko, D.F. (2000). Triggering events, corporate entrepreneurship and the marketing function. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(2), 18-20.
  92. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-226.
  93. Sharma, P. & Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11-27.
  94. Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., & Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273-292.
  95. Spender, J.C. (1989). Industry recipes: The nature and sources of managerial judgment. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
  96. Stacey, R. (1995). The Science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 447-496.
  97. Stopford, J.M. & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1990). Corporate rejuvenation. Journal of Management Studies, 27(4), 399-415.
  98. Stopford, J.M. & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 15(7), 521-536.
  99. Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285-305.
  100. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
  101. Tidd, J. & Taurins, S. (1999). Learn or leverage? Strategic diversification and organizational learning through corporate ventures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(2), 122-129.
  102. Timmons, J.A. (1999). New venture creation (5th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
  103. Volberda, H.W. (1996). Towards the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359-374.
  104. Weick, K.E. & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  105. Zahra, S.A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259-285.
  106. Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F., & Kuratko, D.F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45-65.
  107. Zahra, S.A., Nielsen, A.P., & Bogner, W.C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 169-189.
  108. R. Duane Ireland is a Distinguished Professor and holds the Foreman R. and Ruby S. Bennett Chair in Business in the Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
  109. Jeffrey G. Covin is the Samuel and Pauline Glaubinger Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
  110. Donald F. Kuratko is the Jack M. Gill Chair of Entrepreneurship, Professor of Entrepreneurship & Executive Director of the Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. The guest editors acknowledge that a prior version of this paper was presented at the Max Planck Ringberg Entrepreneurship Conference on Strategic Entrepreneurship in June 2007. The authors wish to thank our discussant, Anne Huff, and the other conference attendees for their helpful feedback. Two anonymous reviewers provided invaluable guidance in the final development of this manuscript.

Related papers

Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy
Duane Ireland

Proceedings - Academy of Management, 2003

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) strategy is increasingly recognized as a strategic option firms choose to pursue once triggers from the external environment denote the need for change and strategic adaptation . We define CE strategy as a set of commitments and actions framed around entrepreneurial behavior and processes that the firm designs and uses to develop current and future competitive advantages in promising technological or product-market arenas. The choice of using CE strategy as a primary means of strategic adaptation reflects the firm's decision to seek competitive advantage principally through innovation and entrepreneurial behavior on a sustained basis. CE strategy is a fundamental orientation toward the pursuit of opportunity and growth that exists when it is embraced throughout the organization and defines the essence of the firm's functioning. Consistent with Mintzberg's (1987) "strategy as perspective" view of strategy, CE strategy is a shared ideology that has more to do with "commitments to ways of acting and responding" than with the firm's specific position within its external environment. Thus, CE strategy is not to be "found" at one level or place within the organization. Rather, it is reflected across the organization and ingrained as part of its core being, and holds across time.

View PDFchevron_right
Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage
Nor Fazlinda
View PDFchevron_right
The influence of organization on corporate entrepreneurial behavior
B. Gailly

2008

The aim of the research is to investigate the factors influencing entrepreneurial behavior of individuals within a corporation. We define entrepreneurial behavior as "discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities in order to create future goods and services". Corporate entrepreneurial behavior, in its turn, is subject to a number of constraints and opportunities imposed by the organization. Our main hypothesis is that the strategic orientation of the company as reflected by core beliefs and behavioral patterns of top-management, should have a strong impact on employees' entrepreneurial intentions. We map the theoretical field and discuss the potential methodology of analysis. Table. 1 Administration vs. Entrepreneurship Administrative Conceptual dimension Entrepreneurial Driven by controlled resources Strategic orientation Driven by perception of opportunity Evolutionary with long duration Commitment to opportunity Revolutionary with short duration A single stage with complete commitment out of decision Commitment of resources Many stages with minimal exposure at each stage Ownership or employment of required resources Control of resources Episodic use or rent of required resources Hierarchy Management structure Flat, with multiple informal networks Based on responsibility and seniority Reward philosophy Based on value creation Safe, slow, steady Growth orientation

View PDFchevron_right
Managers' corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position
Jeffrey Hornsby

2009

Abstract. Through the development and extension of theories and scholars ’ subsequent empirical analyses of significant, theoretically grounded research questions, the knowledge about corporate entrepreneurship (CE) and its successful use continues to advance. Moreover, the literature suggests important relationships between the corporate environment, managers ’ entrepreneurial behavior and successful implementation of corporate entrepreneurship actions. In an attempt to test some of those relationships, we describe an empirical study of 523 managers that examines the relationships among the antecedents to managers ’ entrepreneurial behavior, a decision to implement entrepreneurial actions, and resulting job satisfaction and reinforcement practices. Through the development and extension of theories and scholars ’ subsequent empiri-cal analyses of significant, theoretically grounded research questions, knowledge about corporate entrepreneurship and its successful use continues to exp...

View PDFchevron_right
DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12031 Corporate Entrepreneurship: State-of-the-Art Research and a Future Research Agenda
Andrew Corbett

2013

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Marketing
  • Practice theory
  • Corporate Entrepreneurship
  • Business and Management
  • Strategic Vision
  • Case Conceptualization Skills
  • Organizational Architecture

    • Cited by

    The effect of pro-entrepreneurship architecture on organisational outcomes
    boris urban

    Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2012

    Effectuation provides an explanation of the behaviour of entrepreneurial firms in transforming environments. This article empirically investigates the influence of effectuation on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and firm performance, while considering environmental uncertainty as a moderating influence. A survey is administered to a sample of high-technology firms and hypotheses are tested using correlational and regression analysis. A positive relationship between effectuation and the firm's level of EO is established, where this effectuation moderates the relationship between EO and firm performance. However, the interaction effect between effectuation and environmental dynamism and hostility proves to be non-significant. By applying an empirical lens this study increases the relevance and generalisability of effectuation theory by expanding it from mostly a descriptive nature to a theory that accounts for moderators in the EO-performance relationship.

    View PDFchevron_right
    The Organizational Pervasiveness of Entrepreneurial Orientation
    William J Wales

    Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2011

    View PDFchevron_right
    Revitalizing Entrepreneurship: The Search for New Research Opportunities
    Jeffrey Covin, Robert Hoskisson

    Journal of Management Studies, 2011

    Entrepreneurship research has traditionally focused on opportunity recognition and resource formation as processes that foster the emergence of new business ventures, through both the lens of the individual entrepreneur and corporate venturing. Although we observe that research is vibrant in these traditional areas, we also argue that the continued revitalization of the field of entrepreneurship can be fostered through examining opportunities for research in areas such as industry change and competition, inter-organizational cooperation (which has proliferated more recently), university-sponsored entrepreneurship, venture finance, institutional differences that foster entrepreneurship (primarily between different countries), and appropriability regime differences (including legal and regulatory frameworks) that foster entrepreneurial activities and profit appropriation. Besides pointing scholars to new promising directions, we argue for more attention to the transformational role of entrepreneurship itself by issuing a call for more multi-level research efforts that connect the micro-and macro-foundations of entrepreneurship and explore the revitalization-related uncertainties such as the cost of creating an entrepreneurial orientation and whether there is an optimal level.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Nonlinear Effects of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Small Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Resource Orchestration Capabilities
    Patrick Kreiser

    Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2013

    This research examines the nature of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and small firm performance. The results from a sample of 258 Swedish small firms indicate an inverted U-shaped relationship between EO and small firm performance. Drawing upon resource orchestration theory, we theorize that information and communication technology capability and network capability help small firms overcome their resource-related 'liabilities of smallness' and observe these capabilities to increase the optimal levels and performancerelated returns from EO. In the absence of these capabilities, returns to firm performance from increasing EO were observed to reach harmful levels. The study implications are discussed.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science
    Patrick Kreiser, G. Christopher Crawford

    Small Business Economics, 2015

    Whereas our understanding of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) and corporate entrepreneurship strategy (CES) continues to expand, there has been little theoretical development to support the most extensive framework to date: the integrative model of CES as proposed by Ireland et al. (Entrep Theory Pract 33(1): 2009). According to the model, CES is built upon the ''three foundational elements of an entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture, and entrepreneurial processes and behaviors as exhibited throughout the organization'' (Ireland et al. 2009, p. 38). The purpose of this study is to present a broad, overarching theory-complexity science-to examine the key elements and propositions of the CES model. Complexity science-founded on assumptions of interdependent heterogeneous agents and nonlinear interactions, as well as non-deterministic and potentially extreme outcomes-offers established multilevel concepts, theoretical boundary conditions, and methodological guidance for scholars to build and test future studies on CE and CES. Though our complexity perspective draws extensively from conceptual work on complex adaptive systems and agent-based models, we ground our arguments on the empirical ubiquity of power law distributions in all constructs and levels of analysis within the CES model. We conclude with a detailed research agenda, as well as a prescriptive discussion related to theory development, quantitative analysis, and practical applications to guide future studies on CE.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved