Search results

Identifies issues to consider when designing a corporate entrepreneurship strategy, discuss the triggers of corporate entrepreneurship, and describe an internal work environment that supports corporate entrepreneurship.

Based on the extant literature, case studies, and the authors' experiences with a diverse mix of companies, the nature and importance of a corporate entrepreneurship strategy is described, together with insights into the internal and external factors that facilitate corporate entrepreneurship and a strategy used to support it.

The ability to foster high levels of entrepreneurial intensity and formulate effective corporate entrepreneurship strategy is associated with key elements of the organizational climate. Four major climate variables are assessed. Conclusions are drawn regarding the value an entrepreneurial mindset creates when used in established firms.

Raises a number of questions regarding the role of strategic versus non‐strategic approaches to encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation in larger, established companies, as well as the relative importance of differing triggering events and various climate variables in influencing a successful corporate entrepreneurship strategy.

Demonstrates to managers how to strategically approach the concept of entrepreneurship within a larger organization, including how to design an internal work environment that is conducive to encouraging employees to act on their innate entrepreneurial potential.

Fulfills a missing gap in terms of how established firms can make entrepreneurship a core element of their approaches to strategic management and offers practical insights into some of the more vital factors that contribute to sustainable levels of entrepreneurship in established firms.

Entrepreneurship is an emerging and evolving field of inquiry. Entrepreneurship research has been expanding its boundaries by exploring and developing explanations and predictions of entrepreneurship phenomena in terms of events such as innovation, new venture creation and growth as well as characteristics of individual entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial organizations. The largest institutionalized community of entrepreneurship scholars – the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management – has developed an entrepreneurship specific domain that incorporates the creation and management of new businesses, small businesses and family businesses, and the characteristics and special problems of entrepreneurs; it has further identified major topics such as new venture ideas and strategies, ecological influences on venture creation and demise, the acquisition and management of venture capital and venture teams, self-employment, the owner-manager, management succession, corporate venturing, and the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development. One growing entrepreneurship research sub-field is corporate entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship), i.e. entrepreneurship in existing organizations. Emerging in the past two decades, the initial research in corporate entrepreneurship focused on new business venturing, i.e. the formation of new ventures by existing organizations, mostly corporations, and the focus on the entrepreneurial individual inside a corporation – this focus was then extended to include entrepreneurial characteristics at the organizational level. Corporate entrepreneurship research has evolved into three focal areas. The first area of focus is on the individual intrapreneur (Jennings, Cox & Cooper, 1994; Jones & Butler, 1992; Knight, 1989; Lessem, 1988; Luchsinger & Bagby, 1987; McKinney & McKinney, 1989; Pinchot, 1985; Ross, 1987; Souder, 1981), mainly emphasizing the intrapreneur’s individual characteristics. The recognition and support of entrepreneurs in organizations is also a part of this focal area. The second area of focus has been on the formation of new corporate ventures (Burgelman, 1985; Carrier, 1994; Cooper, 1981; Fast & Pratt, 1981; Hisrich & Peters, 1984; Hlavacek & Thompson, 1973; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; MacMillan, Block & Narasimha, 1984; Szypersky & Klandt, 1984; Vesper, 1990); this area’s primary emphasis is on the different of types of new ventures, their fit with the corporation, and their enabling corporate internal environment. The third area of focus is on the entrepreneurial organization (Burgelman, 1983; Drucker, 1985; Duncan et al., 1988; Hanan, 1976; Kanter, 1984; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Muzyka, de Konning & Churchill, 1995; Pinchot, 1985; Quinn, 1979; Rule & Irwin, 1988; Schollhammer, 1981; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994), which mainly emphasizes the characteristics of these organizations.

Environmental uncertainty, turbulence, and heterogeneity create a host of strategic and operational challenges for today’s organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). To cope with the challenge of simultaneously developing and nurturing both today’s and tomorrow’s core competencies, firms increasingly rely on effective use of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999). These facts make it imperative that managers at all levels actively participate in designing and implementing a strategy for corporate entrepreneurship actions. The recent literature reveals that there is a general although certainly not a complete consensus around the position that successful corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is linked to improvement in firm performance (Ireland et al., 2001). Covin, Ireland and Kuratko (2003) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance and that the understanding of corporate entrepreneurship as a valid and effective practice with real, tangible benefits is occurring across firm type and managerial levels. Other researchers cite corporate entrepreneurship’s importance as a growth strategy (Kuratko, 1993; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott, 1985; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). As an example, Dess, Lumpkin and McGee (1999) note that, “Virtually all organizations – new start-ups, major corporations, and alliances among global partners – are striving to exploit product-market opportunities through innovative and proactive behavior” – the type of behavior that is called for by corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) suggested that in light of the dynamism and complexity of today’s environments, “…entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish.” Developing an internal environment that cultivates employees’ interest in and commitment to creativity and the innovation that can result from it contributes to successful competition in today’s competitive arenas. A valuable and appropriate internal organizational environment is a product of effective work (often within the context of corporate entrepreneurship) by managers at all levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000).

The present study examines entrepreneurship in established firms holistically and critically. The authors start by reviewing previous research and highlight a variety of definitional, conceptual, methodological, contextual, and temporal factors that have been confounding the research. The authors then present a multidimensional framework that specifies a more nuanced picture of the determinants, motives, activities, and consequences of corporate in established firms. Finally, the authors discuss conceptual, methodological, and practical implications, as well as outline future research avenues.

Discussion of the case will enable students to:

• explain what are the five specific dimensions that are important determinants of an environment conducive to entrepreneurial behavior;

• analyze how to measure the internal environment on the five dimensions critical to creating an entrepreneurial/innovative environment;

• devise a profile of the firm across the five dimensions – top management support, work discretion, rewards and reinforcement, time availability and organizational boundaries;

• explain how to attempt to identify the perceived gaps at the unit or division level and then work to rectify the specific areas; and

• describe models of corporate entrepreneurship.

explain what are the five specific dimensions that are important determinants of an environment conducive to entrepreneurial behavior;

analyze how to measure the internal environment on the five dimensions critical to creating an entrepreneurial/innovative environment;

devise a profile of the firm across the five dimensions – top management support, work discretion, rewards and reinforcement, time availability and organizational boundaries;

explain how to attempt to identify the perceived gaps at the unit or division level and then work to rectify the specific areas; and

describe models of corporate entrepreneurship.

Mexicali is a border city in the state of Baja California, Mexico. It was in the month of May 2022. The President of Prodensa Consulting Services (PCS), Marco Kuljacha (Marco), was sitting in his office thinking about a way forward to create an intrapreneurial culture by identifying more “Marcos or Marcias” among his current PCS employees. As he contemplates the future of the company, he is hoping to identify individuals within the organization who exhibit an entrepreneurial mindset through generating and leading new business initiatives for PCS. He desires to support people who have the potential to emerge as future leaders within the organization. He is striving to identify those individuals who want to proactively develop their career trajectories in ways similar to Marco’s earlier professional experiences. After starting with Grupo Prodensa in 2006 as a Junior Project Manager, Marco, by pursuing an intrapreneurial path, worked his way up to become President of the PCS in 2022. According to Marco, such individuals should exhibit the willingness to foster opportunities for new business ventures for PCS and possess traits such as innovation, proactivity, risk-taking, accountability and networking.

With an eye toward the need for continuous innovation and change, Marco was thinking about ways to identify and develop entrepreneurially minded individuals among his employees working at PCS. Corporate entrepreneurship was of great importance for him and the future of the company. The case provides an opportunity for students to step into the shoes of Marco and find an appropriate intrapreneurship model to implement the intrapreneurship culture. In doing so, students should take into consideration the data regarding the existing corporate entrepreneurship processes and teams at Grupo Prodensa that helped it to innovate and make assumptions to analyze the feasibility of implementing intrapreneurship culture by finding more Marco or Marcia.

This case can be used as an introductory case in a postgraduate class on corporate entrepreneurship, as it delineates the challenges faced by Marco in finding an appropriate intrapreneurship model and finding in PCS more Marco or Marcia has qualities such as innovator, proactive, risk-taker, accountability, networking, for implementing corporate entrepreneurship culture in PCS. The case can also be used in a corporate entrepreneurship course and an innovation management course. The case allows students to learn about the model of corporate entrepreneurship; strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results analysis; pros and cons analysis; and challenges faced by the company during the implementation of corporate entrepreneurship. Thus, the case can be used for covering multiple perspectives related to measuring the internal environment or managers’ perception of the five dimensions critical to implementing corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. the application of the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument), and is ideal for teaching the different corporate entrepreneurship models.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

In order to learn more about the antecedents of strategy at the top management team’s (TMT) level, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of TMT cultural intelligence on corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Then, the authors examine how TMT’s ambiguity tolerance mediates this relationship.

The authors tested the hypothesis by collecting survey data from 41 TMTs of small- and medium-sized enterprises in the south-east of Iran.

The survey results confirm that a high level of cultural intelligence in TMTs is conducive to corporate entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the result shows that higher levels of cultural intelligence in TMTs relate to a higher level of ambiguity tolerance, which, in turn, enhances the possibility of pursuing corporate entrepreneurship strategy by SMEs.

The data for this study were obtained from 41 TMTs in the south-east of Iran, which increases the probability that the results may not be directly transferable to certain companies in Western countries. Future research might attempt to test the ideas developed in this paper across different settings and samples.

Several theoretical and empirical studies have explored possible antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship. But a few papers investigated the role of TMT dispositions on corporate entrepreneurship strategy. By addressing the prominent role of TMT psychological dispositions on corporate entrepreneurship strategy, this paper attempts to fill this gap.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether transformational leadership matters in promoting corporate entrepreneurship in Tunisian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It has been argued that transformational leadership is a multidimensional construct which is composed of intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, inspirational motivation and individual consideration. Corporate entrepreneurship is also a multidimensional construct composed of new business venturing, innovativeness, self-renewal and proactiveness. Hence, it has been hypothesized that transformational leadership positively and directly influences corporate entrepreneurship.

A hypothetico-deductive and quantitative approach was adopted to test the suggested research model. A 2 × 2 survey was conducted on a random sample of a set of Tunisian SMEs’ workers. Data analysis was performed using the structural equation modeling.

The results highlight the relatively relevance of transformational leadership’s components in triggering the corporate entrepreneurship’s patterns.

The author reports on the importance of transformational leadership in the corporate entrepreneurship development in the Tunisian business context. The paper should be of interest to readers in the areas of management and entrepreneurship. This work seems to be relevant to the extent that few works have highlighted the association between the components of both transformational leadership and corporate entrepreneurship. The findings seem interesting insofar as they show mainly the important effect of the intellectual stimulation and the inspirational motivation, triggered by transformational leaders, on workers’ innovativeness, proactiveness and new business venturing.

To measure the factors contributing to corporate entrepreneurship cultivation and examine the relation between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance.

With interviews and questionnaires, 58 large‐middle size enterprises in China were randomly surveyed to test the hypotheses. Factor analysis is used to corporate entrepreneurship cultivation factors, corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance. And then, a series of multiple linear regression analyzes have been conducted to test the causality between the above three aspects.

It is found that there are four factors contributing to corporate entrepreneurship, and it is suggested that corporations can cultivate corporate entrepreneurship to enhance corporate innovation performance.

It's not an exhaustive list of corporate entrepreneurship cultivation factors. And the size of samples is not large enough which perhaps limits its usefulness.

Lack of corporate entrepreneurship is a common problem of the large corporations in China, so the system model which proved in the paper is useful to offer a guideline.

The paper brings forth a system model to better the methods of cultivating corporate entrepreneurship to enhance corporate innovation performance based on an empirical study.

Boards of directors often attempt to foster corporate entrepreneurship by replacing a firmʼs chief executive officer (CEO). Compelling theoretical arguments and anecdotal evidence suggest that when firm performance has suffered, a new CEO is best suited to lead the firmʼs creative endeavors. On the other hand, among firms that retain their existing CEO after a decline in performance, manipulating the CEOʼs compensation package is a common governance practice used by boards to encourage innovation. In these cases, some have argued that increasing the CEOʼs pay will encourage corporate entrepreneurship, because the CEO has been compensated for assuming additional risk. Counter to these propositions, this study develops theoretical arguments that a firmʼs existing CEO is better equipped to foster corporate entrepreneurship and that this probability increases when the CEOʼs cash compensation is decreased. Results from a sample of 100 single-product manufacturing firms suggest firms that retain their current CEO and decrease the CEOʼs cash compensation are most likely to engage in corporate entrepreneurship. Implications that this research has for corporate entrepreneurship, corporate governance, and firm performance are discussed.

Despite the recognized importance of entrepreneurship for organizational wealth creation, research has devoted minimal attention to investigating this area. This study contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and wealth creation by developing and testing a normative model, which clarifies the nature of the influences of corporate entrepreneurship and its environmental and organizational antecedents on organizational performance. The findings of structural equation modeling, based on mail survey data from 477 Slovenian firms, demonstrate that corporate entrepreneurship and some its contingencies make a difference in organizational wealth creation, growth and profitability.