Search results

The purpose of this study is to critically examine and review the extant research on corporate entrepreneurship champions in the broader area of corporate entrepreneurship and to uncover the avenues for advancement of the scholarship with the purpose of engaging CE champions towards the upliftment of organisations in particular, and younger workforce in general.

In this study, authors employ bibliometric analysis through a review of 274 papers fetched from Web of Science and Scopus databases.

The authors set the agenda for future research and policy by elucidating research themes and potential research questions by bringing out twelve themes classified into five basic themes, three niche themes, three motor themes, and one key theme, while also providing the methodological inputs for carrying out this agenda.

This study adopts a unique lens of investigation in contextualising the role of self-efficacy, employee engagement, and career choice for the younger workforce.

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.

This study unpacks how organizational members construct a collective entrepreneurial identity within an organization and attempt to instill entrepreneurial features in the organization's existing identity.

The study draws on the cases of two venturing units, perceived as entrepreneurial groups within their respective parent companies. Semi-structured interviews and secondary data were collected and analyzed inductively and abductively.

The data revealed that organizational members co-constructed a “corporate entrepreneur” role identity to form a collective shared belief and communities of practice around what it meant to act as an entrepreneurial group within their local corporate context and how it differentiated them from others. Members also clustered around the emergent collective entrepreneurial identity through sensegiving efforts to instill entrepreneurial features in the organization's identity, despite the tensions this caused.

Previous studies in corporate entrepreneurship have theorized on the top-down dynamics instilling entrepreneurial features in an organization's identity, but have neglected the role of bottom-up dynamics. This study reveals two bottom-up dynamics that involve organizational members' agentic role in co-constructing and clustering around a collective entrepreneurial identity. This study contributes to the middle-management literature, uncovering champions' identity work in constructing a “corporate entrepreneur” role identity, with implications for followers' engagement in constructing a collective entrepreneurial identity. This study also contributes to the organizational identity literature, showing how tensions around the entrepreneurial group's distinctiveness may hinder the process of instilling entrepreneurial features in an organization's identity.

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 increasing globalization and technological advancements have increased the information spillover on stock markets from various variables. However, there is a dearth of a comprehensive review of how stock market volatility is influenced by macro and firm-level factors. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by systematically reviewing the major factors impacting stock market volatility.

This study uses a combination of bibliometric and systematic literature review techniques. A data set of 54 articles published in quality journals from the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) list is gathered from the Scopus database. This data set is used to determine the leading contributors and contributions. The content analysis of these articles sheds light on the factors influencing market volatility and the potential research directions in this subject area.

The findings show that researchers in this sector are becoming more interested in studying the association of stock markets with “cryptocurrencies” and “bitcoin” during “COVID-19.” The outcomes of this study indicate that most studies found oil prices, policy uncertainty and investor sentiments have a significant impact on market volatility. However, there were mixed results on the impact of institutional flows and algorithmic trading on stock volatility, and a consensus cannot be established. This study also identifies the gaps and paves the way for future research in this subject area.

This paper fills the gap in the existing literature by comprehensively reviewing the articles on major factors impacting stock market volatility highlighting the theoretical relationship and empirical results.

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.

Building dynamic capabilities that are differentiated from those of the emerging competitors is the major challenge for growing firms. Becoming a great company is a function of management’s ability to integrate entrepreneurship at strategic and operational levels within the organization. Corporate entrepreneurship represents a framework for the facilitation of ongoing change and innovation in established organizations. It provides a blueprint for coping effectively with the new competitive realities that companies encounter in the global marketplace. This paper examines the latest research concerning the triggering of corporate entrepreneurship and the critical link of middle managers to the implementation of the process.

This paper contributes to research in social entrepreneurship by introducing a typology that describes four distinct types of social entrepreneurs based on the nature of their lives and career experiences and the scope of their social engagement.

In order to build a typology of social entrepreneurs, inductive profile analysis and archival research design approaches were used. A large variety of social entrepreneur profiles that are available in prominent social entrepreneurship organizations such as Ashoka Foundation, Echoing Green, Schwab Foundation and Skoll Foundation were examined.

Using four types of social entrepreneurs from the typology, the authors developed a number of predictions as to how social entrepreneurs with an activist background may benefit more in the short term but possibly struggle in the long term given their attachment to their venture's “original” cause and lack of corporate/business experience.

By developing a typology of social entrepreneurs and discussing the implications of this typology for post-launch social venture performance, the paper advances the current understanding of social entrepreneurs and the performance of their ventures. Additionally, by focusing on social entrepreneurs as agents of social change, this paper sheds some light on who these entrepreneurs are, what kind of life and career experiences they had and what motivates them to engage in social entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and employee engagement. Corporate entrepreneurship is one of the widely researched areas recently, as is employee engagement. Studies combining the two constructs, on the other hand, are generally scarce. Developing on this gap and based on existing literature, the basic purpose this study pursued was to explore the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and employee engagement using the corporate entrepreneurship assessment instrument (CEAI) and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).

Within the tenets of the pragmatic approach, this study followed a descriptive survey design in a cross-sectional time. To capture primary data structured questionnaire was constructed based on the CEAI developed by Hornsby et al. (2002) for assessing the corporate entrepreneurial atmosphere and UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2002) to assess employee engagement. The sample constitutes 332 respondents taken from six leather footwear companies in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The social exchange theory (SET) was used to describe the hypothesised relationships.

The findings of the current study reinforced the proposition by Saks (2006) that the SET can provide a meaningful theoretical basis for understanding and studying employee engagement. Accordingly, this study showed that the relationship between the organisation and its employees can be viewed as a mutually beneficial arrangement in a reciprocal exchange. Furthermore, it was shown that the five-factor model of the CEAI can be used to predict employee engagement and that a significant amount of the deviation in the engagement dimensions can be explained by the corporate entrepreneurial variables. Finally, it was indicated that different variables in the CEAI predict different engagement dimensions in the UWES.

This study does not group the data based on demographic factors. Likewise, future studies can explore the effect of the CEAI on the dimensions of employee engagement, while considering different demographic groups like salary ranges, age groups, gender, experience, work position. Furthermore, the current study applies cross-sectional data; future studies might consider longitudinal data for better results.

The study findings suggest that it is important that practicing managers view the relationship between the organisation and employees as a two-way relationship guided by reciprocal exchange in which case when firm-specific entrepreneurial atmosphere is conducive, employees would respond by engaging themselves innovatively. Also, managers should know which CEAI variables affect which engagement dimensions for better outcomes.

Although there are scattered studies in corporate entrepreneurship and employee engagement separately, there is no attempt so far to relate the two concepts. Therefore, this study stood as a first attempt to relate the two constructs.

Synthesizing theoretical and empirical literature, this study aims to build a theoretical model linking the constructs; corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement and innovation.

Using an integrative review method the current study conducted an examination of related literature on the areas of corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement, as well as innovation and developed an integrated model which combines the three constructs. The study bases itself on the resource-based view (RBV) for looking into corporate entrepreneurial ecosystems as organizational capabilities and employee engagement as a human resource. The social exchange theory (SET) was also used to analyse the interrelationships.

An RBV synthesis made on corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement, as well as innovation literature shows that while corporate entrepreneurship has been recognized as beneficial to bring positive organizational outcomes, attempts to tie it in the core resource, capability and competence input-output linkage are scanty. The study shows that the RBV can be a good way to see human resources as a source of organizational competitive advantage and corporate entrepreneurship as the capability to product innovation as a competence. The study also shows that by combining the RBV with the SET corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement and innovation can be integrated as a basis for developing organizational competitiveness.

The implication of this paper to future empirical studies is that corporate entrepreneurship can be integrated with the RBV to relate it to the core competitive advantage development endeavour. The implication for policymakers and management practitioners on the other hand is that managers can consider corporate entrepreneurship as a major capability to bring the employee resource on board the innovation process. The study further implies that management practitioners need to provide time, freedom, boundary, reward and support to get their employees engaged in innovation. Hence, managers can integrate the SET into their motivation principles.

The study is original in its attempt to integrate the SET and RBV for studies in the area of corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement and innovation.