Search results

Entrepreneurship is a prominent area of inquiry which is enriched by an ample literature base and challenged by definitional deficiencies. Over the years, multiple perspectives of entrepreneurship have emerged and a holistic approach to entrepreneurship has been proposed. This can facilitate the continued enlargement of the entrepreneurship field and allow for interdisciplinary research within the African region. This chapter contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship in developing economies by providing an extensive review of the various approaches that entrepreneurship has been conceptualised. Nine themes are explored: the great person, economic perspective, psychological perspective, sociological perspective, behavioural perspective, management, intrapreneurship, cognitive perspective and leadership perspective. This is followed by an examination of entrepreneurship as a process, as a new venture creation and as an art of opportunity recognition and exploitation. In the last section of this chapter, a clarion call is made for more African scholarship and research in the field of entrepreneurship.

The concept of entrepreneurship is not new. As a concept, it remains elusive, diverse and multi-faceted. Although there is an extensive body of research within the field, there is little consensus on what underpins entrepreneurship, and whether it should remain a distinct domain of study.

This chapter contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship in developing economies. The study seeks to uncover the challenges facing entrepreneurs in a developing economy using the formal retail sector in Nigeria as a case.

Entrepreneurship in the retail sector of a developing economy has not been given significant attention by researchers despite its uniqueness and dynamism. By adopting a qualitative approach involving semi-structured interviews of 51 respondents, the lived experiences of these entrepreneurs were understood. Given the challenges such entrepreneurs face in a developing economy, this study makes a contribution, as the challenges such retail entrepreneurs face namely, challenges within the industry, government policy inconsistencies and corruption, infrastructural deficit and technology deficit were identified. In practice, the findings of this study serve as a useful reference for practitioners and policy-makers of the challenges that need to be addressed for entrepreneurship to flourish in Nigeria.

This research aimed to determine the mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and leadership styles. Two hundred hardware and footwear entrepreneurs from the Las Malvinas Commercial Emporium, Lima, Peru were surveyed. The partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) multivariate statistical technique was applied for data analysis. It was found that there is a complementary mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the relationship between entrepreneurial passion and leadership styles. On the other hand, it was concluded that entrepreneurial passion has a positive influence on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Likewise, there is a positive influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on leadership styles, and there is a positive influence of entrepreneurial passion for leadership styles. This research contributed theoretically to the academic literature and provided empirical evidence of the relationship of the proposed variables; it proved a new predictive and explanatory structural model that can now be used in future research worldwide and generated a model of the studied variables that are useful for both academia and the business world.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.

To innovatively address challenges faced by corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in this modern age of globalization and digitalization, this chapter takes a fresh look at questions of learning and leadership from the perspective of organization development (OD), a field that has long studied questions of planned and emergent change. This alternate perspective adds to our knowledge and understanding of the role of individuals and teams in CE and presents opportunities to integrate learning and leadership. In particular, the OD literature provides us with multilevel measurement methods and tools to better analyze the employee and team level-of-analysis. As a result, these insights should enable us to better explain the interaction between CE strategic orientation and the performance of corporate venturing employees and teams, as well as the progress of organizational strategic renewal and market (re)creation efforts.

In this chapter, the authors examine the main effect of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) – a firm’s strategic entrepreneurial posture – on balancing exploration and exploitation in the form of organizational ambidexterity. Resource-constrained firms face an imperative to conduct innovative activities, survive hostile environments, and compete with larger and more resource-rich firms. The authors contend that firms can address these potential impediments through achieving ambidexterity via dynamic capabilities, firm-specific resources, and institutional factors. Specifically, The authors review the EO and ambidexterity literatures and summarize extant arguments related to the relationship between EO, exploration, and exploitation. The authors also discuss the most prominent scales and measures of EO, exploration, and exploitation. Moreover, the authors discuss operationalizational challenges that should be considered when conducting EO–ambidexterity research and suggest future research directions by specifying an agenda outlining useful theoretical perspectives and various contingencies that may influence the EO–ambidexterity relationship.

A corporate entrepreneurship (CE) strategy implies that a firm’s strategic intent is to continuously leverage entrepreneurial opportunities for growth- and advantage-seeking purposes. CE has gained greater research attention with a focus on the factors that influence an organization’s willingness to initiate and sustain a CE strategy. In the current disruptive age, firms acknowledge the importance of CE (also referred to as corporate innovation) as the critical element for sustained competitive advantage in the global economy. Yet, so many organizations struggle with the actual implementation of an innovative strategy. There are key challenges that must be addressed by today’s corporate entrepreneurial leaders in this age of disruptive innovation. These include framing the innovation, developing the internal architecture, coordinating the managerial levels, integrating design thinking, recognizing the grief associated with project failure, and demanding ethical standards. As research on corporate innovative activity has evolved, numerous researchers have acknowledged the importance of these leadership activities to enhance the effectiveness of corporate entrepreneurial activity. In this chapter, the authors discuss these critical elements confronting corporate entrepreneurial leaders.

The concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) attracts considerable attention in the organizational literature. Focusing on issues related to measurement of EO and using a three-pronged framework to organize the growing diversity of EO measures, the authors conduct a systematic literature review on how EO is captured and assessed in the empirical literature. Specifically, the authors classify 551 empirical works according to the approach to measurement (i.e., managerial perceptions, content analysis, and resource allocations) which allows the authors to document and critically analyze prevalent measurement practices within the literature. Based on the synthesis, the authors identify key measurement-related tensions that may inhibit cumulative knowledge development in the area of EO, such as ad hoc modification of seminal scales and lack of theoretical clarity with respect to measurement. Additionally, the authors find that research into the antecedents of EO as well as causality and temporality of the phenomenon is underdeveloped, which the authors attribute to scarce use of mixed methods. The authors conclude chapter by discussing the challenges involved in measuring EO and offering possible recommendations for future inquiry.

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.