Search results

Increasingly, companies are using alliances and joint ventures to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities. These collaborations are voluntary arrangements between two or more firms that exchange, share, bundle, and create resources in pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities. This paper proposes that the innovativeness and risk characteristics of these entrepreneurial collaborations significantly influence the outcomes that partner firms realize. Furthermore, interfirm trust works to moderate the effects of these characteristics and allows partners to effectively manage these arrangements. Using data from a sample of alliances and joint ventures engaged in new product development in the telecommunications, medical, and electronics industries, we empirically test the effects of these characteristics on partner satisfaction and partnership success.

Entrepreneurship-related research in management and organizational journals has experienced rapid growth, particularly in the last several years. The purpose of this study is to identify the researchers and universities that have had the greatest influence on entrepreneurship research since the turn of the century. Using a systematic and comprehensive study identification protocol, the authors delve into the individual and institutional actors contributing to scholarship in entrepreneurial studies for the period from 2000 to 2015. Examination of top-tier management and organizational journals revealed that a total of 371 entrepreneurship-related articles were published during this period by 618 authors from 303 different institutions. Rankings for the most prolific individuals as well as institutions, adjusted and unadjusted for journal quality, are presented. The article concludes with a discussion of the limitations and implications of the research undertaken here.

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).

Entrepreneurship remains a young scholarly discipline characterized by low paradigmatic development. Herein, we discuss theoretical and methodological issues associated with this rapidly emerging yet still developing research area. We argue that theory and methodology are symbiotic components of research and should develop concurrently in order to support the evolution of a paradigm for entrepreneurship research. Further, we posit that effective growth of entrepreneurship research will occur as a result of appropriately extending theory and methods from other scholarly disciplines as well as from theoretical and methodological innovations that are unique to entrepreneurship. Based on the positions taken in this chapter, we also advance recommendations for scholars to consider as work is completed to develop a systematic body of knowledge about entrepreneurship.

The team members’ expertise has been shown to increase team effectiveness when it is actively coordinated. While in face-to-face teams such expertise coordination unfolds through direct interaction, expertise coordination in dispersed teams is unlikely to evolve automatically. In this context, shared leadership, that is, the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members is argued to serve as initiating mechanism for expertise coordination.

The purpose of this article is to introduce and discuss the “Entrepreneurial Health Audit”. This organizational tool is used to assess a firm's entrepreneurial intensity, diagnose organizational characteristics low in entrepreneurial intensity, and to create an understanding of the processes needed to foster a corporate entrepreneurship strategy as a means of improving organizational performance. This article is part two or a two‐part series.

Based on the existing literature, case studies, and the authors' own research and experiences with a diverse mix of companies, the paper develops a three‐stage “Entrepreneurial Health Audit.” Top‐level managers can use this tool to determine their firm's ability to act entrepreneurially at a point in time.

The paper describes how managers assess and improve their firm's entrepreneurial health. In the first stage, the “Entrepreneurial Intensity” instrument is used to measure the degree and frequency of entrepreneurship occurring within the firm. In the second stage, the “Corporate Entrepreneurship Climate Instrument” is used to identify why the firm has developed its current level of entrepreneurial intensity. Finally, the third stage of the “Entrepreneurial Health Audit” fosters commitment to a work environment supporting entrepreneurial behavior, thereby enhancing the degree and frequency of corporate entrepreneurship within the firm.

The paper raises a number of questions regarding how organizations stimulate entrepreneurial behavior and undertake organizational changes to facilitate these actions. It provides a tool top‐level managers can use across time continuously to increase their firm's ability to be entrepreneurial.

The paper demonstrates to managers how to approach the concept of entrepreneurship within an established organization, including how to diagnose characteristics constraining the firm's entrepreneurial potential and how to build commitment encouraging entrepreneurial behaviors.

The paper fills an existing void between researchers and practitioners in terms of how firms can take steps to transform their current entrepreneurial potential into the “ideal” characteristics studied in entrepreneurship research. It offers a unique organizational tool to use to assess an individual firm's potential to be entrepreneurial.

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.

Achieving continuous innovation performance still poses a major challenge to established companies as it requires high flexibility and adaptability in usually efficiently structured organisations. One way to tackle this challenge lies in establishing effective behaviours to successfully establish and apply innovation leadership mechanisms in an organisation. The emerging agile leadership style could provide such effective behaviours, as it addresses the demand for flexibility and adaptability on the organisational level. Despite these clear parallels research on the link between agile leadership and innovation leadership, and their possible combined contribution to drive continuous innovation performance is still in its infancy. Accordingly, the present study examines the behaviours of agile leaders to promote continuous innovation in established companies. It applies a discovery-driven research process of agile leaders to derive and categorise their behaviours. The subsequent comparison of the identified agile leadership behaviours with innovation leadership mechanisms from existing literature leads to eight specific, combined agile leadership principles within the three categories empowerment, performance enhancement, and support for continuous innovation. Eventually, this basis allows the conceptualisation of a first exploratory framework with the identified behaviours as possible enablers, and innovation leadership mechanisms as possible mediators for the continuous innovation performance, subject to test. These findings enhance existing theory by clarifying a possible link between agile leadership and continuous innovation. That way, practitioners can profit from concrete principles for agile leaders to inspire and enable continuous innovation in individuals and teams.