Search results

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.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution has escalated innovation to new heights unseen, creating an evolution of innovation and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and as a result, a more Innovative CSR. With this evolution comes also the evolution of the ‘Preneur’ from social entrepreneur to corporate social entrepreneur and corporate social intrapreneur. It is therefore important to acknowledge that social entrepreneurship is not just for the social sector, or start-up entrepreneur – corporations can also be social entrepreneurs. This chapter establishes an understanding of this possibility alongside solving wicked problems and challenges, and how to provide collaborative networks and co-creation experiences to assist others on this journey. More importantly, the chapter discusses how corporates can assist millennials (and Generation Z) by funding and incubating their innovative or social enterprise idea under the umbrella of CSR strategy, until it is ready to be released to the world. The chapter is supported by academic literature and business publications with suggestions for future research opportunities.

The aim of this chapter is to focus on the role human capital, innovative recruitment practices and cross-cultural staffing policies have on organizational performance. This facilitates a better understanding about how entrepreneurial thinking is encompassed into an organizational context by utilizing global talent management practices.

The chapter discusses the linkage between global talent management and corporate entrepreneurship literature by providing a number of research propositions.

The chapter highlights how it is important for entrepreneurial organizations to focus on global talent management for their global competitiveness.

This conceptual paper is based on corporate entrepreneurship as the underlying theoretical framework for global talent management, which means the results should be interpreted from an entrepreneurial perspective.

Global talent management is becoming increasingly popular as a way to integrate organizations corporate entrepreneurship goals with their strategic objectives.

More organizations are taking a social perspective that encompasses a global mindset for talent management in order to facilitate more entrepreneurial thinking.

This chapter stresses the importance placed on hiring and retaining talented individuals who can contribute to innovative and risk taking outcomes in global organizations.

The research focuses on the problem of the mismatch between the current approach to corporate accounting and reporting according to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the new paradigm of international entrepreneurship development in Russia. The research aims to identify global prerequisites and prospects for improving the approach to corporate accounting and reporting of international entrepreneurship according to IFRS in Russia. Drawing on international experience in developing digital economies from 2021 to 2023, the authors apply regression analysis to create an econometric model of IFRS application in international entrepreneurship. The model determines patterns of changes in the investment attractiveness of the economy for foreign investments as corporate accounting and reporting in international entrepreneurship are automated using big data, smart analytics, and other digital technologies. The main authors' conclusion is that smart automation of corporate accounting and reporting in international entrepreneurship according to IFRS ensures an influx of foreign investments. The theoretical significance lies in developing a new approach to corporate accounting and reporting for international entrepreneurship according to IFRS in Russia. The practical significance is expressed in the perspective offered to enhance the attractiveness of Russia's economy for foreign investments through smart automation of corporate accounting and reporting for international entrepreneurship according to IFRS. This can be utilized, first, in the business practices of international entrepreneurship in Russia to increase investment attractiveness for foreign investors. Second, it can be utilized in the state economic policy to stimulate the influx of foreign investments into the digitalization of Russia's economy.

This chapter focuses on how corporate entrepreneurs seize opportunities and deal with threats through resource acquisition, control, and use. When corporate entrepreneurs fail to gain control of preferred resources they must rely on their ability to optimize their use of resources on hand in order to avoid the typical limitations inherent in a constrained set of resources. However, control of resources, whether existing or supplementary, by itself is an insufficient basis for influencing performance. Performance also depends on an organization’s capacity to deploy resources in combination with strategically important organizational processes to affect a desired end. The way in which corporate entrepreneurs utilize their resources is likely to have a more significant effect on performance than is merely having control of them. The current research aims to elaborate on how corporate entrepreneurs can become more resourceful by using a vacillation approach to resource acquisition and utilization. In this context, vacillation is movement between exploration and exploitation, or knowledge acquisition and knowledge integration from a knowledge management perspective. Vacillation is distinguished from the “balance” hypothesis prevalent in the organizational ambidexterity literature. A balance hypothesis states that both exploration and exploitation may be pursued simultaneously either by creating structural or contextual organizational ambidexterity. Here, we explain how vacillation enables an organization’s corporate entrepreneurship posture to lead to improved performance. In this chapter, we first describe the extant literature and construct relationships between corporate entrepreneurship posture, organizational resource level, vacillation, and organizational performance. We then analyze the learning processes associated with vacillation and discuss the research and managerial implications associated with the proposed relationships.

Corporate entrepreneurship is a process of organizational change within established firms, which involves creation, transformation and/or the development of an entrepreneurial philosophy (Covin & Miles, 1999; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Schendel, 1990; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999; Zahra, 1993). Researchers and executives alike emphasize the importance of change in corporate entrepreneurship. According to Stevenson and Jarillo-Mossi (1986, p. 14), “If a company wishes to continue to be entrepreneurial, it must convince everyone that change is the company’s overriding goal,” or, as stated by Michael Dell, “The only constant in our business is that everything is changing” (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998, p. 1).

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.