Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Comprehensive Field Review and Assessment of the
Internal Organizational Environment Supportive of
Strategic Entrepreneurship
Belén Casales Morici
Main supervisor: Heléne Lundberg
Co-supervisors: Peter Öhman, Ivo Zander
Faculty of Social Science
Thesis for Licentiate degree in Business Administration
Mid Sweden University
Sundsvall, 2018-11-30
Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Mittuniversitetet i Sundsvall
framläggs till offentlig granskning för avläggande av licentiatexamen i
företagsekonomi den 30 november, kl. 12.15, i sal L111, Mittuniversitetet
Sundsvall. Seminariet kommer att hållas på engelska.
Corporate Entrepreneurship:
A Comprehensive Field Review and Assessment of the Internal
Organizational Environment Supportive of Strategic
Entrepreneurship
© Belén Casales Morici, 2018-11-30
Printed by Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall
ISSN: 1652-8948
ISBN: 978-91-88527-80-6
Faculty of Social Science
Mid Sweden University, Holmgatan 10, 851 70 Sundsvall
Phone: +46 (0)10 142 80 00
Mid Sweden University Licentiate Thesis 149
To my family
Acknowledgements
During my time as a doctoral student, I have had the privilege of working
with a highly professional group of people. I would like to take the
opportunity to thank some of those people who have been influential during
my doctoral study, due to not only their contributions to this thesis but also
their significance in my development as a researcher.
I would like to first thank my co-supervisor, Ivo Zander. I once read that
the strangest thing to do is to trust a stranger. Nevertheless, that was exactly
what Ivo did. Without even knowing me, Ivo put his trust on me from the
very beginning and supported me all of the way. His dedication and passion
for research have been an inspiration to me, and he has always been generous
and ready to help me whenever required. Along all these years, Ivo has not
only been a source of creativity and learning to me but also a kind friend on
whom I can count.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Heléne
Lundberg, and co-supervisor, Peter Öhman, for their excellent advice and
insights. Both of them generously provided me constructive comments,
support and guidance.
Warm thanks also go to Katarina Blomkvist for her outstanding work as
an opponent during my final seminar. I am very grateful for her many
interesting thoughts and comments but especially for her encouragement to
be brave about the contributions and implication of this thesis.
Last, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting and
believing in me. They are the ones who have loved me despite my
achievements, especially my parents, who have always supported me
throughout my life. I would also like to especially thank my sister Sabrina and
my brother in law Daniel, without their help this adventure would not have
been possible. I am also very grateful to my partner and unconditional friend
with whom I hope to spend the rest of my life. Thank you, Anton, for your
patience and support until the end of this journey.
6
Table of contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... 8
SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ......................................................................... 9
LIST OF ARTICLES .............................................................................................. 10
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 11
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 11 1.2 AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................... 14
2. FRAME OF REFERENCE ................................................................................. 17
2.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP .............................. 17 2.2 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP: DEFINITION AND CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ... 19 2.3 STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP ..................................................................... 20 2.4 THE DEVELOPMENT AND DOMAINS OF RESEARCH ON STRATEGIC
ENTREPRENEURSHIP .............................................................................................. 22 2.5 DRIVERS OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THE INTERNAL
ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND ITS FACTORS ......................................... 25 2.6 STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR ........................ 26
3. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 28
3.1 SAMPLES AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION ........................................... 28 3.1.1 Article 1 .................................................................................................... 28 3.1.2 Article 2 .................................................................................................... 30
3.2 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 32 3.2.1 Article 1 .................................................................................................... 32 3.2.2 Article 2 .................................................................................................... 33
3.3 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 34 3.3.1 Article 1 .................................................................................................... 34 3.3.2 Article 2 .................................................................................................... 35
3.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................................ 35 3.4.1 Article 1 .................................................................................................... 35 3.4.2 Article 2 .................................................................................................... 36
4. SUMMARY OF ARTICLES ............................................................................. 38
4.1 ARTICLE 1 ........................................................................................................ 38 4.2 ARTICLE 2 ........................................................................................................ 39
7
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................ 41
5.1 MAIN FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 41 5.2 IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 43
5.2.1 Theoretical implications ........................................................................... 43 5.2.2 Managerial implications ........................................................................... 45
5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................. 45
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 48
THE ARTICLES ..................................................................................................... 72
8
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to expand current knowledge on the development of
corporate entrepreneurship and to contribute new theoretical and empirical
insights into strategic entrepreneurship. To those ends, the thesis attempts to
answer two research questions. First, how has the field of corporate
entrepreneurship research evolved in terms of main themes, applied methods
and theory, and what do these developments reveal about the future
trajectories of the field? Second, what is the relationship between internal
organizational factors and strategic entrepreneurship in the form of sustained
regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, and strategic renewal? To answer
the first question, a systematic and comprehensive review of 344 articles
addressing the development of research on corporate entrepreneurship
during 1969–2017 was conducted. To answer the second question, a survey
was administered at a major financial services company to examine the
relationship among four internal organizational factors and three forms of
strategic entrepreneurship. The overall conclusion of the literature review is
that corporate entrepreneurship is a growing and, in several respects,
maturing field of research. Signs of its maturity are undermined, however, by
the lack of commonly applied theories and theoretical frameworks. Those
findings take support from the overall conclusion of the second study, which
highlights the need to develop and further test empirically existing
frameworks, constructs, and theoretical connections within literature on
strategic entrepreneurship.
Taken together, the findings of the thesis suggest that corporate
entrepreneurship faces the difficult challenge of developing a set of more
distinct, unifying theories and conceptual frameworks. Concerning strategic
entrepreneurship, it is concluded that research on this topic should consider
specific organizational structures and conditions of the company and, at the
same time, it should also develop greater sensitivity to the effects of industry
and institutional settings. The findings also highlight that internal
organizational factors could have differentiated effects on the main forms of
strategic entrepreneurship.
9
Svensk sammanfattning
Avhandlingens syfte är att öka kunskapen om utvecklingen av
forskningsfältet intraprenörskap genom en systematisk och omfattande
litteraturöversikt, samt att fördjupa vår förståelse för sambandet mellan
interna organisatoriska faktorer och olika former av strategiskt
entreprenörskap. Avhandlingen svarar därmed på två frågeställningar. Först,
hur har forskningsfältet intraprenörskap utvecklats vad gäller
forskningsteman, tillämpade metoder och teori, och vad säger denna
utveckling om fältets tillväxt, mognad och legitimitet? Därefter, vad är
förhållandet mellan interna organisatoriska faktorer och olika former av
strategiskt entreprenörskap, specifikt förnyelse av produkter och tjänster
samt organisatorisk och strategisk förnyelse? För att svara på den första
frågan genomfördes en litteraturgenomgång av totalt 344 artiklar, där
utvecklingen av intraprenörskapsforskningen under perioden 1969–2017
analyserades. För att svara på den andra frågan genomfördes en enkätstudie
på ett större företag inom den finansiella sektorn som undersökte sambandet
mellan fyra interna organisatoriska faktorer och tre former av strategiskt
entreprenörskap.
Den övergripande slutsatsen från den första undersökningen är att
intraprenörskap är ett växande, och i många fall, mognande forskningsfält.
Dessa signaler motsägs emellertid av avsaknaden av en uppsättning
gemensamma teorier och teoretiska ramar. I detta avseende står fältet
fortfarande inför utmaningen att utveckla en uppsättning mer särskiljande
och förenande teorier. Slutsatsen från den andra studien är att forskningsfältet
om strategiskt entreprenörskap behöver vidareutvecklas samt testa olika
referensramar empiriskt. Trots att de fyra undersökta interna organisatoriska
faktorerna har en lång historia av teoretisk koppling till förnyelse inom
företag, framträder de inte som starka förklaringsfaktorer för de tre formerna
av strategiskt entreprenörskap i den finansiella sektorn. Avhandlingen
diskuterar teoretiska och praktiska konsekvenser av dessa resultat och ger
förslag till ytterligare forskning inom området intraprenörskap.
10
List of articles
This thesis is based on the following two articles.
Article 1
Title: Corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing the evolution of a field of
research
Authors: Belén Casales Morici and Ivo Zander
Status: Unpublished, submitted to Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship
Article 2
Title: Assessing the internal organizational environment for strategic
entrepreneurship: Evidence from the financial sector
Author: Belén Casales Morici
Status: Unpublished, submitted to the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
11
1. Introduction
This section presents the background of the research conducted for the thesis,
the overall aim of the thesis, and the research questions.
1.1 Background
Due to transformations in the nature of business during the past few decades,
today’s companies have to survive in a fast-paced, highly threatening, and
increasingly global environment (Morris, Kuratko, & Covin, 2008). Such
transformations have forced companies to re-examine their fundamental
purposes, continually redefine their markets, restructure their operations,
rethink their strategies, and modify their business models. Consequently, the
nature of and relationship among factors and variables that define how
companies operate have changed to the point that new approaches are
required to address the practical needs of companies and managers (Morris et
al., 2008). In particular, rapid technological change combined with the
fragmentation of markets has compelled companies to not only develop new
products and services but also do so far faster than they had before. As
companies’ resources and products become obsolete more quickly as a result,
managerial decisions regarding which resources to employ, which markets to
enter, and which products to develop have to evolve accordingly.
Given those developments, it is unsurprising that research on corporate
entrepreneurship, though slowly at first, has steadily evolved during the past
40 years (Kuratko, Hornsby, & Hayden, 2015). As a result, far more
knowledge has become available about the entrepreneurial processes that
operate within companies, the organizational factors that drive corporate
renewal, and how those processes and organizational factors contribute to
corporate performance. Nevertheless, whereas the inherent value of corporate
entrepreneurship has been recognized, the field continues to develop and
remains in need of further development (Corbett, Covin, O‘Connor, & Tucci,
2013; Kuratko, Hornsby, & Hayden, 2015; Phan, Wright, Ucbasaran, & Tan,
2009).
In a broad sense, corporate entrepreneurship refers to the development and
pursuit of new business ideas and opportunities within established
companies (Morris, 1998). Corporate entrepreneurship is thus a powerful
antidote to the stagnation of large, mature companies, their lack of innovation,
and inertia that often threatens them. To clarify what critically affects
corporate entrepreneurship, previous research has identified four domains
12
that have critical implications for corporate entrepreneurship: the external
environment, the strategic leaders, the company’s performance and the
internal organizational environment (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990, pp. 5–15).
First, the external environment encompasses everything outside the
company, including competition, customer relations, technology, regulations,
social factors, labour, and supply. Companies cannot be static in their
relationships with those forces but have to continually adjust, adapt, or
redefine themselves in order to face the challenges of often turbulent external
environments. For example, changes in competitive structures within an
industry and the technologies underlying them significantly affect corporate
entrepreneurship. Second, and by extension, entrepreneurial behaviours in
companies critically depend upon the characteristics, values, beliefs, and
visions of strategic leaders who affect the development of corporate
entrepreneurship.
Third, the extent to which a company’s performance is driven by and
drives corporate entrepreneurship affects the entrepreneurial environment in
a company. Typically, company performance considered to be driven by
corporate entrepreneurship refers to overall corporate profitability. In
particular, the dimension of company performance considered to be a key
driver of corporate entrepreneurship is access to surplus resources, which
allow companies to seize upon opportunities that arise in a timely fashion.
Fourth and last, the internal organizational environment, including the
structures, systems, processes, and culture within a company, define the set
of conditions under which employees operate as they attempt to accomplish
the companies’ tasks and their personal goals (Morris et al., 2008). Although
the internal organizational environment comprises a host of factors, the five
most important, as highlighted by literature on corporate entrepreneurship,
are management support, work discretion, rewards/reinforcement, time
availability and organizational boundaries (Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd, &
Bott, 2009; Kuratko, Goodale, & Hornsby, 2001; Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin,
2014; Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990). Individually and in combination,
those factors are conceived as important antecedents of entrepreneurial
initiatives within established companies (Hornsby, Kuratko, Holt, & Wales,
2013), for managers as well as employees are most likely to engage in
entrepreneurial behaviour when the internal organizational environment is
well-designed and widely known and accepted (Kuratko et al., 2014).
An alternative and complementary perspective divides corporate
entrepreneurship into two main areas of research: corporate venturing and
strategic entrepreneurship. Whereas corporate venturing involves the
13
creation of new businesses within establish companies, strategic
entrepreneurship encompasses renewal activities that enhance a company’s
ability to compete and take risks, which may or may not involve the addition
of new businesses at companies (Morris et al., 2008). Such renewal activities
include introducing new products and services, redesigning organizational
processes and structures, and pursuing new strategies.
Because research on strategic entrepreneurship has remained primarily
theoretical in nature (Kyrgidou & Petridou, 2011), its empirically based
development is important for two reasons. First, examinations of companies’
success or failure in strategic entrepreneurship could reveal not only why
companies that identify opportunities cannot ultimately exploit them
sufficiently and fail to develop requisite competitive advantages but also why
companies with those advantages become unable to identify valuable
entrepreneurial opportunities (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003; Kyrgidou &
Petridou, 2011; Schindehutte & Morris 2009). Second, the returns of strategic
entrepreneurship translate into wealth for companies (e.g. Schendel & Hitt,
2007), for strategic entrepreneurship synthesizes both entrepreneurial and
strategic action to optimize the pursuit of opportunities and the creation of
new advantages (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003; Monsen & Boss 2009).
Surprisingly, however, empirical research on strategic entrepreneurship
remains few and far between. This may in part be explained by different and
sometimes incongruent definitions of corporate entrepreneurship, which have
blurred conceptual boundaries and failed to forge linkages between studies
that address the same fundamental phenomenon. By extension, it has proven
difficult to maintain a clear distinction of different forms of strategic
entrepreneurship (Damanpour, 1991), since the introduction of new products
and services or the creation of new businesses typically coincides with some
form of organizational rejuvenation and strategic renewal (e.g. Burgelman,
1983; Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney, & Lane, 2003; Spann, Adams, &
Wortman, 1988; Stopford & Baden–Fuller, 1994; Zahra, 1993). Consequently,
one question that remains incompletely answered is how internal
organizational factors relate to the introduction of new products and services,
the redesign of organizational processes and structures, and the pursuit of
new strategies. Among reasons to expect that relationships between internal
organizational factors and forms of strategic entrepreneurship differ, whereas
the introduction of new products and services typically requires substantial
investments in time and financial resources, organizational rejuvenation can
involve numerous, often highly incremental initiatives less sensitive to
resource availability. Similarly, if the pursuit of new strategies tends to be
14
initiated by middle and top managers, managerial support might be of
relatively limited importance or require forms of support that differ from
those for promoting the introduction of new products or organizational
rejuvenation.1
In sum, there are good reasons to suggest that strategic entrepreneurship
should not be thought of as a homogenous concept. With more rigorous
approaches to measuring internal organizational factors and their
relationships with different forms of strategic entrepreneurship, the field will
be able to develop greater theoretical precision with a stronger and more
reliable support for its theoretical claims.
1.2 Aim and research questions
The overall aim of this thesis is to expand current knowledge on the
development of corporate entrepreneurship and to contribute new theoretical
and empirical insights into strategic entrepreneurship.
As markets and technologies continue to change at a seemingly ever-
increasing pace, fundamental assumptions about products, employees,
resources, and strategies have come into question (Morris et al., 2008),
particularly managerial practices and principles once though relevant in
guiding companies towards becoming more entrepreneurial. Although the
development of research on corporate entrepreneurship would largely be
expected to reflect those developments (Corbett et al., 2013; Dess et al., 2003;
Kuratko, 2017; Phan et al., 2009), systematic, fine-grained investigations into
how the field has evolved in terms of its focus and theoretical underpinnings
have been limited, and as a result, important developments and emerging
issues have gone undetected.
A systematic literature review can be a useful starting point for
summarizing current knowledge in a given field, as well as for identifying
neglected areas that might warrant scholarly attention. In response to such
thinking, the first research question of the thesis is:
1 Generally speaking, entrepreneurial and renewal activities can flourish in established companies
when four conditions are met. First, individuals within the company have to be free to perceive
actions and initiatives regardless of the rules. Second, managers need to support employees in the
development of new initiatives and tolerate failure, provide decision-making latitude and grant
freedom from excessive oversight, delegating authority and responsibility. Third, the company should
have a rewards system based on performance to encourage employees to pursue challenging work.
Fourth and last, employees need ample time to pursue innovations, and their jobs should be
structured in ways that support efforts to achieve short- and long-term organizational goals (Hornsby
et al., 2013).
15
RQ1. How has the field of corporate entrepreneurship research evolved in
terms of main themes, applied methods and theory, and what do these
developments reveal about the future trajectories of the field?
Posing that question identifies strategic entrepreneurship as a relatively
new theme, particularly from a conceptual point of view, in corporate
entrepreneurship (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2011; Ireland & Webb, 2007;
Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003; Kyrgidou & Hughes, 2010), despite its slow
emergence, especially from an empirical perspective. Apart from the
relatively modest amount of publications in leading journals, researchers
have often treated strategic entrepreneurship as a “homogeneous
phenomenon” (Narayanan, Yang, & Zahra, 2009), despite suggestions that
types of entrepreneurial activities in established corporations should be
examined and documented in greater detail (Dess et al., 2003; Hitt, Ireland, &
Hoskisson 2011; Kyrgidou & Hughes, 2010). Although scholars have
identified strategic entrepreneurship as critical for companies to remain
competitive in growing, changing market environments, potentially different
patterns in the relationships of drivers and outcomes of strategic
entrepreneurial initiatives in established firms remain poorly understood.
This thesis builds upon and extends conceptual work and theory on
corporate entrepreneurship by suggesting that strategic entrepreneurship
manifests in organizations in heterogeneous ways, as well as that the capacity
of internal organizational factors to drive strategic entrepreneurship may
differ in relation to the various forms in which strategic entrepreneurship
manifests. A more profound understanding of the ways in which such factors,
especially previously identified ones such as management support, work
discretion, reward/reinforcement, and time availability (Hornsby et al., 2009;
Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990; Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2014),
pervade the different forms of strategic entrepreneurship promises to
illuminate many of the intricacies of effectively managing strategic
entrepreneurship in organizations. Accordingly, the second research question
of the thesis is:
RQ2. What is the relationship between internal organizational factors
and strategic entrepreneurship in the form of sustained regeneration,
organizational rejuvenation, and strategic renewal?
16
From another angle, whereas most studies on corporate entrepreneurship
have involved drawing from data representing manufacturing and
technology-intensive industries, there has been relatively little research on
corporate entrepreneurship in other contexts such as service industries (de
Lurdes Calisto & Sarkar, 2017; Hughes & Mustafa, 2017; Kühn, Eymann,
Urbach, & Schweizer, 2016). Corporate entrepreneurship in the financial
sector, in particular, has not been examined in its own right but instead as part
of analyses of samples with companies from different sectors (Adonisi, 2003;
Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2011; Kraus, 2011; Kuratko, Ireland, &
Hornsby, 2001). The financial sector was chosen as the context for the second
study of the thesis because it provides a fruitful empirical arena for extending
the study of strategic entrepreneurship. Among other things, several legal and
institutional changes in the industry have recently highlighted the importance
of renewal among established companies in the industry
(Das, Verburg, Verbraeck, & Bonebakker, 2017).
At the same time, the financial sector is characterized by different
organizational designs depending on the nature of tasks and activities that
firms undertake (Falconer, 2014). Within large companies in the sector,
including large banks and insurance companies, it is quite common to have
some business units follow structured approaches with mechanistic designs
(e.g. legal departments and customer service centres), whereas others follow
approaches exhibiting a far more organic, fluid design (e.g. marketing
departments and systems development departments). Such mixed designs
within companies might affect organizational flexibility and solutions needed
to effectively foster activities of strategic entrepreneurship. After all, if
entrepreneurship, innovation, and renewal are integrated into a company’s
activities with mixed structures supporting them, then inconsistences
between drivers of renewal and their effects can become problematic (Covin
& Slevin, 1988).
In all, many large financial services companies have become aware of the
need to introduce new products and services, rejuvenate their organizations,
and pursue strategic renewal; however, their institutional contexts often
prevent the appropriate internal organizational environment to support those
activities. Empirical studies that capture the external and internal challenges
that large financial services providers face thus promise to extend research on
strategic entrepreneurship in new, fruitful directions.
17
2. Frame of reference
This section details the contents and evolution of research on corporate
entrepreneurship. After discussing previous studies on the field, it addresses
the conceptualization and definition of corporate entrepreneurship. Next, it
describes the forms, developments, domains, internal organizational factors,
and particular characteristics of strategic entrepreneurship in the financial
sector.
2.1 Previous studies on corporate entrepreneurship
As the scope of research on corporate entrepreneurship has expanded
significantly during recent decades (Corbett et al., 2013; Kuratko et al., 2015;
Phan et al., 2009), several issues, themes, and directions in research on the field
have become apparent. One issue that surfaces regularly is the challenge of
defining corporate entrepreneurship. Articles addressing this issue have dealt
with the reconciliation of issues, the possibility that corporate
entrepreneurship is an oxymoron, or clarifications of the domain (Dess et al.,
2003; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999; Thornberry,
2001). Managing corporate entrepreneurship is another major issue often
investigated by researchers, who have explored the motivations of corporate
entrepreneurs, emotions, transformational leadership, the positions of
managers, the failure of projects and grief, and issues concerning middle
managers (Brundin, Patzelt, & Shepherd, 2008, Hornsby et al., 2009; Ling,
Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008; Marvel, Griffin, Hebda, & Vojak, 2007; Ren
& Guo, 2011; Shepherd, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009; Shepherd & Kuratko, 2009).
A third issue has been the implementation of corporate entrepreneurship in
terms of human resource practices, environment- and industry-related trends,
control and operations management, and specific difficulties with its
implementation (Goodale et al., 2011; Hayton, 2003, 2005; Hayton & Kelley,
2006; Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin 2014; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Morris &
Trotter, 1990; Schuler, 1986).
As research on corporate entrepreneurship has expanded, numerous
special issues in journals (Corbett et al., 2013; Kuratko, Hornsby, & Hayton,
2015; Phan et al., 2009) and literature reviews (Dess et al., 2003; Kuratko, 2017;
Narayanan et al., 2015; Rind, 1981; Yang & Zahra, 2009) have emerged,
especially during the past decade. Among such reviews, which have largely
focused on specific themes and parts of corporate entrepreneurship, Zahra,
Jennings, and Kuratko (1999) investigated the antecedents and consequences
18
of firm-level entrepreneurship, whereas Phan et al. (2009) later explored
structural and process contingencies, the role of management at multiple
levels, and organizational and managerial capabilities. Other literature
reviews conducted at the individual and group levels of analysis have
examined the role that members of top management teams play in the
performance of new internal ventures (Corbett et al., 2013).
Despite such scholarly work addressing those issues and themes,
systematic and comprehensive investigations into the longitudinal
development of research on corporate entrepreneurship as a field (i.e. reviews
presenting the big picture of the field) have been rare. However, such reviews,
including the assessment of the evolution of main themes, methodologies, and
theoretical foundations of research, represent a powerful way to synthesize
existing work on the field and to identify gaps therein, regarding not only
themes of research but also the different methodologies used. By scrutinizing
the evolution of the theoretical underpinnings of the field, it is also possible
to gauge the extent to which researchers on the field have been able to build
upon the work of others and support the accumulation of scholarly
knowledge.
The ways in which fields of research develop in terms of major themes
indicate their intellectual growth and expansion (e.g. Banker & Kauffman,
2004; Cobo, López–Herrera, Herrera–Viedma, & Herrera, 2011; Furrer,
Thomas, & Goussevskaia, 2007). As knowledge within a particular field
accumulates and develops, it typically results in an increasingly fine-grained
structure of related branches and frontiers of research (Kuhn, 1996). The use
of methods is another indicator of the changing nature of fields of research
(Banker & Kauffman, 2004; Cheon, Grover, & Sabherwal, 1993). Generally
speaking, as fields of research develop and mature, they tend to shift from
involving studies with small samples designed to map phenomena under
study to testing hypotheses based on larger, more diverse samples. Bearing
that dynamic in mind, the literature review in this thesis specifically examines
developments in methods of data collection, statistical analyses, sample sizes,
and geographical sources of data.
The evolution of theory offers a third perspective on the development of
research on corporate entrepreneurship, since any sustained absence of
theories that define common points of reference may result in an eclectic
approach to fact gathering and the use of data at hand instead of directed data
collection that develops and pushes the boundaries of existing knowledge
(Kuhn, 1996). Although theoretical eclecticism may not necessarily be
negative and though research on corporate entrepreneurship should arguably
19
maintain a certain degree of theoretical diversity, it may ultimately come at
the expense of knowledge accumulation and, in turn, the legitimacy of
corporate entrepreneurship as requiring a distinct field of research (Brazeal &
Herbert, 1999; Schmitt, Raisch, & Volberda, 2018).
The first study conducted for this thesis examines all of those previously
unexplored issues to assess what the contributions during the past five or six
decades suggest about the past and future development of research on
corporate entrepreneurship. It also sets the stage for the second article of the
thesis, identifying strategic entrepreneurship as a relatively recent but
especially from an empirical point of view, relatively unexplored theme
within the field.
2.2 Corporate entrepreneurship: definition and conceptual
issues
Despite consensus that corporate entrepreneurship concerns activities and
processes that promote the renewal of existing corporations, no commonly
applied definition of corporate entrepreneurship exists. Activities and
processes have commonly been described as “intrapreneuring” or “corporate
venturing” (Block & MacMillan, 1993; Burgelman, 1983; Hornsby, Naffziger,
Kuratko, & Montagno, 1993; Pinchot, 1985) or as those by which individuals
or groups attempt to initiate some form of renewal within corporate
organizations.
Early researchers in corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. Hill & Hlavacek,
1972; Peterson & Berger, 1971) often adopted somewhat ambiguous views on
what constituted the domain of corporate entrepreneurship, in the sense that
what was considered entrepreneurial about the phenomenon was either
implicitly defined or not differentiated from other phenomena commonly
associated with innovation in organizations—for example, new product
development (Corbett et al., 2013). Over the years that followed, several
different definitions of corporate entrepreneurship were introduced and the
literature has continued to include a number of diverse definitions, which
may to a certain extent have had negative effects on knowledge accumulation
in the field (Schmitt et al., 2018). The absence of a common definition and
conceptual framework may also have made it difficult to maintain a sense of
common identity among corporate entrepreneurship researchers (Brazeal &
Herbert, 1999; Davidsson, Gartner, & Zahra, 2006), with further implications
for scholarly attraction and legitimacy in the wider domains of
entrepreneurship research and business studies more generally (Pfeffer, 1993).
20
This thesis, in drawing from a set of definitions of corporate
entrepreneurship (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Carrier, 1996; Covin & Miles,
1999; Dess, Lumpkin, & Mcgee, 1999; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Jennings &
Lumpkin, 1989; Schendel, 1990; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999), applies a
comprehensive definition of the concept, according to which research on
corporate entrepreneurship, by extension, refers to research that attempts to
determine how, through whom, and with what effects new products and
services, as well as organizational structures, practices, processes, and
strategies, are discovered and exploited by established corporations.
Although that definition partly aligns with the more general definition of
entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), it differs in two important
aspects. One, it focuses on entrepreneurship connected to the operations of
established firms, and two, the scope of entrepreneurial opportunities extends
beyond new products and services to also include organizational innovation
and strategic renewal. By contrast, firms in start-up phases generally focus on
creating foundational instead of redesigned organizational processes,
procedures, and strategies (Klotz, Hmielski, Bradley, & Busenitz, 2014).
The second aspect of the applied definition of corporate
entrepreneurship—that it involves organizational innovation and strategic
renewal—becomes particularly important for the second study of this thesis.
Because studies on new product and service innovation outnumber studies
on organizational innovation by three to one and studies on strategic renewal
by even more, the question of how established corporations can create and
exploit not only new products and services but also new organizational
structures, practices, processes, and strategies. After all, the origins and
drivers of new products and services, as well as the drivers of key individuals
in the process, can sharply contrast those related to new ways of organizing
and new strategies (Wales, Monsen, & McKelvie, 2011).
2.3 Strategic entrepreneurship
Strategic entrepreneurship, which along with corporate venturing is a major
form of corporate entrepreneurship (Morris et al., 2008), refers to a process of
identifying opportunities with the greatest potential to prompt value creation
and facilitating the exploitation of those opportunities with strategic actions
and the existing base of resources. Whereas the entrepreneurial aspect of
strategic entrepreneurship involves the ability to identify opportunities as
well as the willingness to pursue them, the strategic aspect involves the
isolation and exploitation of opportunities most likely to generate sustainable
21
competitive advantage and, in turn, the means to form new advantages (Hitt,
Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001). Strategic entrepreneurship thus at once
involves opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviour (Ireland,
Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). Innovations created as part of strategic
entrepreneurship can occur anywhere in a company and can represent
fundamental changes from the company’s past products, markets,
organizational structures, processes, strategies, capabilities, or business
models.
According to the extant literature, strategic entrepreneurship can be
manifested in five forms: sustained regeneration (e.g. product and service
offerings), organizational rejuvenation (e.g. the internal organizational
setting), strategic renewal (e.g. company strategy), domain redefinition (e.g.
markets served), and business model reconstruction.
In particular, sustained regeneration refers to the entrepreneurial process by
which companies “regularly and continuously introduce new products and
services or enter new markets” (Covin & Miles, 1999, p. 51). Stemming from a
constant search for opportunities that regularly results in innovations,
including incrementally improved products and services, sustained
regeneration is most commonly pursued to sustain competitive advantage in
the face of short product life cycles and changing technologies (Morris et al.,
2008). Unlike other forms of strategic entrepreneurship, sustained
regeneration occurs when firms show of a pattern, not a single discrete
instance, of introducing product or service innovations.
By contrast, organizational rejuvenation refers to the entrepreneurial process
by which companies “seek to maintain or improve their competitive situation
by modifying their internal processes, structures and/or capabilities” (Covin
& Miles, 1999, p. 52). Organizational rejuvenation involves applying
established strategies to improve competitive advantage without changing
the product–market combination. It can also involve complex modifications
that drive the redesign of an organization as well as minor modifications that
collectively improve its efficiency (e.g. in interdepartmental or interdivisional
communication). The objective of such forms of strategic entrepreneurship is
to create an organizational means of better implementing the company’s
strategy (Morris et al., 2008). To constitute organizational rejuvenation,
however, those modifications need to be entirely original in the sector, even if
later imitated by competitors. In that sense, organizational rejuvenation
requires more than merely adopting initiatives already common in companies
in the same sector.
22
Another form of strategic entrepreneurship, strategic renewal refers to “the
transformation of organizations through the renewal of the key ideas on
which they are based” (Guth & Ginsberg 1990, p. 5). In line with that
definition, Covin and Miles (1999, p. 52) suggest that, with strategic renewal,
an organization “seeks to redefine the relationship with its competitors in the
market or the sector in which it operates, by modifying its form of
competition”. In that sense, strategic renewal not only involves adopting new
strategies; for a new strategy to represent strategic renewal, it should imply a
substantial change in the company’s positioning within its competitive space
(Morris et al., 2008).
Alternatively, domain redefinition refers to the entrepreneurial phenomenon
in which companies “proactively create a product–market combination that
others have not recognized or actively sought to exploit” (Covin & Miles, 1999,
p. 54). With domain redefinition, firms move into uncontested markets, or
what Kim and Mauborgne (2005) have called “blue oceans”: product–market
arenas that represent new product categories that can either give rise to
entirely new industries or redefine the boundaries of existing ones. In
pursuing domain redefinition, a firm typically hopes that its first-mover
status will create a solid basis for sustainable competitive advantage if and
when competitors follow. The phenomenon that domain redefinition
represents can also emerge in so-called “bypass strategies” (Fahey, 1989),
“market pioneering” (Golder & Tellis, 1993), “whitespace marketing” (Maletz
& Nohria, 2001), and “blue ocean strategy” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005).
Last, business model reconstruction refers to “the design or redesign of the
company’s business model with the objective of improving operational
efficiency or differentiating itself from competitors in its sector through
formulas that are valued by the market” (Kuratko et al., 2011, p. 101). Common
activities in business model reconstruction include outsourcing (i.e. relying
on external suppliers for activities previously performed internally) and, to a
lesser extent, vertical integration (i.e. taking ownership of elements of the
roles of suppliers or distributors).
2.4 The development and domains of research on strategic
entrepreneurship
Within the domains of entrepreneurship and strategic management, scholars
have proposed to combine certain aspects of both fields to create a new
concept—strategic entrepreneurship—even if its exact nature has remained
23
elusive (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009). To clarify the different perspectives on
strategic entrepreneurship and previous research on the subject, the following
discussion provides an overview of the perspectives and, later, a review of
empirical studies on strategic entrepreneurship.
The first perspective focuses on strategic management, a process of
guiding how a company approaches its basic work, ensures its continuous
renewal and growth, and, more particularly, cultivates a setting for
developing and implementing strategies that drive its operations (Schendel &
Hofer, 1978). Strategic management of course involves strategy, or how a
company plans to become what it wants to become (Kuratko & Audretsch,
2009). Throughout an organization, strategy creates a sense of unity and
consistency in action.
When coupled with entrepreneurship—that is, the search for new
competitive advantages via product, process, and market innovations—
strategic management becomes a process by which companies establish and
exploit competitive advantages within particular contexts. The integration of
strategic management with entrepreneurship has two critical components:
entrepreneurial strategy and strategy for entrepreneurship (Morris et al., 2008).
Whereas entrepreneurial strategy involves applying creativity and
entrepreneurial thinking to the development of a firm’s core strategy, strategy
for entrepreneurship involves developing strategies to guide a firm’s
particular entrepreneurial activities and, in turn, determining how
entrepreneurial the firm wants to be and how it will achieve that level of
entrepreneurship (Morris et al., 2008).
Among researchers working at the intersection of strategy and
entrepreneurship, Covin & Kuratko (2008) have discussed strategic
entrepreneurship within the realm of corporate entrepreneurship. In their
analysis, strategic entrepreneurship refers to a broader array of entrepreneurial
phenomena that may or may not result in the addition of new businesses
within a corporation. Later, Ireland, Covin & Kuratko (2009) applied an
organizational lens in modelling corporate entrepreneurship strategy (CES)
and synthesized key elements within CES’s intellectual domain as
antecedents, elements, and outcomes. Elaborating upon the implications of
strategic entrepreneurship, Monsen & Boss (2009) examined how managers
and staff reacted to strategic entrepreneurship in a diversified healthcare
organization, specifically regarding department-level entrepreneurial
orientations (e.g. taking risks, being proactive, and innovating), degree of role
ambiguity, and intention to quit. Their results suggest that strategic
24
entrepreneurship can affect management and staff differently and thus
requires a correspondingly customized design.
A second perspective focuses on entrepreneurship. After examining its
varying definitions, Ronstadt (1984, p. 28) summarized entrepreneurship as
“the dynamic process of creating incremental wealth. This wealth is created
by individuals who assume the major risks in terms of equity, time, or career
commitment of providing value for some product or service. The product or
service itself may or may not be new or unique but value must somehow be
infused by the entrepreneur by securing and allocating the necessary skills
and resources”. In that vein, Ireland, Hitt, Camp, & Sexton (2001) have argued
that, in established firms, entrepreneurial actions seek to find new markets or
competitive space for the firm as a way of creating wealth. Companies that
find new ways of doing business will disrupt an industry’s rules about
competition and precipitate new business models and competitive
advantages that could create additional wealth (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009).
The degree to which companies act entrepreneurially—pursuing innovation,
taking risks, and being proactive—thus relates closely to dimensions of
strategic management. Understanding the critical intersections of domains
such as innovation, organizational learning, governance, and growth allows
entrepreneurs to take higher-quality entrepreneurial and strategic actions
(Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009).
A third perspective focuses on economic policy. In economics, the link
between entrepreneurship and economic growth has a long tradition.
Following Jean-Baptiste Say and Joseph Schumpeter’s work on how
entrepreneurship affects economic development (Ronstadt, 1984),
entrepreneurship has re-emerged as a focal point of economic policy,
primarily as an instrument for generating growth, jobs, and economic
development (Baumol, 1996; Carree & Thurik, 2008; Thurik, Audretsch,
Carree, & van Stel, 2008). The strategic management of places, or what has
been termed economic development policy, has thus concentrated on supporting
strategic entrepreneurship to foster regional innovation and growth (Agarwal,
Audretsch, & Sarker, 2007). In empirical research from the third perspective,
scholars have focused on venture capital as well as international
entrepreneurship, among other themes (Fernhaber & McDougall–Covin, 2008;
Walske & Zacharakis, 2008).
Despite the appealing features of strategic entrepreneurship, its nature and
the ways in which firms can achieve it remain poorly understood (e.g. Ireland
et al., 2003; Luke & Verreynne, 2006; Monsen & Boss, 2009; Upson, Ketchen, &
Ireland, 2007). Nevertheless, it is clear that strategic entrepreneurship,
25
representing corporate innovation in its broadest sense, seeks the creation of
competitive advantage and the means to continue creating such advantage.
Moreover, in depending upon conditions and processes conducive to
achieving wealth creation and corporate or general economic growth,
strategic entrepreneurship can be designed as well as cultivated.
2.5 Drivers of strategic entrepreneurship: the internal
organizational environment and its factors
Scholars of corporate entrepreneurship roundly confirm that every employee
in an organization is rich in entrepreneurial potential and that, in response,
companies face the challenge of creating an internal organizational
environment that help employees to engage in various entrepreneurial
activities. In particular, the conditions of such environment need to have a
decisive effect on the main areas of strategic entrepreneurship, specifically
sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, strategic renewal,
domain redefinition, and business model reconstruction.
Broadly defined, an internal organizational environment refers to the context
or surroundings in which employees find themselves at their jobs, defined by
a set of conditions under which they have to operate as they attempt to
accomplish the company’s tasks and their personal goals (Morris et al., 2008).
Employees’ perceptions of the internal organizational environment can be
influenced by a host of specific organizational factors, five of the most
prominent of which are management support, work discretion,
reward/reinforcement, time availability, and organizational boundaries
(Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002).
For one, management support refers to managers’ encouragement of
entrepreneurship and willingness to facilitate entrepreneurial activities
within their firms (Hornsby et al., 1993). Management plays a key role in
encouraging employees to believe that innovation is expected from all
members of the organization. Management support manifests in a range of
activities, including championing innovative ideas, recognizing people who
articulate those ideas, providing necessary resources or expertise (e.g. seed
money to initiate projects), and institutionalizing entrepreneurial activities
within the firm’s system and processes (Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002).
For additional support at the individual level, managers can promote
explorative behaviour by encouraging employees to solve problems in
innovative ways and proactively seek opportunities. All of those types of
support not only encourage employees to enable their firms to better seek and
26
seize competitive advantage in the marketplace but also promote the
perception among employees that the organization values strategic
entrepreneurship.
Another factor of the internal organization environment, work discretion
refers to the extent to which employees perceive that they have the autonomy
to make decisions about how to perform their work in ways that they believe
are most effective. In entrepreneurial work environments, employees are
encouraged to make decisions about their work processes and typically not
criticized for making mistakes while being innovative (Hornsby, Kuratko, &
Zahra, 2002).
By contrast, reward/reinforcement refer to incentives for employees to
engage in innovative, proactive, and moderate risk-taking behaviour during
the development of entrepreneurial initiatives (Monsen, Patzelt, & Sexton,
2010). Using appropriate rewards can enhance managers’ as well as
employees’ willingness to assume the risks associated with entrepreneurial
activities and, in turn, continue pursuing such activities. In highly innovative
organizations, reward/reinforcement often come based on performance,
challenging opportunities are routinely made available, responsibilities are
regularly expanded, and the ideas of innovative people are promoted
throughout the organization (Hornsby et al., 2009).
Last, time availability, or the amount of free time that employees have, is
critical to employees’ daily routines as well as to their development of
entrepreneurial ideas and activities. In short, to be entrepreneurial, employees
need time to observe, experiment, and develop (e.g. Fry, 1987; Pinchot, 1985).
Offering free time at work encourages employees to take risks, incubate novel
ideas, and put those ideas into practice (e.g. Burgelman, 1984; Fry, 1987;
Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002; Sundbo, 1999). For firms seeking to
encourage entrepreneurship, it is therefore vital to assign reasonable
workloads to employees and allow them to cooperate on long-term problem-
solving projects.
2.6 Strategic entrepreneurship in the financial sector
Although researchers have highlighted the general benefits and value of
entrepreneurial activities within companies (Hitt et al., 2011; Ketchen, Ireland,
& Snow, 2007), because most empirical work has focused on manufacturing
and tech industries, much remains to be understood about conditions and
outcomes that apply among firms in other settings.
27
Among those settings, the European financial services sector offers an
interesting arena for empirical work on corporate and strategic
entrepreneurship, for it not only presents starkly different conditions and
outcomes from those presented by other industries such for example the
manufacturing and high-technology industry, but has also changed
dramatically during the past decade. Until the mid-1980s, Europe’s financial
services sector was characterized by significant governmental involvement,
and numerous institutional and legal stipulations limited the domestic, cross-
border, and cross-sector activities of financial services firms (Flier, van den
Bosch, Volderba, Carnevale, Tomkin, Melin, Quélin, & Kriger, 2001). More
recently, however, the tendency of Europe’s national financial systems
towards liberalization and deregulation has significantly affected the strategic
renewal of financial services firms. Whereas both domestic and international
competition remained persistently low prior to the integration of national
financial markets, subsequent deregulation expanded the range of strategic
decisions that financial companies had to make. For example, the prospect of
combining banking, insurance, and securities activities has required
managers to consider diversifying and specializing activities at their firms
(Flier, van den Bosch, & Volberda 2003). Those and other challenges have
added pressure for firms to achieve renewal via entrepreneurship in the forms
of new products and services, organizational rejuvenation, and strategic
renewal.
At the same time, the financial sector is known well for experiencing
difficulties with embedding emerging technologies in order to explore and
exploit new business opportunities (Christensen, 1997; Tushman & O’Reilly,
1996). It not only harbours several internal barriers to entrepreneurship—
restrictive mind-sets, lack of qualified and available personnel, legacy systems,
unsupportive organizational structures, etc. (Das et al., 2017)—but also has
various organizational designs depending on the nature of the tasks and
activities that firms undertake (Falconer, 2014). Most recently, the sector was
affected by new regulations in response to the global financial crisis of 2008.
Although regulations are critical to protecting customers, they can at once
slow the adoption of new technologies and the development of
entrepreneurial initiatives within financial services companies.
In all, empirical research on Europe’s financial services sector can likely
shed new, revealing light on companies that, to various degrees, have had to
cultivate—and sometimes failed to cultivate—the right internal conditions for
strategic entrepreneurship to take root and thrive.
28
3. Methodological considerations
This section presents the methodological approaches followed in both studies
conducted for the thesis. Since each article presents a study with a distinct
research question, sample, method of data collection, and method of data
analysis, the section presents the particulars of each study separately. After
describing the samples and methods of data collection, it details the methods
of data analysis. The section ends with a discussion of the limitations, validity,
and reliability of each study.
3.1 Samples and methods of data collection
The following sub-sections describe the samples and methods of data
collection of the two studies conducted for the thesis.
3.1.1 Article 1
To expand understandings of the overall development of corporate
entrepreneurship, the sample in the first study, a literature review, consisted
of 344 articles. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles, which,
though unable to offer complete coverage of the field, likely reflect themes on
which cutting-edge scholarly research has been particularly pronounced.
Conducted in the ABI/INFORM database, the search for articles involved
identifying titles, abstracts, and keywords containing any term commonly
associated with the phenomenon of corporate entrepreneurship. The terms
and their combinations included in the search were “corporate
entrepreneurship”, “corporate innovation”, “corporate ventures”,
“entrepreneurship + large corporation”, “internal corporate
entrepreneurship”, “internal corporate venturing”, “intrapreneuring”,
“intrapreneurship”, “new venture department”, “new venture division”, and
“new ventures + entrepreneurship”. This first search for articles, conducted in
2015, generated 3,857 results, including articles for which the individual
search terms had generated multiple, overlapping hits. The articles for the
sample were subsequently narrowed down to ones in journals that have
consistently ranked among the top 10 most influential journals in
organizational and business studies, with impact scores greater than 1.5.
Applying that criterion generated an initial list of 249 articles.
29
Later, two additional searches for relevant articles were conducted: an
electronic search of those same journals’ homepages for the same keywords
used in the original search, and, to control and compensate for potential
indexing biases, a manual search through all issues in the electronic archives
of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, the Journal of Business Venturing, the
Journal of Small Business Management, and Small Business Economics. All
identified articles were reviewed independently and discussed jointly by the
two members of the research team. The two additional searches produced a
final list of 344 articles, all of which formed the sample for the literature
review.
The selection of articles for the review was fairly restrictive and prioritized
the adopted definition of corporate entrepreneurship—that is, how, through
whom, and with what effects new products and services, organizational
structures, practices and processes, and strategies are discovered and
exploited by established corporations. In several cases, articles with titles or
abstracts containing any combination of the search terms clearly addressing
themes other than corporate entrepreneurship and were excluded from the
sample (e.g. Hirsch & Walz, 2013). At the same time, articles addressing
aspects of corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. corporate ventures, corporate
venture capital funding, and spin-offs) but only in secondary roles in the
analysis of other focal concepts and units were also excluded (e.g. Agarwal &
Shah, 2014; Borch, Huse, & Senneseth, 1999; Gentry, Dalziel, & Jamison, 2013;
Katila, Rosenberger, & Eisenhardt, 2008; Lorenzoni & Ornati, 1988; Wortman,
1987). In other cases, decisions about including or excluding articles involved
conceptually based deliberations and, occasionally, judgement calls. For
example, articles that dealt with spin-offs of established firms were retained
in the sample, primarily because those new ventures reflect the exploitation
of ideas originally developed within parent organizations. By contrast, unless
attention to spin-offs was explicit (Garrett, Miao, Qian, & Bae, 2017), articles
focusing on how entrepreneurs’ general corporate experience can influence
the start-up of new ventures were excluded from the sample (e.g. Mai &
Zheng, 2013).
Articles addressing corporate diversification or reporting studies clearly
conducted in start-up settings were also excluded (e.g. Baysinger & Hoskisson,
1989; Tsai, Kuo, & Hung, 2009), unless issues of corporate entrepreneurship
featured prominently in them and diversification measures captured the
introduction of new products or services (Pennings, Barkema, & Douma,
1994). Similarly, articles presenting studies in which invention or innovation
was a primary variable but that did not identify individual products or
30
distinguish types of invention or innovation were excluded as well (e.g. Baba,
Shichijo, & Sedita, 2000; Chatterji & Fabrizio, 2012; Furukawa & Goto, 2006;
Hambrick, MacMillan, & Barbosa, 1983; Tortoriello, 2015; Wadhwa, Phelps, &
Kotha, 2016). Articles about patent-based studies exploring issues unrelated
to firm activities were also excluded (Kaplan & Vakili, 2015), as were articles
addressing internationalization, especially ones on born global and
international new ventures and whose studies adopted international market
entry, expansion, or performance as a primary dependent variable (e.g.
Brouthers, Nakos, & Dimitratos, 2015; Fernández–Mesa & Alegre, 2015;
Ghauri, Tasavori, & Zaefarian, 2014; Naldi, Achtenhagen, & Davidson, 2015).
Last, specialized searches for articles on specific sub-themes were not
conducted, for doing so would have resulted in an unwieldy, unbalanced
review process. That decision particularly affected the number of articles on
entrepreneurial orientation included in the sample. Clearly, during the past
two decades, the conceptual framework of entrepreneurial orientation has
gained important standing in research on corporate entrepreneurship,
although their significance remains underestimated. Among others, Covin &
Wales (2002), Gupta & Gupta (2012), and Wales (2016) have captured the
development of entrepreneurial orientation in the literature.
Ultimately, the sample also included a set of articles identified by a manual
search of journals focusing on entrepreneurship but that used terminology
different from the mentioned search terms. Among other results were articles
published in Small Business Economics addressing product innovation or
innovation performance (e.g. Andries & Czarnitzki, 2014; Cosh, Fu, & Hughes,
2012). A careful reading of those articles alongside others (e.g. Schweisfurth,
2017; Taalbi, 2017) revealed that the measure for innovation performance used
in their studies encompassed new product introductions only, which
represent an outcome of corporate entrepreneurship according to the adopted
definition of the term in this thesis.
3.1.2 Article 2
For the second study, the sample consisted of employees at a major insurance
company in north-eastern Sweden with five offices in the region. The
company offers services based on different combinations of non-life insurance,
accident and medical insurance, life insurance, pension saving plans, and
various banking services.
The insurance company was selected for several reasons. First, during
contact with the Centre for Research on Economic Relations at Mid Sweden
31
University, company representatives expressed great interest in participating
in the research. In particular, they described wanting to improve their
organizational environment in order to facilitate the flow of new ideas within
the company. Second, the company belongs to and operates in the financial
sector, the amount of research on which, as explained earlier, pales in
comparison to that in contexts other than manufacturing and technology-
intensive industries. In that sense, access to the company presented an
excellent opportunity to explore that largely unexplored sector in terms of its
internal organizational factors that facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour and
activities. Third and last, the company is large. Although the study of
entrepreneurship and renewal within companies is not limited to any
particular type of organization, internal entrepreneurial processes described
in existing literature are most likely found in larger companies.
The empirical investigation proceeded in two stages. The first stage
involved four pilot interviews, conducted in November 2016, at one of the
company offices to gain a better understanding of the company’s and
employees’ perspectives on work environment at the office. Those semi-
structured interviews, together with analyses conducted during the literature
review, contributed to the development of items included in a subsequently
administered questionnaire with reference to measures in the Corporate
Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI). Using the CEAI enables
researchers to evaluate a company’s current situation, particularly in terms of
how managers and employees have identified organizational systems and
structures that may be consistent with, or represent obstacles to, the
development of entrepreneurial activities within the company. The CEAI’s
content as well as construct and convergent validity have been assessed by
Hornsby et al. (2013), whose factor analysis supported the existence of four of
five originally proposed factors (i.e. management support, work discretion,
reward/reinforcement, and time availability). From the original 48 items, only
18 remained after their analysis. Following the recommendation of Hornsby
et al. (2013), those 18 items were included in the questionnaire, along with
items requesting information about respondents’ age, gender, academic
degree, and number of years employed at the company. Although the CEAI
adequately captures the variety of organizational factors that theoretically
facilitate different forms of corporate entrepreneurship (Hornsby et al., 2013),
no comparable instruments for identifying strategic entrepreneurship were
available for use (i.e. instruments that separately capture the various forms
through which strategic entrepreneurship manifests). In response, six items
were added to capture employees’ involvement in three forms of strategic
32
entrepreneurship: the introduction of new products or services,
organizational rejuvenation, and strategic renewal. A complete but
preliminary version of the questionnaire was presented in a seminar at
Uppsala University, in which a group of researchers in corporate
entrepreneurship helped to shape the questionnaire’s contents.
The second stage consisted of the distribution of the questionnaire. First,
the questionnaire was administered online via Netigate from 1 to 22
November 2017. Individualized links were e-mailed to each potential
respondent, all of whom were asked to give answers on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). To increase the response rate, after a
week a reminder was sent to all respondents who had not submitted a
completed questionnaire, followed by a second reminder a week later to ones
who had still not responded. No significant differences emerged among
respondents who submitted completed questionnaires earlier and ones who
submitted theirs later. Ultimately, 105 responses were collected. Because the
company wanted to take responsibility for disseminatingg the questionnaire,
no detailed information about the surveyed population is available.
3.2 Data analysis
This sub-section describes the methods of data analysis used in each article of
the thesis.
3.2.1 Article 1
Data analyses for the literature review focused on the number of published
articles in total and by journal, authors with the most articles, types of studies
(e.g. theoretical and conceptual vs. empirical), and the major research themes
explored, methods applied (e.g. quantitative vs. qualitative), and theoretical
foundations adopted in each article.
First, the articles were assessed for their year of publication, and number
of articles by journal was counted. Second, to analyse the types of studies
published in the field, articles that were purely theoretical or conceptual (i.e.
did not draw upon the analysis of any systematically collected empirical
evidence) were distinguished from ones with results and conclusions drawn
from various forms of data collection.
Third, the identification of major research themes explored followed the
process of interpretative synthesis suggested by Jones, Coviello, & Tang
33
(2011). The classification began with several predetermined categories (e.g.
corporate venture capital, corporate entrepreneurial behaviour, and internal
new ventures) but was allowed to branch out with the discovery of new and
recurring research themes. To assess the longitudinal development of themes
and sub-themes, the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), which captures the
dispersion of research across identified themes, was used.
Fourth, the assessment of methods applied in the studies on corporate
entrepreneurship focused on methods of data collection, statistical methods,
samples sizes and geographical sources of data. Data collection was analysed
in terms of primary data, secondary data, mixed data (i.e. primary and
secondary), and interviews. Statistical methods were classified as quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed methods (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) or as
modelling, simulations, experiments, or meta-studies. Last, geographical
sources of data were categorized according to the country or countries from
which data were collected.
Last, the analysis of theoretical foundations adopted proved to be the most
challenging step of data analyses in the first study, since most articles
represented a broad or integrative approach to theory and theory
development. Nevertheless, authors’ suggestions regarding or mentions of
adherence to a specific theory or conceptual framework were recorded, which
allowed for rough calculations of the most important theories adopted in the
sample of articles.
3.2.2 Article 2
As a first step of data analysis in the second study, Spearman rank correlations
between the primary variables were reviewed to identify particularly strong
relationships and to assess the risk of multicollinearity among the
independent variables.
Second, to examine the impact of internal organizational factors on forms
of strategic entrepreneurship, and considering the binary outcome variables,
binomial logistic regressions were performed. Following other authors (e.g.
de Villiers–Scheepers, 2012), the p value when investigating the significance
of relationships between variables was 0.05. The forced entry method was
applied, in which all predictor variables were tested in one block to assess
their predictive ability while the effects of the office, age, gender, academic
degree, and tenure of respondents were controlled. The stepwise procedure
was not used, given its vulnerability to random variation in the data and
variables included in or excluded from the model on purely statistical
34
grounds (cf. Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). To assess the validity of the results,
several diagnostic tests were performed. All analyses were conducted with
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
3.3 Limitations
Like all research, both studies conducted for this thesis involved several
limitations.
3.3.1 Article 1
Although the articles reviewed for the first study collectively indicate
developments at the core of research on corporate entrepreneurship, the
criteria and processes that guided the identification of articles may have
caused the exclusion of several potentially relevant articles from the sample.
In several cases, the classification of articles by primary theme(s) required
judgement calls.
Moreover, the electronic searches performed to identify relevant articles
tended to return uneven results, for the indexing of articles and search engines
apparently varies significantly over time and across journals. That
circumstance might have particularly affected the number of articles
identified during the study, as well as overall trends in, for example, the
distribution of articles across primary themes or in terms of methods applied.
Last, the sample of identified articles derives from a select number of
journals in fields ranging from entrepreneurship, technology and innovation
management to strategic management, organization, and international
business. Consequently, work published in other outlets (e.g. monographs
and edited collections) or in other domains of research was not analysed (cf.
Agarwal & Shah, 2014). It is therefore important to again stress that the 344
articles reviewed indicate developments at the core of research on corporate
entrepreneurship only and that the number of contributions to the field is no
doubt significantly greater than indicated by the review.
35
3.3.2 Article 2
Since the second study relied upon key respondents for data collection and
given the nature of the questionnaire items rated, the targeted respondents
were arguably the most appropriate sources for data. Nonetheless, it can only
be assumed that the relevant organizational attributes and forms of strategic
entrepreneurship were accurately captured by the respondents. Arguably,
responses also represent subjective perceptions of organizational attributes,
whether accurate or not, that drive entrepreneurial behaviour.
At the same time, although using the CEAI allowed capturing the variety
of organizational factors that theoretically facilitate different forms of
corporate entrepreneurship (Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002), no
comparable strategic entrepreneurship-focused instrument was available for
use (i.e. one that separately captures the various forms through which
strategic entrepreneurship manifests in organizations). It is also important to
highlight that the study involved examining only four of the five factors
measured by the CEAI and three of the five forms of strategic
entrepreneurship.
Last, data were collected from only one company in the financial sector,
which implies the limited generalizability of results to other companies
operating in that and other business settings.
3.4 Validity and reliability
This sub-section describes the steps taken in data collection and data analysis
to increase the validity and reliability of the two studies reported in this thesis.
3.4.1 Article 1
Unlike traditional narrative reviews, systematic reviews aim to minimize
biases in the process of locating, selecting, coding, and aggregating individual
studies. The process of delimiting a field of research in both structural and
conceptual ways usually involves several consecutive steps (Börner, Chen, &
Boyack, 2003) which affected the validity and reliability of the first study. In
particular, the process that generated the empirical content of the first article
occurred in four steps: data organization, two rounds of theme identification,
and ontological organization.
36
First, an Excel workbook for recording and comparing codes applied by
each researcher on the research team was created. Second, in the first round
of theme identification, one researcher read and assessed each article for its
primary theme(s), key concepts and variables, methods used, theories or
schools applied, and major findings. The process was followed by a similar
review by the other researcher. Results from those independent classifications
were compared, and after cases of diverging opinions were discussed and
reconciled, articles were categorized as representing any number of 25
primary themes. Third, each researcher again independently read and
assessed all articles for specific sub-themes, and cases of diverging opinions
were again discussed and reconciled. Ultimately, 81 sub-themes were
identified.
To avoid source-dependent selection bias, the review relied on searches of
a single large-scale database (i.e. ABI/INFORM database) and two additional,
complementary searches: an electronic search of each journal’s homepage for
the same terms sought in the original search, and, to control and compensate
for potential indexing biases, a manual search of all issues in the electronic
archives of four journals addressing entrepreneurship (i.e. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, the Journal of Business Venturing, the Journal of Small
Business Management, and Small Business Economics). Moreover, biases in scope
were minimized or made explicit with the consistent application of clearly
expressed inclusion criteria (i.e. representation of the adopted definition of
corporate entrepreneurship). Last, temporal constraint biases were also
avoided or made explicit, because the review equated the formal beginning of
research in the field with the first year that an article met the inclusion criteria
and upheld the adopted definition of corporate entrepreneurship. That rationale
suggests that no studies on the field were published prior to the identified
beginning of corporate entrepreneurship research, which of course neglects
the likelihood that treatments of and contributions to conceptualizations of
corporate entrepreneurship existed prior to the period investigated.
3.4.2 Article 2
To ensure the probity of the questionnaire items, a pilot study was conducted,
and the preliminary questionnaire contents were presented and discussed
during a seminar at Uppsala University, in which experts in corporate
entrepreneurship offered feedback on the appropriateness of the items.
During pilot interviews, the four respondents received a formal
presentation of the research project in an introductory letter. The first two of
37
the ensuing face-to-face interviews were conducted together with the thesis
supervisor and the other two independently. The same set of questions was
used for each interview, which lasted approximately 45–60 minutes.
The pilot study played two important roles in the validation of the study.
First, it aided the design of a questionnaire that considered the special
characteristics of the company under study (e.g. the approximate time that
employees need to develop and implement renewal activities, company
structure, systems, and processes, and respondents’ workplace environments).
Such information was also important for the development of a questionnaire
that could generate a high response rate. Second, the pilot study facilitated
the comparison of answers provided by both pilot study’s respondents and
survey respondents. No differences or major discrepancies surfaced in
responses, which strengthens the reliability of the results.
Because all items intended to capture internal organizational factors
extensively discussed and tested by researchers (Hornsby et al., 2013), a high
degree of validity was expected regarding the primary independent variables
(i.e. management support, work discretion, reward/reinforcement, and time
availability). The outcome variables, by contrast, were somewhat designed to
capture the specific context of the company and employees who completed
the questionnaire. Although the measures applied were straightforward in
their formulation, certain variation in the respondents’ interpretation of the
meanings of sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, and strategic
renewal was expected.
For both the pilot study and the questionnaire, the procedural remedies
recommended by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, Podsakoff, & Zedeck (2003).
were implemented, which assured respondent anonymity, provided
contextual information and definitions to reduce ambiguity, and informed
respondents that no right or wrong answers were possible in the discussions.
Last, to conduct statistical analysis, because the questionnaire generated
self-reported information, the presence of common method variance was
investigated. Some effects resulted from the fact that the respondent
providing the measures of the predictor and criterion variables was the same
person, which was liable to create artifactual covariance between predictor
and criterion variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In particular, the tendency of
respondents to attempt to maintain consistency in their responses to similar
questions or organize information in consistent ways—that is, the so-called
“consistency motif” (Johns, 1994; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Schmitt, 1994) or
“consistency effect” (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977)—was likely to problematize
38
situations in which respondents were asked to provide retrospective accounts
of their perceptions or behaviours.
Using the approach described in Podsakoff et al. (2003), the raw data,
including the control variables and dependent variables, were analysed with
exploratory factor analysis and inspected for un-rotated factor solutions. An
accompanying test, Harmon’s single factor test, is used as a diagnostic
technique for assessing the extent to which common method variance may
pose a problem. If only one factor emerges from factor analysis and that factor
accounts for all variance in the items, then it is reasonable to conclude that
common method variance is a major problem. In the data used for the second
study, factor analysis generated four factors, the first and second of which
accounted for less than half of the covariance among the measures. That no
single factor emerged alone and that no one factor accounted for most of the
covariance suggests that common method bias did not significantly affect the
results.
4. Summary of articles
This section presents an overview of each article of the thesis that summarizes
its purposes, major findings, and contributions. The full articles are appended
at the end of the thesis.
4.1 Article 1
Title: Corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing the evolution of a field of
research
Authors: Belén Casales Morici and Ivo Zander
Status: Unpublished, submitted to Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship
Article 1 reports a review of research on corporate entrepreneurship during
its evolution from 1969 to 2017. In a systematic review of 344 articles in major
journals addressing entrepreneurship, technology and innovation
management, strategic management, organization, and international business,
primary themes, methods applied, and theories adopted were investigated to
analyse the changing nature of the field during the past half-century. The
39
systematic literature review was also crucial to identifying the research theme
for the second article in the thesis.
The review reveals that corporate entrepreneurship is a growing field of
research, one that has matured in the scope of its themes and research
methods used. However, it also reports ongoing theoretical fragmentation,
marked by not only the absence of commonly applied theories and conceptual
frameworks but also, partly as a result, potential challenges due to the delayed
accumulation of knowledge and weak legitimacy of the field compared to
adjacent areas of research. The discussion suggests how the adoption of a
meta-level conceptual framework of variation, selection, and retention can
allow theoretical progress and maintain a sense of unity in the field, both
while accommodating the continued application of a broad range of more
specialized theories.
The article makes three major contributions. First, it marks the most
systematic, comprehensive, and fine-grained review of the development of
corporate entrepreneurship to date. Second, based on an analysis of the
development of primary themes, methods applied, and theories adopted, it
assesses and discusses the changing nature, especially regarding theoretical
foundations, of research on corporate entrepreneurship. In particular, the
conceptual framework of variation, selection, and retention suggested can
afford a means of overcoming the theoretical eclecticism that currently
characterizes the field. Third, the comprehensive list of articles included in the
review that indicates their primary themes offers a roadmap for scholars as
well as practitioners interested in various aspects of corporate
entrepreneurship. Together with other information about journal content and
avenues for future research, the comprehensive list of articles may guide
researchers and prospective authors in search of relevant themes and outlets
for their work.
4.2 Article 2
Title: Assessing the internal organizational environment for strategic
entrepreneurship: evidence from the financial sector
Author: Belén Casales Morici
Status: Unpublished, submitted to Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
The internal organizational environment has been theorized as well as shown
to represent an important prerequisite for successfully implementing
strategies to engender corporate entrepreneurship (Hornsby, Kuratko, &
40
Zahra, 2002). In general, an internal organizational environment refers to the
context or surroundings in which employees find themselves at their jobs,
informed by four factors often highlighted in the literature: management
support, work discretion, reward/reinforcement, and time availability
(Hornsby et al., 2009; Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990;
Kuratko, Ireland, & Hornsby, 2001). Individually and in combination, those
factors determine support for and interest in entrepreneurial initiatives in an
established company.
Drawing from literature on strategic entrepreneurship, the article
examines the relationships among four internal organizational factors
measured by the CEAI (Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002) and three forms of
strategic entrepreneurship (i.e. sustained regeneration, organizational
rejuvenation, and strategic renewal). Data were first collected during a pilot
study that involved four semi-structured interviews with employees at lower
levels and in different departments of a large Swedish insurance company.
The interviews, together with the analysis conducted in the literature review
in the first study, contributed to the development of items included in a
follow-up questionnaire. In the second stage of the study, the questionnaire
was administered online to employees at the company, followed by data
analysis including binomial logistic regressions and interpretations of
statistical results.
An interesting, somewhat expected tendency demonstrated by the results
is that the internal organizational factors examined might not be strong
predictors of strategic entrepreneurship, even if they have long been
theoretically associated with corporate renewal. Less than a quarter of all
possible relationships among internal organizational factors and forms of
strategic entrepreneurship were statistically significant. Another important
finding is that the factors seemingly do not have the same effect across the
three forms of strategic entrepreneurship.
The article contributes to literature on corporate entrepreneurship as well
as strategic entrepreneurship by marking a first step towards elucidating how
internal organizational factors can spur different forms of strategic
entrepreneurship within companies, specifically in the financial services
sector. It also presents the first study in which relationships between internal
organizational factors and three forms of strategic entrepreneurship were
empirically tested separately. Documenting and appreciating how different
forms of strategic entrepreneurship are achieved by companies in any sector
can be useful for developing finer-grained, contextually sensitive theories and
conceptual models.
41
5. Concluding remarks
This concluding section discusses the major findings of the thesis, describes
its theoretical and managerial contributions, and identifies several themes
worthy of further investigation in the field of corporate entrepreneurship.
5.1 Main findings
This thesis seeks to expand current understandings of corporate
entrepreneurship with an extensive, systematic review of literature on the
field and an empirical assessment of relationships among internal
organizational factors and different forms of strategic entrepreneurship. In
particular, it attempts to answer two research questions. One, how has
research on corporate entrepreneurship has evolved in terms of main themes,
applied methods, and adopted theories, and what do those developments
reveal about future trajectories in the field? Two, what is the relationship
between internal organizational factors and strategic entrepreneurship in the
form of sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, and strategic
renewal?
Using a definition of corporate entrepreneurship that synthesizes prior
conceptualizations of the term, the literature review reveals that the field is
substantially larger as well as more impactful than suggested by previous
reviews (cf. Dess et al., 2003; Kuratko, 2017; Narayanan et al., 2009; Nason,
McKelvie, & Lumpkin, 2015). Attention to methods applied, which is an
important indicator of the maturity of fields of research (Banker & Kauffman,
2004; Cheon, Grover, & Sabherwal, 1993; Zahra, Jennings, & Kuratko, 1999),
revealed that research on corporate entrepreneurship has shifted from
involving studies with small samples designed to map phenomena to testing
hypotheses based on larger, more diverse samples. In terms of statistical
methods, research on corporate entrepreneurship has progressed fairly
rapidly towards more advanced methods of hypothesis testing. However,
because empirical studies have drawn upon data and observations mostly
from manufacturing and technology-intensive industries (cf. Zahra, Jennings,
& Kuratko, 1999) in which activities of corporate entrepreneurship typically
result in the introduction of new products and services, studies on corporate
entrepreneurship in companies in service industries have remained few and
far between. Concerning geographical sources of empirical data, although
42
data have predominantly emerged from the United States, a gradual and
ultimately significant broadening of the geographical scope of empirical
studies has increased opportunities for assessing the generalizability of theory
and the reliability of empirical findings.
The development of major themes of research on corporate
entrepreneurship is another important indication of intellectual growth and
maturity (e.g. Banker & Kauffman, 2004; Cobo et al., 2011; Furrer, Thomas, &
Goussevskaia, 2007) revealing that research on the field has addressed an
array of themes. However, the boundaries of research on corporate
entrepreneurship remain porous, especially next to literature on innovation,
new product development, organizational change, and strategic processes.
Moreover, the multitude of applied definitions of corporate entrepreneurship
has supported the lack of clearly identifiable theoretical foundations and
blurred the field’s conceptual boundaries (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Kuratko,
2007; Zahra, 1996).
Last, the literature review revealed that most articles in the sample
adopted a broad or integrative approach to theory and theory development
(e.g. Bansal, 2005; Thomas, 2004). By contrast, very few declared having
foundations in a specific core theory or theoretical tradition, and even among
them, theoretical discussions commonly relied upon a set of related theories,
literature, and areas of research (e.g. Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Plambeck, 2012;
Zahra, Filatotchev, & Wright, 2009). Although the most commonly applied
theories or theoretical frameworks have been agency theory, institutional
theory, and the resource-based view, the list of theories contains more than 50
other theories or conceptual frameworks applied only once or twice. Perhaps
the lack of common, uniting theoretical foundations has caused some authors
to describe the very concept of corporate entrepreneurship as something of an
oxymoron (Stevenson & Jarillo–Mossi, 1990; Thornberry, 2002).
Whereas corporate renewal ranks among the most common themes of
research on corporate entrepreneurship, strategic entrepreneurship has
received far less attention (Ireland, 2007). Although scholars have attempted
to define strategic entrepreneurship in conceptual frameworks (Hitt et al.,
2011; Kraus, Kaurenen, & Henning Retschke, 2011; Kuratko & Audretsch,
2009; Schindehutte & Morris, 2009), research on the field remains in its
formative years, and empirical studies probing the theoretical
conceptualizations, organizational drivers, and manifest forms of strategic
entrepreneurship have been scarce. In response, the empirical study of a firm
in Europe’s financial services sector in this thesis involved investigating the
role played by four internal organizational factors in promoting three forms
43
of strategic entrepreneurship. Among its major findings, the internal
organizational factors investigated did not emerge as strong predictors of
strategic entrepreneurship, despite that their longstanding theoretical
association with corporate renewal. In sum, less than a quarter of all possible
relationships among internal organizational factors and forms of strategic
entrepreneurship were statistically significant. The results also indicate that
the effects of internal organizational factors can differ according to the
characteristics of the industry in which firms operate and depend on the
specific organizational structures and conditions of firms. Taken together, the
results suggest that strategic entrepreneurship should not be conceived as a
homogeneous phenomenon but as a heterogeneous, multidimensional one
possibly sensitive to specific environmental and empirical contexts.
5.2 Implications
This final section discusses the theoretical and managerial implications of the
findings of research performed for this thesis as well as offers some
suggestions for future research on corporate entrepreneurship.
5.2.1 Theoretical implications
As explained earlier, in terms of theoretical foundations and contributions,
research on corporate entrepreneurship continues to be eclectic and show few
discernible trends over time (Narayanan et al., 2009). Nevertheless, to address
and, to some extent, attenuate the effects of such theoretical eclecticism, this
thesis makes a primary theoretical contribution by suggesting that the meta-
level conceptual framework of variation, selection, and retention can
appropriately balance the use of a range of more specific, operationally
testable theories. 2 Mobilizing existing definitions of corporate
2 In the context of corporate entrepreneurship, variation characterizes the process by which new
business ventures and their associated products and services, organizational innovations, and changes
in existing corporate strategies are conceived and tested within established organizations. By contrast,
selection characterizes processes by which new business ventures and their associated products and
services, organizational innovations, and changes in corporate strategies are assessed by individuals at
various levels of organizations regarding their attractiveness for retention and integration with
existing operations (Czernich & Zander, 2009). Last, retention occurs when variations are preserved,
duplicated, or otherwise reproduced so that selected activities may be repeated on future occasions or
when selected structures appear again in future iterations. Retention-oriented processes allow groups
44
entrepreneurship and raising questions about how, through whom, and with
what effects new products and services, organizational structures, practices
and processes, or strategies are discovered and exploited by established
corporations, it superimposes a framework that explicates and connects the
major constituents of research on corporate entrepreneurship. Perhaps more
importantly, the framework offers researchers the possibility to commence
studies on the basis of a common interest to resolve theoretical tensions, adopt
inclusive perspectives to integrate conflicting stances, stimulate the
development of more encompassing theories, and uncover interesting new
research questions (Schmitt, Raisch, & Volberda, 2018). In that capacity, the
framework of variation, selection, and retention can support the formation of
interconnected theoretical underpinnings for research on corporate
entrepreneurship (cf. Brazeal & Herbert, 1999).
Taking the perspective of variation, selection, and retention also allows
capturing the longitudinal development of processes of corporate
entrepreneurship. According to Burgelman (1991) organizations can be
viewed as ecologies of strategic initiatives that compete for limited attention
and resources within the organization. Such initiatives are subjected to
selection via administrative and cultural mechanisms that regulate the
allocation of resources and ultimately determine which initiatives will survive
and prosper and which will not. Retention occurs when organizational-level
learning leads to the adoption and integration of new strategic initiatives, as
well as their associated new products and services, new organizational
procedures, routines, and strategies, as part of the organizational vision.
In that regard, the second study included in this thesis indicates the
existence of a differentiated set of processes and practices with varying effects
on the outcomes of strategic entrepreneurship. Insofar as its findings apply to
other populations, they suggest important differences in the ways in which
variation is promoted and received across initiatives related to new products
and services, organizational rejuvenation, or strategic renewal in the
corporation. The findings further align with recent suggestions to increase
sensitivity to how strategic entrepreneurships unfolds in different contexts
(Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Obloj, 2008; Hitt et al., 2011; Sakhdari, Burgers, &
Davidsson, 2014; Welter, 2011; Zahra, 2007) and thus highlight the boundary
conditions of theories and models across different industrial and institutional
settings. Although the sources of differentiated effects of internal
organizational factors on the various forms of strategic entrepreneurship need
and organizations to capture value from set routines that have proven or been perceived to be
beneficial (Miner, 1994, p. 85).
45
to be closely examined, such efforts could ultimately help managers to arrive
at more customized prescriptions for improving the competitiveness of their
firms.
As a final methodological implication, this thesis contributes to the
clarification and differentiation of the concept of strategic entrepreneurship
and, as a result, affords a platform for developing a set of valid, reliable
measures of different forms of strategic entrepreneurship.
5.2.2 Managerial implications
In terms of managerial implications, the findings of the thesis suggest that
successful strategic entrepreneurship depends on a multitude of internal and
external aspects of a company (Das et al., 2017). Distinguishing elements
conducive to entrepreneurial activities within companies enables the
recognition of ones that a company can influence instead of ones only partially
or completely beyond its influence (Piatier, 1984). The thesis thus offers a
valuable perspective for managers in financial services considering new ways
of creating an internal organizational environment that enhance effectiveness
and reduce the waste of efforts towards innovation (Das et al., 2017). When
organizing for activities of strategic entrepreneurship within financial
services firms, managers should particularly consider the heterogeneity of the
activities and the design of distinct internal organizational factors for each
form that strategic entrepreneurship could take within the company. Whether
or not the design of the internal organizational environment deviates from
general recommendations in literature on corporate entrepreneurship, more
research is needed to develop a set of specific, verified recommendations for
practicing managers. Notably, developing one internal organizational factor
to support a specific form of strategic entrepreneurship might be
counterproductive in relation to efforts towards other forms, which can
complicate devising formulae that accommodate all types of company and
managerial situations.
5.3 Suggestions for future research
This thesis has identified several relatively unexplored issues related to
corporate entrepreneurship that are open for future research. For one, the
results of the literature review reveal that empirical studies in the field have
mostly drawn from data and observations in the manufacturing and
46
technology-intensive industries (cf. Zahra, Jennings, & Kuratko, 1999),
although the study of corporate entrepreneurship could be fruitfully
extended into a broader range of industrial settings to include a larger
proportion of service-intensive or digitally-based businesses. The relative lack
of dependence upon physical resources among companies in services
industries may produce some interesting, deviating new patterns in
venturing. Corporate entrepreneurship among public organizations is
another interesting but under-examined theme of research (Arundel, Casali,
& Hollanders, 2015; Kearney & Morris, 2015; Morris & Jones, 1999), in which,
similarly to the financial sector, the influence of legal rules and regulations on
processes of generating and implementing new services, organizational
routines, or strategies warrants scholarly attention.
From a geographical perspective, the continued expansion of research on
corporate entrepreneurship outside the United States and developed market
contexts would be useful (cf. Hughes & Mustafa, 2017). Although
geographical sources of data have broadened over time, a comparatively
limited number of articles reviewed addressed corporate entrepreneurship in
countries outside North America, and research on corporate entrepreneurship
in developing countries or economies in the process of becoming market-
oriented and that seek rapid technological and economic advancements
remains thin. Further explorations of the impact of institutions, national
cultures, and country-specific organizational features could reveal some
important international differences in the sources, processes, and outcomes of
activities of corporate entrepreneurship (Zahra, Jennings, & Kuratko, 1999).
For example, research on corporate entrepreneurship among emerging
market and state-owned companies could uncover some interesting
variations or alternatives to traditional bottom-up processes that prevail
among corporations in developed economies.
Multinational corporations (MNCs) represent another under-examined
arena for research on corporate entrepreneurship. Such research, if it positions
MNCs as more than mere empirical settings (Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Thomas,
2004), could create new developments in the rapidly evolving study of
international entrepreneurship (Zander, McDougall, & Rose, 2015). To that
end, however, a more stringent approach to the various types and outcomes
of corporate entrepreneurship, beyond notions of foreign subsidiary
initiatives or subsidiary innovation (e.g. Birkinshaw, 1997; Lee & Williams,
2007; Verbeke & Yuan, 2007), nevertheless seems necessary.
Although researchers have highlighted the importance of strategic
entrepreneurship as operating at the core of the creation and sustainability of
47
competitive advantages and wealth within firms (Hitt et al., 2011; Ireland, Hitt,
& Sirmon, 2003; Ireland & Webb, 2007; Kyrgidou & Hughes, 2010), empirical
foundations to date have surprisingly remained underdeveloped. In
particular, more studies addressing organizational and strategic renewal
could produce interesting insights into commonalities as well as potential
differences between drivers and mechanisms across various forms of strategic
entrepreneurship. The findings of the thesis indeed suggest that the effects of
internal organizational factors differ across those forms and, in turn, the need
for developing more differentiated approaches for understanding the drivers
of key individuals involved in corporate renewal (Wales, Monsen, &
McKelvie, 2011).
Last, a generally accepted measure of strategic entrepreneurship has yet to
be devised. By developing more rigorous approaches for measuring strategic
entrepreneurship, researchers in corporate entrepreneurship will ultimately
be able to produce stronger, more reliable support for their theoretical claims.
In that sense, this thesis has taken a first step towards clarifying and
differentiating the measurement of strategic entrepreneurship, by offering a
means to develop a set of valid, reliable measures of the various forms of
strategic entrepreneurship.
48
References
Adonisi, MP. 2003. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, market
orientation, organizational flexibility and job satisfaction (Doctoral thesis).
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Agarwal R, Audretsch D, Sarker, MB. 2007. The process of creative
construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship and economic
growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1(3/4): 263–286.
Agarwal R, Shah SK. 2014. Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: firm
formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy
43(7): 1109–1133.
Aldrich H, Ruef M. 2006. Organizations Evolving (2nd ed). Sage: London, U.K.
Andries P, Czarnitzki D. 2014. Small firm innovation performance and
employee involvement. Small Business Economics 43(1): 21–38.
Antoncic B, Hisrich RD. 2001. Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and
cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5): 495–527.
Arundel A, Casali L, Hollanders H. 2015. How European public sector
agencies innovate: the use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and
knowledge-scanning innovation methods. Research Policy 44(7): 1271–
1282.
Baba Y, Shichijo N, Sedita SR. 2000. How do collaborations with universities
affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of “Pasteur scientists” in
the advanced materials field. Research Policy 38(5): 756–764.
Baden –Fuller C, Volberda HW. 1997. Strategic renewal: how large complex
organizations prepare for the future. International Studies of Management
& Organization 2(2): 95–120.
49
Banker RD, Kauffman RJ. 2004. The evolution of research on information
systems: a fiftieth-year survey of the literature in Management Science.
Management Science 50(3): 281–298.
Bansal P. 2005. Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate
sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal 26(3): 197–218.
Baumol WJ. 1996. Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and
destructive. Journal of Political Economy 98(5): 893–921.
Baysinger B, Hoskisson RE. 1989. Diversification strategy and R&D intensity
in multiproduct firms. Academy of Management Journal 32(2): 310–332.
Beer M, Eisenstat RA, Spector B. 1990. Why change programs don’t produce
change. Harvard Business Review 68(6): 158–166.
Berry LL, Shankar V, Parish JT, Cadwallader S, Dotzel T. 2006. Creating new
markets through service innovation. Sloan Management Review 47(2): 56–
63.
Birkinshaw J. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the
characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal
18(3): 207–229.
Bojica AM, Fuentes MM. 2012. Knowledge acquisition and corporate
entrepreneurship: insights from Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. Journal
of World Business 47(3): 397–408.
Borch OJ, Huse M, Senneseth K. 1999. Resource configuration, competitive
strategies, and corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical examination of
small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(1): 49–70.
Brazeal DV, Herbert TT. 1999. The genesis of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 29–46.
50
Brouthers KD, Nakos G, Dimitratos P. 2015. SME entrepreneurial
orientation, international performance, and the moderating role of
strategic alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(5): 1161–1187.
Brundin E, Patzelt H, Shepherd DA. 2008. Managers’ emotional displays and
employees’ willingness to act entrepreneurially. Journal of Business
Venturing, 23(2): 221–243.
Bruton GD, Ahlstrom D, Obloj K. 2008. Entrepreneurship in emerging
economies: where are we today and where should the research go in the
future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32(1): 1–14.
Burgelman RA. 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the
diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 28(2): 223–244.
Burgelman RA. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic
management: insights from a process study. Management Science 29(12):
1349–1364.
Burgelman RA. 1985. Managing the new venture division: research findings
and implications for strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal 6(1): 39–54.
Busenitz LW, West GP, Shepherd D, Nelson T, Chandler GN, Zacharakis A.
2003. Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future
directions. Journal of Management 29(3): 285–308.
Börner K, Chen C, Boyack K. 2003. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology 37(1): 179–255.
Calisto M, Sarkar S. 2017. Organizations as biomes of entrepreneurial life:
towards a clarification of the corporate entrepreneurship process.
Journal of Business Research 70(1): 44–54.
51
Carree M, Thurik R. 2008. The lag structure of the impact of business
ownership on economic performance in OECD countries. Small Business
Economics 30(1): 101–110.
Carrier C. 1996. Intrapreneurship in small businesses: an exploratory study.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 21(1): 5–20.
Chand V. 2013. Book review: Howard E. Aldrich, an evolutionary approach
to entrepreneurship: selected essays. Journal of Entrepreneurship 22(1):
115–121
Chatterji AK, Fabrizio K. 2012. How do product users influence corporate
invention? Organization Science 23(4): 971–987.
Cheon MJ, Grover V, Sabherwal R. 1993. The evolution of empirical research
in IS: a study in IS maturity. Information & Management 24(3): 107–119.
Christensen CM. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause
Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Cobo MJ, López–Herrera AG, Herrera–Viedma E, Herrera F. 2011. An
approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a
research field: a practical application to the fuzzy sets’ theory field.
Journal of Informetrics 5(3): 146–166.
Corbett A, Covin JG, O‘Connor GC, Tucci CL. 2013. Corporate
entrepreneurship: state‐of‐the‐art research and a future research agenda.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(5): 812–820.
Cosh A, Fu X, Hughes A. (2012). Organisation structure and innovation
performance in different environments. Small Business Economics 39(2):
301–317.
52
Covin JG, Kuratko DF. 2008. The concept of corporate entrepreneurship. In
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation Management,
Narayanan VK, O’Connor G (eds). Blackwell: Oxford, U.K; chapter 30.
Covin JG, Miles MP. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of
competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 47–63.
Covin JG, Slevin DP. 1988. The influence of organizational structure on the
utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of
Management Studies 25(3): 217–237.
Covin JG, Slevin DP. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(1): 7–26.
Covin JG, Wales WJ. 2012. The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36(4): 677–702.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. Sage: Los Angeles, CA.
Crossan MM, Berdrow I. 2003. Organizational learning and strategic
renewal. Strategic Management Journal 24 (11): 1087–1105.
Czernich C, Zander I. 2009. The intraorganizational ecology of corporate
entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings
2009(1): 1–6.
Damanpour F. 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of
determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34(3):
555–590.
Das P, Verburg R, Verbraeck A, Bonebakker L. 2017. Barriers to innovation
within large financial services firms: an in-depth study into disruptive
and radical innovation projects at a bank. European Journal of Innovation
Management 21(1): 96–112.
53
Davidsson P, Gartner W, Zahra S. 2006. Are you talking to me? The nature of
community in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 30(3): 321–331.
Davidsson P, Low MB, Wright M. 2001. Editor’s introduction: Low and
MacMillan ten years on: achievements and future directions for
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 25(4): 5–
15.
de Lurdes Calisto M, Sarkar S. 2017. Organizations as biomes of
entrepreneurial life: towards a clarification of the corporate
entrepreneurship process. Journal of Business Research 70(1): 44–54.
de Villiers–Scheepers, MJ 2012. Antecedents of strategic corporate
entrepreneurship. European Business Review 24(5): 400–424.
Dess GG, Ireland RD, Zahra SA, Floyd SW, Janney JJ, Lane PJ. 2003.
Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management
29(3): 351–378.
Dess GG, Lumpkin GT. 2005. Research edge: the role of entrepreneurial
orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship.
Academy of Management Perspectives 19(1): 147–156.
Dess GG, Lumpkin GT, Mcgee JE. 1999. Linking corporate entrepreneurship
to strategy, structure and process: suggested research directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 85–102.
Dougherty D. 1992. A practice-centered model of organizational renewal
through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13(special
Issue): 77–92.
Erasmus PD, Scheepers MJ. 2008. The relationship between entrepreneurial
intensity and shareholder value creation. Managing Global Transitions
6(3): 229–256.
54
Fahey L. 1989. Bypass strategy: attacking by surpassing competitors. In The
Strategic Planning Management Reader, Fahey L. (ed). Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 189–193.
Falconer S. 2014. Financial Services Management: A Qualitative Approach.
Routledge: New York, NY.
Fernández–Mesa A, Alegre J. 2015. Entrepreneurial orientation and export
intensity: Examining the interplay of organizational learning and
innovation. International Business Review 24(1): 148–156.
Fernhaber SA, McDougall–Covin PP. 2009. Venture capitalists as catalysts to
new venture internationalization: the impact of their knowledge and
reputation resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(1): 277–295.
Flier B, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. 2003. Strategic renewal of
European financial incumbents: coevolution of environmental selection,
institutional effects, and managerial intentionality. Journal of
Management Studies 40(8): 2163–2187.
Flier B, van den Bosch FAJ, Volderba HW, Carnevale CA, Tomkin N, Melin
L, Quélin BV, Kriger MP. 2001. The changing landscape of the
European financial services sector. Long Range Planning 34(2): 179–207.
Frame WS, White LJ. 2004. Empirical studies of financial innovation: lots of
talk, little action? Journal of Economic Literature 42(1): 116–144.
Fry A. 1987. The Post-It note: an entrepreneurial success. Advanced
Management Journal 52(4): 4–9.
Furrer O, Thomas H, Goussevskaia A. 2007. The structure and evolution of
the strategic management field: a content analysis of 26 years of
strategic management research. International Journal of Management
Reviews 10(1): 1–23.
55
Furukawa R, Goto A. 2006. The role of corporate scientists in innovation.
Research Policy 35(1): 24–36.
Garrett RP, Miao C, Qian S, Bae TJ. 2017. Entrepreneurial spawning and
knowledge-based perspective: a meta-analysis. Small Business Economics
49(2): 355–378.
Gentry RJ, Dalziel T, Jamison MA. 2013. Who do start‐up firms imitate? A
study of new market entries in the CLEC industry. Journal of Small
Business Management 51(4): 525–538.
Ghauri P, Tasavori M, Zaefarian R. 2014. Internationalisation of service firms
through corporate social entrepreneurship and networking.
International Marketing Review 31(6): 576–600.
Golder PN, Tellis GJ. 1993. Pioneer advantage: marketing logic or marketing
legend. Journal of Marketing Research 30(2): 158–170.
Goodale JC, Kuratko DF, Hornsby JS, Covin JG. 2011. Operations
management and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating effect of
operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial
activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations
Management 29(1): 116–127.
Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. 1989. Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis 11(3): 255–274.
Gupta V, Gupta A. 2015. The concept of entrepreneurial orientation.
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 11(2): 55–137.
Guth WD, Ginsberg A. 1990. Guest editors’ introduction: corporate
entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 11(1): 5–15.
56
Hambrick DC, MacMillan IC, Barbosa RR. 1983. Business unit strategy and
changes in the product R&D budget. Management Science 29(7): 757–769.
Hayton JC. 2003. Strategic human capital management in SMEs: an empirical
study of entrepreneurial performance. Human Resource Management
42(4): 375–391.
Hayton JC. 2005. Competing in the new economy: the effect of intellectual
capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high technology new ventures.
R&D Management 35(2): 137–155.
Hayton JC, Kelley D. 2006. A competency-based framework for promoting
corporate entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management 45(3): 407–
427.
Heavey C, Simsek Z. 2013. Top management compositional effects on
corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating role of perceived
technological uncertainty. Journal of Product Innovation Management
30(5): 837–855.
Heavey C, Simsek Z, Roche F, Kelly A. 2009. Decision comprehensiveness
and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating role of managerial
uncertainty preferences and environmental dynamism. Journal of
Management Studies 46(8): 1289–1314.
Hill RM, Hlavacek JD. 1972. The venture team: a new concept in marketing
organization. Journal of Marketing 36(3): 44–50.
Hirsch J, Walz U. 2013. Why do contracts differ between venture capital
types? Small Business Economics 40(3): 511–525.
Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Camp SM, Sexton DL. 2001. Strategic
entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation.
Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 479–491.
57
Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Hoskisson RE. 2011. Strategic Management:
Competitiveness and Globalization. Southwestern: Mason, OH.
Hornsby JS, Kuratko DF, Holt DT, Wales WJ. 2013. Assessing a
measurement of organizational preparedness for corporate
entrepreneurship. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(5): 937–
955.
Hornsby JS, Kuratko DF, Montagno RV. 1999. Perception of internal factors
for corporate entrepreneurship: a comparison of Canadian and U.S.
managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(2): 9–24.
Hornsby JS, Kuratko DF, Shepherd DA, Bott JP. 2009. Managers’ corporate
entrepreneurial actions: examining perception and position. Journal of
Business Venturing 24(3): 236–247.
Hornsby JS, Kuratko DF, Zahra SA. 2002. Middle managers’ perception of
the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a
measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing 17(3): 253–273.
Hornsby JS, Naffziger DW, Kuratko DF, Montagno RV. 1993. An interactive
model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 17(2): 29–37.
Hughes M, Mustafa M. 2017. Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in
SMEs: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Small Business
Management 55(S1): 115–140.
Hult GTM, Ketchen D. 2001. Does market orientation matter? A test of the
relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic
Management Journal 22(9): 899–906.
Hurst D, Rush J, White R. 1989. Top management teams and organizational
renewal. Strategic Management Journal 10(S1): 87–105.
58
Ireland RD, Covin, JG, Kuratko DF. 2009. Conceptualizing corporate
entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(1): 19–
46.
Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Camp SM, Sexton DL. 2001. Integrating
entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm
wealth. Academy of Management Perspectives 15(1): 49–63.
Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG. 2003. A model of strategic
entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions. Journal of
Management 29(6): 963–989.
Ireland RD, Webb JW. 2007. Strategic entrepreneurship: creating competitive
advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons 50(1): 49–
59.
Jennings DF, Lumpkin JR. 1989. Functioning modelling corporate
entrepreneurship: an empirical integrative analysis. Journal of
Management 15(3): 485–502.
Johns G. 1994. How often were you absent: a review of the use of self-
reported absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(4): 574–591.
Jones MV, Coviello N, Tang YK. 2011. International entrepreneurship
research (1989–2009): a domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal
of Business Venturing 26(6): 632–659.
Kaplan S, Vakili K. 2015. The double-edged sword of recombination in
breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal 36(10): 1435–
1457.
Katila R, Rosenberger JD, Eisenhardt KM. 2008. Swimming with sharks:
technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships.
Administrative Science Quarterly 53(2): 295–332.
59
Kearney C, Morris MH. 2015. Strategic renewal as a mediator of
environmental effects on public sector performance. Small Business
Economics 45(2): 425–445.
Kelly GA. 1995. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton: New York, NY.
Ketchen DJ, Ireland RD, Snow CC. 2007. Strategic entrepreneurship,
collaborative innovation, and wealth creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal 1(3/4): 371–385.
Kim WC, Mauborgne R. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested
Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business Review
Press: Boston, MA.
Klotz AC, Hmielski KM, Bradley BH, Busenitz LW. 2014. New venture
teams: a review of the literature and roadmap for future research.
Journal of Management, 40(1): 226–255.
Kraus S. 2013. The role of entrepreneurial orientation in service firms:
empirical evidence from Austria. Service Industries Journal 33(5): 427–
444.
Kraus S, Kauranen I, Henning Reschke C. 2011. Identification of domains for
a new conceptual model of strategic entrepreneurship using the
configuration approach. Management Research Review 34(1): 58–74.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed). University
of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL."
Kuratko DF. 2017. Corporate entrepreneurship 2.0: research development
and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 13(6):
441–490.
Kuratko DF, Audretsch D. 2013. Clarifying the domains of corporate
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
9(3): 323–335.
60
Kuratko DF, Covin JG, Hornsby JS. 2014. Why implementing corporate
innovation is so difficult. Business Horizons 57(5): 647–655.
Kuratko DF, Goodale JC, Hornsby JS. 2001. Quality practices for a
competitive advantage in smaller firms. Journal of Small Business
Management 39(4): 293–311.
Kuratko DF, Hornsby JS, Covin JG. 2014. Diagnosing a firm’s internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons 57(1):
37–47.
Kuratko DF, Hornsby JS, Hayton J. 2015. Corporate entrepreneurship: the
innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business
Economics 45(2): 245–253.
Kuratko DF, Ireland RD, Covin JG, Hornsby JS. 2005. A model of middle-
level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice 29(6): 699 –718.
Kuratko DF, Ireland RD, Hornsby JS. 2001. Improving firm performance
through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship
strategy. Academy of Management Perspectives 15(4): 60–71.
Kuratko DF, Montagno RV, Hornsby JS. 1990. Developing an
entrepreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate
entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal 11(special
issue): 49–58.
Kühn C, Eymann T, Urbach N, Schweizer A. 2016. From professionals to
entrepreneurs: human resources practices as an enabler for fostering
corporate entrepreneurship in professional service firms. German
Journal of Human Resource Management 30(2): 125–154.
Kyrgidou LP, Hughes M. 2010. Strategic entrepreneurship: origins, core
elements and research directions. European Business Review 22(1): 43–63.
61
Kyrgidou LP, Petridou E. 2011. The effect of competence exploration and
competence exploitation on strategic entrepreneurship. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management 23(6): 697–713.
Lee SH, Williams C. 2007. Dispersed entrepreneurship within multinational
corporations: a community perspective. Journal of World Business 42(4):
505–519.
Lewis MW, Grimes AJ. 1999. Metatriangulation: building theory from
multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 672–690.
Ling Y, Simsek Z, Lubatkin MH, Veiga JF. 2008. Transformational
leadership’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining
the CEO–TMT interface. Academy of Management Journal 51(3): 557–576.
Lorenzoni G, Ornati OA. 1988. Constellations of firms and new ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing 3(1): 41–57.
Luke B, Kearins K, Verreynne ML. 2011. Developing a conceptual
framework of strategic entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 17(3): 314–337.
Luke B, Verreynne ML. 2006. Exploring strategic entrepreneurship in the
public sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 3(1): 4–
26.
Lumpkin GT, Cogliser CC, Schneider DR. 2009. Understanding and
measuring autonomy: an entrepreneurial orientation perspective.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(1): 47–69.
Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment
and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5): 429–452.
62
Mai Y, Zheng Y. 2013. How on-the-job embeddedness influences new
venture creation and growth. Journal of Small Business Management 51(4):
508–524.
Maletz MC, Nohria N. 2001. Managing in the whitespace. Harvard Business
Review 79(1): 102–111.
Marvel MR, Griffin A, Hebda J, Vojak B. 2007. Examining the technical
corporate entrepreneurs’ motivation: voices from the field.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(5): 753–768.
McKinney G, McKinney M. 1989. Forget the corporate umbrella—
entrepreneurs shine in the rain. Sloan Management Review 30(4): 77–82.
Miner AS. 1994. Seeking adaptive advantage: evolutionary theory and
managerial action. In Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, Baum JAC,
Singh JV (eds). Oxford University Press: New York, NY; 76–89.
Monsen E, Boss RW. 2009. The impact of strategic entrepreneurship inside
the organization: examining job stress and employee retention.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(1): 71–104.
Monsen E, Patzelt H, Saxton T. 2010. Beyond simple utility: incentive design
and trade-offs for corporate employee–entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 34(1): 105–130.
Morris MH. 1998. Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for
Individuals, Organizations and Societies. Quorum: Westport, CT.
Morris MH, Jones FF. 1999. Entrepreneurship in established organizations:
the case of the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(1):
71–91.
63
Morris MH, Kuratko DF, Covin JG. 2008. Corporate Entrepreneurship and
Innovation: Entrepreneurial Development Within Organizations. Thomson
Higher Education: Mason, OH.
Morris MH, Trotter JD. 1990. Institutionalizing entrepreneurship in a large
company: a case study at AT&T. Industrial Marketing Management 19(2):
131–134.
Naldi L, Achtenhagen L, Davidson P. 2015. International corporate
entrepreneurship among SMEs: a test of Stevenson’s notion of
entrepreneurial management. Journal of Small Business Management
53(3): 780–800.
Narayanan VK, Yang Y, Zahra SA. 2009. Corporate venturing and value
creation: a review and proposed framework. Research Policy 38(1): 58–
76.
Nason R, McKelvie A, Lumpkin G. 2015. The role of organizational size in
the heterogeneous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics 45(2): 279–304.
Pennings JM, Barkema H, Douma S. 1994. Organizational learning and
diversification. Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 608–640.
Peterson RA, Berger DG. 1971. Entrepreneurship in organizations: evidence
from the popular music industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 16(1):
97–106.
Pfeffer J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm
development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review
18(4): 599–620.
Phan PH, Wright M, Ucbasaran D, Tan WL. 2009. Corporate
entrepreneurship: current research and future directions. Journal of
Business Venturing 24(3): 197–205.
64
Piatier A.1984. Barriers to Innovation. Francés Pinter: London, U.K.
Pinchot G. 1985. Intrapreneuring: Why You Don’t Have to Leave the
Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. Harper & Row: New York, NY.
Plambeck N. 2012. The development of new products: the role of firm
context and managerial cognition. Journal of Business Venturing 27(6):
607–621.
Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP, Zedeck S. 2003.
Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology
88(5): 879–903.
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:
problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531–544
Poole MS, van de Ven AH. 1989. Using paradox to build management and
organization theories. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 562–578.
Ren CR, Guo C. 2011. Middle managers’ strategic role in the corporate
entrepreneurial process: attention-based effects. Journal of Management
37(6): 1586–1610.
Rind KW. 1991. The role of venture capital in corporate development.
Strategic Management Journal 2(2): 169–180.
Romero–Martínez AM, Fernández–Rodríguez Z, Vázquez–Inchausti E. 2010.
Exploring corporate entrepreneurship in privatized firms. Journal of
World Business 45(1): 2–8.
Ronstadt RC. 1984. Entrepreneurship. Lord: Dover, MA.
Rule EG, Irwin DW. 1988. Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive
edge. Journal of Business Strategy 9(3): 44–47.
65
Sakhdari K, Burgers H, Davidsson P. 2014. Capable but not able: the effect of
institutional context and search breadth on the absorptive capacity–corporate
entrepreneurship relationship. Paper presented at the Australian Centre
for Entrepreneurship Research Exchange Conference, Sydney,
Australia.
Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. 1977. An examination of the need–satisfaction models
of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3): 427–456.
Salvato C. 2009. Capabilities unveiled: the role of ordinary activities in the
evolution of product development processes. Organization Science 20(2):
384–409.
Schendel D. 1990. Introduction to the special issue on corporate
entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 11(special issue): 1–3.
Schendel D, Hofer C. 1978. Strategic Management: A New View of Business
Policy and Planning. Little, Brown: Boston, MA.
Schmitt N. 1994. Method bias: the importance of theory and measurement.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5): 393–398.
Schmitt A, Raisch S, Volberda HW. 2018. Strategic renewal: past research,
theoretical tensions and future challenges. International Journal of
Management Reviews 20(1): 81–98.
Schollhammer H. 1982. Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia
of Entrepreneurship, Kent CA, Sexton DL, Vesper KH (eds). Prentice
Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 209–229.
Schuler RS. 1986. Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in
organizations: implications for organization structure and human
resource management practices. Human Resource Management 25(4):
607–629.
66
Schweisfurth TG. 2017. Comparing internal and external lead users as
sources of innovation. Research Policy 46(1): 238–248.
Sharma P, Chrisman JJ. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional
issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 23(3): 11–27.
Shepherd DA, Covin JG, Kuratko DF. 2009. Project failure from corporate
entrepreneurship: managing the grief process. Journal of Business
Venturing 24(6): 588–600.
Shepherd DA, Kuratko DF. 2009. The death of an innovative project: how
grief recovery enhances learning. Business Horizons 52(5): 451–458.
Simsek Z. 2007. CEO tenure and organizational performance: an intervening
model. Strategic Management Journal 28(6): 653–662.
Simsek Z, Heavey C. 2011. The mediating role of knowledge-based capital
for corporate entrepreneurship effects on performance: a study of small
to medium-sized firms. Strategic Entrepreneurial Journal 5(1): 81–100.
Simsek Z, Lubatkin MH, Veiga JF, Dino RN. 2009. The role of an
entrepreneurially alert information system in promoting corporate
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research 62(8): 810–817.
Simsek Z, Veiga JF, Lubatkin MH. 2007. The impact of managerial
environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: towards
understanding discretionary slack’s pivotal role. Journal of Management
Studies 44(8): 1398–1424.
Spann MS, Adams M, Wortman MS. 1988. Entrepreneurship: definitions,
dimensions and dilemmas. In proceedings of the third annual conference,
US Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw,
GA, 147-153.
67
Stevenson HH, Jarrillo–Mossi CJ. 1986. Preserving entrepreneurship as
companies grow. Journal of Business Strategy 7(1): 10–23.
Stevenson HH, Roberts MJ, Grousbeck HI. 1999. New Business Venture and the
Entrepreneur. Irwin: Homewood, IL.
Stopford JM, Baden–Fuller CWF. 1994. Creating corporate entrepreneurship.
Strategic Management Journal 15(7): 521–536.
Taalbi J. 2017. What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history.
Research Policy 46(8): 1437–1453.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson: Boston,
MA.
Thomas LG. (2004). Are we all global now? Local vs. foreign sources of
corporate competence: the case of the Japanese pharmaceutical
industry. Strategic Management Journal 25(8/9): 865–886.
Thorgren S, Wincent J, Örtqvist D. 2012. Unleashing synergies in strategic
networks of SMEs: the influence of partner fit on corporate
entrepreneurship. International Small Business Journal 30(5): 453–471.
Thornberry N. 2001. Corporate entrepreneurship: antidote or oxymoron?
European Management Journal 19(5): 526–533.
Thurik R, Audretsch D, Carree M, van Stel A. 2008. Does self–employment
reduce unemployment? Journal of Business Venturing 23(6): 673–686.
Tortoriello M. 2015. The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: the
moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based
on external knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 36(4): 586–597.
68
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. 2003. Towards a methodology for
developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review. British Journal of Management 14(3): 207–222.
Tsai W-H, Kuo, Y-C, Hung J-H. (2009). Corporate diversification and CEO
turnover in family businesses: self-entrenchment or risk reduction?
Small Business Economics 32(1): 57–76.
Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA. 1996. Ambidextrous organization: managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review
38(4): 1–23.
Upson JW, Ketchen DJ, Ireland RD. 2007. Managing employee stress: a key
to the effectiveness of strategic supply chain management.
Organizational Dynamics 36(1): 78–92.
van der Knaap LM, Leontien M, Leeuw FL, Bogaerts S, Nijssen LTJ. 2008.
Combining Campbell standard and the realist evaluation approach: the
best of two worlds? American Journal of Evaluation 29(1): 48–57.
Verbeke A, Yuan W. 2007. Entrepreneurship in multinational enterprises: a
Penrosean perspective. Management International Review 47(2): 241–258.
Wadhwa A, Phelps C, Kotha S. 2016. Corporate venture capital portfolios
and firm innovation. Journal of Business Venturing 31(1): 95–112.
Wales WJ. 2016. Entrepreneurial orientation: a review and synthesis of
promising research directions. International Small Business Journal 34(1):
3–15.
Wales W, Monsen E, McKelvie A. 2011. The organizational pervasiveness of
entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(5):
895–923.
69
Walske JM, Zacharakis A. 2009. Genetically engineered: why some venture
capital firms are more successful than others. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 33(1): 297–318.
Welter F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship: conceptual challenges and
ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(1): 165–178.
Welter F, Smallbone D. 2014. Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial
behavior in challenging environments. IEEE Engineering Management
Review 42(2): 35–50.
Wennekers S, Thurik R. 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and economic
growth. Small Business Economics 13(1): 27–55.
Wholey DR, Brittain JW. 1986. Organizational ecology: findings and
implications. Academy of Management Review 11(3): 513–533
Wiklund J. 1999. The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation –
performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(1): 37–
48.
Wortman MS. 1987. Entrepreneurship: an integrating typology and
evaluation of the empirical research in the field. Journal of Management
13(2): 259–279.
Yiu DW, Lau CM, Bruton GD. 2007. International venturing by emerging
economy firms: the effects of firm capabilities, home country networks,
and corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies
38(4): 519–540.
Zahra SA. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate
entrepreneurship: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing
6(4): 259–285.
70
Zahra SA. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial
performance: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing 8(4):
319–340.
Zahra SA. 2007. Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Business Venturing 22(3): 443–452.
Zahra SA, Jennings DF, Kuratko DF. 1999. The antecedents and
consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2): 45-65.
