Search results

Boards of directors often attempt to foster corporate entrepreneurship by replacing a firmʼs chief executive officer (CEO). Compelling theoretical arguments and anecdotal evidence suggest that when firm performance has suffered, a new CEO is best suited to lead the firmʼs creative endeavors. On the other hand, among firms that retain their existing CEO after a decline in performance, manipulating the CEOʼs compensation package is a common governance practice used by boards to encourage innovation. In these cases, some have argued that increasing the CEOʼs pay will encourage corporate entrepreneurship, because the CEO has been compensated for assuming additional risk. Counter to these propositions, this study develops theoretical arguments that a firmʼs existing CEO is better equipped to foster corporate entrepreneurship and that this probability increases when the CEOʼs cash compensation is decreased. Results from a sample of 100 single-product manufacturing firms suggest firms that retain their current CEO and decrease the CEOʼs cash compensation are most likely to engage in corporate entrepreneurship. Implications that this research has for corporate entrepreneurship, corporate governance, and firm performance are discussed.

Many entrepreneurs are able to manage their businesses within relatively contained and familiar geographical and cultural circles. With a world economy shrinking every day amid a flood of digital information, todayʼs entrepreneur is increasingly confronted with opportunities to consider new ways to secure vendors and recruit customers. Many unfamiliar possibilities emerge. Should the entrepreneur venture beyond “comfortable” surroundings to consider international connections? Specifically, what about China? How practical is this fetching business temptation of larger markets and lower-cost subcontractors? What are the social, trade, financial, and political issues? Should a “China strategy” be a true entrepreneurial offensive, or rather a defensive response to competition? Is this “China strategy” the promise of yet another entrepreneurial nirvana? Or is it perhaps again a case of “Be careful of what you wish for; it may really come true?”