Arturo E. Osorio, Banu Ozkazanc-Pan and Paul F. Donnelly
While entrepreneurship may be driven by personal interests and lifestyle choices, entrepreneurial actions are not only economically driven opportunity-searching processes but also…
Abstract
While entrepreneurship may be driven by personal interests and lifestyle choices, entrepreneurial actions are not only economically driven opportunity-searching processes but also enactments of social transformation that may or may not lead to socioeconomic benefits. We advance that exploring these entrepreneurial processes can inform a theory of the firm that may explain how socioeconomic processes shape the socioeconomic environment of communities while serving individuals. This article discusses several understandings of the firm, as theorized in extant literature. Guided by these different conceptualizations, we present a case study of an artist and artisan cluster in Western Massachusetts to demonstrate various understandings of entrepreneurial processes. By way of conclusion, we develop the idea of the firm as a geographically embedded relational understanding aiding entrepreneurs to achieve personal goals while coconstructing their local environment.
Details
Keywords
One way that firms attempt to innovate is through investment in R&D activity. However, there is much heterogeneity in innovations among firms making comparable R&D investments…
Abstract
One way that firms attempt to innovate is through investment in R&D activity. However, there is much heterogeneity in innovations among firms making comparable R&D investments. This article explores employee ownershipʼs moderating effect on the relationship between R&D intensity and innovative output. The basis for the moderation is that ownership increases motivation and commitment to the innovation agenda of the company, and retains employeesʼ entrepreneurial efforts for internal opportunities. Using hierarchical regression, the data support the hypothesis that employee stock ownership positively moderates the relationship between R&D intensity and innovative output. Implications for future research and practice are addressed.