Search results

A corporate entrepreneurship (CE) strategy implies that a firm’s strategic intent is to continuously leverage entrepreneurial opportunities for growth- and advantage-seeking purposes. CE has gained greater research attention with a focus on the factors that influence an organization’s willingness to initiate and sustain a CE strategy. In the current disruptive age, firms acknowledge the importance of CE (also referred to as corporate innovation) as the critical element for sustained competitive advantage in the global economy. Yet, so many organizations struggle with the actual implementation of an innovative strategy. There are key challenges that must be addressed by today’s corporate entrepreneurial leaders in this age of disruptive innovation. These include framing the innovation, developing the internal architecture, coordinating the managerial levels, integrating design thinking, recognizing the grief associated with project failure, and demanding ethical standards. As research on corporate innovative activity has evolved, numerous researchers have acknowledged the importance of these leadership activities to enhance the effectiveness of corporate entrepreneurial activity. In this chapter, the authors discuss these critical elements confronting corporate entrepreneurial leaders.

The present study examines entrepreneurship in established firms holistically and critically. The authors start by reviewing previous research and highlight a variety of definitional, conceptual, methodological, contextual, and temporal factors that have been confounding the research. The authors then present a multidimensional framework that specifies a more nuanced picture of the determinants, motives, activities, and consequences of corporate in established firms. Finally, the authors discuss conceptual, methodological, and practical implications, as well as outline future research avenues.

The world is changing very rapidly with events that alter the landscape for students during a time when entrepreneurs are needed more than ever. This chapter explores trends in entrepreneurship research that are focused in areas of the entrepreneurial mindset, alleviation of poverty through entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, portfolio thinking about entrepreneurial venture types, the crucial nature of racial diversity, and the drive of women entrepreneurs. It also examines COVID-19’s disparate impact on smaller ventures and Black entrepreneurs, while highlighting its impact on spurring entrepreneurial innovations causing an entrepreneurial explosion. Most importantly, this chapter focuses on how the emerging research trends amidst the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted entrepreneurship educators to enact educational innovations. The chapter includes tools and tips to integrate into the changing nature of university programs and entrepreneurship curriculums facing a dynamic future.

To innovatively address challenges faced by corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in this modern age of globalization and digitalization, this chapter takes a fresh look at questions of learning and leadership from the perspective of organization development (OD), a field that has long studied questions of planned and emergent change. This alternate perspective adds to our knowledge and understanding of the role of individuals and teams in CE and presents opportunities to integrate learning and leadership. In particular, the OD literature provides us with multilevel measurement methods and tools to better analyze the employee and team level-of-analysis. As a result, these insights should enable us to better explain the interaction between CE strategic orientation and the performance of corporate venturing employees and teams, as well as the progress of organizational strategic renewal and market (re)creation efforts.

Environmental uncertainty, turbulence, and heterogeneity create a host of strategic and operational challenges for today’s organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). To cope with the challenge of simultaneously developing and nurturing both today’s and tomorrow’s core competencies, firms increasingly rely on effective use of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999). These facts make it imperative that managers at all levels actively participate in designing and implementing a strategy for corporate entrepreneurship actions. The recent literature reveals that there is a general although certainly not a complete consensus around the position that successful corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is linked to improvement in firm performance (Ireland et al., 2001). Covin, Ireland and Kuratko (2003) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance and that the understanding of corporate entrepreneurship as a valid and effective practice with real, tangible benefits is occurring across firm type and managerial levels. Other researchers cite corporate entrepreneurship’s importance as a growth strategy (Kuratko, 1993; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott, 1985; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). As an example, Dess, Lumpkin and McGee (1999) note that, “Virtually all organizations – new start-ups, major corporations, and alliances among global partners – are striving to exploit product-market opportunities through innovative and proactive behavior” – the type of behavior that is called for by corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) suggested that in light of the dynamism and complexity of today’s environments, “…entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish.” Developing an internal environment that cultivates employees’ interest in and commitment to creativity and the innovation that can result from it contributes to successful competition in today’s competitive arenas. A valuable and appropriate internal organizational environment is a product of effective work (often within the context of corporate entrepreneurship) by managers at all levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000).

It is clear that entrepreneurship has a major impact on the economy because of the innovation, competition, productivity, wealth generation, and job creation all developed through new ventures. However, researchers have been divided on what specific type of entrepreneurial venture is best for economic growth and job creation. This chapter examines the debate between researchers on whether or not a “gazelle” approach, focusing only on high growth ventures, or a “portfolio” approach, taking in account all the various types of ventures, is better for economic growth and job creation. The gazelle approach’s solution is for the government to only invest in those firms that are high growth. In contrast, the portfolio approach’s solution is to encourage all forms of entrepreneurship because the ventures are interdependent on each other in the entrepreneurial ecosystem and each venture no matter the size is serving some purpose to the economy. This chapter highlights the two sides of the issue but also argues that in order for a true entrepreneurial economy to exist then all various type of ventures need to be encouraged in order for competition to be greatest and for society to reap the highest benefits.

In this chapter, the authors conceptualize corporate entrepreneurship as a mental model that allows firms to adapt to new competitive landscapes by facilitating the development of new cognitive scripts and schemas. The authors begin by explaining what it means for a firm to be competitively bewildered, or lost, in a rapidly changing competitive domain. The authors also describe five stages of being lost competitively. The authors then map the attributes of an entrepreneurial firm – adaptability, speed, flexibility, aggressiveness, and innovativeness – to stages of the bewilderment process wherein they may be most helpful to realign competitive realities and entrepreneurial scripts and schemas. The authors conclude by proposing contributions resulting from conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship as a bewilderment schema and also explain how this represents a novel perspective.