Search results

Entrepreneurship is an emerging and evolving field of inquiry. Entrepreneurship research has been expanding its boundaries by exploring and developing explanations and predictions of entrepreneurship phenomena in terms of events such as innovation, new venture creation and growth as well as characteristics of individual entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial organizations. The largest institutionalized community of entrepreneurship scholars – the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management – has developed an entrepreneurship specific domain that incorporates the creation and management of new businesses, small businesses and family businesses, and the characteristics and special problems of entrepreneurs; it has further identified major topics such as new venture ideas and strategies, ecological influences on venture creation and demise, the acquisition and management of venture capital and venture teams, self-employment, the owner-manager, management succession, corporate venturing, and the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development. One growing entrepreneurship research sub-field is corporate entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship), i.e. entrepreneurship in existing organizations. Emerging in the past two decades, the initial research in corporate entrepreneurship focused on new business venturing, i.e. the formation of new ventures by existing organizations, mostly corporations, and the focus on the entrepreneurial individual inside a corporation – this focus was then extended to include entrepreneurial characteristics at the organizational level. Corporate entrepreneurship research has evolved into three focal areas. The first area of focus is on the individual intrapreneur (Jennings, Cox & Cooper, 1994; Jones & Butler, 1992; Knight, 1989; Lessem, 1988; Luchsinger & Bagby, 1987; McKinney & McKinney, 1989; Pinchot, 1985; Ross, 1987; Souder, 1981), mainly emphasizing the intrapreneur’s individual characteristics. The recognition and support of entrepreneurs in organizations is also a part of this focal area. The second area of focus has been on the formation of new corporate ventures (Burgelman, 1985; Carrier, 1994; Cooper, 1981; Fast & Pratt, 1981; Hisrich & Peters, 1984; Hlavacek & Thompson, 1973; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; MacMillan, Block & Narasimha, 1984; Szypersky & Klandt, 1984; Vesper, 1990); this area’s primary emphasis is on the different of types of new ventures, their fit with the corporation, and their enabling corporate internal environment. The third area of focus is on the entrepreneurial organization (Burgelman, 1983; Drucker, 1985; Duncan et al., 1988; Hanan, 1976; Kanter, 1984; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Muzyka, de Konning & Churchill, 1995; Pinchot, 1985; Quinn, 1979; Rule & Irwin, 1988; Schollhammer, 1981; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994), which mainly emphasizes the characteristics of these organizations.

This research contributes to the development of the theory of intrapreneurship by clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Intrapreneurship is more precisely defined by referring to emergent behavioral intentions and behaviors that are related to departures from the customary ways of doing business in existing organizations. The intrapreneurship concept is positioned in the management literature, is contrasted with other similar management concepts and developed as an integrative concept composed of eight distinct, yet related dimensions.

Enduring scholarly interest in the process of strategy-making stems from an abiding assumption that some ways of strategizing are more efficacious than others, and thus lead to higher firm performance in the long run; higher than luck alone would bring. Expressions of interest in and endorsements of the strategy process are abundant in the academic literature. As Pettigrew (1992) points out, Hofer and Schendel's pioneering definition of strategic management is processual in character emphasizing the development and utilization of strategy. Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece (1994) list the policy process question – how does policy process matter? – as a fundamental question of the strategic management field. Porter (1996) expresses preoccupation with the leadership and organizational challenges of managing the process. And, Hamel (1988) exhorts the field to devote as much attention to the conduct of strategy, i.e., the task of strategy making, as they have to its content. For senior managers and leaders, the question of how to make effective strategies stands usually at the top of their agenda. Not surprisingly then, the quest to uncover stable principles of good strategy making has attracted much support and interest over the years.

As our world becomes increasingly more technology driven and global competition continues to intensify, the technology resource components available to a firm will be required to become more sophisticated in order to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage. Higher levels of sophistication are achieved through technological innovation that is effectively managed. But, to effectively manage technological innovation, we must first come to a clearer understanding of the resource components of technology. This paper describes the way various people perceive the meaning of technology, discusses the confusion that exists, and suggests a construct for classifying the components of technology to mitigate the confusion. Finally, a framework for benchmarking and technology assessment is presented to suggest a way for a firm to better manage its technology component sophistication level for global competition.

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.

Despite the growing body of literature on both organizational learning (OL) and corporate venture development (CVD), very few attempts have been made to establish connections between these two literature streams. While existing literature provides some evidence that OL may facilitate the process of CVD, several interesting research issues remain unexamined. We know very little about (a) what type of learning processes are effective at various stages of CVD; and (b) whether and how knowledge created through various OL processes enhances venture performance. These research issues are examined in this paper by integrating the literature from OL and CVD. We develop a conceptual model that integrates organizational learning with the antecedents and outcomes of CVD. We argue that (a) organizational learning in CVD occurs through two distinct and yet complementary processes; (b) productive organizational learning occurs when organizations vary their emphases on different types of learning depending upon the stages of CVD; and (c ) different types of learning are associated with different types of venture outcomes. Propositions are developed and implications are discussed to facilitate empirical research.

The Resource‐Based View of the Firm (RBV) has become an important stream of literature in strategic management. RDV's main prescription is that strategic assets are crucial determinants of sustainable competitive advantage and thus firm performance. Unfortunately, little empirical research has been occasioned to substantiate that prescription. Part of the difficulty in empirically testing RBV's main prescription lies in identifying resources capable of being strategic assets. This article combines RBV logic, the definition of strategic assets, Hall's studies, and the logic embodied in several streams of management literature to explain why strategic assets are intangible in nature, to show that not all intangible resources are strategic assets, and to demonstrate that company reputation, product reputation, employee knowhow, and organizational culture possess the characteristics of strategic assets. That is the foundation for the proposed hypotheses and proposed conceptual model presented in this paper for testing RBV's main prescription. We also discuss the practical, theoretical and empirical implications of this paper and make suggestions regarding empirical testing.