See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228315627
Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation Part 1: The Missing
Link
Article in European Journal of Innovation Management · September 2005
DOI: 10.1108/14601060510610207
CITATIONS
READS
244
28,987
3 authors, including:
Elspeth Mcfadzean
University of Reading
Andrew O'Loughlin
22 PUBLICATIONS 755 CITATIONS
34 PUBLICATIONS 1,304 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Information Assurance View project
Creativity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Elspeth Mcfadzean on 20 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm
EJIM
8,3
Corporate entrepreneurship and
innovation part 1: the missing link
350
Associate Faculty, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK
Elspeth McFadzean
Andrew O’Loughlin
Cranfield University, Swindon, UK, and
Elizabeth Shaw
Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To examine the literature on corporate entrepreneurship and innovation and to develop a
combined definition of these two terms. Moreover, the literature is used to construct a holistic model
that seeks to explain the links between corporate entrepreneurial activity and the innovation process.
Design/methodology/approach – A number of published works on entrepreneurship and
innovation are critiqued. The findings from this literature review are used to develop a framework
illustrating the relationships between the corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process.
Findings – The paper presents a combined definition of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation
and, from the literature review, concludes that previous models on entrepreneurship and innovation
are fragmented because there is little exploration on the relationships and dynamics between these two
factors. A framework of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation is constructed by synthesising the
information gathered from previous literature. This model shows that there are missing links between
the entrepreneur and the innovation process. The paper discusses three factors that may explain both
the dynamics and the relationships between the entrepreneur and the innovation process. These are
entrepreneurial attitudes, vision and actions.
Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified gap in the literature, namely the lack of
investigation into the links between the corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process, and
suggests three factors that could be used to explain this gap. Part 2 of this paper will present a new
holistic model of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation that illustrates the relationships between
these two areas in more detail.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Innovation, Attitudes
Paper type Conceptual paper
European Journal of Innovation
Management
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2005
pp. 350-372
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1460-1060
DOI 10.1108/14601060510610207
Introduction
The need to understand corporate entrepreneurship has been gaining in importance
(Dess et al., 2003; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990) and has resulted in a number of
entrepreneurship frameworks being presented in the literature (Burgelman, 1984;
Covin and Slevin, 1991; Pinchot, 1985). Although the scholars who have addressed
corporate entrepreneurship have made significant contributions to theory
development, there is still scope for a more focused exploration, particularly as there
is a growing need for corporate entrepreneurship and innovation within organisations
(Hornsby et al., 2002; Hornsby et al., 1993; Ireland et al., 2001; Kuratko et al., 1993;
Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1991; Zahra, 1995). Further research in these two areas has
become problematic due to a general lack of consensus surrounding an agreed upon
meaning of both concepts (Morris et al., 1994) and the key internal factors that
stimulate them (Hornsby et al., 2002). Earlier frameworks have focused on either
entrepreneurship or innovation as independent processes, thereby limiting their
application and utility (Baum et al., 2001; Chesbrough, 2003; Cunningham and
Lischeron, 1991; Dooley and O’Sullivan, 2001; Jin, 2000). Thus, there has been very little
comment in the literature on the relationships between entrepreneurship and
innovation.
The aim of this paper, therefore, is to present a critical evaluation of the corporate
entrepreneurship and innovation literature and to construct a synthesised framework
illustrating the current view of these two areas. The model shows that there is a gap
between entrepreneurship and innovation. This paper suggests three elements that can
fill this gap, namely entrepreneurial attitudes, vision and activities. In part 2, these
three elements are explored in more detail and a new model of entrepreneurship is
presented.
The next two sections define corporate entrepreneurship and innovation and
examine the variables and relationships from the literature that underpin these areas.
The paper then culminates in the construction of a framework that has been developed
by synthesising the literature on entrepreneurship and innovation. The model shows
that there is a gap between these two concepts and presents some suggestions as to
which elements should be utilised to fill this gap.
What is corporate entrepreneurship and innovation?
Researchers and practitioners have attempted to define corporate entrepreneurship
and innovation in many different ways (Bessant, 2003; Kirby, 2003; Zahra, 1996). There
appears, however, to be little consensus surrounding what constitutes entrepreneurial
and innovative activity. For example, Chell et al. (1991, p. 1) states:
The problem of identification of an entrepreneur has been confounded by the fact that there is
still no standard, universally accepted definition of entrepreneurship.
This section reviews some of the most influential literature, from both areas, in order to
provide clearer definitions of these two terms.
Defining corporate entrepreneurship
A number of authors have emphasised entrepreneurship as the primary act
underpinning innovation (Amit et al., 1993; Drucker, 1985b; McGrath, 1996; Stevenson
and Jarillo, 1990), which also resonates with Schumpeter’s (1961) view of
entrepreneurship, as the primary catalyst for innovation. All of these views are,
however, concerned almost exclusively with entrepreneurial activity as a radical
change mechanism. Evidence suggests however that this might not always be the case
(Afuah, 2003; Tidd et al., 2001).
In contrast, corporate entrepreneurship is held to promote entrepreneurial
behaviours within an organisation (Echols and Neck, 1998). It uses the
fundamentals of management, while adopting a behavioural style that challenges
bureaucracy and encourages innovation (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999). It is also
responsible for stimulating innovation within the organisation through the
examination of potential new opportunities, resource acquisition, implementation,
exploitation and commercialisation of the new products or services (Guth and
Ginsberg, 1990; Kuratko et al., 1990; Sathe, 1989; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994;
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
351
EJIM
8,3
352
Thornberry, 2003). In addition, Zahra (1991, 1995) states that corporate
entrepreneurship also includes various attitudes and actions that enhance a
company’s ability to take risks, seize opportunities and innovate.
According to Leibenstein (1968, p. 73), entrepreneurship can be defined as:
The activities necessary to create or carry on an enterprise where not all the markets are well
established or clearly defined and/or in which the relevant parts of the production function
are not completely known.
Leibenstein further contends that an entrepreneur undertakes one or more of the
following activities:
The entrepreneur:
.
organises and puts in place the appropriate resources required to produce and
market the new product or service;
.
co-ordinates contractual agreements between different parties such as the firm
and its employees or suppliers;
.
arranges an appropriate organisational structure and culture in order to develop
and produce new products and services;
.
responds to market deficiencies by supplying resources for which there is no
market; and
.
connects buyers and sellers and/or different geographical markets together.
From the above discussion corporate entrepreneurship can be defined as the effort of
promoting innovation from an internal organisational perspective, through the
assessment of potential new opportunities, alignment of resources, exploitation and
commercialisation of said opportunities (see Figure 1 for explicit links). It is important
to note that corporate entrepreneurship can be used interchangeably with
intrapreneurship.
Figure 1.
Corporate
entrepreneurship
Defining innovation
Various definitions have been developed to explain innovation, and as a result the term
has gained greater ambiguity (Garcia and Calantone, 2002). Examination of the
innovation literature confirms that there is enormous diversity in views and
approaches to what actually constitutes innovative activity, and also highlights some
of the confusion that exists within the discipline itself. Confusion seems to stem from
the fact that many definitions introduce peripheral concepts, which may deflect
attention from the core components of innovation and make its application difficult.
For example, both Cannon (1993) and Gurteen (1998) introduce paradigmatic change
and creative thinking. While Rogers (1995) concentrates on perception, Henderson et al.
(1996) feature invention, and Koontz and Weihrich (1990) and Zahra (1995) put forward
definitions that highlight marketing and entrepreneurial philosophies.
A number of process models have been developed in the literature suggesting that
innovation consists of a variety of different phases: idea generation, research design
and development, prototype production, manufacturing, marketing and sales (Dooley
and O’Sullivan, 2001; Knox, 2002; Poolton and Ismail, 2000; Rothwell, 1994). However,
theorists have suggested that there is more to innovation than the process (Amabile,
1996; Couger, 1995; Rhodes, 1961). Considerations must also be given to the product so
that organisations can evaluate their success (or failure) (Bessant, 2003; Tidd et al.,
2001; von Stamm, 2003). In fact, the most important, as well as consistent, factors to
emanate from the innovation literature focus on the product; that is, new ideas and the
potential for improvement through change. New ideas can be placed on a novelty
continuum. Heany (1983) suggests that the least novel and risky form of innovation is
to incrementally change the style of a product. This tends to be predictable and the
effect on the market is likely to be slight. In contrast, at the other end of the continuum,
major innovation is held to radically influence the market place. In addition, major
innovations have the potential to create new markets and new industries. This in turn
can place considerable strain on all the functional areas within an organisation, and
can be highly risky and uncertain (Brown, 1992; Clegg et al., 2002; von Stamm, 2003).
Between these two points in the continuum, Heany (1983) specifies four other types of
innovation: product line extensions, product improvements, new products for the
current market, and new products for another established market in which the vendor
is currently not involved (see Table I). According to Drucker (1985b), Heany’s products
of innovation are associated with wealth production for the organisation, which is a
form of added value.
The above factors have been categorised into key themes in order to maintain a
simple definition of innovation. Consequently, innovation can be defined as a process
that provides added value and a degree of novelty to the organisation and its suppliers
and customers through the development of new procedures, solutions, products and
services as well as new methods of commercialisation (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Knox,
2002; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) (see Figure 2).
Combining entrepreneurship and innovation
In this brief review, corporate entrepreneurship and innovation have been defined.
What has become clear, however, is that without the presence of some form of
entrepreneurial activity to exploit opportunities as they arise within organisations,
innovation remains little more than an aspirational, rather than a tangible destination
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
353
EJIM
8,3
354
Table I.
Degrees of innovation
What is the
design effort?
Is the market
for product
established?
Is the business
already serving
the market?
Do customers
know functions
and features?
Product
Process
Then innovation is a:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Minor
Minor
Significant
Major
Major
Major
Nil
Minor
Minor
Major
Major
Major
Style change
Product line extension
Product improvement
New product
Start-up business
Major innovation
Source: Heany (1983)
Figure 2.
Entrepreneurship and
innovation
(Pinchot, 1985; Schumpeter, 1961; Thornberry, 2001; Zahra, 1995). Amit et al. (1993,
p. 816) therefore state that the two concepts must be linked together:
In a business setting, it appears that the process of endowing resources with new
wealth-production capacity [innovation] is central to any conceptualisation of
entrepreneurship.
A number of authors have argued that there are different types of innovation. For
example, Paulson Gjerde et al. (2002, p. 1268) suggest that innovation can range from
incremental to frontier:
BMW may be viewed as a frontier innovator, choosing not to introduce a new model until it is
very different from the previous models and is at the leading edge of the technology frontier.
In comparison, Japanese automobile manufacturers may be viewed as incremental
innovators, frequently introducing new models that are only slightly different from the
previous ones and do not incorporate all possible technological advances.
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
355
Kirton (2003) believes that people solve problems and develop solutions in different
ways. He suggests a continuum of thinking styles ranging from adaption to innovation
(see Table II). Many new innovations have been created through adaption. For
example, the word processor is a combination of three existing instruments: the
typewriter, the computer and a display screen (Drucker, 1985a). Likewise, the internet
has been developed from the computer and the telephone (McFadzean, 2003). Another
form of adaption is what Drucker (1985a, p. 15) calls “creative imitation”:
Creative imitation is a contradiction in terms. What is “creative” must surely be “original.” If
there is one thing imitation is not, it is being “original.” Yet the term fits, it describes a
strategy which is “imitation” in its substance. Here, the entrepreneur does something
somebody else has already done. It is “creative” because the entrepreneur who applies this
strategy understands what the innovation represents better than the people who made the
innovation.
Adaptors
Innovators
In problem defining:
Adaptors tend to accept the problems as defined
by consensus, accepting generally agreed
constraints. Early resolution of problems, limiting
disruption and immediate increased efficiency are
their more important considerations
Innovators tend to reject the generally accepted
perception of problems and redefine them. Their
view of the problem may be hard to get across.
They seem less concerned with immediate
efficiency, looking to possible long-term gains
In solution generating:
Adaptors prefer to generate a few novel, creative,
relevant and acceptable solutions aimed at “doing
things better.” They have confidence in
implementing such solutions effectively, despite
size and complexity
Innovators generally produce numerous ideas,
some of which may not appear relevant or be
acceptable to others. Such ideas often contain
solutions which result in “doing things
differently”
In organisations:
Adaptors prefer more well-established, structured
situations. They are best at incorporating new
data or events into existing structures or policies,
making them more efficient. Adaptors are
essential to managing current systems, but in
times of unexpected changes from unexpected
directions, they encounter difficulty regrouping
established roles
Innovators prefer less tightly structured
situations. They use new data as opportunities to
set new structures or policies, accepting greater
risk to the current paradigm. Innovators are
essential in times of radical change or crisis, but
may have trouble applying themselves to
managing change within ongoing organisational
structures
Source: Adapted from Kirton (2003)
Table II.
Trait characteristics of
adaptors and innovators
EJIM
8,3
356
IBM, for example, practiced creative imitation by using the concept first devised by
Apple. The original idea of the personal computer came from Apple, who successfully
marketed the innovation. IBM – who had originally thought that personal computers
would be too expensive – recognised the potential and set to work to become the
industry standard and to dominate this market (Langlois, 1992).
The role of the entrepreneur can therefore be presented as a continuum ranging
from the entrepreneur as a creative imitator to the entrepreneur as an originator
(Paulson Gjerde et al., 2002).
Both the internal and external environments can have a significant impact on
innovation (Jin, 2000). Evidence shows that firms develop different products (creative
imitations or major innovations) due to environmental factors such as its relationship
to the market, its competitors, and industry practices (Ali, 1994). Constant and rapid
change in the business environment can make decision-making and innovation
uncertain and ambiguous (Greve and Taylor, 2000). Thus, organisations must
systematically scan both its internal and external environments. A thorough
examination of the internal environment involves the evaluation of novel combinations
of existing technology, shelved concepts and ideas, and new applications for existing
competencies. External scanning consist of:
Searching, filtering and evaluating potential opportunities from outside the organization,
including related and emerging technologies, new markets and services, which can be
exploited by applying or combining with existing competencies (Tidd et al., 2001, p. 293).
The above factors can be used to develop a combined and sequential definition of
entrepreneurship and innovation (see Figure 3):
Corporate entrepreneurship can be defined as the effort of promoting innovation in
an uncertain environment. Innovation is a process that provides added value and
novelty to the organisation, its suppliers and customers through the development of
new procedures, solutions, products and services as well as new methods of
commercialisation. Within this process the principal roles of the corporate
entrepreneur are to challenge bureaucracy, to assess new opportunities, to align and
exploit resources and to move the innovation process forward. The corporate
entrepreneur’s management of the innovation process will lead to greater benefits for
the organisation.
A holistic view of entrepreneurship and innovation
The following section will present a critical evaluation of the corporate
entrepreneurship and innovation literature in order to construct a synthesised
framework that will illustrate the current view of these two areas.
Key entrepreneurship models
A number of different corporate entrepreneurship models have been reviewed and their
key features, contributions and weaknesses are presented in Table III.
Although Table III demonstrates that these models have a number of weaknesses,
they also contribute some valuable information in order to help in the understanding of
entrepreneurship. Powell and Bimmerle (1980) suggest, for example, that
entrepreneurship is initiated by three sets of attributes, namely entrepreneurial
descriptors, precipitating factors and venture-specific factors. Entrepreneurial
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
357
Figure 3.
A holistic definition of
entrepreneurship and
innovation
descriptors include individual traits, personal fitness, knowledge and skills. According
to Powell and Bimmerle (1980, p. 34):
If enough of the entrepreneurial descriptors . . . are present in the proper balance, the
individual can then be regarded as a prime candidate for entrepreneurship.
Embarking on an entrepreneurial venture, however, depends upon the precipitating
factors – such as, dissatisfaction, encouragement or the recognition of an opportunity
– and venture-specific variables, which will include the evaluation of the project as
well as financial and technical support.
Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) adopt a different approach and have sought to
emphasise the need for an iterative process, where there is constant re-evaluation of the
individual, as well as future opportunities, the entrepreneurial actions undertaken and
the potential need for change. Hornsby et al.’s (1993) model differs from both of these
two models, as it highlights the need for a participating event that provides the
stimulus for entrepreneurial activity. These events may include, for example, a change
in management, a merger or acquisition, the development of a new procedure,
economic changes, technological changes and revision of consumer demand.
Other researchers have concentrated on categorising and measuring the major traits
and variables involved in entrepreneurship (Baum et al., 2001; Powell and Bimmerle,
1980). Covin and Slevin (1991) have classified these elements into three groups:
external variables, strategic variables and internal variables. Their approach can be
Cunningham and
Lischeron (1991)
Covin and Slevin
(1991)
Miller and Friesen
(1982)
Powell and
Bimmerle (1980)
Only takes a behavioural view
of entrepreneurship. Uses
high-level variables
Consideration of performance
(continued)
No output variables stated in
Recognises the need for
feedback and the evaluation of the model
self
Little acknowledgement of
behavioural variables
Developed equations for
entrepreneurial activity in
conservative and innovative
firms
Categorises the entrepreneurial No evaluation of entire
entrepreneurial process
characteristics into distinct
divisions seeking to highlight
complexity in the process
Entrepreneurial descriptors:
traits, personal fitness,
knowledge and experience
Precipitating factors:
dissatisfaction, opportunity,
initial encouragement
Venture-specific factors:
evaluation, support
Scanning
Examines environmental,
Concentration of authority
information processing,
structural and decision making Planning horizons
Resources
variables
Control
External variables: industry
Focuses on organisational
behaviour with consideration lifecycle, technological
sophistication
of the context as well as the
Strategic variables: mission
individual
strategy, business practices,
competitive tactics
Internal variables: culture,
resources
Firm performance
Recognising opportunity
Entrepreneurship is a
reiterative process and focuses Reassessing need for change
on personal values,
opportunity identification,
planning and acting, and
reassessing change
Table III.
Key corporate
entrepreneurship
models
Focuses on the venture
creation decision-making
process with concentration on
three key aspects;
entrepreneurial descriptors,
and precipitating and
venture-specific factors
Potential weaknesses
Value added
Model’s key features
Key variables
358
Literature source
EJIM
8,3
Model’s key features
Baum et al. (2001)
Focuses on traits,
competencies, motivation,
competitive strategies and the
environment
Hornsby et al. (1993) A model of corporate
entrepreneurship which
focuses on organisational and
individual characteristics, the
precipitating event, the
decision to act
intrapreneurially,
business/feasibility planning,
resource availability, ability to
overcome barriers and idea
implementation
Morris et al. (1994) An integrative model of
entrepreneurial inputs and
outcomes
Literature source
No evaluation of entire
entrepreneurial process
Over-simplification of
procedures because they view
entrepreneurship and
innovation as a single process
Emphasis on the
multidimensional and
interactive nature of
intrapreneurship
Process perspective and the
variable nature of
entrepreneurship with
innovation as a possible output
of the entrepreneurial process
Categorises the entrepreneurial
characteristics into distinct
divisions seeking to highlight
complexity in the process
Business feasibility
Ability to overcome barriers
Decision to act
entrepreneurially
Precipitating event
Firm performance: value
creation, new products,
services or processes,
profits/benefits, revenue
growth
Individual traits
Management competencies
No evaluation of relationships
between variables
Potential weaknesses
Value added
Key variables
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
359
Table III.
EJIM
8,3
360
criticised for being overly reductionist resulting in a lack of specific and measurable
elements. Contrasting this, Miller and Freisen (1982) have concentrated on developing a
more scientific approach to entrepreneurship through the development of a regression
equation that seeks to assess the entrepreneurial traits. Baum et al. (2001) have taken
this one stage further and have attempted to quantify different entrepreneurial traits
and measure the strength of their relationship with venture growth.
All of these models can be criticised for seeking to assess only a small part of the
entrepreneurial process, and when more scientific methods are used, the focus is almost
exclusively on the quantification of tangible outputs. Such approaches clearly ignore
some of the more subtle and personal traits associated with entrepreneurial activity, as
well as the broader frameworks within which entrepreneurs operate (Morris et al.,
1994). A synthesis of key variables in Table III has been undertaken in order to develop
a more complete picture of entrepreneurship (see Figure 4). However, the
acknowledged concern with this model is the limited recognition given to the
inter-relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation.
Key innovation process models
Rothwell’s (1992) taxonomy provides a useful method for classifying innovation
models (see Table IV). He produced a framework that allows the classification of the
dominant perceptions of innovation through time (Rothwell, 1992, 1994). It is important
to note the generational processes at play here because these constructs are used to
explain and investigate subsequent model development.
Table V presents a selection of innovation frameworks that were gathered from the
literature. The table highlights a lack of fifth generation models even though Rothwell
Figure 4.
A synthesised model of
entrepreneurship
Generation
Type of model
Characteristics of model
First
Technology push
model
Second
Need pull model
Third
Coupling model
Fourth
Integrated model
Fifth
Systems
integrating and
network model
Simple, linear, step-wise models showing
progression from discovery through to the
commercialisation of a new product; emphasis is on
R&D; little focus on transformation or the role of the
marketplace
Simple, linear, sequential models that focus on the
marketplace; innovations developed from perceived
or clearly articulated needs from consumers;
marketing directs R&D
Sequential models with distinct but interacting
stages; contain feedback loops and can include
technological push, market pull or a combination of
both; emphasis on integration between R&D and
marketing
Models show an increase in integration between
functions and between other companies; show
parallel development and increased relationships
between R&D, manufacturing, and design as well as
with customers and suppliers
Models include fully integrated parallel
development; strategic integration with suppliers
and strong links with customers; co-development
with stakeholders; emphasis on corporate flexibility
and development speed; use of expert systems,
simulation modelling and computer-aided design
and manufacturing; collaborative research and
marketing arrangements; increased focus on quality;
innovation placed at leading edge of corporate
strategy
Source: Adapted from Rothwell (1992, 1994) and von Stamm (2003)
(1992, 1994) suggests that these models are vital because organisations need to increase
their speed of development and reduce the time it takes from idea conception to market
distribution. He views such models as having high levels of integration with other
stakeholders outside the organisation. The advantage of this view is the focus on
continuous innovation (Tidd et al., 2001). In addition, Rothwell advocates the
integration of all internal departments who should work on new projects
simultaneously. Here, communication can be enhanced between the appropriate
departments by undertaking regular joint group meetings.
Dooley and O’Sullivan’s (2001) model also considers continuous innovation but their
model is focused towards internal efficiencies, rather than innovation as new solutions
or new methods of commercialisation. As with many other models in the literature,
Dooley and O’Sullivan’s framework shows a multi-stage process (Couger, 1995;
Roberts, 1988; Roberts and Fusfeld, 1981; Utterback, 1971). Likewise, Roberts and
Fusfeld (1981) present an innovation process model. However, this framework is a first
generation linear model of innovation that is highly technology-focused and overly
simplistic (Kline, 1985). In addition, there is little recognition of the marketing and
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
361
Table IV.
Rothwell’s taxonomy of
innovation models
Dooley and
Three integrated elements;
O’Sullivan (2001) goals-constraints, actions and
results
Multi-stage processes
Simple, linear, sequential model
that largely focuses on the
stages of innovation rather than
the variety of variables that
make up these stages
Focuses on innovation
dimensions rather than
processes, functions or
networks
Suggests that innovations can
possess the characteristics of
different dimensions. Thus,
they can be looked at from a
broader perspective
Largely focuses on internal
A structured approach to
systems innovation to facilitate processes rather than future
opportunities or potential
continuous innovation
commercialisation processes
Presents the relationships
between creativity and
innovation
Considers drivers of innovation Fails to recognise the use of
and dynamism
personnel, collaboration and
networking
First-generation model focusing
on technology-push and the
R&D function. No
commercialisation or marketing
features
Model shows three dimensions Dimensions: product to process,
of innovation; product/process, incremental to radical, and
administrative to technological
incremental/radical, and
administrative/technological
Multi-stage processes
Multi-stage processes
Technology
The market
Consideration of the required
roles in the innovation process
Cooper (1998)
Couger (1995)
Roberts (1988)
Roberts and
Fusfeld (1981)
Fails to recognise the use of
Introduces dynamism with
personnel, collaboration and
consideration of changing
technology and needs over time networking
Multi-stage processes
Current economic and social
environments
Current technological
knowledge
Multi-stage processes
Coupling model incorporating
three basic phases; idea
generation, problem-solving,
and implementation and
diffusion
Project based multi-stage
model; pre-project, project
possibilities, project initiation,
project execution, project
outcome evaluation, and project
transfer
Multi-stage model; recognition
of opportunity, idea
formulation, problem solving,
prototype solution, commercial
development and technology
utilization and/or diffusion
Stage-dominant linear model;
discovery, invention,
innovation, output
Utterback (1971)
Potential weaknesses
Value added
Table V.
Key innovation process
models
Key variables
362
Literature source Models key feature
EJIM
8,3
manufacturing functions. Contrasting this is Couger’s (1995) framework – a second
generation innovation model – which considers market needs but lacks any focus on
technological innovation, and organisations using this model are very likely to lose the
capacity to adapt quickly to technological changes. Moreover, the model concentrates
on the stages of innovation rather than the many variables that can have an impact on
the process.
The above models have now been made redundant by the incorporation of both
market and technology considerations. For example, Utterback’s (1971) earlier
sequential process with feedback loops, which appears advanced for its time, has
grouped these different processes into three major categories: idea generation
sub-processes, problem solving sub-processes and implementation and diffusion
sub-processes.
Further improvements – such as Roberts’ (1988) model – were made with the
introduction of fourth generation frameworks, which considered functional overlaps.
The third and fourth generation models, however, are weak because they neglect to
emphasise the focus on multi-level collaboration and networking or information access
and corporate flexibility.
None of the above models, however, comprehensively investigates the actual source,
characteristics and management of innovation, and they are overly reductionist.
Cooper (1998), for example, has developed a relatively sophisticated model that
explores three dimensions of innovation. Each dimension consists of a continuum
ranging from:
.
Product to process.
.
Incremental to radical.
.
Administrative to technological.
According to Cooper (1998, p. 499):
Much of the misunderstanding and conflict surrounding innovation adoption is owed to a
long-standing unidimensional concept of innovation.
However, many innovations consist of two or even three dimensions. Thus, if an
innovation is combined into just one type there could be a failure to accommodate
varying strategic motivations behind different combinations of innovation dimensions
(Schroeder, 1990). Although Cooper’s model provides a useful starting point, it
overlooks the relative interconnectivity between functions and elements. More
importantly, all of the other models discussed above also lack certain variables that
would provide a clearer understanding of innovation. Consequently, these models have
been synthesised to produce a more holistic view of innovation (see Figure 5), and is
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Entrepreneurship and innovation: the missing link
From the review of the key entrepreneurship and innovation models, it is possible to
identify gaps to be explored and addressed. Two major omissions appear immediately;
firstly, the lack of explanation concerning entrepreneurial and innovation dynamics
(Ireland et al., 2001; Rothwell, 1992), and secondly, the relationship between the
corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process (see Figure 6).
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
363
EJIM
8,3
364
Figure 5.
A synthesised model of
innovation
There are a number of areas that can be investigated in order to explain both the
dynamics and the relationships between the entrepreneur and the innovation process.
These include entrepreneurial attitudes, vision and actions (see Figure 7).
Entrepreneurial attitudes
Understanding entrepreneurial attitudes is a critical factor in comprehending the link
between the entrepreneur and the innovation process (Kuratko et al., 1997). According
to Shaver and Scott (1991, p. 39):
The study of new venture creation began with some reasonable assumptions about the
psychological characteristics of “entrepreneurs.” Through the years, more and more of these
personological characteristics have been discarded, debunked, or at the very least, found to
have been measured ineffectively. The result has been a tendency to concentrate on almost
anything except the individual. Economic circumstances are important; social networks are
important; entrepreneurial teams are important; marketing is important; finance is important;
even public agency assistance is important. But none of these will, alone, create a new
venture. For that we need a person, in whose mind all of the possibilities come together, who
believes that innovation is possible, and who has the motivation to persist until the job is
done. Person, process, and choice: for these we need a truly psychological perspective on new
venture creation.
The motivation of the entrepreneur is one particular attitude that has been examined in
the literature (Naffziger et al., 1994; Robichaud et al., 2001; Stewart et al., 2003).
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
365
Figure 6.
The missing link between
entrepreneurship and
innovation
Gilad and Levine (1986) assert that individuals develop entrepreneurial tendencies
because of negative situational factors or because they wish to exploit potentially
profitable business opportunities. A negative situational factor such as job
dissatisfaction can motivate an individual into making the decision to become an
entrepreneur (Cromie and Hayes, 1991).
In addition, entrepreneurs are driven by both financial and non-financial goals.
However, evidence suggests that monetary gain often features second to the need for
achievement (Chaganti and Greene, 2002). McClelland (2002a, b) contends that those
with a high need for achievement are much more likely to engage in entrepreneurial
activities than those with lower achievement thresholds. Entrepreneurs that operate
within organisations tend to focus on the need for achievement, searching more for
challenge and autonomy than financial gain (Burns and Kippenberger, 1988). However,
within many organisations monetary reward is still used as the single most important
determinant of success or performance (Miller, 1983; Schumpeter, 1961; Swedberg,
2000). Other entrepreneurial attitudes include propensity for risk taking, confidence,
willingness to fail, perceived difficulty of the new venture, persistence, drive and so on
(Ensley et al., 2000; Jackson and Rodkey, 1994; Lee-Gosselin and Grise, 1990; Pellissier
and Van Buer, 1996; Shaver and Scott, 1991).
Entrepreneurial vision
An entrepreneurial vision is an indication of what the organisation expects to achieve
in the future. Visioning is a process which involves multiple future time horizons and is
a result of intuitive, holistic thinking (Bird and Jelinek, 1988; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994).
EJIM
8,3
366
Figure 7.
Linking entrepreneurship
with innovation –
attitudes, vision and
actions
It is about seeing what is not there (Carland et al., 1996). In other words, the
entrepreneur goes beyond recognising opportunities; rather, he or she has the ability to
envision a change in the the environment in order to create opportunities (Ensley et al.,
2000). The latter type of visioning, therefore, requires intuition and imagination
whereas the former is a result of a rational evaluation of the environment.
According to Tellis and Golder (1996) and Boyd and Vozikis (1994), the vision is
influenced by self-efficacy, environmental opportunities – such as an improvement in
technology or a change in the market place – and the patterns of competition occurring
between the organisation and its rivals. Kuratko et al. (2001, p. 62) suggest that:
A meaningful vision is sensible in employees’ eyes, is easily understood, suggests a higher
calling, and creates a cultural glue that binds people together in ways that help them share
knowledge in competitively relevant ways. Moreover, in the global economy, the most
effective vision highlights a firm’s commitment to product, process, and market innovations.
Talented entrepreneurs use the vision to energise employees, help them to meet the
challenges that face them and to “facilitate their attempts to achieve more than they
thought possible as they strive to help the firm reach its vision” (Kuratko et al., 2001,
p. 62).
Entrepreneurial action
According to Naffziger et al. (1994), the activities of entrepreneurs can have a major
impact of their firm’s performance. The literature suggests a number of different
entrepreneurial activities. For example, Adaman and Devine (2002) suggest that
entrepreneurship consists of social interaction, which occurs both within and outside
the organisation. In addition, these activities also include resource management and
organisation; the ability to influence, and to generate support, from others; and the
capability of assessing, shaping and developing ideas (Bird and Jelinek, 1988; Chandler
and Hanks, 1994; Korunka et al., 2003; Sadler-Smith et al., 2003; Tidd et al., 2001).
It has also been suggested that entrepreneurs must be capable of flexibility,
especially when there is a lack of staff to help them (Bird and Jelinek, 1988).
Furthermore, as the venture grows, the entrepreneur can shift his or her actions to new
potential opportunities, and hand the day-to-day running of the previous innovation to
an appropriate manager.
Further investigation into the above three elements is presented in part 2 in order to
further develop the link between entrepreneurship and the innovation process. From
this, a more detailed model showing this link is presented as well as some implications
for managers and researchers.
Summary
This paper has critically evaluated the literature in order to develop a holistic definition
of entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition, the literature has shown that these
two concepts are generally discussed as separate entities. This paper has, therefore,
presented a synthesised model of the current view of entrepreneurship and innovation.
The model highlights a gap between the process – innovation – and the person – the
entrepreneur. Consequently, there is a lack of explanation regarding the relationships
and dynamics of these components within the literature. It is suggested that further
examination of three variables – entrepreneurial attitudes, vision and actions – as
they pertain to innovation is required. In part 2, these variables are discussed in more
detail and new model of entrepreneurship and innovation is developed.
References
Adaman, F. and Devine, P. (2002), “A reconsideration of the theory of entrepreneurship: a
participatory approach”, Review of Political Economy, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 329-55.
Afuah, A. (2003), Innovation Management, Open University Press, New York, NY.
Ali, A. (1994), “Pioneering versus incremental innovation: review and research propositions”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 46-61.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amit, R., Glosten, L. and Muller, E. (1993), “Challenges to theory development in
entrepreneurship research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 815-34.
Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999), “The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship
and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 421-44.
Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A. and Smith, K.G. (2001), “A multidimensional model of venture growth”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 292-303.
Bessant, J. (2003), High-Involvement Innovation: Building and Sustaining Competitive Advantage
through Continuous Change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Bird, A.M. and Jelinek, M. (1988), “The operation of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 21-9.
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
367
EJIM
8,3
Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994), “The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 63-77.
Brown, R. (1992), “Managing the ‘S’ curves of innovation”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 41-52.
368
Burgelman, R.A. (1984), “Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms”, California
Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 154-66.
Burns, P. and Kippenberger, T. (1988), Entrepreneur: Eight British Success Stories of the 1980s,
Macmillan, London.
Cannon, T. (1993), How to Get Ahead in Business, Virgin Books, London.
Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W. and Stewart, W.H. (1996), “Seeing what’s not there: the enigma of
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Chaganti, R. and Greene, P. (2002), “Who are ethnic entrepreneurs? A study of entrepreneurs’
ethnic involvement and business characteristics”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 126-43.
Chandler, G.N. and Hanks, S.H. (1994), “Founder competence, the environment, and venture
performance”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 77-89.
Chell, E., Haworth, J. and Brearley, S. (1991), The Entrepreneurial Personality: Concepts, Cases
and Categories, Routledge, London.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), “The era of open innovation”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 35-41.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O. and Parker, G. (2002), “Implicating trust in the innovation
process”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 409-22.
Cooper, J.R. (1998), “A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 493-502.
Couger, J.D. (1995), Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd & Fraser
Publishing Co., Danvers, MA.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Cromie, S. and Hayes, J. (1991), “Business ownership as a means of overcoming job
dissatisfaction”, Personnel Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-24.
Cunningham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), “Defining entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003), “Emerging
issues in corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 351-78.
Dooley, L. and O’Sullivan, D. (2001), “Structuring innovation: a conceptual model and
implementation methodology”, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 177-94.
Drucker, P.F. (1985a), “Entrepreneurial strategies”, California Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 9-25.
Drucker, P.F. (1985b), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, Heinemann,
London.
Echols, A.E. and Neck, C.P. (1998), “The impact of behaviours and structure on corporate
entrepreneurial success”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 38-46.
Ensley, M.D., Carland, J.W. and Carland, J.C. (2000), “Investigating the existence of the lead
entrepreneur”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 59-77.
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), “A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 110-32.
Gilad, B. and Levine, P. (1986), “A behavior model of entrepreneurial supply”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 45-51.
Greve, H.R. and Taylor, A. (2000), “Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: shifts in
organizational cognition and search”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 54-80.
Gurteen, D. (1998), “Knowledge, creativity and innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990), “Guest editors’ introduction: corporate entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 5-15.
Heany, D.F. (1983), “Degrees of product innovation”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 3-14.
Henderson, J., Lentz, C. and Christine, M.A. (1996), “Learning, working, and innovation: a case
study in the insurance industry”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 43-65.
Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “An interactive model of
the corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 29-37.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), “Middle managers’ perception of the internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253-73.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, M. and Sexton, D.L. (2001), “Integrating entrepreneurship and
strategic management actions to create firm wealth”, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Jackson, J.E. and Rodkey, G.R. (1994), “The attitudinal climate for entrepreneurial activity”,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 358-80.
Jin, Z. (2000), “How product newness influences ‘learning and probing’ and the linearity of its
development process”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-45.
Kirby, D.A. (2003), Entrepreneurship, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Kirton, M.J. (2003), Adaption-Innovation: In the Context of Diversity and Change, Routledge,
London.
Kline, S.J. (1985), “Innovation is not a linear process”, Research Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 36-46.
Knox, S. (2002), “The boardroom agenda: developing the innovative organisation”, Corporate
Governance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H. (1990), Essentials of Management, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M. and Mugler, J. (2003), “The entrepreneurial personality in the
context of resources, environment, and the startup process – a configurational approach”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Naffziger, D.W. (1997), “An examination of owner’s goals in
sustaining entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 24-33.
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
369
EJIM
8,3
Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D. and Hornsby, J.S. (2001), “Improving firm performance through
entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 60-71.
Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V. and Hornsby, J.S. (1990), “Developing an intrapreneurial
assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 49-58.
370
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “Implementing
entrepreneurial thinking in established organisations”, SAM Advanced Management
Journal, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Langlois, R.N. (1992), “External economies and economic progress: the case of the microcomputer
industry”, Business History Review, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 1-50.
Lee-Gosselin, H. and Grise, J. (1990), “Are women owner-managers challenging our definitions of
entrepreneurship? An in-depth survey”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5,
pp. 423-33.
Leibenstein, H. (1968), “Entrepreneurship and development”, American Economic Review, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 72-83.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.
McClelland, D.C. (2002a), “Entrepreneurial behaviour”, in Shane, S. (Ed.), The Foundations of
Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
McClelland, D.C. (2002b), “Characteristics of entrepreneurs”, in Shane, S. (Ed.), The Foundations
of Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
McFadzean, E.S. (2003), The Creativity Tool Box: A Practical Guide for Facilitating Creative
Problem Solving Sessions, 2nd ed., TeamTalk Consulting, Milton Keynes.
McGrath, R.G. (1996), “Options and the entrepreneur: towards a strategic theory of wealth
creation”, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 101-5.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management
Science, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-91.
Miller, D. and Freisen, P.H. (1982), “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two
models of strategic momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Morris, M.H., Lewis, P.S. and Sexton, D.L. (1994), “Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship: an
input-output perspective”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S. and Kuratko, D.F. (1994), “A proposed research model of
entrepreneurial motivation”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 29-42.
Paulson Gjerde, K.A., Slotnick, S.A. and Sobel, M.J. (2002), “New product innovation with
multiple features and technology constraints”, Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 10,
pp. 1268-84.
Pellissier, J.M. and Van Buer, M.G. (1996), “Entrepreneurial proclivity and the interpretation of
subjective probability phrases”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 129-37.
Pinchot, G. (1985), Intrapreneuring: Why you Don’t Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an
Entrepreneur, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Poolton, J. and Ismail, H. (2000), “New developments in innovation”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 795-811.
Powell, J.D. and Bimmerle, C.F. (1980), “A model of entrepreneurship: moving toward precision
and complexity”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 33-6.
Rhodes, M. (1961), “An analysis of creativity”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 42, pp. 305-10.
Roberts, E.B. (1988), “Managing invention and innovation”, Research Technology Management,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 11-29.
Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1981), “Staffing the innovative technology-based organization”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Robichaud, Y., McGraw, E. and Roger, A. (2001), “Toward the development of a measuring
instrument for entrepreneurial motivation”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 189-201.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rothwell, R. (1992), “Developments towards the fifth generation model of innovation”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 73-6.
Rothwell, R. (1994), “Towards the fifth-generation innovation process”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-31.
Sadler-Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaston, I. and Badger, B. (2003), “Managerial behavior,
entrepreneurial style, and small firm performance”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 47-67.
Sathe, V. (1989), “Fostering entrepreneurship in the large, diversified firm”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 20-32.
Schroeder, D.M. (1990), “A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon
competitive strategies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1961), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Sexton, D. and Bowman-Upton, N.B. (1991), Entrepreneurship: Creativity and Growth, Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Shaver, K.G. and Scott, L.R. (1991), “Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture
creation”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-45.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 17-27.
Stewart, W.H., Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., Watson, W.W. and Sweo, R. (2003), “Entrepreneurial
dispositions and goal orientations: a comparative exploration of United States and Russian
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Stopford, J.M. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994), “Creating corporate entrepreneurship”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 521-36.
Swedberg, R. (2000), Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Tellis, G.J. and Golder, P.N. (1996), “First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduring market
leadership”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 65-75.
Thornberry, N. (2001), “Corporate entrepreneurship: antidote or oxymoron?”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 526-33.
Thornberry, N.E. (2003), “Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 329-44.
Corporate
entrepreneurship
and innovation
371
EJIM
8,3
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological Market
and Organizational Change, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Utterback, J.M. (1971), “The process of technological innovation within the firm”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
von Stamm, B. (2003), Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an
exploratory study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 256-85.
Zahra, S.A. (1995), “Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of
management leveraged buyouts”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 225-47.
Zahra, S.A. (1996), “Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating
impact of industry technological opportunities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 1713-35.
372
View publication stats