Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship
Vol. 22, No. 3 (2017) 1750015 (20 pages)
© World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S1084946717500157
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOUTH AFRICA: THE ROLE
OF ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
ALERTNESS IN ADVANCING INNOVATIVENESS
BORIS URBAN
Wits Business School, University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg, P. O. Box 98, Wits 2050, South Africa
boris.urban@wits.ac.za
Received June 2017
Revised July 2017
Published September 2017
The scope of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is broadening as firms embrace CE to survive and
succeed in dynamic, uncertain markets. Although scholars have focused on the organizational factors
necessary to foster CE, it is important to understand not just what the organizational context must look
like, but also to understand how entrepreneurial alertness may facilitate CE activity. Contrary to most
studies on CE, this study takes place in a non-Western context, where a survey is used to collect data
from 784 respondents at South African firms. Results reveal it is the organizational antecedents of
reward and reinforcement, time and resource availability, and flexible organizational boundaries that
positively influence CE innovativeness. Additionally, when entrepreneurial alertness is added into the
equation, the amount of variance explained in CE innovativeness is increased substantially. These
findings highlight the relevance of focusing on firm-based entrepreneurial behavior as opposed to only
independent startups in an Africa context.
Keywords: Corporate entrepreneurship; innovation; entrepreneurial alertness; organizational factors;
South Africa.
1. Introduction
A longstanding literature has conceptualized corporate entrepreneurship (CE) as the
amalgamation of behaviors and interactions of individual and organizational elements
within organizations (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004; Hornsby et al., 2009; Ireland et al.,
2009; Morris et al., 2010; Tang and Koveos, 2004). Firms that exhibit CE are typically
viewed as dynamic, flexible entities prepared to take advantage of new business opportunities when they arise (Phan et al., 2009; Urban and Wood, 2015). Entrepreneurship as
firm behavior indicates a firm’s entrepreneurial intensity has a direct and positive influence
on performance because it is interwoven within the organization’s vision, strategies,
objectives, structures and operations (Covin and Miles, 2007; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005;
Hornsby et al., 2013; Kuratko et al., 2015; Wales, 2015).
1750015-1
B. Urban
CE has evolved over the last 40 years to typify a strategy that can foster innovations
and effectively deal with the competitive realities in today’s world markets (Kuratko et al.,
2015; Phan et al., 2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation are not confined to the initial
stages of a new venture; rather, they are dynamic and holistic processes where individual
behaviors and organizational factors are crucial factors affecting the development of entrepreneurial behavior in an organization (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004; Lechner and
Gudmundsson, 2014). Increasingly, the scope of CE is broadening as firms that have
not previously been recognized as entrepreneurial begin to embrace entrepreneurship to
survive and succeed in increasingly dynamic markets (Kuratko et al., 2015; Murimbika
and Urban, 2014; Urban and Wood, 2015).
Corresponding to the scholarly and practitioner interest in CE, ongoing knowledge
accumulation on the topic of CE has been occurring at a rapid rate, and many of the
elements essential to constructing a theoretically grounded understanding of the domains
of CE can be readily identified (Kuratko et al., 2015; Phan et al., 2009). However, despite
the recent expansion in CE research, scholars have also raised new and important research
questions to advance theoretical and empirical knowledge about the domain of CE and
the entrepreneurial behavior on which it is based (Hornsby et al., 2009; Kuratko et al.,
2014, 2015).
One key area that warrants a deeper understanding is regarding how CE is best enacted
in organizational settings (Hornsby et al., 2013; Kuratko et al., 2014). CE and its resultant
entrepreneurial activity may not be easy to achieve, primarily because a successful CE
activity goes beyond a simple decision (Ireland et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2015), but
requires the alignment of the entrepreneurial actions of employees throughout the organization with a supportive corporate climate (Ireland et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2015).
Corporate climates supportive of entrepreneurship must provide appropriate reward
systems, top management support, explicit goals and appropriate organizational values,
which signal to employees that entrepreneurial behavior action is desirable (Hornsby
et al., 2009).
Although scholars (e.g., Covin and Lumpkin, 2011; Hornsby et al., 2009; Kuratko
et al., 2014; Morris et al., 2010) have developed various integrative models of CE that
identify specific organizational antecedents to explain CE, the development of these
conditions does not guarantee successful and sustainable CE performance (Ireland et al.,
2009; Urban and Wood, 2015). Although organizational factors are necessary to foster
CE within an organization, it is important to understand not just what the organizational
context must look like, but also to understand individual differences in entrepreneurial
alertness, which may facilitate identification of previously unrecognized opportunities
(Alvarez et al., 2013; Baron, 2006; Busenitz et al., 2014). Although most individuals
scan their environment, those with alertness may be better at discovering opportunities
embedded in that environment (Tang et al., 2012). While Kirzner (1979) was the first to
use the term ‘alertness’ to explain entrepreneurial recognition of opportunities, ongoing
research in cognitive and social psychology is consistent on individual differences
with respect to alertness (Baron, 2006; Haynie et al., 2010; Kirzner, 2009; Qian et al.,
2016).
1750015-2
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
In the current paper, entrepreneurial alertness is brought into the CE realm by
investigating how this often overlooked construct interacts with organizational antecedents
to increase levels of CE. In doing so, a number of important contributions are made. First,
by recognizing that firms utilize innovativeness in an effort to capture perceived opportunities (Busenitz et al., 2014), the domain of CE research is extended by accounting for
entrepreneurial alertness in this process. Second, by extending the relationship among the
antecedents to CE into different dimensions affecting the CE process, a more nuanced
perspective is adopted, which provides further levels of refinement for analyzing CE
behavior through the consideration of both individual agency and organizational elements
required to increase innovation within the firm. Third, the study is context specific with a
focus on the South African financial sector. South Africa has a sophisticated financial
sector, comparable to those of many developed countries and remains an important contributor to the economy (Schwab and Sala-I-Martín, 2014). By focusing on a single
industry sector, a greater homogeneity of context is achieved, which addresses the concerns of broad applicability versus perfect suitability for narrower groups (Davidsson,
2004). Finally, the study takes place in an under-researched emerging market context
(Smallbone et al., 2013). Although the geographic bias in favor of covering Western
developed economies is being gradually reduced (Bruton et al., 2008), little is known of
the emerging market organizational context, which may influence CE activity. Shaker,
Zahra and Fayolle (2013) highlight that the majority of studies within the CE realm have
been centered on the United States, and there exists a need to analyze the “distinct forces at
play in different national settings.” Considering Africa is home to more than one billion
people, 54 countries and is facing various internal and external challenges (Koevos, 2017),
the current study is important, particularly when considering firms in African countries
tend to be poorly managed (Bloom et al., 2012). Additionally, one of the primary goals of
firms in Africa is growth and this can be achieved by continuously innovating in the face
of growing global challenges (Urban, 2016).
The article proceeds as follows: First, a review of the extant literature on CE is
undertaken to conceptualize organizational antecedents and entrepreneurial alertness as
predictors of CE innovation. Specific organizational antecedents are identified, which the
literature has both examined and described that work to establish an effective framework
for CE that supports and drives innovation (Kuratko et al., 2014; Morris et al., 2010;
Ireland et al., 2009). Although alternative conceptualizations of organizational antecedents
are to be found (Brown et al., 2001) that have demonstrated some usefulness, the existing
CE climate instrument (CECI) is adopted as a measure for the current study because it has
the advantage of theoretical backing and showing meaningful relationships in terms of five
key areas: management support; reward and resource availability; organizational structure
and boundaries; risk-taking; and time availability (Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al.,
2014). Next a review of the literature on entrepreneurial alertness is conducted where
several researchers have developed conceptual models to help clarify and delineate the
opportunity recognition process (e.g., Gaglio and Katz, 2001; Hansen et al., 2016). As part
of this theoretical development, several hypotheses are formulated. The methodological
section is then discussed in terms of the sample, measures and analytical techniques used
1750015-3
B. Urban
to interpret the findings. Finally, the implications of the results regarding the field of
CE and managers are discussed. Study limitations are mentioned and opportunities for
future research are suggested.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Corporate entrepreneurship
CE implies that a firm’s strategic intent is to continuously and deliberately leverage
entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) for growth- and advantageseeking purposes (Kuratko et al., 2015). Over the years, researchers have focused on CE as
revitalizing and enhancing the firm’s ability to develop the skills through which innovations can be created (Drucker, 1979; Kuratko et al., 2001; Kuratko, 2009; Zahra and
Covin, 1995). Several researchers have developed models to show that for CE to become a
meaningful conduit for a firm’s value creation activities, it cannot be confined to a specialist function within the organization (Ireland et al., 2009). Corporate environments
supportive of entrepreneurship must provide appropriate reward systems, top management
support, explicit goals and appropriate organizational values (Hornsby et al., 2009).
Some researchers perceive that CE is not static, but a dynamic process whereby
managers can encourage appropriate employee behavior efficiently through more effective
incentive measures (Zampetakis et al., 2009). Ireland et al. (2009) conceptualize proentrepreneurship architecture in the corporate context through which the entrepreneurial
strategic vision is explained through specific entrepreneurial processes and behaviors.
Moreover, the success of a CE strategy is more probable when a firm has the skills
required to structure (accumulate and strategically divest), bundle (successfully combine)
and leverage (mobilize and deploy) its resources (Sirmon et al., 2007).
Organizational antecedents are a prerequisite for the type of environment that promotes
or inhibits CE (Hornsby et al., 2002, 2009; Ireland et al., 2009). Organizational antecedents refer to the internal makeup of an organization and include elements such as
organizational leadership, organizational structure, culture and management support
(Kuratko et al., 2014). According to researchers, corporate environments supportive of
entrepreneurship must provide appropriate reward systems, top management support,
explicit goals and appropriate organizational values, which signal to employees that
entrepreneurial behavior action is desirable (Hornsby et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2004,
2015).
2.2. Organizational antecedents
A critical review of the literature highlights several elements of CE strategy that encourage
entrepreneurial processes and behavior, which can be traced to Stevenson’s (1983) generic
forms of entrepreneurial behavior: (1) strategic orientation, (2) commitment to opportunity, (3) commitment of resources and control of resources, (4) management structure and
(5) reward philosophy. He later added two more dimensions: (6) entrepreneurial culture
and (7) growth orientation (Brown et al., 2001; Stevenson, 1983).
1750015-4
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
Scholars (e.g., Hornsby et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2015) have relied on a fairly stable
set of organizational antecedents to explain CE, and recent research has shed light on
specific antecedents that include: management support, work discretion/autonomy,
rewards/reinforcement, time/resource availability and organizational boundaries (Hornsby
et al., 2009). These antecedents are briefly delineated in terms of theory and prior research
to indicate their role in the formulation of the current study hypotheses.
2.2.1. Management support
Management support has been conceptualized as the ability and willingness of managers
to promote and stimulate entrepreneurial activity in a firm (Kuratko et al., 2015). Inherent
in management support, is the ability to create a culture where every employee embraces
innovation as a key element of their work (Hornsby et al., 1993). Kuratko et al. (2004)
demonstrate that sustainability is contingent upon individual members undertaking innovative activities, which stimulate positive perceptions in top management, which in turn
leads to further allocation of necessary organizational support. Management support can
manifest in numerous forms, including providing resources, championing ideas and
embedding entrepreneurial behavior in firm processes (Hornsby et al., 2002). Researchers
argue that senior management should be willing to support an entrepreneurial strategy and
assist in fostering entrepreneurial behavior required of employees (Ireland et al., 2009;
Kuratko et al., 2004). This argument suggests the first hypothesis, where:
Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of management support will positively influence corporate
entrepreneurship innovativeness.
2.2.2. Work discretion/autonomy
Hornsby et al. (1993) conceptualized autonomy as the ability to provide employees with
the latitude to make decisions they believe to be the most effective in the organization,
where a critical element to autonomy is the freedom to take calculated risks (Hornsby
et al., 2002). Work discretion is the ability to make decisions without oversight and allows
for the delegation of responsibility (Hornsby et al., 2009). Research suggests management
should be committed in their acceptance of potential failure of entrepreneurial outcomes
and provide a degree of freedom to those are who expected to act on the entrepreneurial
strategy, while delegating authority to allow for autonomous decision making (Ireland
et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2004). Building on in this research direction and in line with
empirical findings on work discretion/autonomy, the second hypotheses predicts that:
Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of work discretion/autonomy will positively influence corporate
entrepreneurship innovativeness.
2.2.3. Rewards and reinforcement
Rewards and reinforcement often encourage CE practices because they create a sense of
ownership, and must be seen from the perspective of the employee that entrepreneurial
1750015-5
B. Urban
actions will be rewarded (Hornsby et al., 2002). Rewards also have a powerful influence
on organizational culture because they anchor the relationship between the individual and
the organization. Rewards are one of the most critical elements of embedding a CE culture
because they serve as the bridge between aligning individual and organizational goals
(Hornsby et al., 2009). Empirical evidence is mounting that suggests a rewards system
should be developed that encourages entrepreneurial thought and action (Ireland et al.,
2009; Kuratko et al., 2004). Following this line of reasoning, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of reward and reinforcement will positively influence corporate
entrepreneurship innovativeness.
2.2.4. Time and resource availability
Time availability allows employees to focus on salient aspects of their job that have a CE
impact (Hornsby et al., 2009). The availability of time, and other resources, is a key
element to entrepreneurial outcomes (Slevin and Covin, 1997). Researchers argue there
should be positive perceptions on the availability of requisite resources within the organization to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities and the willingness to take risks and show
tolerance for possible failures as they occur (Ireland et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2004).
In line with such prior findings, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of time and resource availability will positively influence corporate
entrepreneurship innovativeness.
2.2.5. Organizational boundaries
The key to organizational boundaries is the creation of a context where individuals are
empowered to make decisions (Burgess, 2013). Because an organizational boundary refers to
an alignment between departments and functions (Hornsby et al., 2009), a flexible organization allows for ease of transfer of information between the company and the external
environment, and among business units within the firm. Such a flow of insight and information provides employees with the ability to make quicker decisions (Hornsby et al., 2009).
Although many structural attributes have been empirically linked to CE activity in organizations, perhaps the single aspect of structure that best defines entrepreneurial organizations
is structural organicity. Greater organicity implies a proclivity toward such qualities as
decentralized decision making, low formality, wide spans of control, expertise- (vs. position)
based power, process flexibility, free-flowing information networks and loose adherence to
rules and policies (Stevenson, 1983). Consequently in this instance it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5: Perceptions of flexible organizational boundaries will positively influence
corporate entrepreneurship innovativeness.
2.3. Entrepreneurial alertness
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) argue that entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and
evaluation are constructs that fall within the unique domain of entrepreneurship and should
1750015-6
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
be the central focus of research in the field. Despite no agreement being reached on a
definition for what constitutes an entrepreneurial opportunity or whether opportunities are
identified, recognized or created, it has been argued that the opportunity identification
process begins when alert entrepreneurs notice factors in their domain of expertise that
result in the recognition and evaluation of potential business opportunities (Ardichvili
et al., 2003). The literature on opportunity recognition reveals three distinct phases of (1)
sensing or perceiving a market need and/or underemployed resources, (2) recognizing or
discovering a fit between market need and resources and (3) creating a new fit in the form
of a business venture (Ardichvili et al., 2003).
Although most individuals scan their environment, successful entrepreneurs may be
better at discovering opportunities embedded in that environment. Stated differently,
alertness, or lookout for hitherto unnoticed features of the environment, allows successful
entrepreneurs to spot high-potential opportunities (Tang et al., 2012). Kirzner (2009) was
the first to use the term ‘alertness’ to explain entrepreneurial recognition of opportunities.
Entrepreneurial alertness has been conceptualized as a propensity to notice and be sensitive to information about objects, incidents and patterns of behavior in the environment,
with special sensitivity to make and use problems, unmet needs and interests and novel
combinations of resources (McCaffrey, 2014).
Tang et al. (2012) outline the individual activities that comprise the entrepreneurial
alertness process: (1) scanning and search; (2) association and connection; and (3) evaluation and judgment. This process starts when an individual perceives the world as open,
dynamic, interconnected and full of possibilities. The alert individual scans for underutilized or unemployed resources, as well as new capabilities or technologies, which may
offer possibilities to create and deliver new value for prospective customers, even though
the precise forms new value will take may be undefined. These individuals navigate the
opportunity recognition process by discovering a ‘fit’ between particular market needs and
specified resources. The perception of an existing ‘match’ of market needs and resources
represents opportunity discovery, while concept creation involves redirecting or recombining resources to create and deliver value superior to that currently available. The alert
individual, by engaging in these activities related to entrepreneurial alertness (armed with
their cognitive framework and with the antecedents for entrepreneurial alertness in place)
is ready to identify and evaluate potential entrepreneurial opportunities. Moreover, alertness is likely to be heightened when there is a coincidence of several factors such as certain
personality traits (creativity and optimism), positive feelings and relevant prior knowledge
and experience, as well as social networks (Valliere, 2013).
Researchers have explored the relevance of opportunity recognition to CE, where
entrepreneurial behavior by employees is typically modeled as a learning process in which
firms alternately engage in exploration followed by the exploitation of resulting opportunities (Phan et al., 2009). It is widely accepted that the innovation process has attitudinal
and behavioral components (Sarooghi et al., 2015), with the opportunity recognition
process representing one of the core intellectual questions in the domain of CE and
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial alertness is an important element of the opportunity
recognition process in the CE environment because merely providing access to financial
1750015-7
B. Urban
and other resources to employees without fostering entrepreneurial alertness may result in
perceived opportunities without lasting organizational success (Alvarez and Barney, 2014;
Kirzner, 2009; Valliere, 2013). Research further demonstrates that when individuals
perceive alignment between an opportunity’s means of supply and target market, the more
they perceive this opportunity as generally feasible and desirable (Gregoire et al., 2010).
Hypothesis 6: Entrepreneurial alertness will positively influence corporate entrepreneurship
innovativeness.
3. Research Design
The current study is cross-sectional and survey-based in design. The context and survey
population for the study was the South African financial sector. Data was collected from
respondents across the financial sector industry and formed part of a large data collection
project (Urban and Wood, 2015). By focusing on a single industry sector, a greater
homogeneity of context is achieved, which addresses the concerns of broad applicability
versus perfect suitability for narrower groups (Davidsson, 2004). The South African
financial sector categorizes financial sector organizations into: banking, insurance, brokerage organizations (including financial service providers (FSPs) as regulated by the
financial services board (FSB) and asset managers and collective investment schemes.
3.1. Sampling and data collection
A firm’s corporate entrepreneurial activity is typically operationalized from the perspective
of its employees (e.g., Hornsby et al., 2002). Following this convention, the population of
financial sector organizations was established using the JSE Handbook (JSE, 2012), and
the FSB website (FSB, 2013). A two-stage sampling process was followed in identifying
the participants for the sampling frame. In stage 1, random sampling techniques were
employed in selecting the financial sector organizations to represent the sampling frame.
Sample members were then drawn randomly from a sampling frame (n ¼ 5141), as per the
predefined South African financial sector categories. In stage 2, a single contact person
within each organization was identified, with this person furnishing the email details of
employees, who were selected to be the study participants. The identified participant was
then approached telephonically and electronically. Ethical considerations were taken into
consideration by ensuring the instrument used posed no risk or danger to respondents and
their privacy and confidentiality was respected at all times. The participants were considered ‘front facing’ — in other words, they had direct contact with the clients or customers of the financial sector organization. In so doing, they were best positioned to
understand client needs, and potentially identify innovations and opportunities in line with
client needs and requirements (Thérin, 2007).
To ensure sufficient variability and representativeness, data was drawn from each
financial sector organizational classification using stratified sampling. The following
classification sectors and percent of population were used to stratify the sample: (1) Banks:
six selected from a population of sixteen (37.5 percent of population); (2) FSPs: 274
1750015-8
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
selected from a population of 4752 (5.77 percent of population); (3) Short-term insurers:
fourteen selected from a population of 101 (13.86 percent of population); (4) Long-term
insurers: sixteen selected from a population of 83 (19.28 percent of population); and (5)
Stockbrokers: 21 selected from a population of 189 (11.11 percent of population). The first
mailing resulted in a response of 482 questionnaires and was followed by a second and
third email request, one week and three weeks later respectively. These efforts resulted in
302 additional responses. No patterns among undelivered surveys were noticed because
undelivered surveys were distributed approximately evenly among different regions and
organizations, resulting in 784 full questionnaires or a response rate of 15.2 percent, which
was deemed acceptable for electronic surveys of this nature (Sheehan and McMillan,
1999). Sample characteristics reveal that the majority (69 percent) of the respondents
worked for firms that had been in existence for at least eleven years, and 59 percent of all
respondents worked for large firms (in excess of 200 employees).
3.2. Measures
In the current study, perceptual measures were selected because they are widely used in
research assessing motivations of employees in making entrepreneurial decisions and
because management and employee perceptions are the preferred measure of CE
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004; Morris et al., 2010). Items in the questionnaire were formulated based on prior studies documented in the literature review. The research instrument consisted of three sub-instruments in three sections and all were measured on a 1 to 7
Likert scale, where ‘1’ ¼ strongly agree and ‘7’ ¼ strongly disagree.
The first section (Section A) of the instrument measured the organizational antecedents
of the sampled firms, using the CEAI. This instrument was originally designed by Kuratko
et al. (1990) and refined by Hornsby et al. (2002). The CEAI has been used extensively
and is recognized as a valid and reliable scale (Kuratko et al., 2014). The instrument
measured five key areas in accordance with the hypotheses: (1) Management support with
nineteen items; (2) Autonomy/work discretion with ten items; (3) Rewards/reinforcement
with six items; (4) Time availability with six items; and (5) Organizational boundaries with
seven items.
The second section (Section B) of the instrument measured entrepreneurial alertness,
which was operationalized on the basis of three conceptual domains (Tang et al., 2012).
These domains are in turn reflective constructs based on the respondent perceptions of
opportunities in terms of: (1) scanning and search (four items), (2) association and connection (five items) and (3) evaluation and judgment (five items).
The third section (Section C) of the instrument measured the CE outcome of innovativeness. CE innovativeness was treated as a latent composite DV measured by the
employees’ perceptions of the innovation of the opportunities recognized (Plambeck,
2012). Research evidence supports the fact there is a high level of consistency between
perception and actual objective firm performance measures (Poon et al., 2006). CE innovativeness consisted of three items, where respondents were asked to consider the
innovativeness of the opportunity in terms of the following questions (1) I have identified
1750015-9
B. Urban
opportunities that are one of the first of their kind in the industry, (2) I have identified
opportunities that relied on technology not used before in the industry, and (3) I have
identified opportunities that have unique features.
A number of firm and individual-level factors which have been shown to affect CE
(Naldi and Davidsson, 2014) were accounted for as control variables: Firm age (less than
5 years, 5–10 years, 11–15 years, 16–20 years, more than 20 years); Firm size (fewer than
50 employees, 50–100, 101–200, greater than 200).
3.3. Data analysis techniques
Data was captured in Microsoft Excel and transferred into SAS 9.4 for analysis. First,
all the measures were subject to validity and reliability testing. Second, the hypotheses
were tested using statistical analysis techniques, which included correlational and multiple
regression analysis. Considering the nature of data collected, all from the same source,
the study was susceptible to common-method bias, which affects item reliability and
validity and/or the co-variation between two constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2012). A number
of procedural and statistical steps were taken to minimize this risk. First, the respondents
were requested to be honest in their responses while assuring complete anonymity. Additionally, a consistent scale format was used, where scale items that have been tried and
tested were incorporated into the survey. Statistically, all items relating to the constructs
were explored in a single principal component analysis (PCA), using Harman’s one-factor
test (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Results showed that seven components with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 were detected, which accounted for 67 percent of the variance. The largest
component accounted for only 14 percent. Consequently, no single factor accounted for
the majority of the variance and no evidence of common method bias was identified.
4. Results
4.1. Instrument validity and reliability
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed with principal axis factoring and
Harris-Kaiser rotation, where items loading >0.40 were deemed acceptable. First, for the
set of organizational antecedents items, an overall solid fit was obtained (MSA ¼ 0.92),
where the hypothesized five factors extracted explained 99 percent of variance. Second, for
the set of entrepreneurial alertness items a solid fit was obtained (MSA ¼ 0.84), where the
percentage variance explained by one factor extracted was 95 percent. Based on the rotated
Harris Kaiser factor pattern, the items were mixed between the three dimensions where the
scanning and search items loaded on the evaluation and judgement dimension as well.
However, in line with hypotheses, one factor was deemed as sufficient. Finally, for the CE
innovativeness items an overall solid fit was obtained (MSA ¼ 0.90) was obtained where
the hypothesized factor explained a percentage variance of 85 percent.
To evaluate internal consistency, the reliability co-efficient Cronbach’s Alpha was
calculated and the results proved high reliability for all of the factors, which is in line with
reliability conventions (Nunnally, 1978). Management support ¼ 0.79; Work discretion/
1750015-10
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
autonomy ¼ 0.78; Reward and reinforcement ¼ 0.78; Time and resource availability ¼
0.71; Flexible organizational boundaries ¼ 0.91; Entrepreneurial alertness ¼ 0.74;
CE innovativeness ¼ 0.71.
4.2. Descriptive and correlational analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard deviations) and Pearson correlation
coefficients for the summated scales and control variables are shown in Table 1. It is
notable that the mean scores for all the main constructs are higher than the midpoint
average of the 1–7 Likert scale. The highest mean score is for ‘reward and reinforcement ¼
5.87’ followed by ‘flexible organizational boundaries ¼ 5.83.’ Relatively normal distributions of <1.00 in most cases are observable as indicted by standard deviations.
Pearson correlations coefficients indicate that several organizational antecedents were
moderately and positively associated with entrepreneurial alertness: Management support
(r ¼ 0:58, p < 0.05), Work discretion/autonomy (r ¼ 0:49, p < 0.05), Reward and reinforcement (r ¼ 0:55, p < 0.01), Time and resource availability (r ¼ 0:71, p < 0.01),
Flexible organizational boundaries (r ¼ 0:54, p < 0.01). Moreover, entrepreneurial
alertness was moderately and positively associated with CE innovativeness (r ¼ 0:44, p <
0.05). The control variables did not show any correlation with the other variables apart
from an inter-correlation between firm age and firm size.
Comparisons of means tests were conducted to evaluate the effects of single control
variables on CE innovativeness, with no significant results detected. Similarly, individual
one-way ANOVA tests did not find any statistical differences in CE innovativeness
between any of the control variables. Following the comparison of means test and for
the sake of parsimony, control variables were not factored into hierarchical regression
analysis.
4.3. Hypotheses testing
Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses by building on a series of
regression models to assess the incremental value of variables on the CE innovativeness,
the dependent variable (DV). Six models were formulated where the results from each
step of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2:
Model 1: Organizational antecedent — management support was added
Model 2: Organizational antecedent — work discretion/autonomy was added
. Model 3: Organizational antecedent — reward and reinforcement was added
. Model 4: Organizational antecedent — time and resource availability was added
. Model 5: Organizational antecedent — flexible organizational boundaries was added
. Model 6: Entrepreneurial alertness was added
.
.
Model 1 tested the organizational antecedent — management support as an independent variable (IV) and was a non-significant predictor of the DV (B ¼ 0.06; F¼ 2.37).
Consequently H1 cannot be supported. Moreover the R2 and adjusted R2 (0.01) values
1750015-11
1750015-12
4.74
4.97
5.52
5.87
5.73
5.83
5.59
0.59
0.56
0.90
1.02
0.96
0.93
0.96
1.03
0.97
0.49
0.53
S.D
1.00
0.46***
0.52***
0.72***
0.47***
0.55***
0.44**
0.05
0.04
1
1.00
0.37**
0.39**
0.51***
0.46***
0.58**
0.04
0.06
2
1.00
0.57***
0.57**
0.38***
0.49**
0.05
0.01
3
1.00
0.47***
0.45***
0.55***
0.03
0.02
4
1.00
0.56***
0.71***
0.05
0.03
5
1.00
0.54***
0.03
0.12
6
Notes: *** p < 0:01, ** p < 0:05, * p < 0:1, M ¼ mean, S.D ¼ standard deviation, correlations are Pearson correlation coefficients.
1. CE Innovativeness
2. Management support
3. Work discretion/autonomy
4. Reward and reinforcement
5. Time and resource availability
6. Flexible organizational boundaries
7. Entrepreneurial alertness
8. Firm size
9. Firm age
M
Table 1. Descriptive and correlational statistics for variables under study.
1.00
0.03
0.01
7
1.00
0.52***
8
1.00
9
B. Urban
1750015-13
2.37
0.01
0.00
0.17*
0.06
B
0.03
β
1.02
0.01
0.00
0.09
0.06
0.06
B
0.03
0.03
β
Model 2
11.09***
0.14
0.13
0.03
0.26***
0.04
0.58***
B
Model 3
0.15
0.02
0.36
β
20.13***
0.24
0.23
0.17
0.22***
0.04
0.54***
0.27***
B
Model 4
0.14
0.02
0.32
0.33
β
Notes for parameters: B ¼ unstandardized parameters, β ¼ standardized parameters, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10.
F
R2
Adjusted R 2
Intercept
Management support
Work discretion/autonomy
Reward and reinforcement
Time and resource availability
Flexible organizational boundaries
Entrepreneurial alertness
Parameter
Model 1
40.22***
0.40
0.39
0.05
0.28***
0.04
0.43**
0.17***
0.37***
B
Model 5
Table 2. Hierarchical regression results for the different models with CE innovativeness as the DV.
0.17
0.02
0.40
0.19
0.41
β
309.65***
0.80
0.78
0.15**
0.09***
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.77***
B
Model 6
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.85
β
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
B. Urban
indicated that only one percent variance in the DV is explained by management
support. Although no rule exists regarding what fraction of variance needs to be explained
to make relationships strong, many researches consider a squared multiple correlation of
0.3 or greater to be at least moderately strong (Cooper and Emory, 1995). Model 2 was
also found to be a non-significant (B ¼ 0.06; F ¼ 1.02) predictor of the DV. Consequently, H2 cannot be supported. The R2 and adjusted R2 values indicate that only one
percent variance in the DV is explained by work discretion/autonomy. Model 3 was a
significant predictor of the DV (B ¼ 0.58; F ¼ 11.09; p < 0.01) with an adjusted R2 values
¼ 0.13. Consequently, H3 can be supported. This indicates that thirteen percent variance
in the DV is explained by reward and reinforcement. Model 4 was a significant predictor
of the DV (B ¼ 0.27; F ¼ 20.13; p < 0.01) with an adjusted R2 values ¼ 0.23. Consequently, H4 can be supported. This indicates that 23 percent variance in the DV is
explained by time and resource availability. Model 5 was a significant predictor of the DV
(B ¼ 0.37; F ¼ 40.22; p < 0.01) with an adjusted R2 values ¼ 0.39. Consequently, H5 can
be supported. This indicates that 39 percent variance in the DV is explained by flexible
organizational boundaries. Lastly model 6 was a significant predictor of the DV (B ¼ 0.77;
F ¼ 309.65; p < 0.01) with an adjusted R2 values ¼ 0.78. Consequently, H6 can be
supported. This indicates that 78 percent variance in the DV is explained by entrepreneurial alertness.
The major additions to R2 arose primarily through the addition of model 3 (here
the model added 0.12 to R2), model 4 (here the model added 0.10 to R2), model 5 (here the
model added 0.16 to R2), as well as the addition of model 6 (here the model added 0.39 to
R2). Turning attention to the model 6 parameters in Table 2 (last column), the biggest
association with the DV was entrepreneurial alertness (β ¼ 0:85, p < 0.001). It must be
noted that the previous significant beta values for the organizational antecedents
became trivial once entrepreneurial alertness was added. This means it was the organizational antecedents of reward and reinforcement, time and resource availability and
flexible organizational boundaries — but mostly entrepreneurial alertness — that added
the most explanatory additions to R2 because they explained variance in CE
innovativeness (DV).
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Building on a fairly stable set of organizational antecedents to explain CE, the current
study set out to extend the relationship between organizational antecedents and CE innovativeness by including entrepreneurial alertness into the equation and providing
empirical support for these relationships in an African context.
Four out of the six study hypotheses can be supported based on the evidence emanating
from the results. Positive and significant results were found for the organizational antecedents of reward and reinforcement (H3), time and resource availability (H4) and flexible
organizational boundaries (H5) in terms of influencing CE innovativeness. Similar results
have been reported where research confirms that understanding motivational rewards is
important in supporting CE and must include a variety of rewards such as financial
1750015-14
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
incentives, opportunities for future growth and feelings of achievement and satisfaction
from completing interesting and challenging work (Hornsby et al., 2009). Organizational
systems can have a direct and immediate effect on the occurrence of entrepreneurial
behavior. In particular, whether or not the reward system encourages risk taking and
innovation has a direct influence on tendencies to behave in an entrepreneurial manner.
Moreover, although many structural attributes have been empirically linked to innovation
activity in organizations, if employees cannot see a clear link between effort and performance, and between performance and reward, they may remain unwilling to participate in
CE initiatives (Kuratko et al., 2014).
In terms of time and resource availability, researchers argue that management must
strive to create positive perceptions on the availability of these resources so individuals are
motivated to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities (Goodale et al., 2011). Additionally, the
key to increased levels of CE innovativeness are ensuring organizational boundaries allow
individuals to feel empowered to take decisions and take advantage of opportunities
(Burgess, 2013). The more employees perceive they are receiving support from the organization, the more they might be expected to feel a sense of obligation and be inclined to
reciprocate in both attitudinal and behavioral ways (De Jong, 2013), including a heightened sense of entrepreneurial alertness.
The study results are further notable when considering that entrepreneurial alertness
was highly relevant in explaining variance in levels of CE innovativeness. When entrepreneurial alertness was added as model six in the data analysis, 78 percent of variance
in CE innovativeness was explained because of the inclusion of this variable. These
findings resonate with prior studies where entrepreneurial alertness has been acknowledged as a critical component of the opportunity recognition process, where entrepreneurially alert individuals identify opportunities of more lasting value (Alvarez and
Barney, 2014). The identification of entrepreneurial opportunities is based on the entrepreneur’s cognitive framework (Haynie and Shepherd, 2009), where entrepreneurial
alertness allows the individual to identify entrepreneurial opportunities in response to
challenges in the environment (Valliere, 2013), and where individual differences in cognitive processes (e.g., mental models) may facilitate identification of previously unrecognized opportunities (Alvarez et al., 2013; Baron, 2006).
In addition to the organizational antecedents of CE innovativeness, the entrepreneurial
alertness of individuals is a key ingredient to CE innovativeness, where Morris et al.
(2010) point out that the spirit of entrepreneurship that permeates the organization is
essential to ensure a continuous flow of innovation. An entrepreneurial organization is
characterized by an entrepreneurial dominant logic where firm members constantly search
and filter information for new product ideas and process innovations leading to greater
levels of profitability (Kuratko et al., 2001). A state of entrepreneurial alertness allows for
the discovery of specific opportunities, as predicted, through a process of scanning and
search, association and connection, and evaluation and judgement (Tang et al., 2012).
Consequently, the construct of entrepreneurial alertness — as configured in the current
study — is now validated in the context of South Africa.
1750015-15
B. Urban
Comparatively, what the positive and significant set of results means is that the study
findings can be generalized to an emerging market context such as South Africa, where
organizational antecedents and entrepreneurial alertness have demonstrated their applicability to CE. Firms in emerging markets face rapid institutional changes, reflecting their
rapidly changing economic climate and changes in levels of government involvement,
ownership patterns and enforcement of business laws (Bloom et al., 2012). These changes
reflect important differences in how firms leverage their organizational antecedents and
foster entrepreneurial alertness among employees to boost CE innovativeness. Constant
scanning for opportunities, experimentation and flexible organizational design allows
managers to keep firms open to multiple possibilities and allows exploration to foster
innovations (Urban, 2016).
The study results also have policy and practitioner implications. In the broader context,
the study may help shape policy because evidence is persistent that CE activity in the form
of employees developing new business activities at the firm level is related to growth.
At the macro-level a positive correlation between CE and countries’ GDP per capita is
possible. Thus, entrepreneurial activities by employees are very important to move a
country toward more advanced phases of economic development (Bosma et al., 2010).
Additionally by conducting research on CE in an African context it is argued that the
relevance of firm-based entrepreneurial behavior as opposed to only focusing on independent startups is required. Although much effort and resources are devoted toward
developing individual entrepreneurs in African contexts, with mixed results, a gap exists in
policy and incentives that addresses entrepreneurial activities by employees at the organizational level. It is recommended that policy makers place more emphasis on programs
that foster the development of CE among firms in African markets.
The study provides guidance to corporate managers interested in ensuring organizational antecedents and employee entrepreneurial alertness increase overall levels of CE
innovativeness. Considering CE is contingent upon individual members undertaking innovative activities (Hornsby et al., 2009), management must design rewards and reinforcements, provide time and resources and develop flexible organizational boundaries to
obtain desired outcomes. Senior management needs to encourage entrepreneurial behavior
through raising levels of entrepreneurial alertness because CE activity hinges on the
entrepreneurial actions of all employees (Covin and Miles, 2007). Fostering CE through
employee entrepreneurial alertness may be achieved by developing reward incentives and
performance appraisals that signal for desired entrepreneurial alertness. Managers could
screen for the potential employee’s levels of entrepreneurial alertness through detailed
psychometric testing, based on the instruments validated in this study. Managers must also
recognize that entrepreneurial alertness may be influenced by prior experience (Urban and
Wood, 2015) where even if an individual is motivated to recognize opportunities, unless
he or she has the prior knowledge to do so, the opportunity may not be realized. Failures
and false starts are a normal part of the opportunity recognition process, and the knowledge gained from such experiences often leads to more solid future gains (Alvarez et al.,
2013). Consequently, organizational antecedents must be in place to support such learning
experiences.
1750015-16
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
5.1. Limitations and future research
Similar to other studies of this nature, the study is limited in terms of its cross-sectional
design, which does not allow for causality inferences to be formulated. Longitudinal
studies are required to test whether organizational antecedents and entrepreneurial alertness lead to higher levels of CE innovativeness. Further research may look to further
explore this relationship by looking at mediating and moderating effects of other firm and
individual level variables not accounted for in the study. For instance, future research
could investigate the role of institutions affecting organizational antecedents and entrepreneurial alertness, which lead to higher levels of CE innovativeness. Another limitation is the ability to generalize the study findings across firms in South Africa and Africa
because the focus of the current study was on the South African financial sector. Future
research will need to embrace a comparative, cross-country research design to identify
whether results are generalizable among firms in other similar contexts. Notwithstanding
these limitations, the study provides fresh insights into the relevance of organizational
antecedents and entrepreneurial alertness as they explain CE innovativeness in
South Africa firms.
References
Alvarez, SA and JB Barney (2014). Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty alleviation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 159–84.
Alvarez, SA, JB Barney and P Anderson (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities:
The implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational
research. Organization Science, 24(2), 301–17.
Antoncic, B and RD Hisrich (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational
wealth creation. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 518–50.
Ardichvili, A, R Cardozo and S Ray (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification
and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–23.
Baron, RA (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect
the dots” to identify new business opportunities. The Academy of Management Perspectives,
20(1), 104–19.
Bloom, N, C Genakos, R Sadun and J Van Reenen (2012). Management practices across firms
and countries. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 12–33.
Bosma, N, E Stam and S Wennekers (2010). Intrapreneurship — An International Study.
EIM Research Report Intrapreneurship. Netherlands: Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Brown, TE, P Davidsson and J Wiklund (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(8), 953–68.
Bruton, GD, D Ahlstrom and K Obloj (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are
we today and where the research should go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(1), 1–14.
Burgess, C (2013). Factors influencing middle managers’ ability to contribute to corporate
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32(1), 193–201.
Busenitz, LW, LA Plummer, AC Klotz, A Shahzad and K Rhoads (2014). Entrepreneurship research
(1985–2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
38, 981–1000.
1750015-17
B. Urban
Cooper, DR and CW Emory (1995). Business Research Methods. Chicago: Irwin.
Covin, JG and MP Miles (2007). Strategic use of corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31, 183–207.
Covin, JG and GT Lumpkin (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a
needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–72.
Davidsson, P (2004). Researching Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
De Jong, JP (2013). The decision to exploit opportunities for innovation: A study of high-tech smallbusiness owners. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 281–301.
Dess, GG and GT Lumpkin (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective
corporate entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147–56.
Drucker, PF (1979). The Practice of Management. London: Pan Books.
FSB (Financial Services Board) (2013). Financial advisory and intermediate services, approved
financial services providers. [http://www.fsb.co.za/fais/search_fsp.html].
Gaglio, CM and J Katz (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial
alertness. Journal of Small Business Economics, 16(1), 95–111.
Gregoire, DA, DA Shepherd and LS Lambert (2010). Measuring opportunity-recognition beliefs:
Illustrating and validating an experimental approach. Organizational Research Methods,
13(1), 114–45.
Hansen, JD, J Monllor and RC Shrader (2016). Identifying the elements of entrepreneurial opportunity constructs. Recognizing what scholars are really examining. The International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(4), 240–55.
Haynie, JM, DA Shepherd, E Mosakowski and PC Earley (2010). A situated metacognitive model of
the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 217–29.
Hornsby, JS, DF Kuratko and SA Zahra (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 49–63.
Hornsby, JS, DF Kuratko, DT Holt and WJ Wales (2013). Assessing a measurement of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 937–55.
Hornsby, JS, DF Kuratko, DA Shepherd and JP Bott (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial
actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 236–47.
Hornsby, JS, DW Naffziger, DF Kuratko and RV Montagno (1993). An interactive model of the
corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37.
Ireland, RD, JG Covin and DF Kuratko (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.
JSE (Johannesburg Stock Exchange) (2012). JSE Handbook Profiles Stock Exchange Handbook.
Johannesburg: Profile Media.
Kirzner, IM (1979). Perception, Opportunity and Profit. Chicago: Beard Books.
——— (2009). The alert and creative entrepreneur: A clarification. Small Business Economics,
32, 145–52.
Koveos, P (2017). Africa and entrepreneurship. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
21(4), 1–2.
Kuratko, DF (2009). The entrepreneurial imperative of the 21st century. Business Horizons, 52(5),
421–28.
Kuratko, DF, JS Hornsby and MG Goldsby (2004). Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship:
Modelling perceived implementation and outcome comparisons at organizational and individual levels. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(1), 77–89.
Kuratko, DF, JS Hornsby and JG Covin (2014). Diagnosing a firm’s internal environment for
corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57(1/2), 37–47.
1750015-18
Corporate Entrepreneurship in South Africa
Kuratko, DF, JS Hornsby and J Hayton (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative
challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 245–53.
Kuratko, DF, RD Ireland and JS Hornsby (2001). Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. The Academy of Management
Executive, 15(4), 60–71.
Kuratko, DF, RV Montagno and JS Hornsby (1990). Developing an entrepreneurial assessment
instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management
Journal, 11(Special Issue), 49–58.
Lechner, C and SV Gudmundsson (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy and small firm
performance. International Small Business Journal, 32(1), 36–60.
McCaffrey, M (2014). On the theory of entrepreneurial incentives and alertness. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 38(8), 891–911.
Morris, MH, DF Kuratko and JG Covin (2010). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Murimbika, M and B Urban (2014). Strategic innovation at the firm level: The impact of strategic
management practices on entrepreneurial orientation. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 18(2), 38–56.
Naldi, L and P Davidsson (2014). Entrepreneurial growth: The role of international knowledge
acquisition as moderated by firm age. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 687–703.
Phan, PH, M Wright, D Ucbasaran and WL Tan (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship: Current
research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197–205.
Plambeck, N (2012). The development of new products: The role of firm context and managerial
cognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 607–21.
Podsakoff, PM, SB Mackenzie and NP Podsakoff (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(5),
539–69.
Poon, JM, RA Ainuddin and SOH Junit (2006). Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial
orientation on firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 24(1), 61–82.
Qian, S, D Ma and C Miao (2016). Deciding to discover entrepreneurial opportunities: A multi-level
investigation based on informational economics and resource dependence theory. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship 21(2), 1650009.
Sarooghi, H, D Libaers and A Burkemper (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity
and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural and environmental factors. Journal
of Business Venturing, 30(6), 714–31.
Schwab, K and X Sala-I-Martín (2014). Insight Report: The Global Competitiveness Report
2013–2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Shaker, A, KR Zahra and A Fayolle (2013). Part I: The evolution and contributions of corporate
entrepreneurship research. Management, 4(16), 362–80.
Shane, S and S Venkataraman (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–26.
Sheehan, KB and SJ McMillan (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration.
Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 45–54.
Sirmon, DG, MA Hitt and RD Ireland (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32, 273–92.
Slevin, DP and JG Covin (1997). Time, growth, complexity and transitions: Entrepreneurial
challenges for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(2), 53–54.
Smallbone, D, F Welter and J Ateljevic (2013). Entrepreneurship in emerging market economies:
Contemporary issues and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 797–817.
Stevenson, HH (1983). A Perspective on Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
Business School.
1750015-19
B. Urban
Tang, J, KMM Kacmar and L Busenitz (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new
opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77–94.
Tang, L and P Koveos (2004). Venture entrepreneurship, innovation entrepreneurship and economic
growth. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 161–71.
Thérin, F (2007). Handbook of Research on Techno-Entrepreneurship. UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Urban, B (2016). Empirical evidence on the influence of the institutional environment on
venture innovation performance in South Africa. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
21(2), 1650011.
Urban, B and E Wood (2015). The importance of opportunity recognition behavior and motivators of
employees when engaged in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 16(5), 980–94.
Valliere, D (2013). Toward a schematic theory of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Business
Venturing, 28(3), 430–42.
Wales, WJ (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research
directions. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 3–15.
Zahra, SA and JG Covin (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurshipperformance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1),
43–58.
Zampetakis, LA, S Beldekos and VS Moustakis (2009). Day-to-Day entrepreneurship within
organizations: The role of trait emotional intelligence and perceived organizational support.
European Management Journal, 27(1), 165–75.
1750015-20