A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella: labels and perspectives. Karina Skovvang Christensen*

Transcription

1 Int. J. Management Enterprise Development, Vol. 1, No. 4, A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella: labels and perspectives Karina Skovvang Christensen* Department of Organisation and Management, The Aarhus School of Business, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, Denmark KaSC@asb.dk *Corresponding author Abstract: The concept of corporate entrepreneurship has been confusingly used by researchers to explain various organisational phenomena such as ways of managing, strategy and innovation. The abundant use of labels and perspectives interchangeably has consequently led to lack of clarity. This article reviews the literature in order to provide an overview and categorisation of corporate entrepreneurship. The aim is to clarify the concept by identifying the key perspectives. Since there is no unifying theoretical base for the entrepreneurship phenomena due to, for example, its interdisciplinary grounding in economics, sociology and psychology a framework for corporate entrepreneurship is developed, consisting of intrapreneurship and exopreneurship. These are further broken down into four complementary perspectives: corporate venturing, internal resources, internationalisation and external networks. It is hoped that, these four perspectives together will give the reader a clearer understanding of corporate entrepreneurship and thereby improve the basis for managerial decisions. Keywords: corporate entrepreneurship; strategic entrepreneurship; intrapreneurship; exopreneurship; corporate venturing; internal resources; internationalisation; networks; framework. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Christensen, K.S. (2004) A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella: labels and perspectives, Int. J. Management Enterprise Development, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp Biographical note: Karina Skovvang Christensen is a PhD student, MSc (Econ.) at the Department of Organisation and Management, Aarhus School of Business, Denmark. Her primary research area is intrapreneurship in knowledge-intensive companies, with a focus on how knowledge resources can enable organisational and strategic renewal. She is co-author of the book: Knowledge Management Establishing a Practice Field (in Danish) and has published articles on knowledge management and related subjects. 1 Introduction Technological and market changes seem to occur faster than we expect, and Peter Drucker s old saying that the only constant thing in business is change seems truer than Copyright 2004 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 302 K.S. Christensen ever. Fast-changing business environments, changing business structures and rules of competition are becoming part of the ordinary life of most companies, as these are prerequisites for staying in business. Over the past two decades, companies in the 1980s, and to some extent the 1990s, have been characterised by reductions in the workforce, downsizing, rightsizing, budget cuts and the low morale of their workforce [1]. While the main focus has been on short-term costs of operations, no company can afford to rely on such an approach forever. The real challenge for a company to remain a going concern is to establish a competitive advantage. The only way to accomplish that is through differentiation and continuous innovation whether it is related to the creation of new products and services, production, organisational processes or business models. According to, for example, Morris and Kuratko [1], the answer to today s hyper-competitive environments is adaptability, flexibility, speed, aggressiveness and innovativeness, which they boil down to one word entrepreneurship. Companies have been faced by increasing demands for both faster product development and more features in smaller products and higher and uniform quality, stability and lower prices, despite the inherent incompatibility of such demands. The former relates to an entrepreneurial and flexible company, while the latter require a well-structured and effective organisation. However, many large companies seem to find it very difficult to integrate the entrepreneurial spirit in a well-structured or bureaucratic organisation, and must therefore think non-traditionally to cope with these increasing paradoxes. Some companies tend to stick to the old ways of doing business, i.e. preserving the well-known techniques, business concepts and ways of cooperation, while others reorganise, re-create themselves, merge, and split up, become virtual, enter new markets and create unforeseen alliances. Thus, some firms apparently ignore changing market conditions, while others act on challenges to the well-established business routines and rules of competition. Researchers and proactive companies have recently become particularly interested in topics such as entrepreneurial management, corporate entrepreneurship, strategic entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. This may in part be due to the re-labelling [2] of existing concepts, but it has also paved the way for the emergence of new practices and theories. However, Guth and Ginsberg [3, p. 6] argue that despite the growing interest in corporate entrepreneurship, there appears to be nothing near a consensus on what it is. Consequently, there are theoretical inconsistencies on how the concepts should be understood. What all the proposed concepts seem to have in common, however, is that entrepreneurial activities can renew established organisations and that this can typically be achieved through innovation and venturing activities [3] that give the firm access to different skills, capabilities and resources [4]. The lack of consensus may be a symbol of the different labels, or it may merely illustrate the opposite, i.e. labels do not solve the issue. This article proposes a categorisation of the concept of corporate entrepreneurship spanning both an internal perspective (intrapreneurship) and an external perspective (exopreneurship). The special case of spin-offs, or new business creation (entrepreneurship), is seen as either a potential outcome of corporate entrepreneurship activities not a perspective per se or outside the scope of corporate entrepreneurship. Section 2 discusses the theoretical roots of entrepreneurship in order to gain an understanding of the sources that have influenced entrepreneurship and thereby corporate

3 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella 303 entrepreneurship. The next section looks at the different labels for and perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship, the aim of which is to clarify the topic and put it into perspective. This is followed by a proposed framework consisting of four different approaches to strategic corporate entrepreneurship: corporate venturing, internal resources, internationalisation and networks. The article concludes with recommendations for using this framework in future research and practice. 2 Theoretical roots: entrepreneurship The aim of this section is to help clarify the different approaches to entrepreneurship, and thus to some extent explain the different perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship. The theoretical roots of entrepreneurship builds on Stevenson and Jarillo [5], who argue that the management literature on entrepreneurship is often based on classical entrepreneurship literature, which can be divided into three main categories: the effects of entrepreneurship (what happens when entrepreneurs act), the causes of entrepreneurship (why entrepreneurs act) and entrepreneurial management (how entrepreneurs act). The main differences are due to the different theoretical backgrounds of the researchers. Economists have dominated the effects of entrepreneurship such as the Chicago tradition [6 8], the German tradition [9], and the Austrian tradition [10 12]. In contrast, studies on the causes of entrepreneurship are dominated by psychologists [13 15] and sociologists [16], and studies on entrepreneurial management have mainly been considered from a practical point of view. Despite the differences in perspectives, however, there are several similarities and overlaps especially in the definitions of entrepreneurship, which are dominated by the effect studies, with their focus on what initiated entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, the different disciplines are based on different basic assumptions, and thus emphasise different aspects of the phenomenon again adding to the confusion related to entrepreneurship. This categorisation by Stevenson and Jarillo [5] is only one among several other approaches to understanding the concept of entrepreneurship [17]. However, Alvarez and Barney [18] argue that the theory of entrepreneurship continues to lack a unifying base from which to explain, predict and empirically examine the phenomenon. Instead, they emphasise that researchers from other fields use entrepreneurship as a means for extending their own theoretical frameworks, which means that the phenomenon is explored from several different perspectives. Unfortunately, the extension of the concept to cover corporate entrepreneurship makes it even fuzzier, because corporate entrepreneurship is more complex, since it also challenges organisational strategy, structures and processes [19,20]. Compared with the causes and effects of entrepreneurship, scholars paid little attention to the corporate management dimension until two or three decades ago, when the management literature began to take a more serious look at entrepreneurship. 3 The appropriate label The concept of entrepreneurship within existing organisations has evolved over the last thirty years [21 24], especially over the last two decades, and is known under many

4 304 K.S. Christensen different labels, including corporate entrepreneurship [1,25 30], internal corporate entrepreneurship [31 34], intrapreneurship [35 40], entrepreneurial management [5], and strategic entrepreneurship [41,42]. Corporate entrepreneurship seems to have gained the most attention as a concept, as is evident from special issues of journals, e.g. Strategic Management Journal in 1990 (Corporate Entrepreneurship), 2001(Entrepreneurial Strategies for Wealth Creation), and Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice 1999 (Corporate Entrepreneurship in a Global Economy). As emphasised by Hornsby et al. [30], the concepts are often used interchangeably, although the various labels of the concept have different associations. For instance, the term management, in entrepreneurial management indicates that entrepreneurial behaviour or entrepreneurship is to some extent controllable. However, the causes of entrepreneurship researchers [16] have proposed, and sometimes emphasised, that entrepreneurship should be seen as a function of human characteristics that not everyone possesses, and that entrepreneurship is often related to processes that traditionally cannot be controlled, or at least lose their efficiency, effectiveness and uniqueness when controlled [16]. It does not seem reasonable either, that entrepreneurship is entirely controllable. An organisation can encourage entrepreneurial activities by bringing together people possessing special and different skills and knowledge and applying their specialities to a common end product by the creation of new combinations [9]. Morris and Kuratko [1, p.62] argue that by using the term corporate entrepreneurship [it] indicate[s] that the fundamentals do not change, only the context, whereas they say that the fundamentals do change when the concept is changed to intrapreneurship. A counterargument is that in corporate entrepreneurship, the term corporate is often associated with large corporations [5,43], whereas entrepreneurial activities are also important in small and medium-sized organisations [1,37,38]. In this context, intrapreneurship, which does not indicate anything about the size of the company, is shorthand for intracorporate entrepreneurship [35], which simply indicates entrepreneurship within an existing organisation. Based on the above, intrapreneurship seems to be the most appropriate label for the concept of entrepreneurship within an existing company, as long as the company is only dealing with internal resources in its own possession. However, there are also several opportunities to be entrepreneurial and innovative and develop new knowledge and competencies outside the boundaries of a company which Chang [44] calls exopreneurship. Chang [44, p.187] points out that exopreneurship is the generation of innovation outside the boundary of organisation using external agents known as exopreneurs, which means that an organisation acquires innovation through external networks, such as joint ventures, external venture capital, subcontracting and strategic alliances. The differences are clear entrepreneurs innovate for themselves, intrapreneurs innovate on behalf of an existing organisation, while exopreneurs are part of an external network. The motivations for innovation are therefore different. The left-hand side of the Figure 1 shows that there may be a relation between an established company and a new independent venture, as the latter may be a spin off of the former. Pinchot [35] even argues that many entrepreneurs develop their skills and competencies within an established organisation before creating their own venture. Intrapreneurship, which can be defined as a company s legal possession of resources, is shown in the middle of the figure. The right-hand side of the figure goes beyond the

5 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella 305 borders of the organisation and illustrates exopreneurship or entrepreneurial activities through external networks, of which the company does not possess full ownership. Figure 1 Relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and exopreneurship 4 Defining corporate entrepreneurship The three approaches to entrepreneurship and strategic management have resulted in many definitions of corporate entrepreneurship over the past years. Morris and Kuratko [1, p.31] define corporate entrepreneurship as a term used to describe entrepreneurial behaviour inside established mid-sized and large organisations. Corporate entrepreneurship can also be seen as the process whereby an individual or a group creates a new venture within an existing organisation, revitalises and renews an organisation, or innovates [19,45]. Zahra s [46, p.262] definition of corporate entrepreneurship suggests a formal or informal activity aimed at creating new business in established firms through product and process innovations and market developments, whereas Sathe [47] defined corporate entrepreneurship as a process of organisational renewal. Guth and Ginsberg [3] classify corporate entrepreneurship into two strategic managerial choices: corporate venturing and the transformation of organisations through strategic renewal. By corporate venturing is meant intraprising [35] or new business creation within existing organisations [25] that may or may not result in strategic renewal, while the latter implies the creation of new wealth through new combinations of resources. Corporate venturing is one way to achieve strategic renewal, making acquisitions resulting in new combinations is another, whereas actions like refocusing a business competitively, making major changes in marketing or distribution, redirecting product development, and reshaping operations [3, p.6] are also examples of strategic renewal. Thornberry [48] breaks corporate entrepreneurship down even further, identifying four strategic types: corporate venturing, intrapreneuring, organisational transformation and industry rule breaking. This is almost similar to Stopford and Baden-Fuller s [28] categorisation, which identifies three types of corporate entrepreneurship: Intrapreneurship, which they define as a part of corporate venturing, transformation and

6 306 K.S. Christensen renewal of existing organisations, and changing the rules of competition for the industry, as suggested by Schumpeter [9]. Compared with Guth and Ginsberg s [3] framework, the differences are industry role breaking/changing the industry rules of competition, which is considered beyond a company s direct influence because the company cannot plan it. Since it is highly market-dependent; it may be a result of corporate venturing and strategic renewal rather than a process. Corporate entrepreneurship is therefore seen as corporate initiatives that enable entrepreneurship in relation to an existing company. 5 Perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship Many scholars seem to agree that corporate entrepreneurship is an overall term for all other labels and perspectives. Figure 2 illustrate the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella and divides it into four perspectives; (1) corporate venturing, (2) internal resources, (3) internationalisation, and (4) external networks. These perspectives indicate four domains in which a company can make an effort to be more innovative. However, even though they are very different, they are all rooted in organisational resources. The classification takes into account both what is within and beyond the organisational boundaries, and the dotted line in Figure 2 indicates what is beyond the organisational boundaries. Figure 2 Relationships between the perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship Corporate venturing is a means of planning for organisational ambiguity in entrepreneurial action by separating one or a group of intrapreneurs from the organisational structure [25,27,45,49]. By contrast, internal resources operate within the overall organisational structure, and from this perspective corporate entrepreneurship focuses on bringing together organisational resources in a way that generates innovations and competitive advantage [18,50 52]. Internationalisation as a perspective on corporate entrepreneurship relates to the relatively higher risk of entering foreign markets. These often differ from the domestic market in terms of political, economic, legal and cultural

7 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella 307 dimensions. This means the company has to develop new knowledge and competencies [42,53 55], which in turn reinforces the need for entrepreneurial abilities. The last perspective on corporate entrepreneurship in this classification is external networks and alliances. The main reason why companies enter an external network or alliance is to gain access to resources that they do not possess themselves [42,56]. In the special issue of Strategic Management Journal in 2001, Michael Hitt, R. Duane Ireland, S. Michael Camp and Donald L. Sexton also categorise corporate entrepreneurship into four organisational activities: external networks, resources and organisational learning, innovation and internationalisation. Ireland et al. [42] expand the domains from the special issue with top management teams and governance and growth. It is argued that top management teams and governance are essential, as their influence on strategic goals are significant [57,58], and growth is the essence of entrepreneurship [59 61]. However, as suggested in this framework, the perspectives are not the same, because, unlike Hitt et al. [41], Ireland et al. [42] and Hitt et al. [62], this classification considers top management teams and governance as an initiative that can enable outcomes like new processes, products or services, growth, strategic renewal or the creation of new business. As previously mentioned, growth is regarded as an outcome of combinations of a perspective and one or more enablers such as top management teams and governance and reward systems. In the literature, the concept of innovation is very broad and often confused with invention [63]. Some researchers describe innovation as a process [63 66], while for others it is the result or commercialisation of a company s entrepreneurial activities [41,42,67]. Notwithstanding this multiple use of the term, innovation is here seen as the outcome. In order to increase the understanding of the four perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship, they are briefly described below. 5.1 Corporate venturing In 1985, Robert A. Burgelman introduced the term New Venture Division to describe the small new businesses set up by one or a group of intrapreneurs and which formed the link between corporate entrepreneurship and the creation of new businesses. A number of scholars [49,68] have pointed out that the activities described by Burgelman [27] can actually be dated back to the 1960s, where large companies like 3M and Dupont took their first step into venturing. Today, these activities are mainly described as Corporate Venturing, but, as argued by Sharma and Chrisman [45], the continuous development of new definitions has led to confusion. The main reason for creating corporate ventures is the isolation and nurturing of innovative ideas that cannot survive in the bureaucratic structures and formal procedures of a large company. Dedicating resources to corporate venturing allows the company to follow different routes in the pursuit of innovations, with the R&D department concentrating on radical technological inventions while the corporate ventures explore market opportunities for both radical and incremental innovations. A number of scholars [49,69] have argued that corporate venturing is one of the main roads to innovation in the future economy as markets become more and more saturated. The ability to identify and exploit market opportunities is the core of entrepreneurship and forms a major part of the reason for investing in corporate ventures. The type of innovation created by corporate venturing is often related to strategic innovations, since the technology is invented as part

8 308 K.S. Christensen of the corporation s research and development programme, but commercialisation in new markets is carried out through a corporate venture. Intuitively, the need for major investments in product innovation makes it less suitable for corporate venturing, but due to the capital structures and knowledge networks in some industries, investment in corporate venturing is seen as a promising business model in the pursuit of product innovation. 5.2 Internal (intangible) resources Another perspective on corporate entrepreneurship, though one which might seem less evident, is internal resources. However, the focus on internal resources can be dated back to 1959, where Edith Penrose stated that a company s return is largely based on the resources it possesses. Since then, however, the balance of internal resources has change from tangible to intangible resources. Today, tangible resources are easily accessible or easy to imitate, which mean that it is no longer a sufficient way to gain a competitive advantage. Therefore, intangible resources, such as core competencies [70] and sustained competitive advantage [51], have been crucial since the beginning of the 1990s. The main reason for focusing on internal resources in relation to corporate entrepreneurship is that many companies possess a bundle of unexploited resources mainly intangible, knowledge resources held by employees. The knowledge resources are a mixture of skills, experience, competencies and capabilities that cannot easily be articulated and therefore cannot be transferred at arm s length or imitated by others. This makes the perspective of internal resources very important in relation to corporate entrepreneurship, as emphasised by Peter Drucker: [t]he basic economic resources is and will be knowledge [71, p.7]. The strength of the company is to bring together employees possessing different, specialised knowledge resources and to enable the creation of new knowledge resources, or combination of existing ones, to generate innovations and competitive advantage [51]. Alvarez and Barney [18] argue that knowledge specialists often need an organisation to make sense out of their knowledge resources, since they lack the ability to see how these can achieve an entrepreneurial profit or generate wealth. They state that intrapreneurs possess a broader knowledge base than specialists, which allows them to see how specialised knowledge resources can be applied to and integrated with the rest of the company and the market in order to achieve an entrepreneurial profit. Brush et al. [52] point out that the ability to share knowledge resources influences efforts to develop the initial resource base necessary for long-term innovation. A company s ability to bring together these heterogeneous knowledge resources is therefore crucial to enabling innovation within organisational boundaries. It is therefore important for a company to be able to disseminate data and information to those parts of the organisation where it may be turned into useful knowledge. The internal resource perspective thus constitutes a big potential for corporate entrepreneurship. Continuous knowledge creation, sharing and dissemination and the identification and exploitation of new possibilities are a way of maintaining a sustained competitive advantage and keeping organisational competencies up-to-date.

9 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella Internationalisation The economic landscape has undergone substantial changes over the last few decades [72,73]. Internationalisation, i.e. when a company extends its market scope beyond the domestic market [42,54], has become an important driver of corporate entrepreneurship in many companies, not only because of the innovative process of discovering and exploiting international opportunities for the purpose of achieving a competitive advantage [74], but also because of the significant potential returns when the market expands [75]. Internationalisation can take different forms, e.g. exporting and foreign direct investments, but the main difference between internationalisation and external networks, as described in the next paragraph, is ownership. Internationalisation is integrated within the borders of the same legal organisation even though people are geographically diversified. However, common ownership means that resources and information flow freely, and the return, whether it be new technology, products, processes, services, market opportunity, etc., is owned by a single company. The corporate entrepreneurship perspective on internationalisation should primarily be seen as an opportunity to expand the potential market scope. Lu and Beamish [55] stress that internationalisation is an entrepreneurial activity, since, compared with domestic expansion, entering a foreign market is risky in terms of the capital investment involved, or in terms of distributor opportunism, asset appropriation and devaluation with respect to exports in relation to direct foreign investment and exporting. They find that, when companies start exporting or make direct foreign investment, profitability declines because it does not pay the rent of the extra costs. Gradually, however, performance improves as new knowledge and capabilities are developed, as competitiveness is enhanced, and as market opportunities are captured by the company s investment activities in international markets, and the return becomes positive. Being in more markets stimulates innovation and the development of a global mindset through the improvement or development of new knowledge resources, capabilities and innovative skills, and enhances the economies of scale and scope [75]. 5.4 External networks and alliances A consensus has emerged among both strategy and entrepreneurship scholars that networks play an important role for growth and innovation [76]. Networks are patterned relationships between individuals and groups [77], and are critical for an organisation s acquisition of resources [78] and with it the survival of the organisation. In relation to corporate entrepreneurship, the main purpose of entering a network is to gain access to the resources needed (but which the company does not possess) and to learn new competencies outside the company s core competences [56,70]. However, alliances with selected customers or universities may also be related to the core of, for example, product development and technology development. Organisational networks can take many forms, e.g. R&D partnerships, licensing, marketing agreements, subcontracting, joint ventures and strategic alliances. From a corporate entrepreneurship point of view, another purpose of entering networks or alliances may be flexibility especially for the well-structured large organisation, where everything has to be cross-checked before something new can be tried out in the market. Networks or alliances with small partners make it possible to

10 310 K.S. Christensen produce only a few units of a product and test it in the market before gearing the largescale production plant to streamlined production. In this way, the organisation gets some of the flexibility and agility of a small company while maintaining the massive, streamlined organisation that is crucial for stability. 5.5 Towards a framework for corporate entrepreneurship Figure 3 summarises the theoretical framework for corporate entrepreneurship developed in the previous sections. The upper half of the figure shows the four perspectives, or domains, of research in the area corporate venturing, internal resources, internationalisation and networks. It has been argued that the concept of corporate entrepreneurship could be theorised and conceptualised from each of the four perspectives, which can also be categorised into intrapreneurship and exopreneurship. The lower part of the framework accentuates the possible outcome of corporate entrepreneurship. It is very difficult to predict this beforehand. Some activities will hardly influence the organisation, whereas other activities lead to organisational renewal and yet again some others transform the organisation to something new, significantly different from what it was before. But even though corporate entrepreneurship initiatives result in some form of organisational renewal, only in a very few cases will it change the rules of competition. Figure 3 The proposed framework for corporate entrepreneurship 6 Conclusion This study, as a discussion and classification of labels and a clarification of the overall concept of corporate entrepreneurship, contributes to the corporate entrepreneurship

11 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella 311 literature by providing useful insights (for newcomers). The breadth of corporate entrepreneurship has been illustrated and a framework in clarification has been proposed. Further research in each of the four perspectives is needed in order to understand the different ways in which corporate entrepreneurship is enabled and how entrepreneurial activities should be organised especially within the internal resource perspective, which is less developed than the others. Future research should be structured according to the proposed framework in Figure 3, to make it possible to compare the enablers and the ways of organising across different perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship. The classification provides a nuanced, multi-faceted view of corporate entrepreneurship by describing different bases for managerial decisions in relation to corporate entrepreneurship, since this can mean different things depending on the perspective. The four perspectives taken into account may contribute to a greater insight into the meaningful context-dependent relations in a company. It is important to realise that the perspectives are not mutually exclusive rather, they should be seen as complementary. However, the merits of intrapreneurship or exopreneurship vary with market contexts and the resources under the firm s control [79]. The four perspectives on corporate entrepreneurship all relate to managerial opportunities. However, enabling corporate entrepreneurship by, for example, creating a new organisational structure may not be sufficient. Chesbrough and Rosenbloom [80] argue that companies also need to be open to new ways of commercialisation when new opportunities do not fit well into their current business model. Knowledge seems to be the only factor to play a crucial role in all perspectives, even though it plays different roles across the perspectives in forming the basis for innovative activities, corporate entrepreneurship and business models. Knowledge resources as an integration mechanism supports Drucker s [71] view of knowledge as the resource in the knowledge society. It also points to the fact that a company s ability to generate knowledge resources [81] is crucial to its competitiveness [82] and innovativeness. However, knowledge resources are also a potential source of cognitive bias, as a company is often biased by earlier success. In order to be innovative, managing organisational knowledge is thus critical in relation to developing new combinations of knowledge resources, etc.,it adds a new dimension to the existing literature on corporate entrepreneurship that up to now has mainly described the different roles and characteristics of the entrepreneur/intrapreneur. A knowledge-based view of corporate entrepreneurship and knowledge resources as an integration mechanism are, therefore, very interesting topics for further research. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Anders Drejer, Anders Jacob Raj Andersen, Per Nikolaj Bukh, Mikkel Gadmar, Bengt Johannisson and John Parm Ulhøi for comments on previous drafts.

12 312 K.S. Christensen References 1 Morris, M.H. and Kuratko, D.F. (2002) Corporate Entrepreneurship, Harcourt College Publishers, Orlando, Florida. 2 Latour, B. (1999) Pandora s Hope, Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 3 Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990) Guest editors introduction: corporate entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C. and Venkatraman, S. (1995) Global dimensions of new competencies, in Birley, S. and MacMillan, I.C. (Eds.): International Entrepreneurship, Routledge, New York. 5 Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990) A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, special issue, pp Knight, F. (1964 [1921]) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Augustus M. Kelley, New York. 7 Schultz, T.W. (1975) The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp Schultz, T.W. (1980) Investment in entrepreneurial ability, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 82, pp Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, AS. 10 Mises, L.V. (1949) Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, William Hodge and Company Limited, London. 11 Kirzner, I.M. (1985) Discovery and the Capitalist Process, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 12 Kirzner, I.M. (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an austrian approach, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXV, March, pp Collins, N.C. and Moore, D.G. (1964), The Enterprising Man, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 14 Brockhaus, R.H. (1980) Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp Brockhaus, R.H. and Horwitz, P.S. (1986) The psychology of the entrepreneur, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilar, R.W. (Eds.): The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, Ballinger, MA. 16 McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society, The Free Press, New York. 17 Sundbo, J. (1998) The Theory of Innovation: Entrepreneurs, Technology and Strategy, Edvard Elgar Publishing. 18 Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2002) Resource-based theory and the entrepreneurial firm, in Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, M.S. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.): Strategic Entrepreneurship, Creation a New Mindset, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford. 19 Dess, G.D., Lumpkin, G.T. and McGee, J.E. (1999) Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure and process: suggested research directions, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp Morris, M.H. and Kuratko, D.F. (2002) Corporate Entrepreneurship, Harcourt College Publishers, Orlando, Florida. 21 Peterson, R. and Berger, D. (1972) Entrepreneurship in organisations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp Hill, R.M. and Hlavacek, J.D. (1972). The venture team: a new concept in marketing organisations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, pp Hanan, M. (1976) Venturing corporations think small to stay strong, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 54, pp

13 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella Quinn, J.B. (1979) Technological innovation, entrepreneurship and strategy, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 20, pp Burgelman, R.A. (1983) A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp Burgelman, R.A. (1984) Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms, California Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp Burgelman, R.A. (1985) Managing the new venture division: research findings and implications for strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp Stopford, J. and Baden-Fuller, C.F. (1994) Creating corporate entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp Barrett, H. and Weinstein, A. (1999) The effect of market orientation and organisational flexibility on corporate entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp 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 Schollhammer, H. (1981) The efficacy of internal corporate entrepreneurship strategies, in Vesper, K.H. (Eds.): Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA. 32 Schollhammer, H. (1982) Internal corporate entrepreneurship, in Kent, C., Sexton, D. and Vesper, K. (Eds.): Encyclopedia Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall Inc, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ. 33 Jones, G.R. and J.E. Butler (1992) Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: an agency theory perspective, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, pp Pinchot, G. (1985) Intrapreneuring: Why You Don t Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur, Harper and Row, New York. 36 Nielsen, R.P., Peters, M.P. and Hisrich, R.D. (1985) Intrapreneurship strategy for internal markets corporate, non-profit and government institution cases, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, pp Carrier, C. (1994) Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: a comparative study, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp Carrier, C. (1996) Intrapreneurship in small businesses: an exploratory study, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp Antoncic, B. and Hisrich R.D. (1999) Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, pp Chinho, L., Hojung, T. and Chienming, W. (2003) Fuzzy fitness model of intrapreneurship activities or Taiwanese high-tech firms, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (2001) Guest editors introduction to the special issue strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (2001) Integrating entrepreneurship actions and strategic management actions to create firm wealth, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) Note: the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp Chang, J. (1998) Model of corporate entrepreneurship: intrapreneurship and exopreneurship, Borneo Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp

14 314 K.S. Christensen 45 Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J.J. (1999) Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entreprenruship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 22, pp Zahra, S.A. (1991) Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, pp Sathe, V. (1989) Fostering entrepreneurship in a large diversified firm, Organisational Dyn., Vol. 18, pp Thornberry, N. (2001) Corporate entrepreneurship: antidote or oxymoron?, European Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp Chesbrough, H.W. (2000) Designing corporate ventures in the shadow of private venture capital, California Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp Penrose, E.T. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New York. 51 Barney, J.B. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G. and Hart, M.M. (2001) From initial idea to unique advantage: the entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp Zahra, S.A. and Garvis, D.M. (2000) International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: the moderating effect of international environment hostility, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2000) The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research, in Sexton, D.L. and Landström, H.A. (Eds.): Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, Oxford, Lu, J.W. and Beamish, P.W. (2001) The internationalisation and performance of SMEs, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. and Lee, H. (2000) Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 17, pp West III, G.P. and Meyer, G.D. (1998) To agree or not to agree? Consensus and performance in new ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, pp Beekun, R.I, Stedham, Y. and Young, G.J. (1998) Board characteristics, managerial controls and corporate strategy: a study of US hospitals, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E., Johnson, R.A. and Moesel, D.D. (1996) The market for corporate control and firm innovation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp Covin, J.G. and Slevin, P. (2002) The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership, in Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.): Strategic Entrepreneurship, Creating a New Mindset, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford. 61 Davidsson, P., Delmar, F. and Wiklund, J. (2002) Entrepreneurship as growth: growth as entrepreneurship, in Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.): Strategic Entrepreneurship, Creating a New Mindset, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 62 Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.) (2002), Strategic Entrepreneurship, Creating a New Mindset, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford. 63 Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997) Managing Innovation, Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change, West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons. 64 Freeman, C. (1982) The Economics of Industrial Innovation (2nd Edition) Frances Pinter, London. 65 Drucker, P.F. (1985) Innovatoin and Entrepreneurship, Practice and Principles, Harper and Row, New York. 66 Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London.

15 A classification of the corporate entrepreneurship umbrella Hamel, G. (2000) Leading the Revolution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. 68 Gee, R.E. (1994) Finding and commercialising new businesses, Research Technology Management, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp Mason, H. and Rohner, T. (2002) The Venture Imperative A New Model for Corporate Innovation, Harward Business School Press, Boston. 70 Prahalad, G. and Hamel, G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp Drucker, P.F. (1993) Post-capitalist society, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (1999) Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21 st century: the role of strategic leadership, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2000) International expansion by new venture firms: international diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002) International entrepreneurship: the current status of the field and future research agenda, in Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.): Strategic Entrepreneurship, Creating a New Mindset, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford. 75 Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Kim, H. (1997) International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp Stuart, T.E., Hoang, H. and Hybels, R.C. (1999) Interorganisatinal endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp Dubini, P. and Aldrich, H. (1991) Personal and extended networks are central to the entreprenerushial process, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, pp Gulati, R. (1998) Alliances and networks, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp Lee, L and Gongming, Q. (2003) Internalisation or externalisation the option for small and medium-sezed technology-based enterprises in overseas markets, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovations: evidence from Xerox Corporation s technology spin-off companies, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp Spender, J.C. (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp Grant, R.M. (1996) Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp