Organizational ambidexterity and corporate entrepreneurship : the differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal processes

Most corporate entrepreneurship studies have focused on either innovation, venturing or strategic renewal making comparison between the antecedents of all three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship difficult. Moreover, studies on corporate entrepreneurship hardly address organizational antecedents, while simultaneously managing and organizing CE and mainstream activities has been seen as a major challenge for incumbent firms. Our findings show that organizational ambidexterity has strong and differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal. We find, for example, that innovation is affected by horizontal integration, while strategic renewal is significantly influenced by integration on top management team level.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

The differential effects of organizational antecedents on dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship

This study seeks to further delineate how organizational antecedents differentially influence the three components of corporate entrepreneurship: innovation, venturing or strategic renewal. We argue that structural differentiation may help organizations to maintain multiple and often conflicting demands of entrepreneurial and mainstream activities. Taking a social capital perspective, our study further examines two contingencies in the form of informal integration mechanisms (i.e. connectedness and TMT social integration). Our findings show structural differentiation has a positive effect on all three components of corporate entrepreneurship, yet the effect is moderated by integration mechanisms. Interunit connectedness has a positive moderation effect regarding innovation and venturing, and TMT social integration has a negative moderation effect regarding strategic renewal. This reveals that innovation is influenced by informal integration mechanisms on the organizational level, strategic renewal on top management team level, while venturing is influenced by integration mechanisms on both levels.

International corporate entrepreneurship among SMEs : a test of Stevenson's notion of entrepreneurial management

Geographical market expansion is included in various definitions of entrepreneurship as it entails the opening up of new markets (for example, Davidsson 2003). Expansion into new international markets and launch of new products in international markets are also consistent with definitions of entrepreneurship which center on the pursuit of opportunities {e.g.\Stevenson, 1983 #922;Gartner, 1993 #931}. Accordingly, the decision by managers of small, internationally active businesses to continue to internationalize can be viewed as an entrepreneurial act. In spite of the fact that both start-ups and existing firms can behave entrepreneurially by expanding into new international markets, the attention of entrepreneurship researchers interested in international activities has largely focused on international new ventures (INVs); that is, business organizations that internationalize from inception (Oviatt, and McDougall 1994; Oviatt, and McDougall 1997). Consequently, pursuit of international opportunities by established small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) lacks theoretical understanding and empirical investigation through an entrepreneurship lens. This paper contributes to the body of knowledge at the entrepreneurship-internationalization interface by testing whether Stevenson’s opportunity-based conceptualization of entrepreneurial management (Stevenson 1983; Stevenson and Gumpert 1985; Stevenson and Jarillo 1990) can explain the attainment of continued entrepreneurial outcomes by SMEs operating in foreign markets. We choose Stevenson’s conceptualization as it gauges firm-level characteristics that are theorized to facilitate the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities, which arguably is at the heart of SMEs’ continued venturing into international markets.

Capable but not able : the effect of institutional context and search breadth on the absorptive capacity-corporate entrepreneurship relationship

This study investigates how the interaction of institutional market orientation and external search breadth influence the ability to use absorptive capacity to raise the level of corporate entrepreneurship. The findings of a sample of 331 supplier companies providing products and services to the mining industry of Australia and Iran indicate that the positive association between absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship is stronger for companies with greater external knowledge search breadth. Moreover, operating in a less market-oriented institutional context such as, Iran diminishes the ability to utilise a firm’s absorptive capacity to raise their level of corporate entrepreneurship. Yet, firms operating in such contexts are able to overcome these disadvantages posed by their institutional context by engaging in broader external search of knowledge.

The moderating role of entrepreneurial management in the relationship between absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship : an attention-based view

Building on the attention-based view, we argue that companies need a challenging mechanism to focus their absorptive capacity attention on corporate entrepreneurship versus mainstream activities or other purposes. We suggest entrepreneurial management as the attential driver for deploying absorptive capacity towards corporate entrepreneurship. From our analysis of a sample of 331 supplier companies providing products and services to the mining industry of Australia and Iran, we observe that absorptive capacity positively affects corporate entrepreneurship. The data also demonstrate that the effect of absorptive on corporate entrepreneurship increases when firms adopt the entrepreneurial culture and reward systems. However, the entrepreneurial growth and resource orientations negatively moderate the relationship between absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship.

Externally oriented capabilities and corporate entrepreneurship : institutional and managerial contingencies

This research adopts three different theoretical lenses- the attention-based view, institutional perspective and network theory- to investigate the effect of externally oriented capabilities (absorptive capacity and networking capabilities) on corporate entrepreneurship. Based on an Australian and Iranian sample of mining equipment, technology and service providers, this thesis provides new understanding of why some firms are able to generate higher levels of corporate entrepreneurship than others and opens new directions for more capabilities-oriented research in corporate entrepreneurship. In particular, this research provides new insight into how entrepreneurial management, institutional context and external knowledge search breadth shape the relationship between externally oriented capabilities and corporate entrepreneurship.

The contingent effects of differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship

This paper develops a contingency view regarding the effects of structural differentiation and integration on levels of corporate entrepreneurship. Integrating notions of benefits and costs resulting from integration with structural contingency theory, we argue that the joint effects of structural differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship levels are moderated by organizational size and environmental dynamism. Our findings from a time-separated sample demonstrate that in smaller organizations and more dynamic environments, the positive effects of integration on the structural differentiation-corporate entrepreneurship relationship strongly diminish. As such, with this research we begin to identify contingencies that influence the corporate entrepreneurship levels observed among firms striving to balance the needs for structural differentiation and integration.

ACE research vignette 040: Three steps towards more corporate entrepreneurship within an organisation

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. In this vignette, Henri Burgers investigates what managers can do to make their firm more entrepreneurial.

Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

Who is the corporate entrepreneur? Insights from opportunity discovery and Creation Theory

Recent research has begun to address and even compare nascent entrepreneurship and nascent corporate entrepreneurship. An opportunity based view holds great potential to integrate both streams of research, but also presents challenges in how we define corporate entrepreneurship. We extend (corporate) entrepreneurship literature to the opportunity identification phase by providing a framework to classify different types of corporate entrepreneurship. Through analysis of a large dataset on nascent (corporate) entrepreneurship (PSEDII) we show that these corporate entrepreneurs differ largely from each other in terms of human capital. Prior studies have indicated that independent and corporate entrepreneurs pursue different types of opportunities and utilize different strategies. Our findings from the opportunity identification phase challenge those differences and seem to indicate a difference between the opportunities corporate entrepreneurs identify versus the opportunities they exploit.

Entrepreneurship in the public sector : new possibilities?

Previous research has described potential roles for entrepreneurs in public sector organisations as either closely related to corporate entrepreneurship, or as normative prescriptions regarding the importance of entrepreneurship in the public sector (Ireland, Covin & Kuratko, 2009: Morris & Jones, 1999). While some might argue that entrepreneurship in the public sector context is an oxymoron, recent studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurship in the public sector is alive and well (Currie, Humphreys, Ucbasaran & McManus 2008; Kim, 2010). Entrepreneurship in the public sector can take many forms and generate a range of benefits but to date less attention has been given to the potential to generate new public value (Moore, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to increase our knowledge and understanding of the types of strategies and activities the public sector is using to capture initiative, create new public value, and generate new economic activity for the benefit of multiple stakeholders. This paper explores entrepreneurship in one public sector context. Findings indicate that entrepreneurship and commercialisation is more likely to be encouraged in contexts where contestability in develop and exploit capabilities.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition in development projects

New product development projects are experiencing increasing internal and external project complexity. Complexity leadership theory proposes that external complexity requires adaptive and enabling leadership, which facilitates opportunity recognition (OR). We ask whether internal complexity also requires OR for increased adaptability. We extend a model of EO and OR to conclude that internal complexity may require more careful OR. This means that leaders of technically or structurally complex projects need to evaluate opportunities more carefully than those in projects with external or technological complexity.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

“Entrepreneurial management” as a strategic choice in firm behavior : linking it with performance

Establishing the core principals of “entrepreneurial management” within an organization describes a certain strategic choice that affects a company in six dimensions, according to Stevenson (1983). Our aim is to empirically measure entrepreneurial management (it’s existence and degree) and to link this measured strategic choice (for or against) entrepreneurial management with firm performance. Our argument here is that companies that follow core principals of entrepreneurial management should outperform other more administrative firms in certain measures of strategic performance. This paper builds on an empirical investigation published by Brown, Davidson & Wiklund (2001), who have developed and tested a reliable measurement instrument for Stevenson’s definition of “entrepreneurial management” (Stevenson 1983, Stevenson & Jarillo 1990). In the first part of our paper we aim to replicate and to some extent improve this study. In the second part we link the measured degree of “entrepreneurial management” with firm performance. To our knowledge, even so Stevenson’s definition of entrepreneurial management is commonly acknowledged and Brown et al. (2001) developed a reliable instrument to empirically capture this behavioral approach to management, the construct of entrepreneurial management never before has been linked to firm performance in an empirical study. Since most papers on corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance are based on Covin & Slevin’s (1991) or Miller’s (1983) concept of entrepreneurial orientation, we contribute to the literature on corporate entrepreneurship in a novel way, given the fact that the entrepreneurial management dimensions measured in our study can theoretically and empirically be clearly distinguished from the construct of entrepreneurial orientation as defined by Covin & Selvin (1991).