Strategic entrepreneurship in New Zealand's state-owned enterprises : underlying elements and financial implications

The concept of strategic entrepreneurship has received increased attention over the past ten yeras. Viewed as the intersection of entrepreneurship and strategy this field of research is populated by conceptual studies which focus mainly on the nature and perceived benefits of strategic entrepreneurship. Similarly the study of entrepreneurship in a public sector context has gained increasing support in recent years but also remains underexplored. To address these gaps this thesis considers : what are the underlying elements and financial implications of strategic entrepreneurship in New Zealand's state-owned enterprises, New Zealand's SOE sector comprising 17 government-owned,commercially focused organisations, is considered to be a prime subject for this research. Well known for their implementation of new public management, many New Zealand SOEs have also been publicly recognised as both innovative and entrepreneurial. The research question is addressed by first developing a preliminary framework of strategic entrepreneurship from literature on entrepreneurhsip and strategy. The framework is then examined in the context of case studies on activity.

Developing a conceptual framework of strategic entrepreneurship

Purpose: This paper aims to examine the integration of entrepreneurship and strategy to develop a conceptual framework of strategic entrepreneurship. The framework is developed through an analysis of theory and refined through an examination of practice. Design/methodology/approach: This framework is considered in the context of potentially entrepreneurial and strategic activity undertaken by 12 of the 17 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) operating in New Zealand in 2006-2007. Based on a review of documents, observation, and interviews with SOE executives, cases of 12 SOE activities were analysed to compare and contrast strategic entrepreneurship in practice. Findings: The findings reveal distinct elements within the four activities classified as strategic entrepreneurship, activities, such as leveraging from core skills and resources from a strategic perspective, and innovation from an entrepreneurial perspective. Originality/value: This study is one of the first to examine the nature of strategic entrepreneurship in practice and the associated financial returns.

The growth-profitability relationship : strategic orientations as moderator

Principal Topic: In this study we investigate how strategic orientation moderates the impact of growth on profitability for a sample of Danish high growth (Gazelle) firms. ---------- Firm growth has been an essential part of both management research and entrepreneurship research for decades (e.g. Penrose 1959, Birch 1987, Storey 1994). From a societal point of view, firm growth has been perceived as economic generator and job creator. In entrepreneurship research, growth has been an important part of the field (Davidsson, Delmar and Wiklund 2006), and many have used growth as a measure of success. In strategic management, growth has been seen as an approach to achieve competitive advantages and a way of becoming increasing profitable (e.g. Russo and Fouts 1997, Cho and Pucic 2005). However, although firm growth used to be perceived as a natural pathway to profitability recently more skepticism has emerged due to both new theoretical development and new empirical insights. Empirically, studies show inconsistent and inconclusive empirical evidence regarding the impact of growth on profitability. Our review reveals that some studies find a substantial positive relationship, some find a weak positive relationship, some find no relationship and further some find a negative relationship. Overall, two dominant yet divergent theoretical positions can be identified. The first position, mainly focusing on the environmental fit, argues that firms are likely to become more profitable if they enter a market quickly and on a larger scale due to first mover advantages and economic of scale. The second position, mainly focusing the internal fit, argues that growth may lead to a range of internal challenges and difficulties, including rapid change in structure, reward systems, decision making, communication and management style. The inconsistent empirical results together with two divergent theoretical positions call for further investigations into the circumstances by which growth generate profitability and into the circumstances by which growth do not generate profitability. In this project, we investigate how strategic orientations influence the impact of growth on profitability by asking the following research question: How is the impact of growth on profitability moderated by strategic orientation? Based on a literature review of how growth impacts profitability in areas such as entrepreneurship, strategic management and strategic entrepreneurship we develop three hypotheses regarding the growth-profitability relationship and strategic orientation as a potential moderator. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: The three hypotheses are tested on data collected in 2008. All firms in Denmark, including all listed and non-listed (VAT-registered) firms who experienced a 100 % growth and had a positive sales or gross profit over a four years period (2004-2007) were surveyed. In total 2,475 fulfilled the requirements. Among those 1,107 firms returned usable questionnaires satisfactory giving us a response rate on 45 %. The financial data together with data on number of employees were obtained from D&B (previously Dun & Bradstreet). The remaining data were obtained through the survey. Hierarchical regression models with ROA (return on assets) as the dependent variable were used to test the hypotheses. In the first model control variables including region, industry, firm age, CEO age, CEO gender, CEO education and number of employees were entered. In the second model, growth measured as growth in employees was entered. Then strategic orientation (differentiation, cost leadership, focus differentiation and focus cost leadership) and then interaction effects of strategic orientation and growth were entered in the model. ---------- Results and Implications: The results show a positive impact of firm growth on profitability and further that this impact is moderated by strategic orientation. Specifically, it was found that growth has a larger impact on profitability when firms do not pursue a focus strategy including both focus differentiation and focus cost leadership. Our preliminary interpretation of the results suggests that the value of growth depends on the circumstances and more specifically 'how much is left to fight for'. It seems like those firms who target towards a narrow segment are less likely to gain value of growth. The remaining market shares to fight for to these firms are not large enough to compensate for the cost of growing. Based on our findings, it therefore seems like growth has a more positive relationship with profitability for those who approach a broad market segment. Furthermore we argue that firms pursuing af Focus strategy will have more specialized assets that decreases the possibilities of further profitable expansion. For firms, CEOs, board of directors etc., the study shows that high growth is not necessarily something worth aiming for. It is a trade-off between the cost of growing and the value of growing. For many firms, there might be better ways of generating profitability in the long run. It depends on the strategic orientation of the firm. For advisors and consultants, the conditional value of growth implies that in-depth knowledge on their clients' situation is necessary before any advice can be given. And finally, for policy makers, it means they have to be careful when initiating new policies to promote firm growth. They need to take into consideration firm strategy and industry conditions.

Do programs to improve business performance in small and medium manufacturing enterprise improve opportunity recognition?

Increasing awareness of the benefits of stimulating entrepreneurial behaviour in small and medium enterprises has fostered strong interest in innovation programs. Recently many western countries have invested in design innovation for better firm performance. This research presents some early findings from a study of companies which participated in an holistic approach to design innovation, where the outcomes include better business performance and better market positioning in global markets. Preliminary findings from in-depth semi-structured interviews indicate the importance of firm openness to new ways of working and developing new processes of strategic entrepreneurship. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Generating new economic activity through design

Firms face the challenge of remaining competitive through both entrepreneurial activities and the strategic management of resources. Strategic entrepreneurship around notions of acquiring, bundling and leveraging resources to create value for customers and firm competitive advantage has been studied in relation to large established firms (Hitt et al 2010) but largely overlooked in studies of small and medium enterprises. Recent theorizing regarding the processes by which firms orchestrate resources to create new economic activity (Sirmon et al, 2011) has focused on the managerial capabilities of structuring, bundling and leveraging resources across the firms breadth, depth and lifecycle. This approach offers a potential framework for investigating processes of economic activity and strategic renewal (Agarwal & Helfat, 2009).

Improving opportunity recognition and business performance in small and medium manufacturing enterprises through design innovation programs

Increasing awareness of the benefits of stimulating entrepreneurial behaviour in small and medium enterprises has fostered strong interest in innovation programs. Recently many western countries have invested in design innovation for better firm performance. This research presents some early findings from a study of companies that participated in a holistic approach to design innovation, where the outcomes include better business performance and better market positioning in global markets. Preliminary findings from in-depth semi-structured interviews indicate the importance of firm openness to new ways of working and to developing new processes of strategic entrepreneurship. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Performance configurations over time: implications for growth-and profit-oriented strategies

Entrepreneurship research and practice places emphasis on company growth as a measure of entrepreneurial success. In many cases, there has been a tendency to give growth a very central role, with some researchers even seeing growth as the very essence of entrepreneurship (Cole, 1949; Sexton, 1997; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1991). A large number of empirical studies of the performance of young and/or small firms use growth as the dependent variable (see reviews by Ardishvili, Cardozo, Harmon, & Vadakath, 1998; Delmar, 1997; Wiklund, 1998). By contrast, the two most prominent views of strategic management – strategic positioning (Porter, 1980) and the resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) – are both concerned with achieving competitive advantage and regard achieving economic rents and profitability relative to other competitors as the central measures of firm performance. Strategic entrepreneurship integrates these two perspectives and is simultaneously concerned with opportunity seeking and advantage seeking (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). Consequently, both company growth and relative profitability are together relevant measures of firm performance in the domain of strategic entrepreneurship.

Academia Accommodating Plagiarism? Surely Not!

In April 2010, Senior lecturer A discovered a new article on strategic entrepreneurship that contained her own words and paragraphs, published under the name of two complete strangers. Over the next eight months, in search of a just outcome, A contacted various people and institutions involved: the journal editor and publisher, and more than 20 academics and academic managers at five universities located in four different countries, including vice chancellors, rectors, and university professors. While nobody disputed the plagiarism (which involved at least three documents and more than 50 pages of text, tables, and figures), most were reluctant to act. Disillusioned by institutional responses, A had to decide whether to continue pursuing a just outcome at the risk of damaging professional relationships (and her future career), or whether to accept the status quo. She wondered what it would take to change the system to genuinely reject plagiarism.

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.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : a case study in growth and survival

Entrepreneurial marketing has gained popularity in both the entrepreneurship and marketing disciplines in recent times. The success of ventures that have pursued what are considered non-traditional marketing approaches has been attributed to entrepreneurial marketing practices. Despite the multitude of marketing concepts and models, there are prominent venture successes that do not conform to these and have thus been put in the ''entrepreneurial'' box. One only has to look to the ''Virgin'' model to put this in context. Branson has proven for example that not ''sticking to the knitting'' can work with the ways the Virgin portfolio has been diversified. Consequently, an entrepreneurial orientation is considered a desirable philosophy and has become prominent in such industries as airlines and information technology. Miles and Arnold (1991) found that entrepreneurial orientation is positively correlated to marketing orientation. They propose that entrepreneurial orientation is a strategic response by firms to turbulence in the environment. While many marketing successes are analysed in hindsight using traditional marketing concepts and strategies, there are those that challenge standard marketing textbook recommendations. Marketing strategy is often viewed as a process of targeting, segmenting and positioning (STP). Academics and consultants advocate this approach along with the marketing and business plans. The reality however is that a number of businesses do not practice these and pursue alternative approaches. Other schools of thought and business models have been developing to explain differences in orientation such as branding (Keller 2001), the service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and effectuation logic (Sarasvathy 2001). This indicates that scholars are now looking to cognate fields to explain a given phenomenon beyond their own disciplines. Bucking this trend is a growing number of researchers working at the interface between entrepreneurship and marketing. There is now an emerging body of work dedicated to this interface, hence the development of entrepreneurial marketing as an alternative to the traditional approaches. Hills and Hultman (2008:3) define entrepreneurial marketing as ''a spirit, an orientation as well as a process of passionately pursuing opportunities and launching and growing ventures that create perceived customer value through relationships by employing innovativeness, creativity, selling, market immersion, networking and flexibility.'' Although it started as a special interest group, entrepreneurial marketing is now gaining recognition in mainstream entrepreneurship and marketing literature. For example new marketing textbooks now incorporate an entrepreneurial marketing focus (Grewal and Levy 2008). The purpose of this paper is to explore what entrepreneurial approaches are used by entrepreneurs and their impact on the success of marketing activities. Methodology/Key Propositions In order to investigate this, we employ two cases: 42Below, vodka producers from New Zealand and Penderyn Distillery, whisky distillers from Wales. The cases were chosen based on the following criteria. Firstly, both companies originate from small economies. Secondly, both make products (spirits) from locations that are not traditionally regarded as producers of their flagship products and thirdly, the two companies are different from each other in terms of their age. Penderyn is an old company established in 1882, whereas 42Below was founded only in 1999. Vodka has never been associated with New Zealand. By the same token, whisky has always been associated with Scotland and Ireland but never been with Wales. Both companies defied traditional stereotypes in marketing their flagship products and found international success. Using a comparative a case study approach, we use Covin and Slevin's (1989) set of items that purport to measure entrepreneurial orientation and apply a qualitative lens on the approaches of both companies. These are: 1. cultural emphases on innovation and R&D 2. high rate of new product introduction 3. bold, innovative product development 4. initiator proactive posture 5. first to introduce new technologies and products 6. competitive posture toward competitor 7. strong prolictivity for high risk, high return projects 8. environment requires boldness to achieve objectives 9. when faced with risk, adopts aggressive, bold posture. Results and Implications We find that both companies have employed entrepreneurial marketing approaches but with different intensities. While acknowledging that they are different from the norm, the specifics of their individual approaches are dissimilar. Both companies have positioned their products at the premium end of their product categories and have emphasised quality and awards in their communication strategies. 42Below has carved an image of irreverence and being non-conformist. They have unashamedly utilised viral marketing and entered international markets by training bartenders and hosting unconventional events. They use edgy language such as vodka university, vodka professors and vodka ambassadors. Penderyn Distillery has taken a more traditional approach to marketing its products and portraying romantic images of age-old tradition of distilling as key to their positioning. Both companies enjoy success as evidenced by industry awards and international acclaim.

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.

Celebrity capital as a strategic asset : implications for new venture strategies

Despite an increase in businesses started by celebrities, we have limited understanding as to how celebrity entrepreneurs benefit new ventures. Drawing on a reputational capital perspective, we develop the notion of celebrity capital and show how it can be used to uniquely differentiate the venture and to overcome liabilities of newness. We discuss how celebrity capital can negatively influence the venture when negative information about the celebrity surfaces and in terms of limiting the scope of the venture. We discuss the different strategic implications of celebrity capital for ventures using celebrity entrepreneurs versus endorsers.

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.

“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).

Board members’ contribution to strategic decision-making in small firms

This article explores how the boards of small firms actually undertake to perform strategic tasks. Board strategic involvement has seldom been investigated in the context of small firms. We seek to make a contribution by investigating antecedents of board strategic involvement. The antecedents are “board working style” and “board quality attributes”, which go beyond the board composition features of board size, CEO duality, the ratio of non-executive to executive directors and ownership. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of 497 Norwegian firms (from 5 to 30 employees). Our results show that board working style and board quality attributes rather than board composition features enhance board strategic involvement. Moreover, board quality attributes outperform board working style in fostering board strategic involvement