Corporate Entrepreneurship:

A Critical Challenge for Research and Teaching

**Donald F. Kuratko
Kelley School of Business
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: [email protected]
Ph: (812) 855-4248

Michael H. Morris
Warrington College of Business Administration
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611
Email: [email protected]
Ph.: 352-273-0329

**Corresponding Author

1
 Corporate Entrepreneurship:
A Critical Challenge for Research and Teaching

Abstract

The world is in the midst of a new wave of economic development with entrepreneurship and

innovation as the catalysts. Yet, organizations struggle with the proper strategies to initiate

innovative activity among their people. Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is a term used to

describe entrepreneurial behavior inside established mid-sized and large organizations. The value

of corporate entrepreneurship lies in the extent to which it becomes a strategy to engage in an

ongoing process of entrepreneurial actions to achieve a competitive advantage. Moreover, a lack

of innovative (or entrepreneurial) actions in today’s global economy could be a recipe for failure.

With that in mind, this paper examines the evolution of research related to CE, the specific areas

that have been studied, and the emerging future topics that demonstrate the continuing

importance of CE for research and teaching.

2
 Introduction

The development, application, and enhancement of new technologies are occurring at a

breathtaking pace and innovation is driving the way business is conducted. As the number of

new ventures, products, processes, technologies, and patents literally explodes worldwide,

established companies can either innovate their future or become victims of innovation. The

world is in the midst of a new wave of economic development with entrepreneurship and

innovation as the catalysts. Yet, organizations struggle with the proper strategies to initiate

innovative activity among their people (Kuratko, Covin, & Hornsby, 2014). For educators and

researchers in the entrepreneurship field this is a critical component to examine if contemporary

students are to be prepared for the disruptive future they will confront.

It is clear that today’s environment is filled with many contradictions, and dealing with

paradox becomes a critical aspect of managing in the new innovative landscape. Today we must

embrace contradiction by replacing or with and (McNulty, 2017). For instance, quality can be

higher and operating costs can be lower. Firms must innovate and operate with less risk. There

needs to achieve greater autonomy and a sense of centrality. The pathway through such

paradoxes involves fostering and promoting entrepreneurial activity. If history is the true

roadmap of the future, then any organizational advancement will always rise from the energy and

passion that define the entrepreneurial spirit within individuals. Entrepreneurial activity is the

result of each individual’s creativity, passion and tenacity. The one true strategy that unleashes

individual innovators is corporate entrepreneurship (CE).

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is a term used to describe entrepreneurial behavior

inside established mid-sized and large organizations (Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994). Other

popular or related terms include organizational entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, corporate

3
venturing, and strategic entrepreneurship (Pinchot, 1985; Morris, Kuratko, and Covin, 2011).

Regardless of the reason the firm decides to engage in CE, it has become a major strategy in all

types of organizations (Ireland, Covin and Kuratko, 2009).

While innovative actions are a phenomenon that have captivated the interest of

executives in many corporate boardrooms as well as university classrooms, there is a danger in

getting too caught up in the excitement of a particular innovation or inspiring stories of

individual corporate innovators. It is easy to become enamored with the idea of innovation as the

word is fast becoming an over-hyped “buzzword” among corporations, universities, and even

governments. One recent article in Wired magazine called it the most important and overused

word in America (O’Bryan, 2013).

The value of corporate innovation lies in the extent to which it becomes a corporate

strategy to engage in an ongoing process of entrepreneurial actions for a competitive advantage

(Vanhaverbeke & Peeters, 2005). Moreover, given ongoing levels of dynamism in the external

environments of companies, a lack of entrepreneurial actions in today’s global economy could be

a recipe for failure (Johnson, 2012). A corporate entrepreneurial strategy represents the guiding

light and the motivating force for organizations as they attempt to sustain advantage in the

marketplace. It is therefore an imperative that educators and researchers continue to explore and

teach the newest concepts of CE in order to instill a full understanding in the next generation of

organizational leaders.

In order to convey a greater understanding of how the CE field has evolved to a point of

such importance, this paper begins with a review of the specific domains of CE, followed by an

examination of the nature of a corporate entrepreneurship strategy, and the specific research that

has been conducted with regard to external drivers, internal climates and the roles of managers in

4
the CE process. The paper assesses the critical questions emanating from CE scholars that must

now be addressed if we are to properly prepare the next generation of students. Finally, we

explore pedagogical approaches to teaching CE.

Defining Corporate Entrepreneurship

An Evolving Focus

The concept of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has evolved over the last four decades.

Definitions have varied considerably over time. The early research in the 1970’s focused on

venture teams and basic notions of how entrepreneurship could exist inside established

organizations (Hill & Hlavacek, 1972; Peterson & Berger, 1972; Hanan, 1976).

In the 1980’s, researchers conceptualized corporate entrepreneurship as entrepreneurial

behavior requiring organizational sanctions and resource commitments for the purpose of

developing different types of value-creating innovations. In other words, it concerned extending

the firm’s domain of competence and its opportunity set through innovation (Alterowitz, 1988;

Burgelman, 1983a,b, 1984; Kanter, 1985; Schollhammer 1982; Sathe 1989; Sykes & Block,

1989). During this decade, the term ‘intrapreneurship’ was introduced (Pinchott, 1985).

By the 1990’s researchers had adjusted the focus to include re-energizing and enhancing

the firm’s ability to develop the skills through which innovations could be created (Jennings &

Young, 1990; Merrifield, 1993; Zahra, 1991; Birkinshaw, 1997; Borch et al., 1999; Barringer &

Bluedorn, 1999; Zahra, Kuratko, & Jennings, 1999). More comprehensive definitions began to

take shape during this period, such as Guth and Ginsberg’s (1990) distinction between two major

types of phenomena: new venture creation within existing organizations and the transformation

of on-going organizations through strategic renewal. Similarly, Sharma and Chrisman (1999, 18)

suggested that corporate entrepreneurship “is the process where by an individual or a group of

5
individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate

renewal or innovation within that organization.”

By the start of the 21st century corporate entrepreneurship had become relatively well

defined as a field of study – thanks in large part due to the work of scholars to reconcile past

works into a holistic viewpoint. The development of innovation competencies through CE

continued to receive attention in this decade, but this innovation was manifested in a variety of

ways, as reflected in a series of key articles. Ahuja and Lambert (2001) used empirical evidence

from the chemicals industry to present a model explaining how large established firms created

breakthroughs. Smith and DiGregorio (2002) offered a theory of discovery and entrepreneurial

action and examined the varying market effects of entrepreneurial actions. They were addressing

what has become known as the strategic entrepreneurship segment of CE. Schildt, Maula and

Kiel (2005) examined explorative versus exploitative learning interactions in corporate

venturing, indicating that the governance structure of these external ventures was key in

determining the type of learning that took place. With all of these various perspectives offering

new insights, it became clear that corporate entrepreneurship is more complex and can take a

number of different forms. As a result, the contemporary approach acknowledges particular

domains into which these corporate entrepreneurial activities can be categorized.

Current Domains of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Many of the elements essential to constructing a theoretically grounded understanding of

the domains of corporate entrepreneurship can now be identified. Based on the work of Kuratko

& Audretsch (2013) and Morris, Kuratko & Covin (2011), corporate entrepreneurship can be

manifested in companies either through corporate venturing or strategic entrepreneurship.

6
 Corporate venturing is concerned with the launching of new ventures, and this can be

further broken down into two sub-categories. The first of these would be innovative ventures

created within the firm, referred to as internal corporate ventures (ICVs). With internal corporate

venturing, new businesses are created and owned by the corporation and typically reside within

the current corporate structure (Kuratko, Covin, & Garrett, 2009). The second activity would be

any innovation that is created outside of the firm, referred to as external corporate ventures

(ECVs). External corporate venturing involves new businesses that are created by parties outside

the corporation and subsequently invested in or acquired by the corporation. These external

businesses are typically very young ventures or early growth-stage firms (Covin & Miles, 2007;

Morris, Kuratko, & Covin, 2011). They could also include joint ventures created in partnership

with another firm.

Strategic entrepreneurship approaches refer to a broad array of significant

entrepreneurial activities or innovations that are adopted in the firm’s pursuit of competitive

advantage. They usually do not result in new businesses for the corporation. With strategic

entrepreneurship, innovation can be found within any of five areas – the firm’s strategy, product

offerings, served markets, internal organization (i.e., structure, processes, and capabilities), or

business model (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013). These innovations can constitute a firm’s

fundamental differentiation from its industry rivals. Hence, there are two possible reference

points that can be considered when a firm exhibits strategic entrepreneurship: (1) how much the

firm is transforming itself relative to where it was before (e.g., transforming its products,

markets, internal processes, etc.) and (2) how much the firm is transforming itself relative to

industry conventions or standards (again, in terms of product offerings, market definitions,

internal processes, and so forth). Strategic entrepreneurship can take one of five forms –

7
strategic renewal (adoption of a new strategy), sustained regeneration (introduction of a new

product or service into an existing category), domain redefinition (reconfiguration of existing

product or market categories), organizational rejuvenation (internally focused innovation for

strategy improvement), and business model reconstruction (redesign of existing business model),

(Covin & Miles, 1999; Hitt, et al., 2001; Ireland, Hitt & Sirmon, 2003; Ireland & Webb, 2007;

Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009).

Related to these various activities and domains is the question of how entrepreneurial an

organization tends to be. The concept Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) was developed by

Miller (1983) and formalized in the entrepreneurship literature by Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991)

(see also Morris and Paul, 1987). Here, a continuum of a firm’s strategic behavioral proclivities

is recognized. A firm’s orientation can range more conservative to more entrepreneurial, with

the entrepreneurial end of the spectrum evidenced by innovativeness (the introduction of new

products, processes, and business models); proactiveness (actively entering new product/market

spaces and seeking market leadership positions); and risk-taking (a willingness among strategic

decision-makers to contribute resources to projects with uncertain outcomes). A large number of

scholars subsequently examined the performance implications of a firm’s entrepreneurial

orientation (e.g., Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Morris and Sexton, 1996; Rauch, et al.,2009; Stam

and Elfring, 2008), generally finding a positive relationship between EO and performance.

Others have questioned EO’s underlying dimensions and how they are measured (Lumpkin and

Dess, 2001; Lumpkin, Cogliser, and Schneider (2009); Stevenson and Gumbert, 1985). Over the

years, a number of alternative perspectives on the conceptual domain of a firm-level strategic

orientation towards entrepreneurship have been proposed (see the EO Models section of Covin

and Wales (2012) for a discussion of the different conceptualizations). Nonetheless, as noted in

8
two recent meta-analyses, the Miller/Covin and Slevin conceptualization is by far the dominant

perspective of EO in the relevant literature (Rauch et al., 2009; Rosenbusch, Rauch, and Bausch,

2013).

A critical question raised by the considerable volume of nomological research on EO

concerns the extent to which it is more of an attitude, outlook or perspective within an

organization, or whether it is more behavioral in nature. Drawing from measurement theory,

Anderson, et al. (2015) propose a formative construction of EO that includes both managerial

attitudes (e.g., towards innovation or risk) and entrepreneurial behaviors as jointly necessary

dimensions that collectively form the higher-order EO construct.

In essence, corporate venturing, strategic entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial

orientation combine to form the overall domain of corporate entrepreneurship. Building on these

elements, it becomes possible to develop a corporate entrepreneurship strategy.

Understanding a Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy

As firms innovate more regularly they must be willing to accept considerable, though

reasonable, levels of risk (Miller & Friesen, 1982). To Sykes and Block (1989), reasonable risks

are “affordable” to the organization in terms of its current and future viability as an operating

entity. When these actions re-define how the entity is positioned within their environments,

including the main bases on which they compete, then we are addressing the entrepreneurship

and strategy interface (Covin & Slevin, 1991).

Strategy has two key facets when it comes to CE. Morris, Kuratko, and Covin (2011)

contend that when the strategy-making efforts taken to create competitive advantages and exploit

them are grounded in entrepreneurial actions, the firm is employing an entrepreneurial strategy.

Here, then, we are talking about being entrepreneurial in how management specifies the overall

9
direction of the firm and how it adapts to changing environmental contingencies (Russell, 1999).

Further, when establishing direction and priorities for the various product, service, process, and

business model innovation efforts of the firm, the company is formulating its strategy for

entrepreneurship. Management is now determining the role of entrepreneurship and how it can

be facilitated within the firm. If we compare these two strategies, both address issues that are

external and internal to the firm. However, the application of entrepreneurial thinking to the

firm’s core strategy is primarily dealing with external questions such as identifying the unmet

needs in the market and how the firm can best pursue innovation on a sustained basis.

Alternatively, the development of a strategy for entrepreneurship is especially concerned with

internal questions, including the appropriate entrepreneurial environment in order for employees

to seek and discover company innovations. Clearly, both aspects of a CE strategy are needed

(Morris, et al., 2011).

For successful corporate entrepreneurship, those within the firm must be encouraged and

supported in how to think and act in entrepreneurial ways. Without awareness, encouragement,

and nurturing, the entrepreneurial behavior that is linked to corporate entrepreneurship will not

surface or be used consistently throughout the firm (Kuratko, Ireland & Hornsby, 2001).

Furthermore, an awareness of what corporate entrepreneurship calls for in terms of behavior on

the part of individuals permits an analysis of choices. Typically, organizational members

compare and evaluate the opportunity costs of engaging in entrepreneurial behavior with those of

either not doing so or engaging in other behaviors. Thus, linking CE activities to strategy and

processes is important (Dess, Lumpkin, & MvGee, 1999).

Burgelman (1984; 1983a) argued that organizational innovation, along with other

strategic activities, surfaces through two models, which he labeled induced versus autonomous

10
strategic behavior. Of the two models, induced strategic behavior occurs more frequently in

organizations. Comparatively, induced strategic behavior captures formal entrepreneurial

behavior while autonomous strategic behavior is entrepreneurial behavior that surfaces

informally, and can be initiated by individuals and teams anywhere in the firm. The more

resource rich the firm, the greater the likelihood that autonomous strategic behavior will emerge.

Burgelman’s (1983b) induced strategic behavior approach is a top-down process whereby

the firm’s strategy and structure provide the context within which entrepreneurial behavior is

elicited and supported. The responsibility for establishing a strategy and forming a structure that

can induce entrepreneurial behavior rests with top-level managers. The structures put in place for

the organization will either enhance entrepreneurial behaviors by encouraging cross discipline

communications or discourage such behavior with silos that fail to communicate with each other.

In addition, the strategy of the organization must convey an emphasis in entrepreneurial activity

for the organization. Thus, induced strategic or entrepreneurial behavior can be shaped by the

firm’s structural context. While Burgelman’s (1983b) analysis focuses on induced strategic

behavior, it does not suggest ignoring the importance of autonomous strategic behavior for

successful corporate entrepreneurship actions. Indeed, both induced and autonomous strategic

behavior are important to a firm’s corporate entrepreneurship efforts, whether they are oriented

to creating new businesses or reconfiguring existing ones. In the induced strategic behavior

model, top-level managers oversee, nurture, and support the firm’s attempts to use

entrepreneurial behavior as the foundation for product, process, and administrative innovations

(Heller, 1999). A corporate entrepreneurship strategy that is intended to elicit and support

induced strategic behavior should also include degrees of flexibility through which autonomous

strategic behavior is allowed and indeed encouraged to surface. Properly viewed as a formal

11
tolerance of autonomous strategic behavior, an intentional commitment of this type is a

conscious strategic decision on the part of the firm’s upper-level decision makers to foster

innovative entrepreneurial behavior, regardless of whether its origin rests with formal or

informal processes.

A more integrated perspective, then, might define a corporate entrepreneurship strategy

as “a vision-directed, organization-wide reliance on entrepreneurial behavior that purposefully

and continuously rejuvenates the organization and shapes the scope of its operations through the

recognition and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunity” (Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko, 2009,

21). The strategy is heavily driven by conditions in the external environment of companies, but

it also dependent upon an internal climate that is conducive to entrepreneurial activity. Let us

further explore what is known about these external and internal considerations.

External Environment and Corporate Entrepreneurship

What is the incentive for a company to engage in entrepreneurial behavior? While all

companies must continually strive to get better, arguably the biggest driver of entrepreneurship

in companies is environmental turbulence (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Morris and Sexton, 1996,

Ireland, Hitt and Sirmon, 2003). Turbulence refers to the relative dynamism, hostility and

complexity in the various components (e.g., technological, competitive, regulatory, customer,

social, economic) of the firm’s external environment.

In effect, if conditions are fairly stable, or the environment is considered to be relatively

munificent, then the company does not experience as much pressure to engage in entrepreneurial

activity. There is always a need for innovation as managers look for ways to cut costs, improve

quality, or otherwise enhance performance. However, an unchanging environment suggests the

innovation can be more modest or incremental. Environmental turbulence increases the threats

12
confronting the managers within a company, but also opens up new opportunities. The firm

achieves competitive advantage under a given set of conditions and constraints, but when these

change, firm advantage can be undermined or even disappear. To the extent that this external

change is ongoing and/or more dramatic, corporate entrepreneurship must become an integral

aspect of company operations. Moreover, these entrepreneurial efforts must result in dynamically

continuous and discontinuous innovation (Morris, Kuratko and Covin, 2011).

There is considerable empirical support for these arguments. We earlier alluded to a

series of studies that have found a positive correlation between a firm’s entrepreneurial

orientation (EO) and company performance. However, this relationship is stronger when the

firm faces greater turbulence in its external environment (Davis, Morris and Allen, 1991;

Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999; Rauch, et al, 2009; Sine and David, 2003).

It is also helpful to consider the concepts of exploitation and exploration (Gupta, Smith

and Shalley, 2006). Exploitation involves competing in mature technologies and markets where

efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized, while exploration involves

capitalizing on new technologies and markets where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation

are needed (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). Central to exploration are the entrepreneurial

capabilities of a company. In a stable environment, a company can concentrate on refining its

current competencies, technologies, and strategic trajectory to fully exploit existing market

opportunities. Yet, as conditions in the external environment change, the ability to capitalize on

new possibilities becomes critical. Exploration makes it possible for the organization to develop

the innovations that create the future and redefine the rules of competition.

The concept of ambidexterity has been introduced to capture the need for companies to

simultaneously engage in both exploitation and exploration (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004). This

13
can be difficult, as the skills, structures, resources, controls and management styles required for

one differ considerably from the other. Entrepreneurship can be involved in both exploitation and

exploration, with the latter requiring a greater degree and frequency of entrepreneurial behavior

(Morris, et al., 2009).

The conclusion, then, is that external change forces internal change. Let us turn now to

considerations within the firm, or what we shall refer to as the internal climate.

Internal Climate for Corporate Entrepreneurship

The internal work environment conveys the perceived costs and benefits associated with

an employee assuming the career-related and other personal risks associated with entrepreneurial

behavior. It determines how much tolerance there is for the ambiguity, uncertainty, time

commitment and stress that come with entrepreneurship. The internal climate can be nurturing,

stifling or somewhere in between when it comes to CE. Management’s challenge is to develop an

“innovation friendly” internal environment where any employee can ‘step to the plate’ and

attempt to innovate through their job. The challenge is that the environment that supports

entrepreneurship (creation of something new) is also attempting to support everyday operations

(efficiently and effectively managing current products and markets). Keep in mind that

innovation is often disruptive when it comes to existing operations. Yet, employee perceptions of

management commitment to the pursuit of innovative projects, the acceptability of taking

calculated risks on the job, and the costs of failure are instrumental in explaining the tendency to

act on entrepreneurial opportunities (Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd, & Bott, 2009).

As such, it is important to regularly audit the internal climate to determine the extent to

which it discourages or supports entrepreneurial behavior. When attempting to inventory the

firm’s current situation regarding the readiness for innovation, managers need to consider

14
elements of the firm’s strategy, structure, control systems, human resource management system,

and culture (Ireland, Kuratko, & Morris, 2006 a&b).

In order to understand what constitutes an effective internal environment for

entrepreneurial activity, understanding the specific antecedents to employee entrepreneurial

behavior is critical. A growing body of work addresses the impact of organizational antecedents

on individual-level entrepreneurial behavior (Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990; Hornsby,

Kuratko, & Montagno, 1999; Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002; Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, &

Hornsby, 2005; Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd, & Bott, 2009; Morris and Jones, 1993; Morris, et

al. 2006; Rutherford and Holt, 2007; Zahra, 1991).

In the Kuratko et al. (1990) study, the authors identified five conceptually distinct factors

that can elicit and support entrepreneurial behavior on the part of first- and middle-level

managers (i.e., top management support for CE, reward and resource availability, organizational

structure and boundaries, risk taking, and time availability). Hornsby et al. (2002) then

developed the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI) to provide a sound

instrument for analyzing employee perceptions of the organizational climate for CE. The

instrument featured 48 Likert-style questions that were used to assess antecedents of

entrepreneurial behavior. Results supported the five stable antecedents of middle-level

managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. The five antecedents are: (1) management support (the

willingness of top-level managers to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial behavior, including

the championing of innovative ideas and providing the resources people require to behave

entrepreneurially), (2) work discretion/autonomy (top-level managers’ commitment to tolerate

failure, provide decision-making latitude and freedom from excessive oversight and to delegate

authority and responsibility to middle- and lower-level managers), (3) rewards/reinforcement

15
(developing and using systems that reinforce entrepreneurial behavior, highlight significant

achievements and encourage pursuit of challenging work) (4) time availability (evaluating

workloads to ensure that individuals and groups have the time needed to pursue innovations and

that their jobs are structured in ways that support efforts to achieve short- and long-term

organizational goals), and (5) organizational boundaries (precise explanations of outcomes

expected from organizational work and development of mechanisms for evaluating, selecting and

using innovations). The CEAI instrument measures the degree to which individuals within a firm

perceive the presence of these five elements critical to an environment conducive for individual

entrepreneurial activity (Kuratko, Hornsby & Covin, 2014). Through the results of this

instrument, corporate entrepreneurial leaders are better able to assess, evaluate, and manage the

firm’s internal work environment in ways that support entrepreneurial behavior, which becomes

the foundation for successfully implementing a corporate entrepreneurship strategy. However, it

is important to recognize that there are critical roles that must be fulfilled by the different levels

of management for the successful implementation of corporate entrepreneurship. For students,

this can be an essential preparation for the roles they may seek in organizations.

The Essential Roles of Managers

Managers, at all organizational levels, have critical strategic roles to fulfill for the

organization to be successful (Ireland, Hitt, & Vaidyanath, 2002). Senior, middle, and first-level

managers have distinct responsibilities which are then associated with particular managerial

actions (Floyd and Lane, 2000), and this becomes especially relevant when we consider CE.

In examining the role of senior-level managers in the process of corporate

entrepreneurship, Burgelman (1984) contends that their principal involvement concerns

corporate strategy and setting the strategic and structural context within which entrepreneurial

16
behavior can occur. In particular, senior-level managers are responsible for retroactively

rationalizing selected new businesses into the firm’s portfolio and developing strategy based on

their evaluations of those businesses’ prospects as desirable, value-creating components of the

firm. They play an important selecting role in CE. Senior-level managers are also responsible for

structuring the organization in ways that facilitate the development and eventual integration of

new business ventures embraced as part of the firm’s strategic context. A wide range of

structural possibilities exist, from new product development departments and new venture units

to spin offs and outsourcing.

Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, and Veiga (2009) examined 152 firms in regard to the impact of

a “transformational” CEO on corporate entrepreneurship. They found that the transformational

CEO had a significant role in directly shaping four salient characteristics of top management

teams: behavioral integration, risk-taking propensity, decentralization of responsibilities, and

long-term compensation. This study provided impetus to the importance of the directing role that

top management must embrace. Thus, senior-level managers have critical roles in the articulation

of an entrepreneurial strategic vision and instigating the emergence of an organizational climate

conducive to entrepreneurial activity. In addition, senior-level managers are centrally involved in

the defining processes of both the corporate venturing and strategic entrepreneurship forms of

CE, as they provide leadership to various entrepreneurial initiatives.

The evidence indicates that middle-level managers are a hub through which most

organizational knowledge flows (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992; 1994; King, Fowler, & Zeithaml,

2001). To interact effectively with first-level managers, middle-level managers must possess the

technical competence required to understand the firm’s core competencies, particularly as they

relate to management and development of entrepreneurial initiatives. Simultaneously, in their

17
interaction with senior-level executives, middle-level managers must understand the firm’s

strategic intent and goals. Through interactions with senior- and first-level managers, those

operating in the middle of an organization’s leadership hierarchy influence and shape the

operationalization of the firm’s corporate entrepreneurial strategy.

Consistent with this view, Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, and Hornsby (2005) argue that the

middle-level manager’s work as a change agent and promoter of innovation is facilitated by their

positioning in the organization hierarchy. These authors contend that middle-level managers

endorse, refine, and shepherd entrepreneurial initiatives and identify, acquire, and deploy

resources needed to pursue those initiatives.

Based on the work of Kuratko, et al. (2005), these roles can be further broken down.

Endorsement: middle-level managers often find themselves in evaluative positions with

entrepreneurial initiatives emerging from lower levels in the firm. Then middle-level managers

must endorse selected initiatives to the top levels of the organization. They must also endorse

initiatives originating at the top-level and “sell” their value-creating potential to the primary

implementers—first-level managers. Refinement: involves molding the entrepreneurial

opportunity into one that makes sense for the organization, given the organization’s strategy,

resources, and structure. Middle-level managers must convert potential entrepreneurial

opportunities into initiatives that fit the organization. Shepherding: middle-level managers

champion and guide the entrepreneurial initiative to assure that those originating at lower levels

in the firm are not abandoned once their continued development requires higher level support.

Identification: knowing which resources will be needed to convert the entrepreneurial initiative

into a business reality as these initiatives tend to evolve in their scope, content, and focus as they

develop (McGrath & MacMillan, 1995). Acquisition: middle-level managers are responsible for

18
redirecting resources away from existing operations and toward entrepreneurial initiatives

appearing to have greater strategic value for the firm (Burgelman, 1984). In short, it might be

argued that the middle management level is where entrepreneurial opportunities are given the

best chance to flourish based on the resources likely to be deployed as they are pursued.

According to Floyd and Lane (2000), first-level managers have experimenting, adjusting,

and conforming roles. The experimenting role is expressed through the initiating of

entrepreneurial projects. The adjusting role is expressed through, for example, a first-level

manager responding to recognized and unplanned entrepreneurial challenges. Finally, the

conforming role is expressed through first-level managers’ adaptation of operating policies and

procedures to the strategic initiatives endorsed at higher organizational levels.

To better understand entrepreneurial actions and the role of management, Hornsby, et al.

(2009) conducted a study of 458 managers at different levels in their firms. They found that the

relationship between perceived internal antecedents (as measured by the Corporate

Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument mentioned earlier) and entrepreneurial actions

(measured by the number of new ideas implemented) differed depending on managerial level.

Specifically, the positive relationship between managerial support and entrepreneurial action was

stronger for senior and middle level managers than for first-level (lower level) managers. The

positive relationship between work discretion and entrepreneurial action was also stronger for

senior and middle level managers than for first-level managers. The few studies that have

explored managerial level have emphasized the role of first-level managers in a “bottom-up”

process of corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983a; 1983b; 1984). The Hornsby, et al,

(2009) study offered a counter view to this “bottom-up” perspective, supporting the notion that

higher level managers have greater ability to “make more of” conditions in the company and thus

19
implement a greater number entrepreneurial ideas than do first-level managers.

Working jointly, senior, middle, and first-level managers are responsible for developing

the entrepreneurial behaviors that can be used to form the capabilities through which future

competitive success can be achieved (Kuratko, Hornsby, & Bishop, 2005). Thus, organizations

developing an environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity must recognize that there is an

integrated set of roles at the senior, middle, and first-levels of management.

Emerging Specialized Topics in CE

As the field of corporate entrepreneurship has become more defined, both the depth and

breadth of topical coverage in the published research have increased. New theoretical and

empirical insights regularly appear that address ever more specific issues, expanding the richness

of what can be taught in CE courses.

Examples of some of the contemporary topics receiving attention include:

 Corporate venture capital and its role in supporting innovation within firms (Wadhwa,

Phelps, & Kotha, 2016; Weber, Bauke, & Raibulet, 2016).

o External corporate venturing as a means for acquiring new innovations (Basu,

Phelps, & Kotha, 2016; Titus, House, & Covin, 2017).

1. Women and their role in corporate entrepreneurial activity (Lyngsie, & Foss,

2017).

2. Understanding employee innovative behaviors (Kang, Matusik, Kim, & Phillips,

2016).

o Validation and termination processes for corporate entrepreneurial projects

(Behrens, & Patzelt, 2016; Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood, & Hornsby, 2017).

20
 o Control system factors that influence or restrain corporate entrepreneujrial activity

(Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2011).

o Cognitive processes and corporate entrepreneurs (Corbett & Hmieleski 2007;

Garrett & Holland, 2015).

o The extension of CE to small and medium sized firms and not-for-profit

institutions (Nason, McKelvie, & Lumpkin, 2015; Kearney & Morris, 2015).

o The role of CE in family firms (Minola, Brumana, Campopiano, Garrett, &

Cassia, 2016).

Two especially promising areas for research concern specific elements within the

entrepreneurial process in established companies and the role of affect or emotions in this

process. For instance, Covin, et al. (2015) have analyzed the evolution of the value proposition

and subsequent performance of internal corporate ventures (ICVs). Aimed at developing a

deeper understanding of the process requirements of successful exploratory initiatives, the

authors built and tested a model of venture performance using data from 145 ICVs. They found

that moderate levels of evolution of the value proposition results in better performance than

either no evolution or extensive evolution. Another example concerns work on the learning that

takes places as an entrepreneurial initiative unfolds. Covin, et al. (2017) found that learning

proficiency is more positively related to venture performance when the ICV's initial value

propositions are unclear and when the ICV's goals do not extensively evolve over the course of

the venture's development.

Corporate entrepreneurship and the accompanying risks and rewards can, at times, be an

emotional process for both managers and employees. Brundin, Patzelt, and Shepherd, (2008)

examined the impact of confidence, satisfaction, frustration, worry, bewilderment and strain on

21
employees' willingness to act entrepreneurially. Biniari (2012) examines how the emotions

resulting from and influenced by the interaction between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in

a given social context affect the entrepreneurial process and its outcomes in companies.

A related issue concerns the experience of failure when pursuing an entrepreneurial

initiative in a company. Although failure can be an important source of information for learning,

this learning is not automatic or instantaneous. The emotions generated by the failure of an

innovative project (e.g., grief) can interfere with the learning process. Shepherd and Kuratko

(2009) highlight explanations of the grief process and how it can be managed by individuals and

organizations to enhance learning. Separately, Shepherd, Covin, and Kuratko (2009) explore two

approaches to managing one’s emotional response to the failure of an entrepreneurial project,

regulation and normalization.

As indicated throughout this paper, a wide variety of elements affect the corporate

entrepreneurial process. Whether these elements are internal or external to the organization, the

research work is important and that research must be translated into the classroom. CE is a

dynamic concept growing in importance every year, so as educators and scholars we must “push

the envelope” to better prepare students for the innovative challenges that confront tomorrow’s

organizations.

Pedagogy and Corporate Entrepreneurship

Teaching a CE Course

While corporate entrepreneurship is sometimes approached as a module or set of modules

in a more general entrepreneurship course, at many institutions around the world it is taught as a

standalone course or seminar (Morris, Cornwall and Kuratko, 2013). However, there is no

standard structure for the CE course. The approach to course design will tend to vary depending

22
on the objectives of the instructor, the level of the student, and the amount of time allocated for

the course.

From a content perspective, below is an example of the topics around which a CE course

might be organized:

 How Organizations Evolve; The Strategic Challenge Confronting Organizations;

 What it Means to Be Entrepreneurial; The Concept of Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO);
 Differences between Start-up and Corporate Entrepreneurship;
 Forms that Entrepreneurship Takes Inside Corporations
 Who is the Corporate Entrepreneur?; Entrepreneurs versus Managers ;
 A Framework for Understanding Obstacles to Corporate Entrepreneurship;
 Innovation, Technology and Corporate Entrepreneurship; The Innovation Portfolio
 Setting Goals and Formulating Entrepreneurial Strategies;
 Types of Organizational Structures and CE;
 The Role of Control Systems, Budget Systems and Cost Systems;
 Internal Venture Capital
 How the HRM System can Facilitate Corporate Entrepreneurship;
 Critical Aspects and Issues Surrounding the Corporate Culture;
 People Issues: Resistance to Change and Fear of Failure
 Entrepreneurship within Different Functional Areas of a Company
 Ethics and the Corporate Entrepreneur?
 Course Wrap-up

A number of learning resources are available to support the delivery of a CE course.

Examples of standard textbooks include Morris, Kuratko and Covin (2011), Sathe, (2007),

Hisrich and Kearney (2011), Burns (2013) and Desouza (2011). These are general texts around

which a course can be designed. A wide range of other books, such as Good to Great (Collins,

2001), The Innovator’s Dilemma (Christensen, 2013), Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006)

represent good supplements when teaching a CE course.

For many students, entrepreneurship inside a large, established company is further

removed, conceptually, from their life experiences, especially compared to start-up

entrepreneurship. As such, it becomes important to integrate experiential learning tools into the

23
CE classroom. Toward this end, excellent case studies are available to augment lectures and

other course activities. These delve into a range of challenges in organizing for entrepreneurship

and seeing projects through the entrepreneurial process. Cases can be found through a search of

‘corporate entrepreneurship’ in the online case study sites of Harvard Business Publishing,

Darden Business Publishing at the University of Virginia, the Case Centre at Ivey Publishing,

and other case clearing houses.

Other experiential or application-oriented resources can be found online. A series of

podcasts entitled How I Built This is available from National Public Radio in the U.S. Here,

fairly in-depth and personal insights are provided as founders of a number of prominent firms

describe the challenges of sustaining growth and innovation beyond the initial start-up. In

addition, shorter videos that address a host of topics and examples related to corporate

entrepreneurship and innovation inside companies can be found on You Tube and through online

TED talks.

In addition to these application-oriented resources, engaging students by having them

complete some sort of course project can greatly enhance the learning process. One direction for

such a project could involve a research paper. Students might synthesize available scholarly and

applied research and take positions on such topics as reward systems that encourage CE, the

design of internal venture capital funds, or top-down versus bottom up approaches to CE.

Another direction is more experiential. Here, students might be required to conduct and write up

an interview with someone who has been involved with innovative projects inside a larger,

established company. While many other possibilities exist, we encourage educators to consider a

having students conduct an audit of a company from an entrepreneurial perspective.

The Entrepreneurial Health Audit

24
 How do we instill an understanding in students about the critical elements of the internal

environment, the roles of managers, and the entrepreneurial strategy of a firm? A useful class

project is called the Entrepreneurial Health Audit (Ireland et al., 2006). Students are put into

teams and assigned to a mid-sized or large company that has agreed to participate in exchange

for a final report and presentation assessing the firm from an entrepreneurial vantage point. The

Audit involves a systematic approach that involves three steps or stages.

Step I: Assessing the Company’s Entrepreneurial Intensity (EI) The entrepreneurial

performance of a company at a given point in time is reflected in its entrepreneurial intensity

score. EI is an extension of EO, and is concerned with both the degree and frequency of

entrepreneurship (Morris and Sexton, 1996).

To assess degree of entrepreneurship, measures are needed of the organization’s

entrepreneurial orientation (EO) which consists of innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness.

Innovativeness refers to the seeking of creative, unusual, or novel solutions to problems and

needs. These solutions take the form of new technologies and processes, as well as new products

and services. Risk-taking involves the willingness to commit significant resources to

opportunities having a reasonable chance of costly failure. These risks are typically manageable

and calculated. Proactiveness is concerned with pursuing initiatives in advance of rivals’ actions,

with doing what is necessary to anticipate and act upon an entrepreneurial opportunity. Such

pioneering behavior usually entails considerable perseverance, adaptability, and tolerance of

failure. Assessment of frequency of entrepreneurship involves measuring the number of new

products, services, and process innovations introduced over some defined time period (e.g., the

last two years).

25
 A proven measurement instrument for assessing EI within a company can be found in

Morris, Kuratko, and Covin (2011). It allows students to graphically capture the position of a

company on a grid that has degree on the vertical axis and frequency on the horizontal axis.

When interpreting EI scores, it is important to recognize that norms for entrepreneurial intensity

will differ among industries. One is attempting to achieve higher levels of EI not in absolute

terms, but relative to a specific industry standard. Measurement of EI also provides numerous

opportunities for developing a richer understanding of how entrepreneurship works in a

particular company. For example, the relative importance of degree and frequency when

measuring entrepreneurial actions may vary depending on certain strategic factors, such as the

pace of technological change in an industry, the levels of competitive intensity, or the

heterogeneity of market demand. Also, the conditions under which degree or frequency is the

strongest contributor to performance can be assessed. It has been speculated that frequency and

degree may contribute fairly equally to short-term results, whereas a greater degree of

entrepreneurship has a stronger long-term impact. In any event, the EI is a powerful assessment

tool for capturing entrepreneurship at the organization or division level.

Step II: Diagnosing the Climate for Corporate Entrepreneurship While the assessment of

EI captures how entrepreneurial the company is, a need also exists to determine the underlying

reasons why a given level of EI is being achieved. In a sense, management must determine the

entrepreneurial health of the organization. The Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment

Instrument (CEAI) is a diagnostic tool for assessing, evaluating, and managing the internal

environment of the company in a manner that supports entrepreneurship. By taking inventory of

the company’s current situation as seen through the eyes of managers, executives can identify

26
organizational systems and structures that are inconsistent with, or represent obstacles to, higher

levels of EI.

As discussed earlier, the CEAI is designed around five key antecedents to the creation of

sustainable entrepreneurship within a company - management support; work

discretion/autonomy; reinforcement; time availability; and organizational boundaries. The full

CEAI survey and its scoring instructions can be found in Kuratko, Hornsby, and Covin (2014). It

consists of 48 Likert-style questions. The instrument has been shown to be psychometrically

sound as a viable means for assessing areas requiring attention and improvement in order to

achieve intended results through use of a CE strategy. The instrument can be used to develop a

profile of a company across the dimensions and internal environment variables previously

described. Low scores in an area suggest the need for training activities, redesign of systems or

processes, restructuring, or other managerial changes to enhance the company’s readiness for

entrepreneurial behavior and implementation of a CE strategy.

Essentially concerned with a company’s “entrepreneurial health,” the instrument can

significantly benefit organizations and would be of interest to both organizational practitioners,

researchers, and students. For managers, the instrument provides an indication of a company’s

likelihood of being able to successfully implement a CE strategy. It highlights areas of the work

environment that should be the focus of ongoing design and development efforts. Further, the

CEAI can be used as an assessment tool for students attempting to evaluate a company as part of

the entrepreneurial health audit.

The tacit knowledge of managers at the executive, middle, and operating levels regarding

the role of entrepreneurship within the company and what the company is explicitly doing to

reinforce entrepreneurial behavior is critical. Managers are most likely to engage in

27
entrepreneurial behavior when the organizational antecedents to that behavior are well-designed

and well-communicated. Individuals assess their entrepreneurial capacities in reference to what

they perceive to be is a set of organizational resources, opportunities, and obstacles related to

entrepreneurial activity. Determining that the value of entrepreneurial behavior exceeds that of

other behaviors leads managers to champion, synthesize, facilitate, and implement.

Step III: Create an Organization-Wide Understanding of CE

Having assessed the entrepreneurial performance and the internal environment, the third

step in the health audit involves determining the degree to which a CE strategy and the

entrepreneurial behavior through which it is implemented are understood and accepted by

affected parties. A CE strategy is implemented successfully only when all actors are committed

to it. Hence, individuals must be aware of the intent and mission surrounding a CE strategy. Key

decision makers must find ways to explain their intent and mission to those from whom

entrepreneurial efforts are expected. In addition, the readiness of each actor to display

entrepreneurial behavior should be realistically assessed. Actions to enhance entrepreneurial

skills of employees should then be set into motion. These commitments and processes help to

shape a common vision around the importance of a CE strategy and entrepreneurial behavior as

the cornerstone to an effective strategic adaptation process. As a way for organizations to

develop a sound program for understanding entrepreneurial activity, a CE employee

development program can be established. Some suggested elements for such a program can be

found in Kuratko, Covin, and Hornsby (2014).

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have shown that throughout the past four decades CE research has

suggested important linkages between strategy, the external and internal environments, and

28
management roles. While more research is needed to examine the linkages among the many

other variables involved with CE, future research will provide a better understanding of the

specific conditions of the managerial decisions and actions in pursuit of CE strategies. Therefore,

it is imperative that entrepreneurship researchers continue to explore CE to uncover the nuances

that make this concept so difficult for today’s organizations to implement.

For teachers in the entrepreneurship and strategy domains, this topic holds tremendous

significance as many students will begin careers in major established organizations. With the

exponential changes happening in today’s organizations due to the ever increasing speed of

disruptive innovations, students need to be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead of them.

Using a tool such as the Entrepreneurial Health Audit, students can gain the experience of

gauging an organization’s internal environment for CE activities. Not only will they learn more

about the challenges of implementing corporate entrepreneurship but also retain a valuable tool

which could eventually be applied in the organization that employs them.

So, corporate entrepreneurship is the critical challenge confronting today’s organizations

in this disruptive age. It is clear that this topic should continue to be embraced by both

researchers and teachers.

REFERENCES

Ahuja, G. & Lambert, C.M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal
study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal,
22, (6-7), 521-543.

Alterowitz, R. (1988), New Corporate Ventures. New York: Wiley.

Anderson, B.S., Kreiser, P.M., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Eshima, Y. 2015.
Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial Orientation, Strategic Management Journal, 36 (10),
1579-1596.

Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic
29
management. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 421-444.

Basu, S., Phelps, C.C., & Kotha, S. (2016). Search and integration in external venturing: An
inductive examination of corporate venture capital units. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10
(2), 129-152.

Behrens, J. & Patzelt, H. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship managers' project terminations:

Integrating portfolio-level, individual-level, and firm-level effects. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 40 (4), 815-842.

Biniari, M.G. (2012). The emotional embeddedness of corporate entrepreneurship: The case of
envy. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36 (1), 141-170.

Biniari, M.G., Simmons, S.A., Monsen, E.W., & Moreno, M.I. (2015). The configuration
of corporate venturing logics: An integrated resource dependence institutional lens. Small
Business Economics, in press.

Birkinshaw, J. (1997), Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics

of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 207-229.

Borch, O.J., Huse, M., & Senneseth, K. (1999), Resource configuration, competitive
strategies, and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical examination of small firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24 (1), 49-70.

Brundin, E., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D.A. (2008), Managers’ emotional displays and
employees’ willingness to act entrepreneurially. Journal of Business Venturing, 23
(2), 221-243.

Burgelman, R. A. (1983a), A process model of internal corporate venturing in the major

diversified firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2), 223-244.

Burgelman, R.A. (1983b), Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management:

Insights from a process study. Management Science, 23, 1349-1363.

Burgelman, R.A. (1984), Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms.

California Management Review, 26 (3), 154-166.

Burns, P. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship: Building an entrepreneurial organization.

Palgrave Macmillan.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms
to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

30
Corbett, A. C. & Hmieleski, K. M. (2007), The conflicting cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 103–121.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't.
Random House.

Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P. (1999), Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of
competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23 (3), 47-64.

Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P. (2007), Strategic use of corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 31 (2), 183-207.

Covin, J.G., & Wales, W.J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36, (4), 677-702.

Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.

Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7-25.

Covin, J.G., Garrett, R.P., Gupta, J.P., Kuratko, D.F. & Shepherd, D.A. (2017). The
interdependence of planning and learning among internal corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, In Press.

Covin, J.G., Garrett, R.P., Kuratko, D.F., & Shepherd, D.A. (2015). Value proposition evolution
and the performance of internal corporate ventures.” Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (5), 749-
774.

Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on
selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial
firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), 43-51.

Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T., & McGee, J.E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to
strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 23(3), 85-102.

Desouza, K. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship: managing ideas within your organization. University

of Toronto Press.

Fisher, G., Kuratko, D.F., Bloodgood, J., & Hornsby, J.S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The
challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32
(1), 52-71.

Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. (1992), Middle management involvement in strategy and its
association with strategic type. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 53-168.

31
Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. (1994), Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle
management’s strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8 (4): 47-57.

Floyd, S.W. & Lane, P.J. (2000), Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role
conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25: 154-177.

Garrett, R.P. & Holland, D.V. (2015). Environmental effects on the cognitions of corporate and
independent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 369-381.

Goodale, J.C., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. & Covin, J.G. (2011). Operations management and
corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of
corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 29 (2), 116-127.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.

Guth, W.D. & Ginsberg A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management

Journal, 11 (Special Issue), 5-15.

Hanan, M. (1976), Venturing corporations — Think small to stay strong. Harvard

Business Review, 54 (3), 139-148.

Heller, T. (1999). Loosely coupled systems for corporate entrepreneurship: Imagining and
managing the innovation project/host organization interface. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 24(2), 25-31.

Hill, R. M. and Hlavacek, J.D. (1972), The venture team: A new concept in marketing
organizations. Journal of Marketing, 36, 44-50.

Hisrich, R., & Kearney, C. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship: how to create a thriving

entrepreneurial spirit throughout your company. McGraw Hill Professional.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (Special Issue),
479-491.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1999). Perception of internal factors for
corporate entrepreneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 24(2), 9-24.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. (2002), Middle managers’ perception of the
internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 49-63.

32
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., Shepherd, D.A., & Bott, J.P. (2009), Managers’ corporate
entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position Journal of Business
Venturing, 24 (3), 236-247.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002), Strategic alliances as a pathway to
competitive success. Journal of Management, 28: 413-446.

Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H., (2006a), A health audit for corporate
entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels – Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (1), 10-17.

Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H., (2006b), A health audit for corporate
entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels – Part 2. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (2), 21-30.

Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G., & Kuratko, D.F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship
strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 33, 19-46.

Ireland, R. D. & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: creating competitive advantage

through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50, 49-59.

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the
construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963-98.

Jennings, D.F. & Young, D.M. (1990), An empirical comparison between objective and
subjective measures of the product innovation domain of corporate entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15 (1), 53-66.

Johnson, D. (2012). Why Kodak failed – and how to avoid the same fate. CBS Money Watch,
January 24. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-kodak-failed-and-how-to-avoid-the-same-fate/
Accessed online: July 14, 2017.

Kang, J.H., Matusik, J.G., Kim, T.Y., & Phillips, J.M. (2016). Interactive effects of multiple
organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross-level
investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (6), 628-642.

Kanter, R.M. (1985), Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies.
Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 47-60.

Kearney, C. & Morris, M.H. (2015). Strategic renewal as a mediator of environmental effects on
public sector performance. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 425-445.

Keil, T. (2004). Building external corporate venturing capability. Journal of Management

Studies, 41 (5), 799-825.

Kellermanns, F.W. & Eddleston, K.A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A
family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30 (6), 809-830.

33
King, A.W., Fowler, S.W., & Zeithaml, C.P. (2001), Managing organizational competencies for
competitive advantage: The middle-management edge. Academy of Management Executive, 15
(2): 95-106.

Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle-level
managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 699-716.

Kuratko, D.F. & Audretsch, D.B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different
perspectives of an emerging concept, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33 (1), 1-17.

Kuratko, D.F., Covin, J.G., & Garrett, R.P., (2009). Corporate venturing: Insights from actual
performance, Business Horizons, 52 (5), 459-467.

Kuratko, D.F., Goldsby, M.G., & Hornsby, J.S. (2012). Innovation acceleration: Transforming
organizational thinking, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall).

Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Goldsby, M.G., (2004). Sustaining corporate
entrepreneurship: A proposed model of perceived implementation/outcome
comparisons at the organizational and individual levels. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5 (2), 77-89.

Kuratko, Donald F., Jeffrey S. Hornsby, James W. Bishop. (2005). Managers' corporate
entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship Management
Journal 1 (3), 275-291.

Kuratko, D.F. & Audretsch, D.B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship,
International Entrepreneurship & Management Journal, 9 (3), 323-335.

Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Covin, J.G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm’s internal environment for
corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57 (1), 37-47.

Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate

innovation is so difficult. Business Horizons, 57 (5), 647-655.

Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., & Hornsby, J.S. (1990), Developing an entrepreneurial
assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic
Management Journal, 11, 49-58.

Kuratko, D.F, Ireland, R.D. & Hornsby, J.S. (2001), The power of entrepreneurial
outcomes: Insights from Acordia, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 15 (4), 60-71.

Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H., & Veiga, J.F. (2008), Transformational leadership’s role
in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. Academy of
Management Journal, 51 (3), 557-576.

34
Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C., & Schneider, D.R. (2009). Understanding and measuring
autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33
(1), 47-69.

Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurship orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.

Lumpkin, G. T. , Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to

firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-452.

Lyngsie, J. & Foss, N.J. (2017). The more, the merrier? Women in top-management teams and
entrepreneurship in established firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (3), 487-505.

McGrath, R.G. & MacMillan, I.C. (1995). Discovery-driven planning. Harvard Business
Review,
73 (4): 4-12.

McNulty. E.J. (2017). The power of and. Strategy & Leaderships, March 27. Accessed online:
https://www.strategy-business.com/blog/The-Power-of-And?gko=197ab

Merrifield, D. B. (1993), Intrapreneurial corporate renewal. Journal of Business Venturing, 8:

383-389.

Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms:
Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1-25.

Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., Garrett, R.P., & Cassia, L. (2016). Corporate
venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 10 (4), 395-412.

Morris, M. H., Allen, J., Schindehutte, M., & Avila, R. (2006). Balanced management control
systems as a mechanism for achieving corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Managerial Issues,
468-493.

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Cornwall, J. R. (2013). Entrepreneurship programs and the
modern university. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Morris, M. H., & Jones, F. F. (1993). Human resource management practices and corporate
entrepreneurship: An empirical assessment from the USA. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 4(4), 873-896.

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G., (2011), Corporate entrepreneurship &
innovation, 3rd ed. (South-Western/Thomson Publishers).

35
Morris, M. H. and Sexton, D. L. (1996). The Concept of Entrepreneurial Intensity: Implications
for Company Performance, Journal of Business Research , 36 (1): 5-13.

Morris, M. H., van Vuuren, J., Cornwall, J. R., & Scheepers, R. (2009). Properties of balance: A
pendulum effect in corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 52(5), 429-440.

Nason, R.S., McKelvie, A., & Lumpkin, G.T. (2015). The role of organizational size in
the heterogeneous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 279-
304.

Peterson, R. & Berger D. (1972), Entrepreneurship in organizations. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 16, 97-106.

Pinchott, G. (1985), Intrapreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.

O'Bryan, M. (2013). Innovation: The most important and overused word in America, Wired,
November 15, 2013.

Rauch A, Wiklund J, Lumpkin GT, Frese M. 2009. Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, 761-787.

Russell, R.D. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: A cognitive

mapping approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 23(3), 65-84.

Sathe, V. (1989), Fostering entrepreneurship in large diversified firm. Organizational

Dynamics, 18 (1), 20-32.

Sathe, V. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: Top managers and new business creation.

Cambridge University Press.

Schollhammer, H. (1982), Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton &

K.Vesper (eds.). Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sharma, P. & Chrisman, J.J. (1999), Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in
the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23 (3),
11-28.

Shepherd, D.A., Covin, J.G., & Kuratko, D.F., (2009), Project failure from corporate
entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process, Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (6), 588-600.

Shepherd, D.A. & Kuratko, D.F., (2009), The death of an innovative project: How grief recovery
enhances learning, Business Horizons, 52 (5), 451-458.

Sine, Wesley D., and Robert J. David. "Environmental jolts, institutional change, and the
creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power industry." Research Policy 32,
no. 2 (2003): 185-207.

36
Smith, K.G. & Di Gregorio, D. (2002). Bisociation, discovery and the role of entrepreneurial
action. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (eds.). Strategic
Entrepreneurship: Creating a New Mindset. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 130-150.

Stopford, J.M. & Baden-Fuller, C.W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Management Journal, 15, 521-536.

Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The
moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal,
51(1), 97-111.

Stevenson, H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review,
63(2): 85-94.

Sykes, H.B. & Block, Z. (1989). Corporate venturing obstacles: Sources and solutions. Journal
of Business Venturing, 4, 159-167.

Titus, V.K., Jr., House, J.M., and Covin, J.G. (2017). The influence of exploration on external
corporate venturing activity. Journal of Management, (In Press).

Vanhaverbeke, W. & Peeters, N. (2005). Embracing innovation as strategy: Corporate

venturing, competence building, and corporate strategy making, Creativity and
Innovation Management, 14 (3), 246-257.

Wadhwa, A., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2016). Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm
innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (1), 95-112.

Weber, C., Bauke, B., & Raibulet, V. (2016). An empirical test of the relational view in the
context of corporate venture capital. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10 (3), 274-299.

Zahra, S.A. (1991), Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An

exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259-286.

Zahra, S.A., Kuratko, D.F., & Jennings, D.F. (1999). Entrepreneurship and the acquisition of
dynamic organizational capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23 (3), 5-10.

37