The third major section addresses process issues associated with CE. In it, we buildon the authors' previous work on the concept of "entrepreneurial orientation" (Lumpkin& Dess, 1996). An underlying theme is our position that much of the normative literatureon entrepreneurial processes is overly simplistic and may be counterproductive to mana-gerial practice. We suggest how an appreciation of the multidimensionality and inde-pendence of the subdimensions of an "entrepreneurial orientation" (e.g., risk taking,proactiveness, innovativeness) can enhance normative and descriptive theory building.We draw on examples from John Deere & Company and ADP.In developing our ideas, we have adopted Murray Davis's guidance from histhought-provoking article
(Davis, 1971) as our intellectual compass(summarized in Rosenzweig, 1980). That is, we have tried to pose research questions andpropositions that we believe "[deny] some aspect of the assumption ground of (our)audience ... it tells them some truth they already knew was wrong" (Davis
p. 329).We have also attempted to avoid the three traps that Davis claims give rise to uninter-esting propositions:
It affirms some aspect of their assumption-ground. . . . The proposition is sayingto its audience: "What seems to be the ca.se is in fact the case." "What you alwaysthought was true is really true. . . ." The audience's response to propositions ofthis type will be: "That's obvious!"
It does not speak to any aspect of their assumption-ground at all. . . . The propo-sition is saying to its audience: "What is really true has no connection with whatyou always thought was true. . . ." The audience's response to propositions of thistype will be: "That's irrelevant!"
It denies their whole assumption-ground.... The proposition is saying to itsaudience: "Everything you always thought was true is really false. . . ." Theaudience's response to propositions of this type will be: 'That's absurd!"
in the following sections, we have tried to raise some "interesting" ideas. (And, onthe downside, we sincerely hope that we have not been overly "obvious," "irrelevant,"or "absurd"!) We will gauge our overall success by the extent to which we are able toencourage critique, debate, and the further exchange and development of ideas.One caveat: We believe that the ideas in this paper are largely "context-free." That
we feel they are relevant for the entrepreneurial processes of strategic renewal or newventure development within existing corporations, but also in strategic alliances betweenfirms and within smaller firms including, in many cases, start-ups. Thus, in manyinstances, the modifier in the term "corporate entrepreneurship" has been omitted.
NEW STRATEGIC COMBINATIONS EOR SUCCESSFULCORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Does corporate entrepreneurship (CE) require new approaches to strategy or will"traditional" methods of competitive positioning, resource deployment, and industryadaptation still be effective? For example, are cost-based approaches useful to corporateentrepreneurs? Strategies that emphasize innovation and new product introductions aregenerally associated with an entrepreneurial approach to competitive advantage whereasstrategies based on cost control and incremental process improvements tend to be in thedomain of established firms seeking to sustain advantage by erecting scale economybarriers. Can firms pursuing CB successfully use low-cost strategies as well as differ-entiation strategies? In this section, we will consider the strategic implications of cor-porate entrepreneurship. We will first revisit Porter's (1980) framework in terms of its