You are on page 1of 21

A COMPETENCY-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR PROMOTING CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP

J A M E S C . H AY T O N A N D D O N N A J . K E L L E Y
Corporate entrepreneurship, the discovery and pursuit of new opportunities through innovation and venturing, is an important source of competitive advantage. Corporate entrepreneurship involves a diverse set of activities such as innovation in products and processes; the development of internal and external corporate ventures; and the development of new business models, which require an array of roles, behaviors, and individual competencies. In this article, we define individual competencies and distinguish them from other individual difference constructs. We argue that given the unique requirements of corporate entrepreneurship, a competency-based approach to assessing organizational human capital needs is superior to more traditional job-analytic methods. Drawing on existing literature, we outline a competency framework for supporting corporate entrepreneurship and infer the underlying, measurable knowledge, skills, and abilities that contribute to these competencies. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this framework for the staffing, training and development, and performance-appraisal practices of firms seeking to promote corporate entrepreneurship. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

T

here is a growing consensus in the literature that established firms need to nurture entrepreneurship throughout their operations in order to compete successfully in changing environments (Sathe, 2003). Corporate entrepreneurship is a set of firmwide activities that centers on the discovery and pursuit of new opportunities through innovation, new business creation, or the introduction of new business models. Successful corporate entre-

preneurship involves simultaneous attention to both innovation and exploitation (e.g., Zahra, 1996) and therefore involves an array of activities and processes. These innovations renew companies, enhance their competitive advantage, spur growth, create new employment opportunities, and generate wealth. Corporate entrepreneurship requires the ongoing acquisition and development of new resources and new ways of reconfiguring resources, enabling the firm to pursue

Correspondence to: James C. Hayton, Bocconi University–IOSI, Viale Isonzo, 23, 20135 Milano, Italy, Phone: +39 5836 2628, Fax: +39 5836 2634, E-mail: James.Hayton@unibocconi.it
Human Resource Management, Fall 2006, Vol. 45, No. 3, Pp. 407–427 © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20118

408

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2006

new business opportunities (Zahra, Nielsen, & Bogner, 1999).1 Firms may engage in internal innovation in order to introduce new products or services, or to enter new markets; they may rejuvenate themselves by innovating and altering internal processes, structures, or capabilities; they may identify and adapt new ways of competing in existing markets; or they may proactively create entirely new product mar…our perspective is kets that other companies have not recognized or actively exthat even when ploited (Covin & Miles, 1999). Companies vary significantly in organizations their ability to foster entrepreneurattempt to create ship and exploit new opportunities. Empirical research has identiformal structures or fied a variety of sources of this systems to facilitate difference across firms: for example, the firm’s external environcorporate ment (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miller, 1983); organizational culentrepreneurship, ture (Zahra, 1991); and structure (Miller, 1983). the role of This article is founded on the assumption that the competenindividuals remains cies of individual employees, speparamount cific to the pursuit of corporate entrepreneurship, are fundamental to companies’ ability to nurture and sustain innovation and new venture creation. There is empirical evidence to support the influence of human capital characteristics, of which individual competencies are one class, on entrepreneurship at both the individual level (e.g., Baum & Locke, 2004; Chandler & Hanks, 1998) and the organizational level (e.g., Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Chandler, Honig, & Wiklund, 2005). At the level of the individual entrepreneur, researchers have examined individual characteristics associated with identification of entrepreneurial opportunities and the willingness to start a new venture (e.g., McClelland, 1961). For example, Markman, Baron, and Balkin (2005) identify self-efficacy and perseverance as important correlates of entrepreneurship. Others have identified cognitive biases such as an inflated illusion of control (Simon, Houghton, & Aquino, 2000) and overconfidence (Busenitz & Barney,

1997) as being associated with entrepreneurship at the individual. Some of these individual characteristics, such as traits of optimism and self-efficacy, and social skills (Baron, 1998, 2000; Baron & Markman, 2000) may translate to the context of corporate entrepreneurship. When it comes to examining the role of human capital in promoting corporate entrepreneurship, however, most research has focused on quantity rather than quality. That is, most frequently the research examining human capital in the context of corporate entrepreneurship has looked at the number of qualifications (e.g., first and graduate degrees; Hayton, 2005a), the diversity of qualifications and experience (e.g., Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Hayton, 2005a), the productivity of key research personnel (e.g., Deeds, DeCarolis, & Coombs, 1998), and the education and experience of top management teams (e.g., Chandler et al., 2005). A major gap in the current literature on the connection between human capital and corporate entrepreneurship is a definition of the characteristics of desirable human capital that goes beyond “a deep and diverse set of education and experience,” which is largely the conclusion of existing research (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Chandler et al., 2005; Deeds et al., 1998; Hayton, 2005a). We invoke the concept of individual competencies specific to corporate entrepreneurship as an aspect of human capital that can provide a richer description of these human capital needs. We acknowledge that in addition to an organization’s resources, human or otherwise, dynamic and hostile external environments (Zahra, 1996) and internal organizational structure and culture (e.g., Miller, 1983) are significant influences of the level of corporate entrepreneurship. However, our perspective is that even when organizations attempt to create formal structures or systems to facilitate corporate entrepreneurship, the role of individuals remains paramount (Arrow, 1962). Corporate entrepreneurship involves organizational learning (e.g., Zahra et al., 1999), an organizational process that is reHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

g. 1987). The specific behaviors that are Human Resource Management DOI: 10. 2003. Itami. That is.. The use of competencies enables firms to more parsimoniously describe complex sets of desired individual characteristics and performance criteria. 1999. such a framework has benefits for HR practice that we will identify in this article. sets of desired 1983). or activity (e. In addition to knowledge. and capturing entrepreneurial opportunities.. Therefore. a person may or may not possess ”sufficient amounts” of a given competency (i.. Hitt. occupation (e. We define individual competencies such as underlying individual characteristics involving specific combinations of knowledge. Individual Competence A firm’s intellectual capital is a key. Who a person “is” reflects their individual traits and motives (Spencer & Spencer. boundary spanner. civil engineer). Baum & Locke. and constraints. and performance even several important social roles criteria. 1999). Rothwell et al.. the concept of competence may be defined as ”what a person is.g.g. knows. we highlight the four competencies that.. When defined as underlying characteristics of people. evaluate. 2001). 1980.. and the “true” level of a specific competence is only indicated by observable behaviors in the relevant performance domain (e. . Although prior research has identified a number of individual The use of characteristics of entrepreneurs (e.” but only indicators of this underlying characteristic of the person.g. competence is a latent characteristic... Ulrich.g. 2005a) to corporate entrepreneurship. 2005. superior performance in a job or situation. Shane. Hayton. while residing in individuals. support the organizational goal of recognizing. Individ- . To date. 2004. 1993). p.. 9) define competency as “an underlying characteristic of an individual that is causally related to . 1996). source of the knowledge flows required to promote corporate entrepreneurship (Chandler et al.g.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 409 liant upon individual contributions (DeNisi. parenting).g. 2005). she is a very effective leader. and capture entrepreneurial opportunities. 2000). 2005).” Others have suggested that competency is “who an individual is and what an individual knows and does” (Brockbank.. and personality characteristics in a smaller set of key competencies. Parsimony is achieved as a result of the aggregation of a larger set of knowledge.g. & Ulrich. in the process (e.. he is a very poor boundary spanner). 2005). Implicit in the concept of competence is a socially and situationally defined performance criterion (Schippmann et al. Thus. In this article. Spencer and Spencer (1993. p.. Miller.. and personality characteristics that are described in aggregate behavioral terms such as team player. skills.. like personality. environmental characterisindividual tics (e. given a specific context. employees in firms seeking to promote corporate entrepreneurship need specific individual competencies in order to integrate existing and new knowledge and recognize. evaluating. A common goal is to identify links between these desirable individual characteristics and firm strategic drivers and/or goals (e.. 1974. Zahra.. competencies incorporate skills and personality characteristics (McEvoy et al. 1994). Markcompetencies man et al. & Beatty. Zahra et al. skills. competencies themselves can only be inferred from observable behaviors. Becker. leadership). although redescribe complex search has identified organizational characteristics (e.g. and the general importance of human characteristics and capital (e. & Jackson. or simply leader. That is. Huselid. Maidique. opportunities. and does that is causally related to superior performance” (McEvoy et al..1002/hrm observed are not themselves “competencies. and rich. corporate entrepreneurs (sometimes referred to as enables firms to intrapreneurs) face distinct organizational and external environmore ments leading to very different parsimoniously challenges. the specific individual-level competencies of corporate entrepreneurs have not been clearly described in a coherent and complete framework. 111). In addition to filling a gap in our conceptual understanding of the association between human resources and corporate entrepreneurship.e. .

In the case of corporate entrepreneurship competencies. Effective role behavior implies competence to perform that role.1002/hrm . skills. Two features further distinguish competencies from their component elements (knowledge. the term does not add anything unique. competent behavior implies the possession of specific examples of all three elements (e... a highly competent leader). possession of a specific competence (i. Fall 2006 ual competencies involve the knowledge required to achieve a given outcome.g. First. as characteristics.).. we propose that situationally specific individual competenspecifically cies involve identifiable sets or combinations of individual charknowledge. There is a conceptual congruence between the notion of the behavioral indicators of competence and that of social role behaviors.). Sec- ond. due to the unique organizational requirements of corporate entrepreneurship (e. and idea championing.. situationally specific There has been considerable confusion in the literature regardindividual ing the meaning and definition competencies of competence at the individual level. employee and organizational flexibility. a low knowledge of classroom strategies can be compensated for by strong communication skills).. and the personality characteristics required to motivate the implementation of the knowledge and skills to achieving a desired outcome. we address the general benefits of a competency approach and the specific benefits of this approach with respect to the promotion of corporate entrepreneurship. Roles provide the context and the criteria for assessing whether behaviors meet expectations.g. skills. A competencybased approach to understanding and describing an organization’s human capital Human Resource Management DOI: 10. are focused on specific activities. the definition of performance itself is specific to a particular situation and outcome. Competencies. The label given to a specific competency reflects the particular outcome or process involved (e. and a motivation to influence others). or role (e. fore. we would describe a person as incompetent with respect to a given activity. and personality characteristics. While competence is typically considered to be synonymous with satisfactory or superior performance (Schippmann et al. the skills to implement that knowledge. Advantages of a Competency-Based Approach We propose that. these are indicated by effective observable behaviors in known corporate entrepreneurial roles such as opportunity identification. and abilities). Therecharacteristics. boundary-spanning com…we propose that petence. Defined of individual loosely in this way. skills. Evaluation requires the observation of a set of behaviors and comparison with expectations. processes. 2000). Roles refer to expected sets of behaviors that are socially defined. it is possible that the elements are compensatory to some extent (i. Here we take the view that involve identifiable it is not useful to define compesets or combinations tence as only knowledge. etc. First. teaching competence. leadership competence. and personality characteristics.g. or only personality. teaching competence requires knowledge of classroom strategies..g. process.. leadership.e. and are describable in terms of both the quality and quantity of those behaviors (Ilgen & Hollenbeck.e. Specific competencies are indicated by effective observable behaviors in the context of a role. environmental responsiveness. a competency-based approach is superior to more traditional jobanalysis methods such as task analysis and worker or behavior analysis. teamwork. specifically knowland personality edge.410 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. At the other end of the continuum. skills. 1991). communications skills. and a high emphasis on employee discretionary contributions). The term as defined here represents a continuum of competence along which an individual may be placed. This premise forms the basis for the competence framework that we present in this article. or only skill. aggregates of knowledge. acteristics. teaching. At the low end. etc. or outcomes (i. leadership) implies superior performance in that activity. knowledge brokering.e..

A number of benefits are derived from the aggregate term of competence. 2000). 2000). in terms of behavioral/technological specificity (Harvey.and worker-oriented job analysis.. while task analysis is highly specific... skills. the outcomes of both forms of job analysis have in common the identification and description of the characteristics of effective job incumbents in terms of a list of knowledge. knowledge. worker-based approaches (e. training. Second. context. The effective incumbents (or desired characteristics) are described in broader terms—competencies—that themselves represent aggregates of individual knowledge. Schippmann et al. First. Ledford. the analyst(s) must infer the necessary characteristics of the ideal job incumbent. The task-based approach to job analysis identifies the tasks. and performance appraisal.. Commonly used worker-oriented methods of analysis provide a generic and quantifiable description of the job in terms of abstract worker behaviors rather than specific tasks (Harvey. 1991). experience. skills. the representing both practitioners and academics. Schippmann et al. and occasionally traits. 1991. In contrast to the task-based approach. and more well-established. duties. and focus on training and development rather than driving selection decisions (Schippmann et al. Typically.…while traditional ter match in terms of person-orforms of job ganization fit than more traditional models (Bowen. Strategic flexibility and adaptability are important el- . qualifications.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 411 (and human capital requirements) can serve as either an alternative or a supplement to the more typical. & analysis are always Nathan. models of job analysis and person specification. Using a panel of expert indus. the breadth and flexibility built into this approach are consistent with the need for strategic flexibility (Sanchez. particularly for organizations facing dynamic environments (e. First. Therefore. compensation. and personality characteristics. competency-based (2000) identify a number of dimensions that differentiate a comapproach is more petency approach from work. Once the job has been described in terms of its task elements.based in a given job trial-organizational psychologists.g. skills. and personality characteristics provide useful summaries for a potentially large and diverse set of characteristics. They broadly linked to the report that competency modeling organizational approaches are more closely linked to the strategic goals of the context. Regardless of method. facilitating a broad application of the same model throughout an organization. are more likely to include values and personality orientations. focus on core competencies. Harvey. 1991). while traditional forms of job analysis are always based in a given job context. competencies as aggregates of specific knowledge. and from this both a job description and person specification are derived through inference. 1995). 1991). the Fleishman Job Analysis System) emphasize the generic work behaviors required rather than the tasks and technologies involved. A competency-based approach has one key feature that fundamentally differentiates it from traditional methods of analyzing human capital requirements of organizations.g. There are several advantages to a competency-based approach to assessing human capital needs that are specific to the promotion of corporate entrepreneurship.. Bowen et al. 1991). 1994.1002/hrm ately specific. worker analysis is moderHuman Resource Management DOI: 10. Lawler. organization. typically in terms of credentials.. and differences rather than commonalities across jobs are emphasized (e. and responsibilities of a given job. the results of task-oriented job-analytic tools are highly specific to a given job. and a competency approach is the least specific. skills. emphasize organizational fit rather than job fit. the competency-based approach is more broadly linked to the organizational context. are less focused on jobspecific technical skills.g. A third advantage of the competency approach is that it can be expected to result in a bet. This information serves as an input into a multitude of HR decisions including staffing. and abilities. abilities.

Employees develop competencies through education and training. it is possible to identify a set of central roles that are performed by individuals or teams of individuals in the process of corporate entrepreneurship. and when learning vicariously by observing others’ trials and errors. To date. by sharing experiences with others. 1980. by occupants akin to volunteers. allowing selfmanagement and individual discretion increases the likelihood of consistency across social and technical systems (Emery & Trist. Block & MacMillan. Supportive of this.g. adapt. combines formal education with tacit knowledge acquired through experience in the industry and unique personal experience outside and within an organization. Fall 2006 ements of corporate entrepreneurship activity (e. Burgelman & Sayles. at the individual level. 2003). addition. In learning by doing. Von Hippel. Entrepreneurs will need to access and integrate different sources of knowledge from across the organization (Galbraith. They employ their knowledge as they perform and master various tasks. 2000) and relying more heavily on judgment and adaptation. 1986). It is therefore useful to identify the set of competencies required to support this strategic goal. 1977). this literature Human Resource Management DOI: 10. with role and training. therefore. competencies tend to be broadly defined and therefore more responsive to changes in organizational conditions. it is not possible vicariously by to capture the human capital requirements of corporate entrepreobserving others’ neurship in a prespecified list of trials and errors. developing unique competencies.412 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Zaheer. and personality characteristics to promote. Early research on sociotechnical systems reveals how the reduction in individual autonomy leads to a breakdown in coordination that was previously achieved through mutual adjustment (Emery & Trist. Competence building. Shane.g. At the level of the workgroup. formal assignment of such sharing experiences responsibilities may have negative consequences upon motivawith others.g.g. However. & McEvily.. Research into the effects of trust and the building of social capital provides evidence that coordination is strengthened when individuals are perceived to be making discretionary contributions (rather than following procedure) by their counterparts (Perrone. Naffziger.1002/hrm . tasks (Lawler. Kanter. Tushman & Nadler. 1989. innovation or knowledge brokering) in a variety of situations is the focus of the competencybased approach. & Montagno. Kuratko. Second. We identify these roles in our literature review in the next section. Therefore. Third. the inherently open-ended nature of competency frameworks increases the discretionary and self-managing nature of work.. 1994). while tion (e. 1993). It is consistent because corporate entrepreneurship is less reliant on specific processes with universal application and more reliant on flexible processes. the capability to perform well (competently) a range of equivalent behaviors (e. rather. the specific task-level content of these roles is hard to and when learning identify in advance (Kanter. A competency approach is consistent with processes requiring knowledge sharing and collaborative behaviors underlying corporate entrepreneurship (e. 1960).. think creatively. Employees develop increasing the likelihood of intrinsic motivation (Hackman & competencies Oldham. the task variety and autonomy that result from designing work around competencies provides support for more enriched and satisfying work.g. In fact. and take risks. persist. skills. Prior literature provides a great deal of assistance in identification of key corporate entrepreneurial roles (e. 1982. 1993. Hornsby. while learning by doing.. 1976). 1960). 1985). 1994). This approach promotes rather than constrains individual discretion. Schon. The challenge for managers in organizations seeking to promote corporate entrepreneurship lies in selecting and developing employees with the appropriate knowledge. allowing for the building of situation-specific knowledge (Eisenhardt & Martin. Involvement in corporate entrepreneurship often through education emerges spontaneously. Maidique. 1986). This open-ended nature occurs because precise task behaviors are not specified. 1963..

. 1996. 1994). 1998. 1980). 1993. Howell & Higgins. Four Entrepreneurial Competencies Earlier. and personality elements for each competency in this model. 1983. identification of the key roles required to support corporate entrepreneurship will suggest the sets of desirable behaviors. 1980. 1980). As firms increase in size. 1977) or compensated on specific roles (Sykes. it is less likely a single individual would play all these different roles. social roles are expected sets of behaviors that are socially defined and may be described in terms of quality and quantity of those behaviors (Ilgen & Hollenbeck. 1963. and the knowledge broker (Hargadon. Key roles identified in the literature include: the technical innovator (Block & MacMillan. 2002. Maidique. 2000). 1998. Tushman & Nadler. brokering. Several important roles have been associated with the success of corporate entrepreneurship. skills. Schon. Shane. the executive champion or sponsor (Maidique. and personality elements for each. championing. We next develop a competency framework that outlines the key competencies and the knowledge. A role represents a particular domain within which the effectiveness of behaviors will be assessed. however. Katz & Tushman. and a single individual may play more than one—or all—of these roles. occupation. particularly in smaller organizations. Hargadon & Sutton. Maidique. 1992).g. Therefore. These roles overlap. complex. Rothwell et al. We propose that all these roles need to be performed by one or more individuals in order for corporate entrepreneurship to occur (Block & MacMillan. Rothwell et al. Shane. 1992. 1980). 2000.g. Von Hippel. or activity. and would therefore need competence in all areas (Maidique.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 413 on corporate entrepreneurship has not been well integrated with the literature on human resource management (Hayton. 1991). Schon. Maidique. These ideas lead to the following propositions: Proposition 1a: Corporate entrepreneurship will be promoted by the simultaneous presence of competence in the four roles of innovating. 1979. and sponsoring—and identify critical underlying knowledge. the corporate entrepreneurship competencies will become dispersed vertically and horizontally across individual employees and functions. Similarly. Block & MacMillan. skill.. role occupants may or may not be formally assigned (e. This serves as a useful first step in determining the requisite competencies. 2002. and sponsoring. Hargadon & Sutton. Burgelman. we proposed that the behavioral indicators of underlying competencies are consistent with the concept of successful role behaviors. Individuals may also assume different roles as needed. Proposition 1b: In small firms. 1963. and personality characteristics that underlie them. 1986). 1980. Further. Shane & Venkataraman.1002/hrm We next identify and discuss the four competencies specific to corporate entrepreneurship—innovating. To be competent means to be able to behave effectively in a particular performance domain. skill. the innovation champion (e. It is important to note that to date there has not been a single model or framework that has drawn these roles together with a view to identifying the . Hargadon. 1974. By linking the concept of competencies with the corporate entrepreneurial roles. and performance appraisal in firms seeking to promote corporate entrepreneurship. As an organization grows large and Human Resource Management DOI: 10. we have thoroughly examined the descriptions of the roles and their antecedents (e. the four competencies may be colocated within a single individual. Maidique. Garud & Van de Ven. development.. 1993. championing.g. We follow this with a discussion of how a competency framework such as this can influence HR practices in staffing. 1974). To be competent means to be able to behave effectively in a particular performance domain. 2005b). or activity.. brokering. 1994. occupation. it is possible to make both theoretical propositions and practical recommendations. 1993. 1980. In order to identify the underlying knowledge. 1990..

. Skills. 1974.. Hoang & Antoncic.414 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. 1977. skills. 1985.. there was a direct. 2000.g. skill. 2003. Taggar. and personality characteristics to include in the framework. 1995. 2000. 2002). between openness. Fall 2006 necessary human capital characteristics. Innovating The innovating role involves opportunity recognition. Burt. 1990. and human resource management literatures to find evidence of individual difference variables that are supportive of the relevant behaviors (e. defined as having the creative insight about particular knowledge and in- TABLE I Matrixing Entrepreneurial Competencies with Underlying Knowledge. our contribution is to piece together many diverse literatures in order to more completely describe the nature of the competencies and link these with empirically described behaviors required for corporate entrepreneurship to occur. Amabile. Kostova & Roth. between analogic reasoning and brokering: see Hargadon. 1998. 2004. Table I summarizes the links between specific underlying knowledge. 2002). psychology. Bass. Second. Nochur & Allen. conscientiousness. 2003. Howell & Higgins. Rogers & Shoemaker. Baum & Locke. creativity and innovation: see Taggar. Rothwell et al. We then searched the relevant management.g.. Our review revealed the specific behaviors involved for each competency. and Personality Characteristics Innovating Brokering Championing Sponsoring Knowledge Specialized core Multidisciplinary Organizational Skills Cognitive ability Creativity Analogic reasoning Influencing Transformational leadership Emotional intelligence Networking Personality Conscientiousness Openness to experience Confidence Credibility Risk tolerance Tenacity Passion x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Human Resource Management DOI: 10. or easily inferred. link between the underlying characteristic and competence mentioned in the literature and for which there was some empirical support (e. 1983. 1992. Goleman. 1989. we have only emphasized connections that we consider to be necessary components of competence in a given role. House. Therefore. We used two criteria in judging which knowledge.1002/hrm . Bantel & Jackson. 1992. Leifer et al. First. and personality components and each of the four corporate entrepreneurship competencies. 1971.

or The innovator role technological opportunities and combine new or existing rerequires an ability sources in unique and creative ways. 1985). 1980). can be expected to provide the foundation for innovative competence.. Whitney. Several individual antecedents to creativity have been identified. & Amabile. and practical experience— are more likely to be innovative. Amabile (1983. 1989). These in unique and two personality characteristics are contributing factors to indicreative ways. Bantel & Jackson. organizational. cognitive ability.g. training. Empirical research supports the proposition that individual characteristics such as education. intelligence. The innovator should therefore be alert and ready to recognize opportunities. we view innovative competence as a key element in the network of entrepreneurial roles (Maidique. possible solutions. 2002). Amabile. Building on this literature. and skillfulness with respect to creativity-relevant processes such as goal setting and response to challenges (Ruscio.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 415 formation combinations and what they can mean for users—and the company seeking to serve these customers. the innovator views and values knowledge as a resource to be deployed (Kirzner. creativity. Casson (1982) describes this role in terms of a person who sees herself as having superior judgment. While combinations of knowledge provide the underlying foundation of an opportunity. in addition to general cognitive ability (Taggar. 2000). individuals who have more resources to draw upon—in the form of cognitive ability. while openness to new combine new or experience is associated with the willingness to seek new knowl. cognitive ability. and creativity (through conscientiousness and openness to new experience). formulation. 2002). The innovator role requires an ability to identify new market.existing resources edge from diverse sources. 1971) and creativity (e. respectively (Taggar. and problem solving (e. Conscientechnological tiousness is associated with inopportunities and trinsic motivation and persistence. and the combination of information. education. degree of domain-specific knowledge. exploration. 1985). who highlights the characteristic of entrepreneurial alertness. A broad cognitive base increases the range of alternative problem definitions.. Innovating frequently requires defining an innovation in technical terms (Maidique.g. and openness to new experience. and cognitive style are associated with receptivity to innovative ideas (e. Brokering A second key competence in promoting corporate entrepreneurship is brokering. 1980) and thus demands a high degree of specialized knowledge—the specific nature of which depends on the particular business and industry. vidual creativity that. a high degree of intrinsic motivation. Rogers & Shoemaker. 1998).g. This is consistent with Kirzner (1973. Greater cognitive resources aid in problem identification. In addition. transferring this knowledge and com- .. defined as the ability to respond to gaps or problems left by shifts in the economic environment.1002/hrm personality characteristics: conscientiousness and openness to new experiences. The primary role of the broker is to access new sources of information and knowledge. or conscientiousness. Proposition 2: Innovative competence is a function of domain-specific knowledge. 1996) suggests that creativity itself involves domain-relevant skills and knowledge. organizational. when combined with high levels of cognitive ability and domain-specific knowledge. highlighting two Human Resource Management DOI: 10. 1983). through which she is able to see opportunities when others don’t. The mediating processes through which conscientiousness and openness to new experiences influence creativity include increasing intrinsic motivation and the promotion of divergent and generative thinking. Opportunities often arise as an individual works in a particular domain (Shane. Competence in this role to identify new will be positively related to the market.

Breakthrough ideas may arise skills and the ability from basic research exploring new science and technology. ing and new. Analogical reasoning is a key skill in scientific and technological discovery (Hargadon. 1998. curiosity. personal confidence. teams typically reach outside the project and engage in a mix of communications with various individuals and groups within the organization (Ancona & Caldwell. analogical reasoning capabilities contribute to the ability to link knowledge from one domain to a problem to be solved in a distinct domain. This is particularly important for projects demanding a greater breadth of knowledge and involving highly complex tasks (Katz & Tushman 1979). Fall 2006 bining different sources. 2000).g. often with a high degree of unfamiliarity (Galbraith. Second. In project-based work. it is unlikely an individual will possess all the knowledge needed for the complexities of this process (Tushman & Nadler. Innovation and new venture development reknowledge needed quires the knowledge broker to for the complexities access and combine diverse sources of knowledge. and the ability to build social capital necessary for both acquiring and disseminating new ideas (e. and intrinsic motivation (passion) stimulate the search for new knowledge that may serve to solve future problems (Hargadon & Sutton. where the brokering role organization may serves to deliver new information to the innovator and to hire and develop draw information for use elsepeople with diverse where in the broker’s network. and the organization should look to those already known to be gatekeepers and leverage their strengths. netHuman Resource Management DOI: 10. It is therefore advantageous to exchange knowledge and information among multiple contributors. who collectively provide a range of experiences and deep knowledge (Tushman & Nadler. brokering competence requires confidence and credibility. 1986). 2002. Kanter.1002/hrm . there is a dynamic relationship between brokering and innovative compeEven though an tence. Kostova & Roth. Four behaviors are associated with brokering competence: exploration of diverse knowledge domains. Gatekeeping involves bringing outside information in or integrating information from various internal sources. Even though an organization may hire and develop people with diverse skills and the ability to innovate. Brokering is consistent with the gatekeeping role identified in the innovation literature. 1989. 1982.416 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. 1986). both existing and new. and disseminate information (Tushman & Nadler. therefore. 1986). External gatekeepers acquire. it is They may emerge from previous technology development and imunlikely an plementation efforts (Schon. 2002). New opportunities often arise out of this process from linking diverse perspectives and even contradictory ideas. translate. Transforming an idea into a viable business requires several skills that go beyond the expertise of one person (Day. both existof this process. Proposition 3: Brokering competence is the result of a combination of analogical reasoning skills. credibility.. learning from these multiple knowledge domains. Internal gatekeepers act as a go-between to coordinate the efforts of the project team and the operating units they depend on. and implementing ideas (Hargadon. 2000). First. Nochur and Allen (1992) add that communication networks are formed and cultivated over time. 1986). Several individual characteristics can enhance effective brokering competence (Table I). This is similar to the process described more specifically as knowledge brokering (Hargadon. 2003). 1994). 1998). Tushman & Nadler. linking knowledge from diverse domains to solve novel problems. They keep abreast of external technical and market developments and link this information to those within the organization. 2002. 1992). creativity. Third. 1986). to innovate. Hargadon & Sutton. 1967). Brokers identify organizational members with needed knowledge and gain timely access to that knowledge (Tushman & Nadler. They may also result from individual will combinations of previously unrepossess all the lated technologies. Hargadon.

In the United States.. renegades. 2000). & Fetter. the outcome is the same. But regardless of the means. 1963. They can leverage the trust they have built in their relationships with others and their high credibility in the organization (Hoang & Antoncic. Champions identify with the project.. 1996). Therefore.g. Maidique.. p. 1990.. 2000). acceptance of group goals. To a certain extent. pioning. 1994). adherence to organizational rules and procedures and a rational style are preferred. Howell and organizational Higgins (1990) observe that mavericks.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 417 working skills. Vecchio. 2003) to compel others to participate in their projects (Burt. show extraordinary confidence in themselves and their mission. 2003). For example. and buffers who bypass organizational procedures in order to garner support (Shane & Venkataraman. Champions “inspire and enthuse others with their vision of the potential of an innovation . Transformational leadership skills (e. 1995. . Champions rely on informal network relationships (Howell & Higgins. 1995) to be positively associated with chamto garner support. 2000. and ers. 1990). . Shane & Venkataraman. gain the commitment of others to support the innovation” (Howell & Higgins. Shane. Bass. 2003). and not only do they take responsibility for its success (Schon. On the other hand. and those who recognize their value and take responsibility for moving it forward (Leifer et al. there is often a distinction between the inventors or discovers of opportunities. transformational leadership . . We can therefore assume this role can be played by an individual who is not the innovator or broker (e. fostering In the United States. 1980.g. 1983). where champions who appeal to group norms are preferred (Shane. 1980) and consider it a distinct competence. Therefore. This is in contrast to collectivist Human Resource Management DOI: 10. 1996). championing can include providing the underlying creative insight about an innovation’s potential (Day. 32). Championing A third competence in promoting corporate entrepreneurship is championing. the champion ensures there is support for the project. Particularly when innovation projects are highly risky and costly. Transformational leadership skills include articulating a vision. Moorman. and there is a providing individualized support and intellectual stimulation preference for (Podsakoff. . The specific observable behaviors needed for successful championing are often culturally bound (e. descriptions of these behaviors should be contextspecific. championing involves a willingness and ability to influence othrenegades. 1985. Competence in championing also requires an ability to buffers who bypass negotiate a complex sociopolitiorganizational cal environment.. represent a “catalyst for increased sponsorship or impetus” behind an innovation (Maidique. we can expect emotional intelliprocedures in order gence (Goleman. They create a vision around an opportunity and ensure continuance of the project—seeing it through to commercialization (Leifer et al.g. House. 1967). 1994). 320). championing overlaps the other three competencies. When uncertainty avoidance dominates national cultures. 1990). 1992). p. a champion’s competence therefore includes social or emotional intelligence. 1990. Several individual characteristics support competent championing (Table I). 1977) are important and consistent with competence in championing (Howell & Higgins. curiosity. 1994).1002/hrm cultures. Champions. creativity and intrinsic motivation. champions will use their power and authority to get their projects supported (Day. and . 1992. Hoang & Antoncic. there is a preference for organizational mavericks. in our model. but success is often dependent on champions (Burgelman. MacKenzie. In a role dominated by the creation and maintenance of diverse formal and informal organizational ties. Those with broad experience and long tenure within an organization will have a greater opportunity to form expansive informal networks through which they can exercise the necessary influence (Nochur & Allen.

and trustworthiness. as Table 1 indicates. While a champion identifies and selects projects deserving support. credibility.418 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. 2004). Sponsors help entrepreneurs gain access to the resources they need for their ventures (Day. 1986). Sponsoring A fourth competence important for promoting corporate entrepreneurship is sponsoring. They are typically higher up in the organizational hierarchy. A willingness to accept risk can also enhance the sponsorship competence. credibility. 1992. Persistence and passion increase tenacity in the pursuit of highly uncertain and resource-consuming activities. 1981. and can better locate specific resources (Lin. They ensure there champions.1002/hrm . In general. Podsakoff et al. entrepreneurial role behaviors in organizations are the result of discretionary actions by employees. p. This is particularly important for ventures that are costly and represent new strategic directions (Day. Proposition 4: Underlying championing competence are individual characteristics of emotional intelligence. Garud & Van de Ven.. 1994). These relate to their diversity of experience. Therefore. 64) distinguishes between the product champion and the executive champion—the latter is the individual who has “direct or indirect influence over the resource allocation process and who uses this power to channel resources to a new technological innovation. 1980) required to support the business insight necessary for making risky or even uncertain investments. Fall 2006 skills. They and selects projects also provide advice and guidance deserving support. risk tolerHuman Resource Management DOI: 10. At the heart of sponsoring competence is the deep technological and business knowledge (Maidique. Higher-level sponsors can use their power and control over that resources resources to get the support necessary for the projects they value become available. and trustworthiness. transformational leadership skills. organizational knowledge. a to the venture on how to best proceed (Garud & Van de Ven. 1974). and opportunities (Cross & Cummings. 1980).” In increasingly diversified businesses. Roberts & Fusfeld. 1982). they tend to emerge as extrarole behaviors (Hayton. 1986). 1994. a sponsor ensures that resources become available.2 Executive sponsors bridge the technological innovator and the firm’s owner/ founders. Sponsors effectively absorb some of the risk by providing necessary organizational resources (Maidique. 1994. While a is legitimacy and support for the project (Day. Tushman & Sponsors differ from Nadler. (Day. mediated by subordinate trust in their supervisor. in order to encourage corporate entrepreneurship. competitors. several individual characteristics can enhance the sponsor’s competence. these sponsors must also possess persistence and passion for new venture development (Baum & Locke. Proposition 5: The characteristics underlying sponsoring competence include deep technological and business knowledge. Therefore. 1994). 2005b). Maidique (1980. 2004). Since it is hard to specify entrepreneurial contributions in standard job descriptions. their power and status in the organization. we expect that sponsoring competence will be enhanced by transformational leadership skills. Galbraith. Persistence is necessary when competing for scarce resources within the diversified corporation. and their responsibility and enthusiasm (Rothwell et al. are likely to have access to a greater range of information about markets. Sponsors differ from champions. sponsor ensures 1992). promotes extrarole citizenship behaviors. champion identifies 1982. Tushman & Nadler. (1990) note that transformational leadership. it becomes less likely that a single person can lead the resource-allocation process. particularly when pursuing new markets or perhaps defining them. broad organizational experience. Therefore. Indeed. As Table I indicates. he adds. the ability of executive sponsors to promote discretionary behaviors is of central importance.

. organizational structures that facilitate environmental responsiveness and entrepreneurial alertness (Kirzner. persistence and passion. Proposition 6b: The presence of an organizational structure that is organic. and also greater consissupportive culture tency with the strategic reality that the HR function cannot will positively plan the voluntary. and transformational leadership skills. we expect that the presence of a supportive culture will positively moderate the effect of entrepreneurial competencies on corporate entrepreneurship. It is worthwhile considering the factors that would promote integration of the four competencies within organizations. Therefore. it is important to exentrepreneurship. the presence of a positive effects on intrinsic motivation. communications networks. we consider these individual competencies to be necessary but not sufficient to achieve increased innovation. there is the question of how this competency framework can be used effectively in promoting corporate entrepreneurship.. and/or strategic renewal. Implications for Practice The perspective offered in this article is that corporate entrepreneurship will be facilitated by taking a competency-based approach (rather than a task. With respect to training and career development. there is the question of how these competencies should be developed over time in an internal career ladder. at the same time. the major benefits will include enhanced person-organization fit.1002/hrm Proposition 6a: A supportive organizational culture will positively moderate the effect of individual competencies on corporate entrepreneurship. spontaneous. and formal and informal integration mechanisms are all possible factors that may influence the necessary integration of the roles and competencies. acceptance of decentralization of decision making.g. 1998). leadership. With respect to performance management. & Salvato. For example. Moderators of the Impact of Individual Competence on Corporate Entrepreneurship The likelihood that these roles will be distributed across distinct individuals within the organization leaves open the possibility that without some effort at integration. a long-term orientation.or worker-based job analysis) to the specification of human capital needs. 1973) and. flatter. and formal external boundary-spanning roles will all positively moderate the impact of entrepreneurial competencies on corporate entrepreneurship. 1993. Similarly. Therefore. teamwork. Therefore.g. has fewer hierarchical levels. coordination. Morris. Human Resource Management DOI: 10. In this section. and has extensive integration mechanisms will positively moderate the effect of individual competencies on corporate entrepreneurship. extensive use of teams and project-based organization. culture. & Allen. First. Next is the issue of whether staffing should be internal or external and how organizations can select for the competencies in this framework.. Hayton. Morris. and an external orientation have been found to be supportive of corporate entrepreneurship (e. with respect to staffing. and improvised activities moderate the effect that are central to corporate enof entrepreneurial trepreneurship. the presence of formal internal integrating roles. organic organizational structures. and integration are likely to facilitate corporate entrepreneurship (e. amine where these competencies reside in the organization and which employees or groups possess them.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 419 ance. promote high levels of internal communication. This framework raises some competencies on interesting questions for the HR corporate architecture. 2004). we address these issues. venturing. organizational cultures that exhibit a balance between individualism and collectivism. Davis. Organizational structure. To reiterate the rationale for this. even the presence of needed competencies will not result in increased corporate entrepreneurship. enhanced …we expect that flexibility within the HR system. Zahra.

through an emphasis on social knowledge at middle levels of the hierarchy. there will be a positive correlation between the ordering of innovation. the types of knowledge required as we move up the hierarchy of corporate entrepreneurial roles reflects a pattern similar to that observed in managerial roles. to an emphasis on conceptual organizational knowledge at high levels within the organization. and therefore the corporate entrepreneurial roles are dispersed across actors in the system. and organizational knowledge are important to the boundary-spanning and championing competencies. This awareness of the broad hierarchical distribution of corporate entrepreneurial roles should guide efforts at development of required competencies. These competencies should be developed in anticipation of the possibility of entrepreneurial opportunities faced by organizational members. brokering. Innovation. 2002). from an emphasis on technical knowledge in lower-level roles such as innovation. Organizational tenure is likely to enhance the creation of needed internal Human Resource Management DOI: 10. and sponsoring within the relevant level of an organization. We also assume that corporate entrepreneurship relies on spontaneous. brokering. the common association of these corporate entrepreneurial activities with middle management (Howell & Higgins. This also leads to the following theoretical proposition: Proposition 7: Across organizations that are effectively pursuing corporate entrepreneurship. championing. 1980). the presence of these underlying characteristics will increase the probability of appropriate action. 1998. & Hornsby. 2005). When opportunities arise. task-force memberships (Hargadon.420 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. we assume an organization that is large and complex. Covin. Fall 2006 First is the question of where should these competencies reside in the organization and which employees or groups should possess them? For the purpose of this discussion. championing and sponsoring competencies. either at the technical core or in the interface with customers or other environmental elements. Ireland. The demand for innovatargeted. Championing and brokering competencies. internal development of these roles becomes more important. The need for brokering competence is most likely to arise in formal linking positions—for example. the need for sponsoring competence is most where assessment likely to be observed at higher and development levels in organizations in positions with greater control over activities should be necessary resources (Maidique. are also most likely to arise in the middle layers of organizations— hence. 1990. Kuratko.).g. the greater the probability for behaviors supporting corporate entrepreneurship in response to entrepreneurial opportunities. more championing competencies among middle managers. and sponsoring compelikely to arise will tencies can be expected to be linked to certain organizational aid in locating positions. Knowledge of where voluntary contributions and improvisation in response to new competent opportunities. credibility. etc. Can organizations hope to buy these competencies on the external labor market or must they be developed internally? Because social networks. Interestingly. chambehaviors are most pioning. We suggest that the potential for corporate entrepreneurship to occur will be enhanced when the appropriate competencies are also widespread within the relevant level of the organization (e. Knowledge of where competent behaviors are most likely to arise will aid in locating where assessment and development activities should be targeted.1002/hrm . more brokering competencies in task forces. Therefore. being supported by credibility.. personal power. and formal hierarchical position. Proposition 8: The more widespread the competencies of innovation. brokering. tion competence is more likely to occur at lower levels within the organization. and broad organizational process knowledge. The second major question relates to the issue of make versus buy.

The descriptions of competencies already presented should give a reasonable indication of the types of behaviors to be expected. personality characteristics are not an appropriate basis for performance evaluation. 2003. Furthermore. a competency framework implies that in addition to knowledge and skills. 1992). by definition. Furelement of ther. The inclusion of personality characteristics within competency frameworks such as this …a competency also raises some important issues. because the framework identifies competent behavior as resulting from a combination of specific personality characteristics and skills. However. dis- . If personality characterischaracteristics are tics are ignored. it is important to consider planning the development of these competencies internally rather than trying to acquire them from the external market. from the inclusion of personality characteristics is the observation that unless reliable and valid measures are used. Whether internal or external staffing policies are being considered.1002/hrm ferences to job performance (Gatewood & Feild. However. personality characteristics are an important element of individual capability to perform. reflect underlying characteristics of people. in addition to knowledge. The advantage of the competency framework outlined here is that it reduces the “inferential leap” from individual difHuman Resource Management DOI: 10. credibility.” the various personality characteristics identified in each of the competencies should be considered in early staffing decisions. trust. In a sense. according to our framework... The second level of measurement can occur at the element level (i.e. In particular. This last point leads to another major issue in the application of a competency framework. 1992. competent boundary spanners will be observed bridging diverse knowledge across known organizational and interorganizational domains. and knowledge of “who knows what” within the organization (Burt. are observed only through behaviors. competencies represent the potential for action. knowledge and it is important to include personskills. while being underlying individual characteristics.” That is. emotional intelligence. these should be considered as important elements in the staffing decision. since personality framework implies characteristics are relatively stable characteristics. The specific behavioral examples will necessarily be context-driven. personality ality measurement in staffing decisions. influencing) required for competencies in these roles. This is because competencies. if consideration is being given to the longterm development of a supply of “corporate entrepreneurs. it is likely that this will be a point of entry into a possible “corporate entrepreneurship career ladder. Therefore. skills.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 421 networks. and the definition of competencies provides a direct basis for identification of the behaviors to be observed. since deep and broad technical knowledge is necessary. for subsequent competence in brokering and championing. Given the high levels of knowledge required for innovative competence. Competencies. it is possible to directly assess behaviors indicating competent role performance. The first is. the competency framework allows for measurement at two levels of analysis. competent role bean important haviors may not be observed. 1998). Hoang & Antoncic. and personality characteristics that have been identified in the framework). competent innovators will demonstrate (situationally specific) examples of innovative activity. A second issue that arises to perform. Nochur & Allen. At the level of the competencies themselves. it is unlikely that needed personality characteristics will be individual capability easily developed within an organization. these personal characteristics should not be used in personnel decision making. as the inclusion of such measures tends to lead to bias. technical innovators may later be encouraged to develop the additional organizational knowledge and social capital–building skills (e.g. while many asthat in addition to pects of knowledge and skill can be developed by an organization. 2000. For example. the knowledge. but not sufficient.

if a competency framework such as the one proposed here is used to guide performance appraisal. Since only some elements of the competencies can be bought. In addition to a comprehensive approach to the acquisition and development of the components of competence.. Fall 2006 satisfaction of rater and rate.422 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. A second implication of this competency model is that management should be proactive in nurturing these competencies and honing them through careful integration to develop an organizationwide entrepreneurial capability. First. We believe that a contributes to firm competency-based approach is success. and communication programs that Human Resource Management DOI: 10. Third. we have proposed a competency-based approach to identifying the human capital rehow their behavior quired to support corporate entrepreneurship. The model suggests that broad organizational knowledge and connections with social networks are central to each of the entrepreneurial roles.. These specific observable behaviors can be inferred directly from the framework. and some must be developed in-house. 1986). Rather than building these “tasks” into formal job descriptions. brokers. a systematic approach that links staffing with development must be established. champions. which are frameworks expected to be more valid. the competency-based framework helps to establish support systems such as performance-assessment.g. it may be more appropriate to ensure that salient employee groups have the desired competencies—the potential to engage in corporate entrepreneurship roles should the opportunity arise. First. and any specification of entrepreneurial responsibilities could just as likely inhibit as promote desired behaviors (Von Hippel. only the broad behavioral requirements for corporate entrepreneurship are knowable in advance. Thus. Wiersma & Latham. and sponsors. Wiersma & Latham. incentive. Competency frameworks enhance employ- ees’ understanding of the challenges facing their companies and how their behavior contributes to firm success. Tziner & Kopelman. Such an approach would start with the identification of the areas in the organization where innovation is desired or most likely to occur. 1977). This implies that entrepreneurial capabilities must be nurtured over time and cannot easily be bought. gain experience. and be rewarded for entrepreneurial contributions as innovators. The development plan for such individuals would include cross-organizational experiences and the opportunity to acquire cross-functional and perhaps even interorganizational experiences that help build the necessary stocks of knowledge that support entrepreneurial competencies as identified in the framework. and acceptable to raters and enhance ratees (e. these competencies need to be developed across the organization. There are two clear implications for our proposed competency-based model for corporate entrepreneurship. Fourth. it is difficult to anticipate who in an organization will identify new opportunities or who will champion and sponsor new initiatives. 1986).1002/hrm . corporate entrepreneurship activities are most likely to be entered into voluntarily. Tziner & Kopelman. a competence framework can be used to directly derive behavCompetency iorally based performance-appraisal mechanisms. understanding of the Conclusions challenges facing their companies and In this article. and ineffective feedback (e.g. entrepreneurial activities may occur infrequently and erratically and are likely to be missed by more traditional methods of job analysis. reliable. 2002. The person specifications of candidates would then include individual characteristics that are expected to predict success in entrepreneurial roles in addition to more immediately desirable job-specific characteristics. employees’ 2002. Second. Therefore. superior to the alternative traditional job-analytic approach for several reasons. The analogy here is that there must be an internal “corporate entrepreneurship ladder” for individuals to participate. it will be most effective to focus upon specific behaviors derived from the description of the relevant competency.

The reward is superior product market and financial performance Human Resource Management DOI: 10. Corporate entrepreneurship requires that firms take risks and be innovative and proactive (Miller. 2001.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 423 are necessary to reinforce the exercise of competent behavior. He received his PhD from Georgia State University in 2002. His research focuses on the links between human capital. Dr. R&D Management. Champions must be able to build networks and exert their influence upward and downward in the organization. the direct link between individual employee characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship has received limited attention (e. and corporate entrepreneurship and has been published in Human Resource Management. 1983).. Keller. 1989. However. 2. she worked as a chemist for James River Graphics and for Stanley Home Products. Our proposed competency-based model suggests the specific. Chandler. She has also published research on management practices for innovation and corporate entrepreneurship in large. established organizations. managing growing businesses. 2005a). Loof & Heshmati. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Hayton. we only emphasize these characteristics as being important for the competence of champions. Italy. He also serves on the editorial boards of Human Resource Management Review and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and is an active member of the Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management. focusing on computer hardware and telecommunications firms. However. and product innovation activities of technology-based startups. HAYTON is an assistant professor at Bocconi University in Milan. To date. human resource management systems. Further. the majority of a sponsor’s influence will be exerted downward. 2002.g. corporate entrepreneurship. Dr. NOTES 1. (2) innovation and entrepreneurship in new ventures and established organizations in Korea. or transforming the organization through strategic renewal (Guth & Ginsberg. DONNA J. Exploitation of new opportunities occurs through starting new ventures inside or outside of the existing organization.. 1990). & Lyon. Corporate entrepreneurship is the process of searching for and exploiting the entrepreneurial opportunities that arise from asymmetries of market or technological knowledge. 1998. 2000. we hope our proposed competency-based model serves as a useful first step in future studies of the microprocesses associated with nurturing corporate entrepreneurship. She also has an MBA and a BA in chemistry. She received her PhD from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. with a special interest in how organizations develop practices for managing entrepreneurial projects. Deeds et al. the International Journal of Technology Management. JAMES C. . Chandler et al. 1995). Kelley’s publications include research on the patent. and the Journal of Management Education. Therefore. and developing business plans.1002/hrm (Antoncic & Hisrich. Her current research streams include: (1) the characteristics of breakthrough patents.. measurable individual characteristics that are anticipated to be supportive of organizational-level outcomes. Kelley teaches courses on entrepreneurship. established organizations. emotional intelligence and influence become less salient for this role. and (3) the corporate entrepreneurship process in large. because sponsors may use formal resource control and authority to influence the division of resources needed to support entrepreneurial projects. Organizational Research Methods. Bantel & Jackson. Zahra & Covin. The propositions offered in this article should be empirically tested. the European Management Journal. KELLEY is an assistant professor of entrepreneurship at Babson College. the Journal of Business Venturing. alliance. Prior to joining Babson. 2005. Human Resource Management Review.

Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. 79–91. (1993). & Locke. Arrow. and performance. (1994). M.. and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision making. An examination of the substitutability of founders’ human and financial capital in emerging business ventures. The HR scorecard: Linking people.. L. Administrative Science Quarterly. 634–665. D. W. M. R. B. R. 705–725. M.. S. W. 345–423). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. 107–125. Baron. L.. In N. The entrepreneur. Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. (1998). S. Huselid. (2000). 15.. Busenitz. 25(1). & MacMillan. The social psychology of creativity. HR professional development: Creating the future cre- ators at the University of Michigan Business School. & Slevin. Bantel. E. (1962). & Coombs. Journal of Business Venturing. D. and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. A. A. J. (1986). A. 14(1). & Beatty.. C. (2000). Casson. Baum. Corporate entrepre. M. G. R. Strategic manage. R. In B. & Sayles. Fall 2006 REFERENCES Amabile. 275–294. Becker. S. D. Administrative Science Quarterly. New York: Free Press. E. G.. J. T. skill. E. W. Chandler. J. D. Amabile. Nelson (Ed. A. J. N.. G. & Hanks. & Lyon. (1992). A. N. & Cummings. D. Burgelman. Journal of Business Venturing. (1991). (2000). (2005). K. B. DeCarolis.... Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Chandler. (2004). B.. MA: Harvard Business School Press. Organization Science. W.. (2001). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. (1996). R. The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. Cambridge. Human Resource Management. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. (2001). & Markman. E.. Covin. M. E. MA: Harvard Business School Press. 47. (1997). Journal of Business Venturing. G. NJ: Barnes & Noble Books. 12. & Wiklund. B. K. 10(1). Burgelman. Cross. R. G. 16. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits... Burt. Sutton (Eds. 609–625). 9–30. 353–369. (1989). (1998). New York: Elsevier. 37. J. Creativity in context. Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation supportive culture. E.. Hiring for the organization. R. Block. 59–76. CO: Westview Press. 495–527. L. Totowa. & Barney. D. & Hisrich. form. In R. A. R. I. (1992). H. New York: Free Press. moderators.). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. J. 13. 47–63. (1983). 35–51. Bowen. Baron. 75–88. Inside corporate innovation. T. (2004). 13. S. and action (pp.). & Ulrich. D. 5(2). strategy. Z. C. 10. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal. D. Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledgeintensive work. Networks and organizations: Structure. M. G. J. not the job. A. NJ: Princeton University Press. ment of small firms in hostile and benign environments.424 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.. (1982).1002/hrm ... Ledford. Honig. R. The social structure of competition. I. neurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. 20. A. B. D. D. Brockbank. Ancona.. The network structure of social capital. 106–116. Firm-specific resources and wealth creation in high-technology ventures: Evidence from newly Human Resource Management DOI: 10. 928–937. P (1999). & Miles. Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of thinking about what might have been. Staw & B. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Research in organizational behavior (pp. (1999). 587–598. R. M. Academy of Management Executive. Raising radicals. G. B. Academy of Management Executive. Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Keller. Burt. Boulder. New York: Springer-Verlag. 23(3). Ulrich. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. D. 38. J. Cambridge. Covin. Eccles (Eds. & Caldwell. & Jackson.. Corporate venturing. R. 57–91). Princeton. R. Day.). (1998). Deeds. Journal of Business Venturing. R.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Business Venturing. D. Baron. R. (1983). Academy of Management Journal. Strategic Management Journal. 89. & Nathan. Journal of Business Venturing. Nohria & R. 5(4). P (1989). 111–118. (2000).. 223–245. Bass. Antecedents. Antoncic. Chandler. N. (1985). L. 148–172. 28.

Kuratko. J. In M. R&D Management. Harvey. Kirzner. The structure of work: Job design and roles. Orlando. California Management Review. Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. (1982). M.. IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (1979). 29–37. W. An empirical evaluation of the internal corporate venturing process. A. & Higgins. New York: Bantam Books.. (1977). Gatewood. (1990). The knowledge-based approach to sustainable competitive advantage. Building an innovation factory. Strategic Management Journal. Kanter. Administrative Science Quarterly. Journal of Business Venturing.. (1985). Naffziger. Hargadon. Kostova. pp. G. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. D. D. K. (2005). 40(3). & Roth. McDermott. R. O’Connor. R. Hargadon. Academy of Management Review. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Volume II.. Covin. Kirzner. Kuratko. K.. & Feild. G. 13(Special Issue). (1994). 15(1). M. & Antoncic... (1987). R. (1992). R. D. tagno. 55–73. & Trist. A. R.. Galbraith. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Hough (Eds.. Emery. tems. J. 2. M. Hough (Eds. (2002). In S. & Hornsby.. Hunt & L. C. S. Verhulst (Eds. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Volume II. Hitt. H. 29.. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 21. Organizational Dynamics. Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management (pp. A. I. H. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. (1991). 137–155.). J. An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. M.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship public biotechnology firms. (1998). 78(3). Human Resource Management Review. 250–279. (1985). Dunnette & L.). 47–61. M. I. Katz. 41–85. Leifer. 3–15. (2000). Strategic Management Journal. 71–163). pp. (1993). A. 22(3). 1105–1121. and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting. Communication patterns. 297–317. B. (2003). S. R. FL: Dryden Press. 157–166. (2003). (1976). (1990). 1. MA: Harvard University Press. J. J. 4–25. Palo Alto.. S. B. Hoang. C. 21–41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. & Martin. F E. Dunnette & L. 699–716. S. 18. 35. 28. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. H. R. M. Itami. The champions of technological innovation. Lawler. DeNisi. (2003). 3–33). & Jackson. Hitt. Goleman. E. S. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. D. M. L. (1989). Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. (2000). A.. 317–341. Garud. R. 165–187. I. A. J. Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. G. In M. (1991). D. V.). L. & Tushman. 35(2).). Cambridge. Carbondale. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Larson (Eds. Eisenhardt. Competing in the new economy: The effect of intellectual capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high technology new ventures. M. 189–207). F & Mon. (1960). R. S. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. & Oldham. 23. Designing the innovating organization. 139–162. . 17(2). B. J. 5–15. (1995). 209–227. Hornsby.). Oxford. California Management Review. R. 24. Job analysis. 83–97). Human resource selection. (2005a). Harvard Business Review.. E.. Howell. J. T. E. A model of middle level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. W. R. Jackson. A. Promoting corporate entrepreHuman Resource Management DOI: 10. E. R. D. Journal of Organizational Behavior. D. (1973). Peters. J. pp. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. project performance. A. Swimming in newstreams: Mastering innovation dilemmas. E. Discovery and the capitalist process. 16. Competition and entrepreneurship. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo Alto. J. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Socio-technical sys.1002/hrm 425 neurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research. W. & Sutton. Hargadon. C. J. M. Churchman & M. R. UK: Pergamon.. Kanter. R.. Hackman. 31(4). In J. 165–207). R. Research in Organizational Behavior. M. A theory of charismatic leadership. & Ginsberg. Journal of Business Venturing. House. Guth. In C. H. & Hollenbeck. Hayton. 15(1). L. (1998). DeNisi (Eds. Mobilizing invisible assets. Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. C. From job-based to competencybased organizations. J. Hayton. G. Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.. Ireland... & A.. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. D. A. R.. 45–69.. M. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal.. 93–109. Management sciences models and techniques (Vol. (2005b). 11(Special Issue). 10(3). A. & Van de Ven. Ilgen.

. Ruscio. Sathe. Jervis. Roberts. M. B. champions. R. R. R. 18(1). 243–263. Sykes. (1995). 76. & Allen. Do nominated boundary spanners become effective technological gatekeepers? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Champions for radical new inventions. Sanchez. J. L. A. Simon. K.. (1963). J. 131–145). D. S.. (1980). (2000). A. 26(1). 770–792. CT: Quorum Books. and organizational citizenship behaviors. V. Rothwell. Jr. Westport. The practice of competency modeling. (2002). New York: Wiley. P Mumford. T. C. Entrepreneurial intensity. J. M. 29. 1(2). T. .. H.. and network analysis (pp. Podsakoff. satisfaction. (1993). Shane. 3. Harvard Business Review. 41(2). & Veryzer. SAPPHO updated—Project SAPPHO phase II. 17.. S. 21(2). Social resources and instrumental action. B. Horlsey. Creativity Research Journal. 448–469.. M. 65–89. & Amabile. (1998). B. D. (1996). P . Whitney. M. 29. (2005). A competency-based model for developing human resource professionals. M. Organization Studies. & Townsend. (2000). D. Strategic Management Journal. D. Hesketh. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. V. Sloan Management Review. (1982).426 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Academy of Management Journal.. Loof. Cognitive biases. Robertson.. H. Personnel Psychology. S. Strategic flexibility in product competition. 703–740.. M. M. (1974). Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: A firm level innovation study. W. M. A. tion of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. M. P M. R. Journal of Business Venturing. R. D. 422–439. R. A. N. H. & Spencer. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model.. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. D. Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Management Science. 258–291. and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. 107–142.. Hanks. Battista. International Journal of Production Economics.. Shane. . Markman. 39. M. & Venkataraman. Freeman. 77–86. M. Taggar.. 16. risk perception. Beverly Hills. 135–159.. & Balkin. Shane.. 11.. Incentive compensation for corporate venture personnel. Lin (Eds. K. C. & Aquino.. Leadership Quarterly. (1961). Warnick. M.J. (1990). 25(1). 253–265. Schon. Baron. Fetter. (2005). M.. D. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. MacKenzie. Journal of International Business Studies. 19–33. B. Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles. L.. S. B. 751–777.. Competency at work: Models for superior performance... 26(1). 61–85.. L.). (1983).. Morris. 53. T. 59–76. A. Hayton.1002/hrm . R. J. Morris. S. S. J. H. & Shoemaker. Ash. H. Spencer.. A. et al. & Allen. H. Houghton. In P Marsden & N. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 47–67. A. T.. B. Cambridge. (1967). (2000). Entrepreneurs.. Organization Science. (1992). Technology and change. Miller. 265–269. (1993). McEvoy. & Heshmati.. & Fusfeld. Rogers. S. Davis.. B. 383–402. E. New York: Delacorte. S. Organization Science. G. A. Journal of Organizational Behavior. D. Perrone.. Social structure . Eyde. 315–330. 113–134. G. & . 14. 15. UK: Cambridge University Press. CA: Sage. and technological innovation. (2000). Human Resource Management DOI: 10. & McEvily. & Blahna. NJ: Van Nostrand. Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. (2003). Staffing the innovative technology-based organization. (2003) Corporate entrepreneurship: Top managers and new business creation. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader. 7. 11. Journal of Management Education. The achieving society. (1994). Princeton. Journal of Business Venturing.. Moorman.. M. Sloan Management Review. F F (1971). Lin. Schon. L... 25–41. S. Zaheer. S. A. Maidique. Research Policy. Journal of International Business Studies. S. E. Schippmann. 22(3). (2002). Nochur. 1–19. McClelland. Shane. D. V. Renegade and rational championing strategies. (1992). Communica.. (1995). (1981). R. Cultural values and the championing process. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. (1998). Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. A. D. 45. New York: Free Press.. Carr. Fall 2006 Rice. The fishbowl of creativity.

E. Industrial Marketing Management. J. S. (1996). V. S. & Kopelman. (1977). A.. Zahra.. Z. S. Journal of Business Venturing. 39. & Covin. 23(3). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. 6. 303–327. A. 28.. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Von Hippel. S. of behavioral observation scales. 13. Academy of Management Journal. B. 43–58. A. Personnel Psychology. 6. behavioral expectation scales and trait scales. R. C. and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities.1002/hrm .. California Management Review. Vecchio. 427 Human Resource Management DOI: 10. L. (1986). 10(1). A. Applied Psychology. P (1986). (1999). (2003). 28(3). Entrepreneurship in family versus non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. 259–285. Nielsen. Is there a preferred performance rating format? A non psychometric perspective. & Nadler. Wiersma. Organizing for innovation. Zahra. (1995).. E. P & Bogner. J. Tziner. D. The practicality . C. (1991). Hayton. W. Zahra. A. 1713–1735. R. .. A. 363–381. and competence development. Journal of Business Venturing. S. & Salvato. M. Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common trends and common threads. G. G. Governance. (2004). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 163–174. ownership. Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: An empirical analysis. (2002). knowledge. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. C. 619–628. C. 479–503. & Latham. 51. 39. 74–92. 169–189.A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship Tushman.. Zahra. Corporate entrepreneurship. Zahra.. Human Resource Management Review.