1 Schindehutte2018

The Challenges of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the
Disruptive Age
Unpacking Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Extension
Minet Schindehutte, Michael H. Morris, Donald F. Kuratko,
Article information:
To cite this document: Minet Schindehutte, Michael H. Morris, Donald F. Kuratko,
"Unpacking Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Extension" In The Challenges
of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Disruptive Age. Published online: 02 Nov 2018;
11-35.
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:10 02 November 2018 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-473620180000028001
Downloaded on: 02 November 2018, At: 20:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
emerald-srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Chapter 1
Unpacking Corporate
Entrepreneurship: A Critique
and Extension
Minet Schindehutte, Michael H. Morris
and Donald F. Kuratko
Abstract
The present study examines entrepreneurship in established firms holistically
and critically. The authors start by reviewing previous research and highlight
a variety of definitional, conceptual, methodological, contextual, and tempo-
ral factors that have been confounding the research. The authors then present
a multidimensional framework that specifies a more nuanced picture of the
determinants, motives, activities, and consequences of corporate in established
firms. Finally, the authors discuss conceptual, methodological, and practical
implications, as well as outline future research avenues.
Keywords: Corporate entrepreneurship; corporate venturing;
entrepreneurial orientation; strategic entrepreneurship
Introduction
What are we talking about when discussing entrepreneurship within established
firms? The answer to this question depends on whom you ask. In fact, Covin and
Miles (1999, p. 47) lament,
there is no consensus on what it means for firms to be entrepreneurial. This situation is exacer-
bated by the proliferation of labels for entrepreneurial phenomena in organizations. Thus, when
The Challenges of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Disruptive Age

Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 28, 11–35
Copyright © 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1048-4736/doi:10.1108/S1048-473620180000028001
11
12 MINET SCHINDEHUTTE ET AL.
management theorists talk about corporate entrepreneurship, they are often talking about dif-
ferent phenomena.
Although they reached this conclusion nearly 20 years ago, it is as valid today
as it was then.
Apart from different labels for what seems to be the same phenomenon (or
part thereof), there is disagreement about the nature of corporate entrepreneur-
ship (CE) and phenomena associated with it. Where some define CE in terms of
attributes (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994), others asso-
ciate it with different forms or types of activity (Covin & Miles, 1999; Guth &
Ginsberg, 1990; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). Some scholars refer to CE as a
process (e.g., Burgelman, 1983a; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990), while others treat is as a
variable (Zahra, 1996). Some of the conceptualizations stress the key role of exter-
nal factors such as opportunities (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), while others focus
on internal factors such as the climate for entrepreneurship (Hornsby, Kuratko, &
Zahra, 2002; Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990) or emphasize the role of
individual(s) within the organizations (Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008).
Five terms are typically associated with entrepreneurship in established firms:
CE, intrapreneurship, corporate venturing (CV), company entrepreneurial orien-
tation (EO), and strategic entrepreneurship (SE). However, scholars often refer to
these terms as if they are interchangeable. To complicate matters, there are also
multiple and sometimes contradictory definitions for the same term. Thus, it is
not clear what the relationships between these different terms are, or how they
contribute (differently) to the firm’s outcomes. As a result, scholars operationalize
constructs in an inconsistent manner, often (re)interpreting the constructs through
their own disciplinary lenses, which in turn results in contradictory findings.
There is also a close relationship between CE and strategic management
(Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Burgelman, 1983b). Meyer, Neck, and Meeks
(2017) explain:
…scholars have been greatly focused trying to understand how opportunities to bring into exist-
ence future goods and services are discovered and exploited to create and grow new ventures.
Strategic management researchers have been interested mostly in relatively large corporations.
And entrepreneurship researchers have and continue to study mostly small and medium-sized
enterprises.
These inconsistencies have resulted in a burgeoning number of studies without

any real advancement of knowledge for scholars or practitioners. As the number
of studies has grown, so has the number of interchanges and substitutions of dif-
ferent terms as scholars misinterpret and/or misquote seminal studies. Only one
aspect has remained consistent. Most of the studies associate entrepreneurship in
established firms with competitive advantage and superior financial performance
(e.g., Covin & Miles, 1999; Zahra & Covin, 1995).
The primary motivation of the present study is to examine the relationship
between different organizational phenomena associated with entrepreneur-
ship in established firms. We contribute to the literature on CE in three primary
ways. First, we promote CE as a field of research, rather than a construct. Thus,
CE covers a broad spectrum of entrepreneurial phenomena in organizations.
Unpacking Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Extension 13
This helps to solve a number of problems with the current conflation of EO and
CE. Contrary to previous claims that EO depicts “what it means to be entrepre-
neurial at the firm level” (Anderson, Kreiser, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Eshima, 2015,
p. 1595), we show that EO captures a proclivity toward some of the ways a firm
can behave entrepreneurially, and explore how it relates to CE.
Second, we develop a multidimensional framework that shows the relation-
ships between different modes of CE, thereby extending and refining previous
typologies (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Morris, Kuratko, & Covin, 2008). In addi-
tion, this framework organizes the modes of CE according to their role in CE as
determinants, behaviors (or acts), activities (as processes versus outcomes), and
consequences attributable to CE.
Third, we distinguish between the process orientation of CE and the outcome
orientation of constructs such as EO. Stated differently, we shift the conversa-
tion about firm-level entrepreneurship from “having” an EO to “doing” entrepre-
neurship, thereby making a distinction between EO (static; a property) and CE
(dynamic; involving processes).

The chapter proceeds as follows. We first review firm-level entrepreneurship
studies to highlight definitional, conceptual, and contextual, temporal and meth-
odological problems underpinning ongoing debates about the respective roles of
entrepreneurial phenomena in CE. We then develop a multidimensional frame-
work of entrepreneurship in established firms. Finally, we consider implications
for research, theory development, and practice, with associated suggestions for
future research.
Entrepreneurship Within Established Firms:

A Critical Review
CE research is fraught with ambiguities, confusion, inconsistencies, compromised
methodologies, and conflicting findings. Let us examine a number of conceptual,
contextual, temporal, and methodological issues related to firm-level entrepre-
neurship research.
Conceptual Problems
The first problem of note centers on the ambiguous nature of CE. It is depicted as
a firm’s entrepreneurial behavior (Moreno & Casillas, 2008), the entrepreneurial
behaviors of managers (e.g., Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), entrepreneurial behavior
within the firm (Kellermanns, Eddleston, Barnett, & Pearson, 2008), entrepre-
neurship as firm behavior (Covin & Slevin, 1991), firm-level entrepreneurship
(Morse, 1986), firm-level entrepreneurial behavior (Covin, Green, & Slevin,
2006), attributes of the entrepreneurial firm (Miller & Friesen, 1982), entrepre-
neurial initiatives (Birkinshaw, 1997; Simsek, 2007), entrepreneurial acts (Covin &
Miles, 1999), and entrepreneurial activities of the firm (Jennings & Lumpkin,
1989; Kuratko et al., 1990). These are not semantic issues – an activity differs
markedly from a behavior, act, initiative, or attribute. A closer examination of
these studies makes it clear that the author(s) refer to very different phenomena.
In general, entrepreneurial behavior would appear to describe EO, whereas entre-
preneurial activities are associated with CE, although scholars are not consistent
in this regard.
The second problem – of terminology – is a result of the large number (25 by our
count) of different labels that scholars used to study firm-level entrepreneurship, as
illustrated in Table 1. Some of the more popular terms include CE (Burgelman, 1990),
intrapreneurship (Pinchott, 1985), entrepreneurial management (Stevenson &
Jarillo, 1990), CV (Narayanan, Yang, & Zahra, 2009), EO (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996), entrepreneurial intensity (EI) (Morris, 1998), entrepreneurial proclivity
(Matsuno, Mentzer, & Özsomer, 2002), entrepreneurial strategy (Meyer &
Heppard, 2000), SE (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003) and corporate entrepreneurial
strategy (Ireland, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009). Scholars often treat these terms as if
they are interchangeable despite having quite different original conceptualizations.
Table 1. Research Using Different Terms in Addressing Firm-level

Entrepreneurship.
Terms Representative Studies
Entrepreneurial firms Miller (1983), Miller and Friesen (1982)

Corporate entrepreneurship Guth and Ginsberg (1990), Sharma & Chrisman (1999)
Intrapreneurship; Intrapreneuring Kanter (1982), Pinchott (1985)
Internal corporate entrepreneurship Jones and Butler (1992), Schollhammer (1982)
Corporate innovation Jennings and Lumpkin (1989), Stevenson and
Gumpert (1985)
Corporate (strategic) renewal Sathe (1989), Stopford and Baden-Fuller (1990)
Corporate venturing Block and MacMillan (1993), Narayanan et al.
Zahra (2009)
Internal corporate venturing Burgelman (1983a, 1984), Von Hippel (1977)
External corporate venturing Titus, House, & Covin (2017), Wadhwa and
Kotha (2006)
Corporate venture capital Wadhwa, Phelps, and Kotha (2016), Weber, Bauke, and
Raibulet (2016)
International venturing Zahra and Hayton (2008), Yiu, Lau, and Bruton (2007)
Operations management Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby, and Covin (2011)
Entrepreneurial management Stevenson and Jarillo (1990)
Entrepreneurial posture Covin and Miles (1999)
Entrepreneurial style Covin and Slevin (1988), Stevenson, Roberts, and
Grousbeck (1985)
Entrepreneurial orientation Covin and Slevin (1991), Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Entrepreneurial intensity Morris (1998), Morris and Sexton (1996)
Entrepreneurial culture Irelandet al. (2003);
Entrepreneurial leadership Gupta et al. (2004), Ling et al. (2008)
Entrepreneurial strategy making Dess et al. (1997)
Entrepreneurial strategy Ireland et al. (2009)
Strategic entrepreneurship Morris et al. (2008)
Strategic posture Covin & Lumpkin (2011), Covin and Slevin (1990)
Strategic management Covin and Slevin (1989)
Resource (re)configuration Yiu and Lau (2008), Nason et al. (2015)
A third problem area, definitions for CE, follows from the first two issues.
Based on their review of the different definitions for CE, Sharma and Chrisman
(1999) offer the following “reconciliation” as a definition for CE: “corporate
entrepreneurship is the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals,
in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or insti-
gate renewal or innovation within that organization” (p. 18). Their definition is
similar to that of Zahra’s (1996), who emphasizes the sum of a firm’s innovation,
venturing, and strategic renewal activities. Scholars who treat CE as an empiri-
cal construct (e.g., Burgers & Covin, 2016; Ling et al., 2008; Simsek, 2007) favor
Zahra’s (1996) definition. The set of definitions for key terms commonly associ-
ated with CE, presented in Table 2, highlights the overlaps between attributes
associated with entrepreneurial firms, dimensions of EO, and an entrepreneurial
culture, each of which refers to something (slightly) different at a different level
of analysis.
A fourth problem concerns conflation of CE with EO. CE and EO refer
to firm-level entrepreneurship. On the one hand, EO refers to “the processes,

practices, and decision-making activities that lead to new entry” (Lumpkin &
Dess, 1996, p. 136). On the other hand, EO is a strategic orientation with up
to five dimensions: risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, autonomy, and
competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller & Friesen, 1984).
Alternatively, EO is described as an entrepreneurial strategy-making process
(Dess, Lumpkin, & Covin, 1997; Lyon, Lumpkin, & Dess, 2008), a strategic pos-
ture (Covin & Slevin, 1989), a firm-level disposition (Voss, Voss, & Moorman,
2005, p. 1134), entrepreneurial behavior of firms (Covin & Slevin, 1989, 1990,
1991), a proclivity (Matsuno et al., 2002), and an organizational culture (Slater &
Narver, 1995).
Yet, as it is most typically used in scholarly research, EO is a number. It is
meant, based on self-reported responses to a scaled set of items, to quantify how
innovative, risk-taking, and proactive the company is perceived to be at a point in
time. While there has been a fair amount of conceptualizing, there is no real the-
ory underlying EO, and the work on it has emerged from a scale initially proposed
by Miller (1983). Not surprisingly, then, the overwhelming majority of work on
EO is empirical, most typically examining external and internal variables that are
associated with higher levels (or scores) for EO, and the performance impact of
these higher scores. This research typically fails to address CE, or to acknowledge
that a high EO score is not possible in the absence of CE activity. Hence, CE rep-
resents the larger umbrella for addressing and understanding EO.
Thus, while theoretical and empirical studies of both EO and CE are accumu-
lating rapidly, the unresolved relationship between EO and CE is a major prob-
lem. Covin and Lumpkin (2011, p. 855) note, “the concept of EO has eclipsed
as a focus of scholarly attention the ostensibly ‘larger’ topical domain of cor-
porate entrepreneurship within which discussions about EO occur.” One reason
for this situation is the fact that several scholars use EO and CE as if these were
two comparable (interchangeable) concepts. Consequently, entrepreneurial
behavior – whether it is measured at the firm-level, individual-level, or group-level
Table 2. Definitions of Key Terms Associated with Entrepreneurship

in Established Firms.
Source Definition
Entrepreneurial Firms
Miller and Friesen “The entrepreneurial model applies to firms that innovate boldly and regularly
(1982, p. 5) while taking considerable risks in their product-market strategies”
Miller (1983, p. 771) “An entrepreneurial firm is one that engages in product-market innovation,
undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with ‘proactive’
innovations, beating competitors to the punch”
Morris and Paul “An entrepreneurial firm is one with decision-making norms that emphasize
(1987, p. 249) proactive, innovative strategies that contain an element of risk”
Covin and Slevin “Entrepreneurial firms are those in which the top managers have
(1998, p. 218) entrepreneurial management styles, as evidenced by the firms’ strategic
decisions and operating management philosophies. Non-entrepreneurial or
conservative firms are those in which the top management style is decidedly
risk-averse, non-innovative, and passive or reactive”
Corporate Entrepreneurship
Burgelman “…extending the firms domain of competence and corresponding
(1984, p. 154) opportunity set through internally generated new resource combinations”
Jennings and “An organization is entrepreneurial if it develops a higher than average
Lumpkin (1989, number of new products and/or new markets.”
p. 489)
Guth and Ginsberg “…encompasses two types of phenomena and the processes surrounding
(1990, p. 5) them: (1) the birth of new businesses within existing organizations,
i.e., internal innovation or venturing; and (2) the transformation of
organizations through renewal of the key ideas on which they are built, i.e.,
strategic renewal”
Zahra (1991, “…the process of creating new business within established firms to improve
pp. 260–261) organizational profitability and enhance a company’ competitive position
or the strategic renewal of existing business”
Zahra (1991, “…a formal or informal activity aimed at creating new business in established
p. 263) firms through product and process innovations and market developments”
Zahra (1993, p. 321) “…a process of organizational renewal that has two distinct but related
dimensions: (1) innovation and venturing and (2) strategic renewal”
Zahra and Covin “…the sum of a company’s venturing and innovation activities”
(1995, p. 226)
Dess et al. (1999, CE may be viewed “as consisting of two types of phenomena and processes:
p. 85) (1) birth of new businesses within existing organizations, whether through
internal innovation or joint ventures/alliances and (2) transformation of
organizations through strategic renewal, i.e., the creation of new wealth
through the combination of resources”
Sharma and “…the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association
Chrisman (1999, with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate
p. 18) renewal or innovation within that organization”
Zahra et al. (2000, “the sum of a company’s venturing and innovation activities”
p. 947)
Morris and Kuratko “a term used to describe entrepreneurial behavior inside established mid-sized
(2002, p. 31) and large organizations”
Intrapreneurship
Pinchott (1985, p. xv) “…entrepreneurship inside large corporations”
Antonincic & “…a process that goes on inside an existing firm, regardless of its size, and
Hisrich (2001, leads not only to new business ventures but also to other innovative
p. 498) activities and orientations such as development of new products, services,
technologies, administrative techniques, strategies and competitive postures”
Table 2. (Continued)
Source Definition
Entrepreneurial Orientation
Covin and Slevin “…a dimension of strategic posture represented by a firm’s risk-taking
(1991, p. 7) propensity, tendency to act in competitively aggressive, proactive manners,
and reliance on frequent and extensive product innovation”
Lumpkin and Dess “the processes, practices and decision-making activities that lead to new
(1996, p. 136) entry and treat EO as firm-level entrepreneurship” and is characterized
by one, or more of five dimensions: “a propensity to act autonomously,
a willingness to innovate and take-risks, and a tendency to be aggressive
toward competitors and proactive relative to marketplace opportunities”
Zahra and “the sum total of a firm’s radical innovation, proactive strategic action,
Neubaum (1998, and risk taking activities that are manifested in support of projects with
p. 124) uncertain outcomes”
Anderson, Covin, “characterized as a strategic construct that captures a firm’s strategy-making
and Slevin practices, management philosophies, and firm-level behaviors that are
(2009, p. 220) entrepreneurial in nature”

Covin and Lumpkin “EO can be understood as a sustained firm-level attribute represented by the
(2011, p. 863) singular quality that risk taking, innovative, and proactive behaviors have in
common”
Anderson, Kreiser “EO (is) a second-order, firm-level construct comprised of two lower-order
et al. (2015, dimensions: entrepreneurial behaviors (encompassing innovativeness and
pp. 1582–1583) proactiveness), and managerial attitude towards risk (risk taking). We define
entrepreneurial behaviors as the firm-level pursuit of new products, processes,
or business models (e.g., innovativeness) with the intended commercialization
of those innovations in new product/market domains (e.g., proactiveness). We
define managerial attitude toward risk as an inherent managerial inclination –
existing at the level of the senior manager(s) tasked with developing and
implementing firm-level strategy – favoring strategic actions that have uncertain
outcomes (Miller, 1983). (The three existing components of EO) are reordered
into two lower-order dimensions – risk taking as an attitudinal dimension,
while innovativeness and proactiveness collapse to one behavioral dimension”
Other Terms Under the CE Banner
Khandwalla (1976) Management style is the “operating set of beliefs and norms about
management held by the organization’s key decision makers … [that] when
translated into action, constitute the organization’s strategy for survival
and growth” (p. 22) “The entrepreneurial style is characterized by bold,
risky, aggressive decision-making” (p. 25)
Von Hippel “Corporate venturing is an activity which seeks to generate new businesses
(1977, p. 163) for the (firm) in which it resides through the establishment of external or
internal corporate ventures”
Schollhammer Internal CE refers to “all formalized entrepreneurial activities within existing
(1982, p. 211) business organizations. Formalized internal entrepreneurial activities are those
which receive explicit organizational sanction and resource commitments for
the purpose of innovative corporate endeavors – new product developments,
product improvements, new methods or procedures”
Stevenson and Jarillo Entrepreneurship is “a process by which individuals – either on their own or
(1990, p. 23) inside organizations – pursue opportunities without regard to the resources
they currently control”
Zajac, Golden, and ICV involves “the creation of an internally-staffed venture unit that is
Shorten (1991, semi-autonomous, with the sponsoring organization maintaining ultimate
p. 171) authority”
Morris & Sexton The concept of entrepreneurial intensity (EI) captures “both the degree and
(1996) amount of entrepreneurship evidenced within a given organization”
Ireland et al. “…an effective entrepreneurial culture is one in which new ideas and creativity
(2003, p. 970) are expected, risk taking is encouraged, failure is tolerated, learning is
promoted, product, process and administrative innovations are championed,
and continuous change is viewed as a conveyor of opportunities”
(top management team, family, or board) – and by extension CE, has become
synonymous with EO. It is therefore not surprising that “within the field of entre-
preneurship, there is now greater attention paid to the topic of EO than to corpo-
rate entrepreneurship” (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011, p. 255).
A fifth problem involves the question of what constitutes an entrepreneur-
ial firm. According to Jennings and Lumpkin (1998, p. 486), CE is “a multidi-
mensional concept that incorporates a firm’s activities directed at product and
technological innovation, risk taking, and proactiveness” that they attribute
to Miller (1983). However, Covin and Lumpkin (2011, p. 844) point out that
“[m]ost researchers credit Danny Miller (1983) with introducing the concept of
EO to the scholarly literature, although he never employed the term EO.” In fact,
Miller (1983) identified innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness as attrib-
utes of (large) entrepreneurial firms, and so is he speaking of CE? Herein lies the
problem: entrepreneurial firms (Miller, 1983; Miller & Friesen, 1982) are those in
which senior management has an entrepreneurial style (Covin & Slevin, 1988),
which Covin and Wales (2012, p. 678) assert pertains to EO. According to this
logic then, the EO of the Top Management Team (IV: risk-taking, proactiveness,
innovativeness) results in entrepreneurial firms (DV: risk-taking, proactiveness,
innovativeness). This would appear to be tautological. In an effort to deal with this
problem, some CE scholars use only one or more of the EO dimensions (without
referring to EO). For example, Heavey, Simsek, Roche, and Kelly (2009) treat the
combination of risk-taking and proactiveness as a willingness to bear uncertainty.
Ultimately, entrepreneurship is about action. Entrepreneurship occurs when
a venture is launched, an innovation is implemented, and a new business model
is executed. When it is entrepreneurship within an established organization, this
action extends to include additional activities such as joint ventures with other
companies, refined operating domains, sustained regeneration and rejuvenation
of the enterprise, and strategic renewal. Hence, an entrepreneurial firm is one
where more of this activity or action is in progress.
The sixth problem arises because of the relationship between CE and strategic
management (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Burgelman, 1983b). This relationship
has given rise to three related, but different, terms: entrepreneurial strategy, CE
strategy, and SE. First, “[e]ntrepreneurial strategy is a core construct within the
CE literature and a specific manifestation of firm-level entrepreneurship” (Ireland
et al., 2009, p. 20). Second, “CE strategy as a vision-directed, organization-wide
reliance on entrepreneurial behavior that purposefully and continuously rejuve-
nates the organization and shapes the scope of its operations through the rec-
ognition and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunity” (p. 21), that is, CE is
a distinct, identifiable type of strategy. Lumpkin and Dess (2001) agree that CE
is a strategy. They note (p. 147) “firms that follow a strategy of corporate entre-
preneurship are able to pursue growth through new venture opportunities and
strategic renewal. Firms that are able to effectively follow this strategy experience
sustainable advantages and yield above-average returns.” Third, SE has emerged
as a “unique, distinctive construct through which firms are able to create wealth”
(Ireland et al., 2003, p. 963), but without any clear demarcation of its fit with either
CE (e.g., Dess, Lumpkin, & McKee, 1999) or CE strategy (Ireland et al., 2009).
SE “is the integration of entrepreneurial (i.e., opportunity-seeking behavior) and

strategic (i.e., advantage-seeking) perspectives in developing and taking actions
designed to create wealth” (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001, p. 480). Morris,
Kuratko, and Covin (2011) conclude that CE encompasses two primary domains,
CV and SE, with sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, strategic
renewal, and domain redefinition representing particular forms of SE. However,
this categorization conflicts with the definition of SE as advantage-seeking and
opportunity-seeking actions. Moreover, EO is not included in the original con-
ceptualizations of either SE or CE strategy.
Methodological Problems
First, the appropriate level of analysis in CE research is unclear. Stopford and
Baden-Fuller (1994) draw attention to CE taking place at three different levels:
(1) individuals or groups who create new business activities within the existing
organization; (2) strategic renewal at the organizational level; and (3) changing
the rules of competition in the industry through Schumpeterian innovation. As
CE studies have grown, so has the number of organizational phenomena and con-
structs. As shown in Fig. 1, each of the phenomena (which are multidimensional)
has different determinants and consequences that are themselves multidimen-
sional (and often multilevel). Although some scholars have started doing multi-
level studies (e.g., Behrens & Patzelt, 2016), the multilevel problem is not receiving
the attention it deserves, an issue to which we will return in the next section.
Second, there is some confusion regarding causes versus effects when it comes to
innovation and entrepreneurship. Is innovation the essence of CE or an outcome
of CE? What is the interplay between innovation and entrepreneurship? The prob-
lem is aggravated because studies do not adequately distinguish innovativeness
(a behavior of the firm) (see Normann, 1971) from complex (and often lengthy)
innovation processes (Garud, Tuertscher, & Van de Ven, 2013), or fail to distin-
guish inputs from outcomes (Duran, Kammerlander, Van Essen, & Zellweger,
2016). Even categorizations of CE have resulted in a conflation of causes and
effects of firm-level entrepreneurship. For example, Guth and Ginsberg (1990)
propose CE consists of two dimensions, which they labeled innovation (business
creation and venturing) and strategic renewal. However, innovation is seldom
restricted to the two activities with which they associate it. In fact, in most CE
studies, innovation is associated with the introduction of new products or services
to the market, with some also including new processes. Jennings and Lumpkin
(1989, p. 489), argue that “an organization is entrepreneurial if it develops a
higher than average number of new products and/or new markets.”
Third, are we speaking of an orientation that is process- or variance-based?
Covin and Lumpkin (2011, p. 863; emphasis ours) claim, “EO can be under-
stood as a sustained firm-level attribute represented by the singular quality that
risk taking, innovative, and proactive behaviors have in common.” Here, EO is
a property of the firm that varies. However, other scholars disagree with this
static notion of EO, and claim that EO is a strategy-making process (Lomberg,
Urbig, Stöckmann, Marino, & Dickson, 2017; Lyon et al., 2000). In their study
Fig. 1. Levels of Organizational Phenomena in CE Research.

Note: CE, corporate entrepreneurship; 1, entrepreneurial leadership (EL); 2, entre-
preneurial management (EM); 3, entrepreneurial culture (EC); 4, entrepreneurial
orientation (EO); 5, strategic entrepreneurship (SE, advantage-seeking); 6, strategic
entrepreneurship (SE: opportunity-seeking); 7, internal corporate venturing (ICV); 8,
external corporate venturing (ECV); 9, corporate venture capital (CVC); 10, international
venturing (INV); 11, frame-breaking change (industry disruption).
of EO-as-experimentation, Wiklund and Shepherd (2011, p. 937) note, “EO is a

fundamentally dynamic concept.” However, they add a caveat:
We used a research design that allowed us to examine the future performance implications of
EO, including the likelihood of failure. We did so using a measure of EO at one point in time.
However, as we suggest later, there is more that can be done to investigate EO as a process and
its important feedback effects (italics added).
Notwithstanding their respective claims, the majority of both EO and CE

studies ignore processes and continue to involve cross-sectional, rather than lon-
gitudinal datasets.
Fourth, significant problems exist with the measurement of CE. Measures
of EO, typically an 11- or 12-item scale that is meant to capture innovative-
ness, risk-taking, and proactiveness (often completed by one individual), cap-
ture perceptions of an overall company orientation, not the actual CE activity.
Yet, the implicit assumption appears to be that higher EO scores indicate more
entrepreneurial activity within the company. The CE–EO conflation problem is

reflected in Zahra’s (1996, p. 1724) reference to “Miller’s (1983) corporate entre-
preneurship index” that includes items for risk-taking, proactiveness, and inno-
vativeness. According to Zahra (1996), Miller’s (1983) index is associated with
the three sets of activities of CE – innovation, venturing, and renewal – thereby
rendering EO equivalent to CE. Drawing this association seems somewhat arbi-
trary, as scale items that capture how responsive the firm is to competitors, how
the company deals with uncertainty, or introduction of new product lines over
three years do not necessarily reflect renewal or venturing activities. Yet, Zahra’s
(1996) approach has been adopted in subsequent studies (e.g., Heavey et al., 2009;
Ling et al., 2008; Simsek, 2007).
Measures that operationalize Stevenson and Gumpert’s (1985) promoter-
trustee framework, which has been presented as an alternative measure of EO
(Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001), arguably come closer to capturing ele-
ments of CE, such as company culture, reward philosophy, management struc-

ture, and an approach to control systems. Alternatively, it could be argued that
these are internal infrastructure elements that facilitate CE activity. Hence, one
could measure the managerial elements put in place by management with the
intention of fostering entrepreneurial activity, or one could measure the actual
activity. While the actual activity would seem more germane, there is also the mat-
ter of whether one focuses on activities that are implemented and succeed (e.g.,
successful product and process innovations, new ventures, and renewal efforts),
or also those that are implemented and subsequently aborted or fail. Further, one
must distinguish the frequency of activity from the degree of change, newness, or
disruptiveness that the activity represents.
Contextual Problems
Although some scholars limit CE to large firms (e.g., Miller, 1983; Pinchott,
1985), Covin and Slevin (1991) argue that entrepreneurship as firm behavior
applies to both larger, established firms, and to smaller firms (in varying degrees).
Consequently, scholars have studied CE in the context of small firms (Simsek
& Heavey, 2011), medium-sized firms (Zahra, Neubaum, & Huse, 2000), family
firms of different sizes (Kellermanns et al., 2008), as well as large firms (Ahuja &
Lampert, 2001; Birkinshaw, 1997).
It is also important to note that Covin and Slevin (1991) are talking about
EO not CE. This is another example of the CE–EO conflation problem. In
fact, Miller (1983) provides a careful exposition of a variety of contextual fac-
tors that would render CE in small firms vastly different from that in large
firms. The findings of a recent study on the role organizational size plays in
CE (Nason, McKelvie, & Lumpkin, 2015) confirm Miller’s (1983) reasoning.
Nason et al. (2015, p. 45) explain that “small firms are more likely to utilize CE
for growth to overcome liabilities of smallness, while large firms are more likely
to utilize CE for learning to overcome liabilities of inertia.” From the per-
spective of SE, Ireland et al. (2003, p. 963) note, “[o]n a relative basis, small,
entrepreneurial ventures are effective in identifying opportunities but are less
successful in developing competitive advantages needed to appropriate value
from those opportunities. In contrast, large, established firms often are rela-
tively more effective in establishing competitive advantages but are less able to
identify new opportunities.”
The question thus becomes one of delineating the point at which one is no
longer speaking of start-up entrepreneurship and instead has entered the domain
of CE. Further, does the CE domain include entrepreneurial behavior in estab-
lished churches, universities, and nonprofit organizations (e.g., Coombes, Morris,
Allen, & Webb, 2011; Etzkowitz, 2004; Plowman, Baker, Beck, Kulkarni, &
Travis, 2007)?
Temporal Problems
Performance is a lagging indicator of firm-level entrepreneurship (arguably three
years or more). However, even a three-year time span is inadequate for designing
and implementing most CE activities and for their consequences to become evi-
dent. Further, performance is a function of a large number of internal and external

factors, and isolating the impacts of CE on performance relative to what it would
have been absent CE can be problematic. The scope and nature of these problems
explain why research findings remain inconclusive. As a result, CE studies may
have generic predictive value insofar as a correlation between CE activities and
performance, but CE research has less prescriptive or practical merit. It continues
to remain true that a behavioral model of entrepreneurship which allows for con-
siderable managerial intervention has not yet materialized, rendering CE some-
what “serendipitous, mysterious, and unknowable” (Covin & Slevin, 1991, p. 8)
The net effect of the conceptual, methodological, contextual, and temporal
problems in CE studies is the absence of cumulative knowledge on firm-level
entrepreneurship. These inconsistencies also have ramifications for entrepre-
neurs-managers in organizations. Further, the corporate world of today differs
markedly from that of the 1990s when CE started to become a popular as a field
of research. These changes further suggest that a more nuanced delineation of
CE as a field of research may be necessary.
Toward A Multidimensional Framework For

Corporate Entrepreneurship
An approach that has gained traction is organizing entrepreneurship in estab-
lished firms into different types of CE. According to Guth and Ginsberg (1990,
p. 5), CE “encompasses two types of phenomena and the processes surround-
ing them: (1) the birth of new businesses within existing organizations, that
is, internal innovation or venturing; and (2) the transformation of organiza-
tions through renewal of the key ideas on which they are built, that is, strategic
renewal.” Stopford and Baden-Fuller (1994, p. 521) refer to three types of CE:
“individual managers, business renewal, and Schumpeterian, or industry, leader-
ship,” which they associate with CV (or intrapreneurship), strategic renewal, and
“frame-breaking change” (p. 522), respectively. Covin and Miles (1999) propose
four generic forms of CE, that is, sustained regeneration, organizational rejuve-
nation, strategic renewal, and domain redefinition as “distinct manifestations of
firm-level entrepreneurship” (p. 59).
Integrating these various perspective, Morris et al. (2011) group the different
forms of CE into two broad categories: CV (i.e., new internal, external and coop-
erative ventures which the firm launches or invests in) and SE (i.e., new products
and services, new processes, new business models, strategic renewal, sustained
regeneration, domain redefinition, organizational rejuvenation).
We believe that the ambiguities and contradictions stem from an overly sim-
plistic categorization of different dimensions of CE. Thus, we are taking a slightly
different approach in our efforts to remedy the problems with CE research. To do
this, we use Stevenson and Jarillo’s (1990, pp. 18–21) distinctions between causes,
behaviors and effects as a starting point:
• What: “entrepreneurship from its effects” (what happens when entrepreneurs

act)
• Why: “entrepreneurship from its causes” (why entrepreneurs act)
• How: “how to succeed at being an entrepreneur” (the behavior of the
entrepreneur)
However, we modify their approach slightly by adding who (the protago-

nist) and where (level/unit of analysis). We make a further distinction between
“how” as entrepreneurial behavior (typically cross-sectional studies) and
“how” as entrepreneurial activities (typically processes, although not often
treated as such in empirical studies), while “what” refers to the outcomes of
entrepreneurial activities. Comparing and contrasting the different terms asso-
ciated with CE (Table 2) based on whether they reflect who, where, how, and
what, enable us to redraw the connections and boundaries between the differ-
ent terms as shown in Table 3.
Next, we unpack the boxes of previous categorizations and reorganize their
contents into different boxes, that is, determinants, behaviors, activities (as pro-
cesses), activities (as outcomes), and consequences. Fig. 2 presents the resulting
multidimensional framework for CE. In what follows below, we describe each of
the dimensions using CE as an umbrella term for firm-level entrepreneurship in
all its different guises.
We begin with the internal determinants of CE, which exist at three levels:
(1) Individual (or group) level: individuals or teams that demonstrate the drive,
adaptability, resilience, and other characteristics necessary to persevere in
pursuing entrepreneurial actions.
(2) Functional level: business processes and practices associated with operations.
(3) Organizational level: resources and capabilities, as reflected in structures,
systems, cultures).
24
Table 3. Organizing Connections and Boundaries with CE Phenomena.

Why Who Where How1 How2 What
Causes/Determinants Protagonist Level/Unit of Analysis Behavior (Variance) Activity (Process) Effects/Outcomes
Environment Founder/CEO Individual E-orientation E-strategy Competitive advantage

Structure TMT Group E-management E-venturinga New products
Culture Middle managers Project E-leadership E-innovation New ventures
Systems Board of advisors Portfolio New markets/industries
Practices (HR, IT, etc.) Family Operations New technologies
Processes (e.g., NPD) Business Unit New business models
Subsidiary New strategies
Firm Growth/survival
Diversification
Rule-change (industry)
a
E-Venturing include ICV, ECV, joint venturing or cooperative venturing, international venturing.
MINET SCHINDEHUTTE ET AL.
Fig. 2. A Multidimensional Framework for Corporate Entrepreneurship.

Note: For ease of illustration no distinction is made between short- and long-term
consequences. The external environment is not shown, but it interacts with each
dimension of CE.
The external environment is also a determinant, as it creates pressures and

incentives for entrepreneurial behavior, and represents the source of opportuni-
ties, but it is not included in Fig. 2, where our focus is internal.
Second, entrepreneurial motivation and direction are necessary for translat-
ing the drivers and determinants into entrepreneurial activities. As Guth and
Ginsberg (1990) note, “entrepreneurial behavior in organizations is critically
dependent on the characteristics, values/beliefs, and visions of their strategic lead-
ers.” Here, the concept of EO (as a dispositional construct), entrepreneurial man-
agement (Stevenson’s promoter-like behavior), and entrepreneurial leadership
become relevant. Gupta, MacMillan, and Surie (2004) explain entrepreneurial
leadership as a fusion of “entrepreneurship” (Schumpeter, 1934), “entrepre-
neurial orientation” (Covin & Slevin, 1988; Miller, 1983), and “entrepreneurial
management” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990) with leadership. It centers on taking a
strategic approach to entrepreneurship, where entrepreneurial initiatives can ena-
ble the development of enhanced firm capabilities for creating and appropriating
value on an ongoing basis. In this manner, entrepreneurship provides the basis for
achieving sustainable competitive advantage. These elements, together with both
top-down and bottom-up entrepreneurial activities, are informed by an entrepre-
neurial mindset, which we picture here as an element of SE (Ireland et al., 2009).
Third, the motivational and directional elements interface with opportunity.
Opportunities derive from forces in the external environment that create a gap or
opening for something new, such as technology change, social trends, unmet cus-
tomer needs, economic developments, or competitive vulnerabilities. A key aspect
of firm-level entrepreneurial behavior is a willingness to “pursue opportunity,
regardless of the resources under control” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990, p. 23;
emphasis added). CE is opportunity-driven firm behavior (Brown et al., 2001)
and companies vary in their relative opportunity alertness. Competencies regard-
ing both opportunity recognition and opportunity assessment become critical
organizational capabilities (Morris et al., 2013).
Fourth and fifth, the pursuit of opportunities takes the form of entrepreneur-
ial activities (first as processes, and then as process outcomes). Insofar as CE
is concerned, “[a]n initiative is essentially an entrepreneurial process, beginning
with the identification of an opportunity and culminating in the commitment of
resources to that opportunity” (Birkinshaw, 1997, p. 207). Here, we include the
three main forms that corporate entrepreneurs take:
(1) CV processes: includes internal corporate venturing (ICV), external corporate

venturing (ECV), cooperative venturing (CCV), corporate venture capital
(CVC), and international venturing (INV) processes.
(2) Innovation processes: includes processes involved with the development of

new products, services, process, and business model innovations.
(3) Strategy formulation processes: include internally and externally focused
strategies that enable sustained regeneration, rejuvenation or renewal of the
company, and well as redefinition of industries, each of which is predicated
on innovations.
These activity processes produce specific activity outcomes as well. These are
the tangible creations that result from CV, innovation, and strategy formulation,
and are an example of a measurable component of CE. Hence, CV processes
produce new ventures and new technologies, while innovation processes result
in new products, services, processes, and markets, and strategy development pro-
cesses can lead to new business models, domain redefinition for the firm, and
other strategies that address tangible ways to renew, rejuvenate, or regenerate the
company.
Paralleling and enabling elements two (motivation and direction), three
(opportunity recognition and assessment), four (process activities), and five (out-
come activities) is a sixth element, termed SE. Here, we focus on the integration
of entrepreneurial and strategic management actions that result in both oppor-
tunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviors (Ireland et al., 2001). Ireland et
al. (2003) explain that the important dimensions of SE include an entrepreneurial
mindset, an entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial leadership, the strategic
management of resources, and the application of creativity to develop innova-
tions. The outcomes are entrepreneurial strategies (e.g., corporate renewal) that
enable the pursuit of competitive advantage. According to Covin and Miles (1999,
p. 47), CE is “a potentially viable means for promoting and sustaining corporate
competitiveness” and “the various forms of corporate entrepreneurship may be
paths to competitive advantage.”
Finally, the consequences of CE are highlighted on the right-hand side of
the model as the potential performance outcomes of the various types of entre-
preneurial activities. A wide range of eventual results is possible from the new
combinations that lie at the heart of CE. While they certainly can result in fail-
ure and loss, entrepreneurial activities are commonly associated with increased
financial performance, corporate growth, significant positions in new markets,
generation of new knowledge and organizational competencies, mastery of new
technologies, diversification of the company’s product/service mix, creation of
new portfolios of ventures, entirely new marketplace positions for the firm, and
wealth creation (e.g., Covin & Miles, 1999; Ireland et al., 2003; Zahra, Kuratko,
& Jennings, 1999). At the extreme, they can produce “frame-breaking change,”
transforming not only the enterprise, but also the competitive environment or
“industry” into something significantly different from what it was (Stopford &
Baden-Fuller, 1994, p. 522).
Conclusion And Implications

Nearly 30 years have passed since Guth and Ginsberg (1990, p. 6) noted, “despite
the growing interest in corporate entrepreneurship, there appears to be nothing
near a consensus on what it is.” Although various scholars have since reiterated
this finding, none of their attempts to improve the situation have resolved the
problem. As a result, because of a number of conceptual, methodological, con-
textual, and temporal problems, much of the research that is positioned within
the CE domain may not actually be addressing CE or advancing CE scholarship.
Conceptual problems include the nature of entrepreneurial phenomena in firms,
ambiguous terminology, erroneous definitions (or none at all), and conflation of
CE with EO. Methodological problems include a failure to give due considera-
tion to CE’s multilevel processes and outcomes, as well as to the multidimensional
nature of entrepreneurial phenomena in organizations. Additionally, studies that
treat CE as a construct suffer from measurement issues. Contextual problems
concern issues related to the size, age, and type of organization, among others.
Temporal issues include the predominantly retrospective approach of CE studies
that curtails the practical relevance of their findings.
The lack of adequate progress may partly be the result of an old guard seek-
ing to maintain the status quo that reflects their longstanding scholarly toil,
and partly the result of newer scholars overly eager to get their work published.
Consequently, we have arrived at a strange place where a firm can have an EO
(Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) without being an entrepreneurial
firm (Miller, 1983). On the flipside, being an entrepreneurial firm may have noth-
ing to do with corporate entrepreneurship – it can simply refers to any startup or
new venture (Bhave, 1994). Thus, we are still not able “to accurately differentiate
between more and less entrepreneurial firms” (Covin & Slevin, 1991, p. 8).
In the present study, we tackle the problems with CE to show why it is criti-
cally important to pay careful attention to the words we use in studying this vital
research arena. This does not mean we have to create yet another label. It does
however mean that we have to be clear about what CE is, and what CE is not.
First, CE is not an empirical construct. Rather, CE is a field of research, spe-
cifically entrepreneurship within, and by, established firms of all sizes. As shown
in Fig. 1, CE is the “collective noun” for entrepreneurship in established firms –

whether it involves determinants (including the external environment) behaviors,
activities, processes, or practices. Thus, CE “refers to a distinct, multidimensional,
and empirically verifiable set of organizational phenomena” (Covin & Miles,
1999, p. 48; emphasis added), where these phenomena “are not inherently alterna-
tive (i.e., mutually exclusive) constructs, but may co-exist as separate dimensions
of entrepreneurial activity within a single organization.”
Second, CE is not a strategy. Rather, CE falls in the domain of entrepreneur-
ship research, not strategic management. Although many dimensions of CE have
their roots in strategic management, the outcomes from CE are not adequately
captured by financial or market performance measures. Importantly, CE and the
pursuit of competitive advantage (Covin & Miles, 1999) differs markedly from
CE and the pursuit of opportunity (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), which may or may
not result in competitive advantage or superior financial performance, especially
in the short-term (1–3 years), which is typically the concern in CE studies.
Third, CE is not synonymous with EO. The hitherto loose application of the
terms EO and CE is a major impediment to systematic analysis of entrepreneur-
ship in established firms. Although EO studies and CE studies (when considered
independently from each other) contribute to performance, it is not clear whether
EO is more beneficial than other aspects of CE, or if the combined effects of
EO and other dimensions of CE are more advantageous for the firm’s outcomes.
What we do know is that EO is an empirical construct (although it is no longer
a given that it is a firm-level construct), whereas CE is not. In fact, Dess and
Lumpkin (2005) suggest that EO stimulates effective CE. As shown in Fig. 2, EO
is but one of many elements under the CE umbrella, and scholars have examined
EO as an antecedent (Karmann, Mauer, Flatten, & Brettel, 2016), moderator
(Cheng & Huizingh, 2014), mediator (Au, Qin, & Zhang, 2017), and dependent
variable (Miller, 1983).
Fourth, CE is not synonymous with innovation. Although innovation plays
a central role in the entrepreneurial behaviors and activities associated with CE,
“the presence of innovation per se is insufficient to label a firm entrepreneurial”
(Covin & Miles, 1999, p. 47). Overall, CE scholars have not done a good job with
their treatment of innovation in empirical studies. Most CE studies focus nar-
rowly on the number of new products introduced without also considering the
frequency and degree of entrepreneurship, that is, EI (Morris, 1998). However,
such innovation occurs at, and across multiple levels of analysis (Gupta, Tesluk,
& Taylor, 2007) and it is multidimensional (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010), and there-
fore far more complex than CE scholars have given it credit. Entrepreneurship is
ultimately about action, or doing what is necessary to move an opportunity to a
novel business concept or approach (innovation) and then overcoming obstacles,
leveraging resources, and adapting until the innovation has been implemented
within the firm or in the marketplace.
The entrepreneurial activities in CE are multilayered processes across multiple
levels of analysis and with different temporal scales. Such dynamic constructs
and temporal frameworks have important implications for future theory develop-
ment, research, practice, and entrepreneurship education.
Implications for Research

With regard to research implications, our work notes that most CE studies are cross-
sectional and ignore the causal complexity of firm-level entrepreneurship. In addi-
tion, an increasing number of studies examine CE at the level of the individual, or
groups such as the top management team, the family, the board, and so forth, with-
out giving due consideration to the associated entrepreneurial activities. The interde-
pendence of multilayered individual, organizational, and environmental factors that
affect effective CE calls for longitudinal, multilevel studies, and a process orienta-
tion, which can be rather challenging (McMullen & Dimov, 2011). One must seek to
capture multilevel inputs, multilevel processes, and multilevel outcomes. Moreover,
research designs must reflect the interdependence among multilayered individual
and organizational factors that lead to effective CE. Useful in this regard is the work
of Luciano, Mathieu, Park, and Tannenbaum (2018) who seek to accelerate devel-
opment of dynamic theories and methods that integrate emerging big data technolo-
gies into the existing repertoire of measurement techniques and advance an iterative
process to enhance measurement fit.
Further, by clarifying how CE relates to a large number of other variables, the
current work has implications for theory development. One of the benefits of treat-
ing CE as a research domain rather than an empirical construct is the elimination of
definitional problems. As the field grows, scholars can add new concepts, constructs,
and theories without constantly changing the definition. At the same time, it now
becomes critically important for scholars to: (1) properly define and locate the focal
construct and (2) correctly identify all the factors that may impact its analysis. This
may require a (complex) systems perspective, and indeed, as a system of systems, in
order to map the different processes. In addition, it will require different theoretical
perspectives than those currently in use.
While various authors have attempted to theorize about CE, often adopting
established theories (e.g., resource-based theory, contingency theory, upper echelons
theory, and agency theory), little progress has been made in developing general theo-
ries that explain or predict entrepreneurial behavior within established organizations.
Despite some claims to the contrary, EO is not a theory and much of the empirical
work on EO lacks any theoretical frame (Nason et al., 2015). The need is for theories
that transcend innovation processes and address human action necessary to actually
execute and implement novelty and newness within an organizational context. It
is human action that entails career risk, ambiguity, stress, conflict, competition for
resources, frustration, intransigence, and inertia; and, it is dependent upon a mix of
organizational/managerial skills and entrepreneurial skills.
Implications for Practice

In addition, the current work has implications for practitioners. Conflicting find-
ings from CE studies have limited their practical relevance. On all accounts, CE is
not a panacea for all firms and all tribulations. Many firms with EOs falter (or fail)
after being lauded as highly entrepreneurial at one point or another. That said, it
would be particularly useful for practitioners if there were a way to predict which
combination of factors might be more likely to lead to a desired outcome. In a
recent study, Mavi, Mavi, and Goh (2017) used an adaptive network-based fuzzy
inference system (ANFIS) to examine how “individual, organizational and environ-
mental factors can affect each other and [how] their aggregated impact can determine
CE success or failure.” ANFIS has demonstrated significant predictive ability in a
variety of different applications (Büyüközkan & Feyzioğlu, 2004; Rezaei, Ortt, &
Scholten, 2012). The fact that CE is often a complex, multilevel, and multiplayer
activity also supports, from a practical vantage point, the value of developing inter-
nal entrepreneurial ecosystems within firms. Moving beyond a simple focus on an
innovation unit (e.g., R&D units, new product development departments, and new
venture divisions), the key to sustainable entrepreneurship may lie with systemati-
cally organizing and coordinating the efforts of multiple individuals and units at
different levels and across different functions.
Implications for Education

Finally, implications can be drawn for educators. Although universities are increas-
ingly offering courses on CE, there is no standard template or structure for teaching
in the CE area (Kuratko & Morris, 2018). Further, the distinctions and relationships
between the core content of courses on new product development, corporate inno-
vation, and CE remain indeterminate. The arguments in this chapter and the model
in Fig. 2 provide a beginning point for addressing definitional and boundary issues
for CE courses, as well as organizing the content of these courses.
Final Thought
In closing, it is worth considering the words of Crossan and Apaydin (2010)
in their review of research on organizational innovation. They conclude,
“[i]nnovation is widely regarded as a critical source of competitive advantage …
(while) innovation capability is the most important determinant of firm perfor-
mance” (p. 1154). This begs the question: What part does entrepreneurship play
in either competitive advantage or firm performance? It behooves entrepreneur-
ship scholars to pay closer attention to the entrepreneurship of CE, rather than
follow the lead of strategic management scholars who have a different focus
(competitive advantage and performance enhancement). The quest must be one
of understanding the essential nature of entrepreneurial actions – actions that
uncover opportunity, generate innovations that address that opportunity, and
successfully implement those innovations in work environments that are inher-
ently political, with diverse stakeholder interests, and complex systems, struc-
tures, and controls.
References
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study
of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
521–543.
Anderson, B. S., Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2009). Understanding the relationship between entre-
preneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: An empirical investigation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 218–240.
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.
Antonincic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.
Au, E. W., Qin, X., & Zhang, Z. X. (2017). Beyond personal control: When and how executives’ beliefs
in negotiable fate foster entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143(5), 69–84.
Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 421–444.
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.
Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing,
9(3), 223–242.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidi-
ary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.
Block, Z., & MacMillan, I. C. (1993). Corporate venturing: Creating new businesses within the firm.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualiza-
tion of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal,
22(10), 953–968.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983a). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major
firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–244.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a
process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1363.
Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship. California Management Review,
26(3), 154–166.
Burgelman, R. A. (1990). Strategy making and organizational ecology: A conceptual framework. In J.
V. Singh (Ed.), Organizational evolution (pp. 164–181). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Burgers, J. H., & Covin, J. G. (2016). The contingent effects of differentiation and integration on cor-
porate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 521–540.
Büyüközkan, G., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2004). A new approach based on soft computing to accelerate the
selection of new product ideas. Computers in Industry, 54(2), 151–167.
Cheng, C. C., & Huizingh, E. K. (2014). When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic
orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235–1253.
Coombes, S. M., Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., & Webb, J. W. (2011). Behavioural orientations of non-
profit boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: Does governance matter? Journal of
Management Studies, 48(4), 829–856.
Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial
orientation–Sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(1), 57–81.
Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on
a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35(5), 855–872.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advan-
tage. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 47–47.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepre-
neurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234.
Covin J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environ-
ments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1990). New venture strategic posture, structure, and performance: An
industry life cycle analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 123–135.
Covin J. G., & Slevin D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(1), 7–25.
Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 36(4), 677–702.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation:
A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.
Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective
corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147–156.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm perfor-
mance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9),
677–695.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McKee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strat-
egy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
23(3), 85–85.
Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., Van Essen, M., & Zellweger, T. (2017). Doing more with less: Innovation
input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1224–1264.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of
Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.
Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy
of Management Annals, 7(1), 775–819.
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, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring
a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 241–260.
Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis.
Organization Science, 18(6), 885–897.
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal,
11(Special Issue), 5–15.
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Decision comprehensiveness and corporate entre-
preneurship: The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences and environmental
dynamism. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1289–1314.
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., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal envi-
ronment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business
Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship
strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and
strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1),
49–63.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The con-
struct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.
Jennings, D. F., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1989). Functioning modeling corporate entrepreneurship: An empir-
ical analysis. Journal of Management, 15(3), 485–502.
Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship. An agency theory
perspective. Journal of Management, 18(4), 733–749.
Kanter, R. M. (1985). Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies.
Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 47–60.
Karmann, T., Mauer, R., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and corrup-
tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 223–234.
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory study of fam-
ily member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family
firm. Family Business Review, 21(1), 1–14.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1976). The techno-economic ecology of corporate strategy. Journal of Management
Studies, 13(1), 62–75.
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(Special Issue), 49–58.
Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Corporate entrepreneurship: A critical challenge for educators
and researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 42–60.
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.
Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L. D., & Dickson, P. H. (2017). Entrepreneurial
orientation: The dimensions’ shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 41(6), 973–998.
Luciano, M. M., Mathieu, J. E., Park, S., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2018). A fitting approach to construct
and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organizational
Research Methods, 21(3), 592–632.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 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.
Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research:
Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of
Management, 26(5), 1055–1085.

Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Ozsomer, A., (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and mar-
ket orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32.
Mavi, R. K., Mavi, N. K., & Goh, M. (2017). Modeling corporate entrepreneurship success with
ANFIS. Operational Research, 17(1), 213–238.
McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and
promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8),
1481–1512.
Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Meyer, G. D., Neck, H. M., & Meeks, M. D. (2017). The entrepreneurship-strategic management inter-
face. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton, (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneur-
ship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 17–44), New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science,
29(7), 770–791.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models
of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management
Science, 30(10), 1161–1183.
Moreno, A. M., & Casillas, J. C. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal
model. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 32(3), 507–528.
Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustainable advantages for individuals, organizations,
and societies. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial development within
organizations. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation
(2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western/Thomson Publishers.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation
(3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western/Thomson Publishers.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in
established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247–259.
Morris, M. H., & Sexton, D. L. (1996). The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for
company performance. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 5–13.
Morse, C. W. (1986). The delusion of intrapreneurship. Long Range Planning, 19(6), 92–95.
Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review
and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38(1), 58–76.
Nason, R. S., McKelvie, A., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2015). The role of organizational size in the heterogene-
ous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 279–304.
Normann, R. (1971). Organizational innovativeness: Product variation and reorientation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 203–215.
Pinchott, G. (1985). Intrapreneurship. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Plowman, D., Baker, L., Beck, T., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D. (2007). Radical change accidentally:
The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3),
515–543.
Rezaei, J., Ortt, R., & Scholten, V. (2012). Measuring entrepreneurship: Expert-based vs. data-based
methodologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(4), 4063–4074.
Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering entrepreneurship in large diversified firm. Organizational Dynamics. 18(1),
20–32
Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H.
Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 209–223). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model. Strategic
Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge-based capital for corporate
entrepreneurship effects on performance: A study of small-to medium-sized firms. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 81–100.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of
Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.
Stevenson, H., Roberts, M., & Grousbeck, H. (1989). New business ventures and the entrepreneur.
Boston, MA: Irwin.
Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review,
63(2), 85–94.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial manage-
ment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17–27.
Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Titus, V., Jr, House, J. M., & Covin, J. G. (2017). The influence of exploration on external corporate
venturing activity. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1609–1630.
Von Hippel, E. (1977). Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: An empirical analysis.
Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 163–174.
Voss, Z. G., Voss, G. B., & Moorman, C. (2005). An empirical examination of the complex relationships
between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder support. European Journal of Marketing,
39(9/10), 1132–1150.
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.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Where to from here? EO-as-experimentation, failure, and distri-
bution of outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35(5), 925–946.
Yiu, D. W., & Lau, C.-M. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in
emerging market firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 32(1), 37–57.
Yiu, D. W., Lau, C.-M., & Bruton, G. D. (2007). International venturing by emerging economy firms:
The effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entrepreneurship.
Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 519–540.
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory
study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.
Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxo-
nomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–341.
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact
of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1713–1735.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-perfor-
mance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.
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.
Zahra, S. A., & Hayton, J. C. (2008). The effect of international venturing on firm performance: The
moderating influence of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(2),195–220.
Zahra, S. A., & Neubaum, D. O. (1998). Environmental diversity and the entrepreneurial activities of
new ventures. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 123–140.
Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies:
Exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, 26(5),
947–976
Zajac, E. J., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (1991). New organizational forms for enhancing innova-
tion. The case of internal corporate ventures. Management Science, 37(2), 170–184.

1 Schindehutte2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Schindehutte2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Challenges of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Challenges of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Disruptive Age

These inconsistencies have resulted in a burgeoning number of studies without

(dynamic; involving processes).

Entrepreneurship Within Established Firms:

Table 1. Research Using Different Terms in Addressing Firm-level

Entrepreneurial firms Miller (1983), Miller and Friesen (1982)

to firm-level entrepreneurship. On the one hand, EO refers to “the processes,

Table 2. Definitions of Key Terms Associated with Entrepreneurship

(2009, p. 220) entrepreneurial in nature”

SE “is the integration of entrepreneurial (i.e., opportunity-seeking behavior) and

Fig. 1. Levels of Organizational Phenomena in CE Research.

of EO-as-experimentation, Wiklund and Shepherd (2011, p. 937) note, “EO is a

Notwithstanding their respective claims, the majority of both EO and CE

entrepreneurial activity within the company. The CE–EO conflation problem is

ments of CE, such as company culture, reward philosophy, management struc-

dent. Further, performance is a function of a large number of internal and external

Toward A Multidimensional Framework For

• What: “entrepreneurship from its effects” (what happens when entrepreneurs

However, we modify their approach slightly by adding who (the protago-

Table 3. Organizing Connections and Boundaries with CE Phenomena.

Causes/Determinants Protagonist Level/Unit of Analysis Behavior (Variance) Activity (Process) Effects/Outcomes

Environment Founder/CEO Individual E-orientation E-strategy Competitive advantage

Fig. 2. A Multidimensional Framework for Corporate Entrepreneurship.

The external environment is also a determinant, as it creates pressures and

(1) CV processes: includes internal corporate venturing (ICV), external corporate

(2) Innovation processes: includes processes involved with the development of

Conclusion And Implications

in Fig. 1, CE is the “collective noun” for entrepreneurship in established firms –

Implications for Research

Implications for Practice

Implications for Education

Management, 26(5), 1055–1085.

Normann, R. (1971). Organizational innovativeness: Product variation and reorientation.

You might also like