An integrated definition of corporate entrepreneurship by harry entebang and richard t harrison
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

An integrated definition of corporate entrepreneurship by harry entebang and richard t harrison

on

  • 2,285 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,285
Views on SlideShare
2,285
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
59
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

An integrated definition of corporate entrepreneurship by harry entebang and richard t harrison An integrated definition of corporate entrepreneurship by harry entebang and richard t harrison Document Transcript

  • An Integrated Definition of Corporate Entrepreneurship Harry Entebang Faculty of Economics & Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak Kota Samarahan, Malaysia eharry@feb.unimas.my Richard T. Harisson Queen’s University Management School Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UKAbstract - The issue of globalization has affected the world community significantly in numerous ways over thelast few decades. Developing countries in Asia are no exception. Global phenomena brought about by rapidtechnological advancement, unsustainable economic and/or financial models, liberalization of trade policies,unstable commodity prices and continuous market disruption have caused the world to move at an unexpectedlyaccelerated pace leaving no room for political, economic, financial and social institutions to developconcomitantly in terms of sustainable growth. As a consequence, organizations (public and private) throughoutthe world continue to face unprecedented global turbulence and hostility. Given this, many have turned tocorporate entrepreneurship (CE) for answers. However, there has been inconsistency as to what CE really is.This paper examines the multifaceted dimensions of CE and proposes an integrated definition of CE withinestablished organizations for superior growth and performance.Keywords - corporate entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial orientation; entrepreneurial advantageThe term “entrepreneurship” has resisted precise definition for over 200 years (Hebert & Link, 1988).Earlier researchers in the field of entrepreneurship have focused solely on determining the traits andbehaviours of entrepreneurs (Cole, 1946; Collins & Moore, 1970; Hartman, 1959; Schumpeter, 1942).Specifically, the traditional emphasis was on the efforts of an individual who goes against the odds intranslating a vision into a successful business enterprise (Collins & Moore, 1964). Thus,entrepreneurship has been characterized from the perspective of an individual alone. However,increasingly there is more focus on examining entrepreneurship from an organizational or corporateperspective. Some postulate that intensifying global competition, corporate downsizing anddelayering, rapid technological progress, and other organizational as well as environmental forceshave caused the need for organizations to become more entrepreneurial in order to survive andprosper (Dess, Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999). Hence, corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship hasbeen viewed as a means for corporations to enhance the innovative abilities of their employees and, atthe same time, increase corporate success through the creation of new corporate ventures (Kuratko,Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990). In short, within the domain of entrepreneurship research there are anumber of distinct research areas that focus on different aspects of entrepreneurship.Scholars have conceptualized entrepreneurship as a process which can occur in organizations of allsizes and types and which is distinct from, but relies on, specific individuals (Burgelman, 1983;Gartner, 1985; Miller, 1983; Stevenson, Roberts, & Grousbeck, 1989). Although there has been a shiftin entrepreneurship research, viewing entrepreneurship from an organizational perspective appears tobe consistent with the views of Schumpeter (see Schumpeter, 1942), who argues thatentrepreneurship will eventually be dominated by corporations that are capable of allocating ordevoting more resources to innovation (cited in Sembhi, 2002). 1 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • Past literature on CE suggests that CE is an important facet of the strategic renewal, profitability,innovation and growth of organizations (Adonisi, 2003). Additionally, CE has also been recognized asan important element in organizational performance (Antoncic & Zorn, 2004), and a means tostimulate and sustain the overall competitiveness of an organization (Mair & Rata, 2004). CE and thepractices of entrepreneurial activities within an established organization have been discovered to be asan effective strategy for improving an organization’s performance (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2004; Covin& Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1991), even though Teng (2007) argues that CE does not always have positiveeffects on a firm’s competitive advantage. However, CE and its related issues continue to be a populararea of research among entrepreneurship and organizational scholars. Nonetheless, despite paststudies of CE and its related fields, our understanding of the subject is still minimal. In fact, theemergence of multiple dimensions of CE has led to definitional issues. This paper examines themultifaceted dimensions of CE and then proposes an integrated definition of CE within establishedorganizations for superior growth and performance. WHAT IS CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP?According to Burgelman (1984), the term “corporate entrepreneurship” seems oxymoronic. This canbe substantiated by the following works of entrepreneurship scholars. For example, the body ofliterature on CE suggests that CE has been interpreted in various ways: as corporate venturing, orintrapreneurship in established organizations for the purposes of profitability and to enhance firms’competitive position (Zahra, 1991); strategic renewal (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990); product innovation,proactiveness, and risk-taking (Miller, 1983); the development of new products and/or new markets(Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989); development of corporate cultures and institutional processes which theorganization embraces (Kuhn, 1993); fostering innovativeness (Baden-Fuller, 1995); gainingknowledge for future revenue streams (McGrath, 1994); international success (Birkinshaw, 1997);product, process, and administrative innovations (Covin & Miles, 1999); radical product innovation,risk-taking and proactiveness (Covin & Slevin, 1991); diversification (Burgelman, 1991); andprocesses through which individuals’ ideas are transformed into collective actions through themanagement of uncertainties (Chung & Gibbons, 1997). More generally, Morris and Kuratko (2002)have used the term to describe the entrepreneurial behaviour inside established organizations.In short, scholars and researchers in the field of CE have not defined CE consistently. A furtherreview of CE literature continues to suggest that CE has multiple definitions. In fact, CE has beencommonly defined either as an entrepreneurial activity, as an entrepreneurial process, or as anentrepreneurial behaviour, and sometimes CE has been perceived as a strategy to enhanceorganizational competitive position. However, all of these tend to occur in established organizations.Within the stream of CE literature, there has been no clear definition. Building on past literature, it isclear that CE can be viewed from four perspectives namely: as an activity, as a process, as a strategyand as a firm behaviour and the following review extends these four perspectives of CE.Corporate Entrepreneurship as an ActivitySchumpeter (1934) argued in the 1930s that entrepreneurship is about new combinations,encompassing the doing of new things or the doing of things in a new way. Specifically, he arguesthat new combinations include: (1) introduction of new goods, (2) new methods of production, (3)opening of new markets, (4) new sources of supply, or (5) new organizations. Later, Drucker (1985)defines entrepreneurship as an act of innovation that involves endowing existing resources with newwealth-producing capacity. Low and MacMillan (1988) and Rumelt (1987) respectively claim thatentrepreneurship is concerned with the creation of new business. Subsequently, Sharma & Chrisman(1999) regard entrepreneurship as organizational creation, renewal, or innovation that occurs within oroutside an existing organization. The following discussion further clarifies and establishes CE as anactivity of the firm. 2 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • Corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship refers to entrepreneurial activities within existingbusiness organizations (Schollhammer, 1982). Schollhammer argues that internal or intra-corporateentrepreneurship refers to all formalized entrepreneurial activities within existing businessorganizations. These formalized internal entrepreneurial activities are those which received explicitorganizational sanction and resource commitment for the purpose of innovative corporate endeavour,such as new product developments, product improvement, and new methods or procedures. The writeralso suggests that CE can be in the form of administrative, imitative, acquisitive and incubativeinitiatives of the organization.In addition, Zahra (1991) advocates that CE may be formal or informal activity aimed at creating newbusiness in established organizations through product and process innovations and marketdevelopments for the purposes of profitability. He argues that CE may take place at the corporate,division, business unit, functional, and/or project levels with the unifying objective of improving acompany’s competitive position and financial performance. Later, Zahra (1995) views CE as the sumof a company’s innovation, renewal, and venturing efforts. He contends that innovation involvescreating and commercializing products and technologies, providing financial and human resources forinnovative projects, and maintaining an appropriate infrastructure for innovation. Renewal meansrevitalizing an organization’s business through innovation and changing its competitive profile, whileventuring requires creating and nurturing new business in current and new industries.Antoncic and Zorn (2004) also prefer to view CE as entrepreneurship activities within an existingorganization. They suggest that this encompasses the creation of new business ventures and otherinnovative activities as well as orientations such as development of new products, services,technologies, administrative techniques, strategies and competitive postures. They note that the threemost pronounced elements of organizational level entrepreneurial activities are: new ventureformation, and product/service and process innovation. Immediately after this, McFadzean et al.(2005) view CE as the effort of promoting innovation from an internal organizational perspective,through the assessment of potential new opportunities, alignment of resources, exploitation andcommercialization of said opportunities. In summary, entrepreneurship scholars have defined CE asentrepreneurial activities occurring in established organizations.Corporate Entrepreneurship as a ProcessInitially, Gartner (1988) tends to argue that entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations but laterthe author perceives entrepreneurship as the process by which new organizations come into existence.However, Kirzner (1973) considers entrepreneurship as the ability to perceive new opportunities andsimilarly Morris (1998) also appears to agree that entrepreneurship is the process through whichindividuals and teams create value by bringing together unique packages of resource inputs to exploitopportunities in the environment which eventually results in a variety of possible outcomes such asnew ventures, products, services, processes, markets, and technologies. The following discussionhighlights CE as a process within established organizations.Burgelman (1983) advocates that corporate entrepreneurship is a process whereby the firms engage indiversification through internal development. Stevenson et al. (1989) also propose thatentrepreneurship is a process in which individuals-either on their own or inside organizations - pursueopportunities without regard to the resources they currently control. Guth and Ginsberg (1990) arguethat CE encompasses two types of phenomena and the processes surrounding them i.e. the birth ofnew businesses within existing organizations (e.g. internal innovations or corporate venturing(acquisition) and the transformation of organizations through strategic renewal of the key ideas onwhich they are built (e.g. actions like refocusing a business competitively, making major changes inmarketing or distribution, redirecting product development and reshaping operations). Subsequently,the work of Sharma and Chrisman (1999) reinforce the definition postulated by Guth and Ginsberg 3 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • and define CE as the process whereby an individual or group of individuals in establishedorganization, create a new organization or corporate venturing, and instigate renewal which involvesmajor strategic or structural changes and innovation such as introducing something new to themarketplace within the current organization.Carrier (1996) also considers CE as a process of creating new business within established firms toimprove organizational profitability and enhance a company’s competitive position. Following thislogic, Chung and Gibbons (1997) later define CE as an organizational process that transformsindividual ideas into collective actions through the management of uncertainties. Alternatively, CE isthe process whereby an individual or a group creates a new venture within an existing organization,revitalizes, and renews an organization or innovates (Dess et al., 1999). Antoncic and Hisrich (2001)claim that CE is actually a process that goes on inside an existing firm, regardless of its size, and leadsnot only to new business ventures, but also to other innovative activities, and orientations such asdevelopment of new products, services, technologies, administrative techniques, strategies andcompetitive postures.Alternatively, Ucbasaran, Westhead and Wright (2001) view CE as a process of organizationalrenewal associated with two distinct but related dimensions: (1) creating new businesses throughmarket developments or by undertaking product, process, technological and administrativeinnovations, (2) redefinition of the business concept, reorganization, and the introduction of system-wide changes for innovation. Recently, Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2006) postulated that corporateentrepreneurship is a process through which an individual in an established organization pursuesentrepreneurial opportunities to innovate without regard to the level and nature of currently availableresources. Therefore, collectively, researchers have argued that corporate entrepreneurship is bestdefined as an entrepreneurial process that occurs within established organizations.Corporate Entrepreneurship as a StrategyA review of the literature indicates that viewing CE as a strategy has not received much attentionamong entrepreneurship scholars. However, discussion and prior research on key strategic variablesand their influence on a firm’s entrepreneurship activities have been quite extensive. In addition,strategies that emphasize innovation and new product introductions are generally associated with anentrepreneurial approach to competitive advantage (Dess et al., 1999). To allow further analysis ofwhether or not CE has been viewed as a strategy, the key strategy variables namely generic strategies,functional strategies, and the entry strategy of Porter (1980) are briefly discussed below.Generically, researchers in the field of organizational behaviour believe that a firm’s competitivestrategy can foster its entrepreneurship activities. Consequently, the low-cost strategy anddifferentiation strategy of Porter have been considered as strategic issues in CE (Dess et al., 1999).They argue that the demands of global competition have heightened the need for cost-based strategiesand suggest that successful CE may hinge on a firm’s ability to “fit” with strategic approaches thatemphasize quality and effectiveness. On the other hand, they appear to question whether cost-basedapproaches can be useful to corporate entrepreneurs or whether firms can pursue CE successfully byusing low-cost strategies as well as differentiation strategies.On the other hand, Burgelman (1984) develops a model of the strategic process and shows how twodifferent strategic behaviours of managers (i.e. autonomous strategic behaviour and induced strategicbehaviour) can go on simultaneously in large, complex organizations when they are faced withentrepreneurial activities/projects such as new product development, market development, strategiccapital investment, or engage in project championing efforts.Hence, whether or not CE can be perceived as a strategy is yet to be established through empiricalstudy but the use of various strategic approaches within the context of large, established organizations 4 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • in relation to corporate entrepreneurship activities continues to generate much interest amongorganizational scholars.Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Firm BehaviourAccording to Dess et al., (1999, p.85), “all organizations are striving to exploit product-marketopportunities through innovative and proactive behaviour.” Later, Morris and Kuratko (2002) suggestthat CE is a term used to describe entrepreneurial behaviour inside established mid-sized and largeorganizations. Subsequently, Kuratko, Ireland, Covin and Hornsby (2005) postulate CE as a type ofproactive behaviour that can stimulate desired innovation. They argue that there is a link betweensuccessful corporate entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial behaviour of middle-level managers.Nonetheless, the most notable work of CE as a firm behaviour comes from Covin & Slevin (1991). Inpresenting their argument, Covin & Slevin propose a conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firmbehaviour which later becomes well accepted among CE scholars particularly in advancing researchon CE and its related fields. This model becomes well recognized for several reasons: (1) it depictsthe organizational system elements that relate to entrepreneurial behaviour in larger, establishedorganizations and, (2) it delineates the antecedents and consequences of an entrepreneurial posture aswell as the variables that moderate the relationship between the posture and organizationperformance.In summary, entrepreneurship scholars appear to perceive CE as an entrepreneurial activity, as aprocess, as a strategy and as a behaviour executed by a group of employees in existing organizationsfor the purpose of creating organizational growth and improving competitive position throughinnovation, strategic renewal, and corporate venturing activities. Following this line of argument, CEhas been perceived as an entrepreneurial activity, an entrepreneurial process, an entrepreneurialstrategy and as a behaviour of a firm persistently pursued by individuals (a group of employees)within or outside organizations to generate a stream of continuous innovation, strategic renewal, andcorporate venturing activities for the purposes of creating and improving organizational growth,competitive position and the overall financial performance of firms. WHAT IS ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION?The degree to which an organization produces new things, reacts towards and exploits newopportunities and is able to take risks is considered as entrepreneurial orientation.Miller (1983, p.780) states that:“in general, theorists would not call a firm entrepreneurial if it changed its technology or product lines… simply by directly imitating competitors while refusing to take any risks. Some proactivenesswould be essential as well. By the same token, risk-taking firms that are highly leveraged financiallyare not necessarily entrepreneurial. They must also engage in product-market or technologicalinnovation”Therefore, Miller suggests that the study of corporate entrepreneurial orientation should be exploredby assessing organizational activities/behaviour such as product innovation, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Subsequently, Covin and Slevin (1991) also discuss the strategic effects of a firm’sentrepreneurial posture on organizational performance and argue that entrepreneurial firms will actinnovatively, take risks, and behave proactively and competitively. Later, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)propose another two dimensions for measuring an entrepreneurial orientation of a firm i.e. autonomyand competitive aggressiveness. However, others posit that the degree of entrepreneurship refers tothe extent to which any one event is innovative, risky, and proactive while the number of events suchas new products, services, and processes has been regarded as entrepreneurial frequency (Morris & 5 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • Sexton, 1996). They postulate that the frequency of entrepreneurial events and the degree ofentrepreneurship form a variable term: entrepreneurial intensity.Within this framework, empirical results indicate that the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of anorganization may influence its performance (Wiklund, 1999). It has been argued that EO has a long-term effect on perceived performance and that EO can over time contribute to value-adding activitiesof organizations (Madsen, 2004). Subsequently, the performance of an organization is enhanced whenits entrepreneurial intensity exceeds the industry average (Ireland et al., 2006). In short, past studiessuggest that the entrepreneurial orientation of an organization tends to demonstrate organizationalentrepreneurial proclivity/tendency in terms of innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, competitiveaggressiveness and autonomous behaviour when dealing with entrepreneurial projects/activities.Given this, the extent to which a firm will pursue CE is dependent on its entrepreneurial orientation. CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PERFORMANCEZahra (1995) strongly argues that innovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing efforts withinestablished organizations are called corporate entrepreneurship.InnovationInnovation has been associated with the work of Schumpeter in 1934 who argued that organizationalinnovation occurs when it creates and develops new products and processes. Later, innovation wasdefined as a process that provides added value and a degree of novelty to the organization and itssuppliers and customers through the development of new procedures, solutions, products and servicesas well as new methods of commercialization (Covin & Slevin, 1991a; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996a;Zahra, 1993). Similarly, Zahra (1996a, p. 1715) views innovation as “creating and introducing newproducts, production processes, and organisational systems”, while Covin and Miles (1999) argue thatthis form of continuous innovation as sustained regeneration is the most frequently recognized formof CE activity where the organization develops cultures, processes, and structures to support andencourage a continuous stream of new product introductions in its current market and entries withexisting products into new markets.New Business Creation / Corporate VenturingNew business creation and corporate venturing are terminologies used to describe entrepreneurshipactivity within existing organizations, another form of CE activity. An organization is considered tohave created a new business or engaged in corporate venturing initiatives when it enters a new market,and/or establishes a new division or a subsidiary as a strategy to exploit opportunities. For instance,corporate venturing involves entering new businesses through the creation or purchase of newbusiness organizations (Block & MacMillan, 1993; Zahra, 1993). Later, Sathe (2003, p.12) viewedactivities such as a new product initiative, a new market initiative, or a new product-market initiative,as a “new business initiative.” A joint venture between a corporate division and another company, or anew business initiative that has a dedicated venture organization within the division, will be called a“new venture.” Previous researchers also argue that corporate venturing can be an important sourceof organizational strategic renewal (Burgelman, 1983c; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994).Strategic RenewalCE literature suggests that strategic renewal concerns activities that organizations undertake in orderto refresh, reinvigorate, or transform their current actions or strategies (Zahra, 1993). In response toexternal as well as internal stimuli, both successful and struggling organizations may undertake suchactivities. Past studies have shown that changes in technology and market disruption can cause corecompetencies to become obsolete or irrelevant. In response to such a phenomenon, organizationsbegin to create their own sources of strategic change, through various forms of entrepreneurial 6 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • activities such as research and development, new product and process innovation, divestment, missionreformulation, reorganization, changes in systems, learning-by-doing, and competitive interactionswith other organizations (Zahra, 1993). Consistent with this view, Zahra (1996a, p. 1715) suggeststhat strategic renewal of a firm means “transforming the organisation, or revitalizing a company’soperation by changing the scope of its business, its competitive approach, or both.” Here, theorganization is seeking to change how it competes and concentrates on renewing the strategies it usesto successfully align itself with its external environment (Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney & Lane,2003). PROPOSED DEFINITION OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIPBuilding on past empirical evidence of corporate entrepreneurship and its related field, the debatesremain on definitional issues, and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship on organizationalperformance, particularly financial performance (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1991).Although empirical evidence related to CE has been around for more than three decades, there is stilla great deal of ambiguity about it. Hence, different writers have used different perspectives toapproach CE. For example, the organizational learning perspective (Dess et al., 2003; Sambrook &Robert, 2005); wealth creation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2004); a competency-based perspective (Hayton& Kelley, 2006); the human resource approach (Maes, Sels, & Winne, 2005); the process-basedapproach (Shaw, OLoughlin, & McFadzean, 2005); knowledge management and organizationallearning theory (Drejer, Christensen, & Ulhoi, 2004); the resource-based perspective (Maes, 2006;Teng, 2007); the strategic management perspective (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999); and the agencytheory perspective (Jones & Butler, 1992). As a result, our understanding about CE and its relatedapproaches has been fragmented, inconsistent and disintegrated.In sum, previous studies on corporate entrepreneurship have viewed CE from four dimensions andtherefore there is a need to integrate these with the internal and external organizational factors andsubsequently assess the extent to which they can affect overall organizational performance. Admittingthis and given the scope of the research, CE can be defined as “the pursuit of strategic organizationalinnovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing initiatives or activities (corporateentrepreneurship performance) achieved through entrepreneurial orientation by establishedorganizations facilitated by efficient and effective management of both internal and externalcorporate entrepreneurship factors for the purpose of improving organizational overall performance”.The proposed definition of corporate entrepreneurship is relevant in today’s business environment asit incorporates four critical elements surrounding entrepreneurship at firm level: firstly, by pursuingthe strategic corporate entrepreneurship initiatives/activities through entrepreneurial orientationsignifying an organization as an entrepreneurial entity. This in turn will lead an organization toachieve entrepreneurial advantage above its competitors. Therefore, when an organization introducesa new product, a new service, and enters into a new market, implements new administrative andinternal process improvements, has a tendency to pursue high risk projects without regard to theexisting situation, continuously pursues R&D, forms a new subsidiary, merger and acquisition,strategic alliances, pursues a low cost strategy as well as changing the way the business competes,they are establishing strategic corporate entrepreneurship performance. And it is this form of strategicperformance that will lead the company or organization to achieve entrepreneurial advantage andsubsequently outperformed its competitors.The second element in the proposed definition concerns the internal organizational factors of a firm.These factors refer to the whole structure and set up that governs the whole operation of theorganization. Examples of these factors are: boards of directors, strategic leadership, top management 7 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • team, human capital (a pool of technological and scientific employees), strategic planning, strategicdecision-making processes, rewards and compensation, internal processes of the firm (administrativeprocedures/controls), resources (tangible and intangible), the structure of the firm, cultures as well asorganizational size and age. It is argued that to be entrepreneurial, firms must continue to ensure thatthese factors should promote/spur and not impede/stifle the strategic entrepreneurship performance ofthe organization.The third element of the definition considers the external industry or market forces (environmentalfactors) of the organization. A firm’s ability to respond strategically to its external forces will alsoaffect its performance. Example of these forces are: environmental dynamism, hostility, industry lifecycle stage, technological sophistication, industry and competitive forces such as customer pressures,suppliers’ innovation and production capability, threats of substitutes, industry rivalry, governmentregulations/policies, industry standards, new technology, and adverse economic conditions. Buildingon this argument, these external forces of the business should be considered in the definition ofcorporate entrepreneurship. Hence, for an organization to experience further growth, effective andefficient management of these forces is necessary. Therefore, it is also argued that in order to achievestrategic entrepreneurship performance, which in turn will lead to entrepreneurial advantage, firms ofall sizes must continue to ensure these factors promote/spur and do not impede the performance of theorganization.The final element of CE within the proposed definition is concerned with the outcomes of CEactivities, processes, behaviours and strategies. Building on past literature, organizations will find itdifficult to grow and improve their competitiveness as well as their performance if they fail to pursueinnovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing activities continuously or simultaneously.Therefore, the ultimate goal of an entrepreneurial organization is to achieve strategic entrepreneurshipperformance and, in doing so, the organization will grow and improve its overall performance interms of wealth and other aspects of value creation. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND FUTURE RESEARCHRegardless of inconsistency in defining corporate entrepreneurship, the proposed definition has shedsome light on the problem. Therefore, to achieve an entrepreneurial advantage demonstrated in termsof organizational innovation, renewal and venturing initiatives, the proclivity towards risk-taking,proactiveness and innovativeness should remain the centre of corporate entrepreneurial strategy.Given the hostility and dynamism of today’s business environment, managers should recognize theneed for corporate entrepreneurship. However, this paper comes with several limitations. Nodiscussion has been provided on the role of the internal and external corporate entrepreneurshipfactors on CE. Given the proposed definition, future research should consider investigating the effectsof internal and external environments on firms’ performance. REFERENCESAdonisi, M. 2003. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, market orientation, organisational flexibility and job satisfaction. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Antoncic, B., and Hisrich R. D. 2001. Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, No. 5, 495-527.Antoncic, B., and Hisrich R. D. 2004. Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational wealth creation Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23, No. 6, 518-550.Antoncic, B., and Zorn O. 2004. The mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship. Managing Global Transitions, Vol. 2, No. 1, 5-14.Baden-Fuller, C. 1995. New directions for effective strategy research. British Journal of Management, Vol. 6, 3-16. 8 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • Barringer, B. R., and Bluedorn A. C. 1999. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, 421-444.Birkinshaw, J. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, 207-229.Block, Z., and MacMillan, I. 1993. Corporate venturing: creating new business within the firm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Burgelman, R. A. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 12, 1349-1364.Burgelman, R. A. 1984. Designs for corporate entrepreneurship. California Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, 154-166.Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, Vol. 2, 239-262.Carrier, C. 1996. Intrapreneurship in small businesses: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1, 5-20.Chung, L. H., and Gibbons P. T. 1997. Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Roles of Ideology and Social Capital. Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, 10-30.Cole, A. H. 1946. An approach to the study of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic History, Suppl. 4, 1-55.Collins, O., and Moore, D. 1964. The Enterprising Man. Michigan State University.Collins, O., and Moore, D. G. 1970. The organization makers. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.Covin, J. G., and Miles M. P. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3.Covin, J. G., and Slevin D. P. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.16, No. 1, 7-26.Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., and Lane P. J. 2003. Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 351-378.Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., and McGee J. E. 1999. Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3, 85-102.Drejer, A., Christensen, K. S., and Ulhoi J. P. 2004. Understanding intrapreneurship by means of state-of-the-art knowledge management and organisational learning theory. International Journal of Management Enterprise Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, 102-119.Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: practice and principles Harper & Row.Gartner, W. B. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, 696-706.Gartner, W. B. 1988. Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12, No. 4, 11-32.Guth, W. D., and Ginsberg A. 1990. Guest editors introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Summer, 5-15.Hartman, H. 1959. Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful distinction. Admin. Science Quarterly, Vol. 3, 429-451.Hayton, J. C., and Kelley D. J. 2006. A competency-based framework for promoting corporate entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, Vol. 45, No. 3, 407-427.Hebert, R. F., and Link A. N. 1988. The entrepreneur: Mainstream views and radical critiques (Second ed.). New York: PraegerIreland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., and Michael H. M. 2006. A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels: Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 27, No. 1, 10-17.Jennings, D. F., and Lumpkin J. L. 1989. Functionally Modeling Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Integrative Analysis. Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, 485-503.Jones, G. R., and Butler J. E. 1992. Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory perspective. Journal of Management, Vol.18, 733-749.Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 9 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • Kuhn, R. L. 1993. Generating creativity and innovation in large bureaucracies Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Book.Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., and Hornsby J. S. 2005. A model of middle-level managers entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 699-716.Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., and Hornsby, J. S. 1990. Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Special Issue, 49-58.Low, M. B., and MacMillan I. C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, Vol.14, No. 2, 139-161.Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess G. G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 135-172.Madsen, E. L. 2004. Resources, long-term entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance. Paper presented at the 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research.Maes, J. 2006. Innovation, venturing and renewal as corporate entrepreneurial outcomes: A resource- based analysis. Katholieke Universitent Leuven.Maes, J., Sels, L., and Winne S. D. 2005. Innovation as a corporate entrepreneurial outcome in newly established firms: A human resource-based view. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Mair, J., and Rata, C. 20004. Corporate entrepreneurship: Linking strategic roles to multiple dimensions of performance. IESE Business School.McFadzean, E., OLoughlin, A., and Shaw, E. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation: Part I: The missing link. European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, 350-372.McGrath, M. E. 1994. Product strategies for high-technology companies: How to achieve growth, competitive advantage, and increased profits. New York: Irwin.Miller, A., and Camp B. 1985. Exploring determinants of success in corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1. No.1, 247-259.Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 7, 770-791.Morris, M. H. 1998. Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustainability advantages for individuals, organizations and societies. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Morris, M. H., and Kuratko D. F. 2002. Corporate entrepreneurship. United States of America: Harcourt College Publisher.Morris, M. H., and Sexton, D. L. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implication for company performance. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36, 5-13.Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.Rumelt, R. P. 1987. Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge (pp. 137-158). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Russell, R. D. 1999. Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: a cognitive mapping approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.Sambrook, S., and Robert C. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and organizational learning: A review of the literature and the development of a conceptual framework. Strategic Change, Vol. 14, 141-155.Sathe, V. 2003. Corporate entrepreneurship: top managers and new business creation (1 ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.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, NI: Prentice Hall.Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. Theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy New York: Harper & Brothers.Sembhi, R. S. 2002. Entrepreneurial orientation: A review of selected literature. University of Waterloo. 10 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.
  • Sharma, P., and Chrisman, J. J. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3, 11-27.Shaw, E., OLoughlin, A., & McFadzean, E. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation: Part 2: A role-and process-based approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, 393-408.Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., and Grousbeck, H. I. 1989. New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Stopford, J. M., and Baden-Fuller C. W. F. 1994. Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.15, No. 6, 521-536.Teng, B. S. 2007. Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1, 119-142.Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright M. 2001. The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 25, No. 4, 57-80.Wiklund, J. 1999. The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 1.Zahra, S. A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, 259-286.Zahra, S. A. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: a taxomomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, 318-340.Zahra, S. A. 1995. Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10, 225-247.Zahra, S. A. 1996. Governance, ownership and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technology opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 6, 1713- 1735.BiographyHarry Entebang is a Senior Lecturer of the Faculty of Economics & Business at Universiti MalaysiaSarawak. He received his PhD from Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom. His currentresearch interests include corporate entrepreneurship in established organizations.Richard T. Harrison is a Professor of Management and Director of the Queen’s UniversityManagement School at Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom. His current research interestsinclude venture capital, entrepreneurial finance and corporate entrepreneurship. 11 International Journal of ASEAN Entrepreneurship and Business Development. (2012). Volume 1, Number 1, pp 119-130.