I thank my advisor, committee members, and professors for their professional ... the 50th World Conference for the International Council for Small Business, ...
ORGANIZATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE LINKAGE IN UNIVERSITY EXTENSION
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Julie M. Fox, BS, MBA *****
The Ohio State University 2005
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Joseph A. Gliem, Ph.D., Advisor Keith Smith, Ph.D. Nikki Conklin, Ph.D.
Advisor Human & Community Resource Development Graduate Program
Copyright by Julie M. Fox 2005
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurial actions are viewed as critical pathways to improved performance in organizations of all types, sizes, and ages. Within the growing body of literature there is a need to investigate entrepreneurship in order to provide theoretical and practical applications for existing organizations. This study examined the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance within the Cooperative Extension System, a national educational network extending the research-based knowledge of land-grant colleges and universities. This study measured both Entrepreneurial Orientation, based on Covin and Slevin’s scale (1989), and Entrepreneurial Management, based on a scale developed by Brown, Davidsson, and Wiklund (2001) that operationalized Stevenson’s (1983) conceptualization of entrepreneurship as a set of opportunity-based management practices. Extension Directors in the United States and territories were invited to respond to a questionnaire, reporting on Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance based on both financial and non-financial indictors. Seventy percent of the Extension directors responded and results were aggregated by regional categories. Substantial Organizational Entrepreneurship was evident in Extension organizations in all four region. This study measured Organizational Performance based on a five year funding trend, as well as on non-financial indicators through a Performance Satisfaction ii
index. Results from multivariate data analysis indicated that risk taking and tenure accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable Performance Satisfaction. Strategic orientation and risk taking accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable, percent change in total funding. As Extension organizations nationwide address more diverse audiences, an increasingly complex funding mix, and rapidly evolving technologies, the field of entrepreneurship offers principles to continuously improve performance. This study contributed to the field of entrepreneurship and to organizational development in university Extension.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my advisor, committee members, and professors for their professional support and personal encouragement throughout this endeavor. I extend a very special thank you to my classmates and colleagues for their camaraderie over the years. I also extend my appreciation to my parents and other family members who taught me faith and perseverance; my teachers who encouraged my love of learning; and my friends who kept me smiling throughout my many years of higher education.
iv
VITA
30 May 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Born – Ohio, USA 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bachelor of Specialized Studies Ohio University 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Master of Business Administration (MBA) Global Management, University of Phoenix 1998 - present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Direct Marketing Specialist (current position) The Ohio State University South Centers 1993 - 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Executive Director (int’l trade association) Association of Craft & Creative Industries 1987 - 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marketing Manager Lions-Quest International
PUBLICATIONS 1. Fox, J., Nyange, D., Erbaugh, M., Worley, C.T., & Mbiha , E. (2005). Economic development through entrepreneurship in Tanzania’s agricultural sector. Proceedings of the 50th World Conference for the International Council for Small Business, Washington, DC. 2. Fox, J., & Boulay, D. (2003). Emerging online learning communities impact rural development. Proceedings of the Community Development Society (CDS) Annual Conference, Ithaca, NY. 3. Fox, J. (2003). Technology enhanced learning for new and emerging rural entrepreneurs, poster presentation. Proceedings of the Galaxy Conference for the Joint Council of Extension Professionals, Salt Lake City, UT.
v
4. Fox, J., & McFeeters, D. (2002). Utilizing partnerships, technology & innovative programming for rural agri-business entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Small Farm Conference, Albuquerque, NM. 5. Lindner, J. R., Fox, J., & Chizari, M. (1999). Building rural communities through business incubators and partnerships: some lessons learned in southern Ohio. Proceedings of the 31th Annual International Conference of the Community Development Society. Spokane, WA.
FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Human & Community Resource Development Dissertation research fields: business management, organizational behavior, public administration
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………
ii
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………
iv
Vita …………………………………………………………………………………...
v
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………..
ix
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………...
x
Chapters: 1.
2.
Introduction …………………………………………………………………..
1
1.1
Background and setting ………………………………………………
1
1.2
Problem statement ……………………………………………………
5
1.3
Purpose of the study…………………………………………………..
6
1.4
Objectives of the study ……………………………………………….
6
1.5
Definition of terms .…………………………………………………..
7
1.6
Significance of the study …………………………………………….
13
Review of Literature…………………………………………………………
15
2.1
Historical perspectives on entrepreneurship ………………...............
16
2.2
Entrepreneurial individuals and teams ………………………………
20
2.3
Entrepreneurial organizations ……………………………………….
25
2.4
Entrepreneurship in public organizations …………………………..
28
2.5
Opportunity-based view of entrepreneurship ……………………….
33
vii
3.
4.
5.
2.6
The entrepreneurial process ………………………………………...
35
2.7
Entrepreneurial Orientation …………………………………………
46
2.8
Entrepreneurial Management ………………………………………..
53
2.9
Organizational Performance …………………………………………
63
2.10
Summary of the literature review ……………………………………
65
Procedures …………………………………………………………………...
67
3.1
Research design ……………………………………………………...
68
3.2
Population and sampling …………………………………………….
68
3.3
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………
69
3.4
Data collection ……………………………………………………….
79
3.5
Data analysis …………………………………………………………
81
Findings ………………………………………………………………………
83
4.1
Respondents and non-respondents……………………………………
84
4.2
Organizational Entrepreneurship …………………………………….
88
4.3
Organizational Performance …………………………………………
93
4.4
The relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in Extension ………………………. 99
4.5
Summary of findings ………………………………………………... 105
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ……………………………. 106 5.1
Summary and conclusions …………………………………………..
107
5.2
Recommendations …………………………………………………..
110
Appendices …………………………………………………………………………. 128 A
Questionnaire ……………………………………………………….. 129
B
Panel of experts ……………………………………………………...
135
C
Cooperative Extension System Regions …………………………….
137
D
Exemption from human subjects committee review ………………..
139
References …………………………………………………………………………..
141
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1
Entrepreneurship overview …………………………………………………
8
1.2
Funding mix in Extension organizations – percentages of federal, state, local, and other funding …………………………...………………………………. 12
2.1
Stakeholder-driven entrepreneurial process ………………………………….
36
3.1
Indicators of Organizational Entrepreneurship ……………………………..
71
3.2
Indicators of Organizational Performance ………………………………….
72
3.3
Schedule of contacts ……………………………………………………….
80
4.1
Respondents by region ………………………………………………………
84
4.2
Entrepreneurial Orientation in Extension by region …………………………
89
4.3
Entrepreneurial Management in Extension by region …………….................
90
4.4
Organizational Entrepreneurship in Extension by region ……………………
92
4.5
Percent change in total funding by region …………………………………… 94
4.6
Percent change in appropriated and non-appropriated funding by region …… 96
4.7
Percent change in non-appropriated funding as a percentage of total funding change ………………………………………………………….
97
4.8
Performance Satisfaction by region ………………………………………….. 98
5.1
Sub-dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship ……………………….. 108
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1
Summary of organizational entrepreneurship scales ……………………….
27
2.2
Types of organizational change .……………………………….………...…
45
2.3
Strategic Orientation continuums …………………………………………..
56
3.1
Cronbach’s alpha for the dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship and Performance Satisfaction ……………………………………………….
78
4.1
Respondent tenure by region (number of years as an Extension director) .....
85
4.2
Respondents - percent state population change by region …………………..
86
4.3
Director and supervisor responses ………………………….………………
87
4.4
Non-respondents by region ………………………………………………….
87
4.5
Sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Extension ………………
89
4.6
Sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Management in Extension …………….
91
4.7
Summary data for independent variables and dependent variable, Performance Satisfaction (n = 38) ………………………………………….. 100
4.8
Variance summary: Regression of Performance Satisfaction on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry) ………………….……………………
101
4.9
Regression coefficients: Regression of Performance Satisfaction on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry) ………….…………………………… 101
4.10
Summary data for independent variables and dependent variable, Percent change in total funding (n = 38) …………………………………… 103
x
4.11
4.12
Variance summary: Regression of Percent Change in Total Funding on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry) ………………… Regression coefficients: Regression of Percent Change in Total Funding on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry) ………………..
xi
104
104
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and setting Entrepreneurship has been studied by scholars in various disciplines including psychology (Hornady & Aboud, 1971; McClelland, 1961; Shaver & Scott, 1991); anthropology and sociology (Granovetter, 1973; Reynolds, 1991; Weber, 1947); economics (Cantillion, 1755/1931; Kirchhoff, 1991; Kirzner, 1973; Knight, 1921; Marshall, 1930/1961; Say, 1803/1971; Schumpeter, 1934); and management (Miller, 1983; Stevenson, 1983). Entrepreneurship research has progressively moved from the study of individual traits to the features of the entrepreneurial organization (Morris & Kuratko, 2002; Zahra, Kuratko, and Jennings, 1999). As the twenty-first century unfolds, entrepreneurial actions are viewed as critical pathways to competitive advantage and improved performance in organizations of all types, sizes, and ages (Brown, Davidsson, and Wiklund, 2001; Covin, Slevin, and Heeley, 2000; Kuratko, Ireland, and Hornsby, 2001). Evidence has suggested organizations that learn how to facilitate entrepreneurship in its various forms are more competitive and perform better than those that do not (Zahra & Covin, 1995). Some even believe that the lack of attention focused on implementing 1
entrepreneurial actions successfully in the fast-paced and complex economy will result in failure (Zahra, 1999). With an increasingly diverse constituency, new technologies, and changes in traditional funding sources, the Cooperative Extension System (CES), like other established organizations, is exploring entrepreneurship theory and practice. The Cooperative Extension System (CES) was created by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 as a cooperative relationship between federal, state, and county government for land-grant universities (LGUs) to link their research and education with local communities. All universities engage in research and teaching, but the nation’s land-grant colleges and universities have a third critical mission—outreach and engagement, in which the CES is a critical component. Extension is a publicly funded system that links the educational and research resources and activities of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension System (CSREES) and approximately 3,000 county administrative units. With LGUs in every state and territory, the CES mission is “to enable people to improve their lives and communities through learning partnerships that put knowledge to work” (NASULGC, 2001). There are various models of Extension management structure, including Extension as an integrated subunit of the university’s college of agriculture, Extension as a stand-alone academic unit headed by a dean on equal footing with other college deans, Extension as managed by a member of the university’s president cabinet, and emerging models based on integrated university 2
outreach, engagement, continuing education, and cooperative Extension. This study focused on the 54 Extension organizations at NASULGC-member land-grant institutions established through the Morrill Act of 1862. Since 1914, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Smith-Lever Act, CES has proven to be a successful model for federal, state, and local governments to work cooperatively with the national land-grant universities (Rasmussen, 1989). However, due to federal, state, and local funding trends, the CES is exploring a changing funding portfolio to finance more of their budgets from tuition, fees, grants, and contracts. The majority of CES organizations have developed revenue generation policies (Miller, 2004). Alternative funding sources for Extension have been explored since the 1980’s and by 1995, Framing the Future, a report prepared for the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) and the CSREES, included broadening resource acquisition as one of the five major issues for the System. In 1997, the National Extension Personnel and Organizational Development Committee, an ECOP subcommittee, conducted a survey of faculty, staff, and administrative officers to take the “pulse of the system” concerning alternative revenue sources for Cooperative Extension and research. More than 90% of all respondents to the Pulse survey reported that there had been a shift in thinking about alternative funds in the past three years. When asked to indicate the reason for this, responses included decreasing state and federal funds; the need to meet match funding requirements; costs increasing at a rate faster than appropriated funding; desire to expand programming; increased program demand; increasing salary and benefit costs; changes in leadership; an 3
intensifying need to stay competitive, and administrative pressures from University administration. The Joint Task Force on Managing a Changing Portfolio defined alternative revenue as monies that were not appropriated directly to Cooperative Extension or research by federal, state and local governments. As the CES faces these challenging economic conditions, leaders throughout the System can learn from the emerging field of organizational entrepreneurship. Schumpeter (1947) differentiated between two kinds of reaction to changing economic conditions, including the adaptive response which follows well-known paths and the creative response which opens up fundamentally new ways of economic and social development. The discovery and realization of creative responses are the characteristic functions of the entrepreneur. Change, largely driven by new technology and globalization, has created substantial uncertainty (Bettis & Hitt, 1995; Ireland & Hitt, 1999), which can be used as an advantage for those employing an entrepreneurial mindset focused on identifying and exploiting opportunities (MacGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Zahra & Dess, 2001). Entrepreneurial interest and initiatives are evident throughout all levels of Extension. For example, the Cooperative Extension Systems of the United States and territories, along with other components of Land-Grant Universities and the Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension System (CSREES) of USDA, are cooperating to build a national eXtension system to more efficiently serve current and new customers in ways that provide accurate and just in time information for decision making. Various state and local entrepreneurial Extension teams and programs have been featured in the 4
Journal of Extension. In October, 2004, the Cooperative Extension System sponsored a two-day event, The Power of New Ideas: Impact Through Innovation, hosted by NASULGC. While there are many examples of entrepreneurial initiatives in Extension organizations across the United States, this study proposes to explore the relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and organizational performance.
1.2 Problem statement As society changes, new technologies evolve, and competition increases, the process for carrying out the Extension mission is being challenged (King & Boehlje, 2000). A variety of forces have put extreme pressure on all educational institutions to become more dynamic, especially the Cooperative Extension System (King, 1999). These pressures include rapid development in the availability of information, expectations of faster response time to problems, greater demand for stakeholder involvement in decision making processes, and a changing funding portfolio (King & Boehlje, 2000; Miller, 2005). In a rapidly changing world, organizations need to continually identify new opportunities beyond existing competencies if they are to survive (Hamel, Doz, and Prahalad, 1989; Mintzberg, 1994). In the Renewing the Covenant and Returning to Our Roots series, works of the Kellogg Commission (2000) and the NASULGC offered a model that transformed the historic mission of teaching, research, and service into a forward-looking agenda of learning, discovery, and engagement in keeping with the changes that characterize today’s society (Franz, Peterson, and Dailey, 2002). In The Extension Vision for the 21st 5
Century, the ECOP (2002) responded with a proactive report that laid a foundation for Extension’s leadership for community and university-wide engagement. However, King, and Boehlje (2000) predicted that Extension would continue to have difficulty coping with the transition to a marketplace environment. Extension personnel must create a shared vision, be proactive in dealing with the future, support change, champion the holistic view of Extension, and create an environment for innovation (Buchanan, 1993). Encouraging innovative activity involves assessing current strategies and continuously implementing an entrepreneurial process and principles.
1.3 Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in the Cooperative Extension System. This study drew upon the fields of entrepreneurship and organizational performance in private, public, and nonprofit sectors. It focused on the organizational context of entrepreneurship.
1.4 Objectives of the study The objectives of the study were based on exploring the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in Extension. The objectives of this study were to: 1. describe the extent to which organizational-level entrepreneurship was evident in Extension. 6
2. describe the financial and non-financial dimensions of organizational performance in Extension. 3. describe the relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and organizational performance in Extension.
1.5 Definition of terms While the term entrepreneurship has been in use for hundreds of years, as a discipline, entrepreneurship research remains in its infancy (Paulin, Coffey, and Spaulding, 1982; Sexton, 1982). Scholars continue to debate such fundamental issues as the definition of entrepreneurship, the nature of the entrepreneur, the relevant unit of analysis when studying entrepreneurship, the purpose of such research, and the environmental conditions that give rise to entrepreneurship, and much more (Amit, Glosten, and Muller, 1993). Entrepreneurship research has focused on different units of analysis, ranging from individuals and teams to organizations and communities (Figure 1.1). Entrepreneurship can be viewed in the context of a range of factors, as it is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon that some individuals, teams, organizations, or communities have and others do not (Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985).
7
Entrepreneurship Overview Economically & Socially Motivated
Individual Entrepreneurs
Intrapreneurs Individuals & teams in existing organizations
Entrepreneurial Organizations
Entrepreneurial Communities Entrepreneurial Process
Figure 1.1: Entrepreneurship overview
8
1.5.1
Organizational Entrepreneurship This study focused on organizational entrepreneurship which includes both
entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial management. The term entrepreneurial orientation is defined as organizational behavior patterns that reflect the organization’s commitment to entrepreneurial intensity, which is the combination of entrepreneurial frequency and the degree of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial frequency represents the number of entrepreneurial events in which an organization becomes involved, as represented by new products, services, processes, (Jennings & Seaman, 1990). The degree of entrepreneurship is the extent to which any event involves innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness (Cheah, 1990; Covin & Slevin, 1990; Morris & Sexton, 1996). Entrepreneurial orientation was operationalized using a scale developed by Covin and Slevin (1989). The term entrepreneurial management is based on Stevenson’s (1983) conceptualization of entrepreneurship as a management approach focused on the pursuit and exploitation of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled. Stevenson (1983) contrasted entrepreneurial behavior with administrative behavior. He described a continuum with promoter organizations placed at the entrepreneurial end of a spectrum and trustee organizations at the administrative end. Entrepreneurial management was operationalized through a scale developed by Brown et al. (2001) that included sub-dimensions of strategic orientation, resource orientation, management structure, reward philosophy, and entrepreneurial culture.
9
1.5.2
Organizational Performance There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that organizational
entrepreneurship is positively associated with numerous measures of performance (Davis, Morris, and Allen, 1991; Morris & Sexton, 1996; Zahra, 1986). Because performance is multidimensional, it is advantageous to integrate different dimensions of performance in empirical studies (Cameron, 1978, 1986). Extension organizations are complex and each organization faces a unique set of circumstances. The organizational performance measure for this study included both financial and non-financial indicators.
Financial measures of organizational performance Federal formula funds remain vital to the overall funding of Extension, leveraging substantial state and local appropriations, as well as laying the foundation for a strong nationwide Cooperative Extension System. Although non-competitive federal funds have remained relatively flat, what has changed is the percentage of the total budget these federal funds now represent in overall Extension funding (17.23% in FY03), as well as the percentage these funds represent within each organization’s overall funding mix (Figure 1.3). Appropriated budget cuts at the federal, state, or local levels have been the driving force for Extension organizations to emphasize non-appropriated funding. Nonappropriated revenue was defined by ECOP’s Personnel and Organizational Development Committee (PODC) as monies that were not appropriated directly to Cooperative Extension or research units by federal, state, and local governments.
10
Public appropriated funding has shifted and Extension organizations now generate revenue through various funding sources. Part of the funding mix for Extension organizations has been federal financial support in the form of traditional formula funds, as well as in the form of new competitive funding models targeted toward specialized programs. State and local governments also contribute to the funding mix, but the percentage contributed varies across the country. Each organization has responded to a shifting funding mix by developing a variety of approaches that are aimed at maintaining and increasing state and local funds, as well as generating revenue through grants and contracts; fee-based programming and publications; event sponsorships; development of local or state foundation activity; and other types of fund raising. Most 1862 Extension organizations now rely on external grants, contracts, and other non-appropriated funding for a growing portion of Extension budgets. A Revenue Generation Report (Miller, 2005), based on a survey of Extension leaders conducted from August to December, 2004, indicated a diversity of funding models for Extension organizations in the thirty six states that responded to the survey (Figure 1.3). Changes in funding balance have created management challenges for Extension organizations balancing priorities of new and various funding sources.
11
Extension organization funding mix Federal
State
Local
Other
100% 90%
Funding Mix
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1
3
Federal State Local Other
5
7
9
11
Minimum 8.0 19.0 .0 .0
13
15
17 19 States
Maximum 41.6 68.0 52.0 46.0
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
Mean Std. Deviation 17.6 7.29 42.5 10.71 19.4 13.24 20.4 13.64
Data source: Miller, (2005). Revenue Generation, A snapshot of revenue generation policies and practices in Cooperative Extension, 2004.
Figure 1.2: Funding mix in Extension organizations – percentages of federal, state, local, and other funding
12
Non-financial measures of organizational performance With vastly different scenarios in the mix of funding from state to state, this study also explored non-financial measures of organizational performance. A Performance Satisfaction index was developed for this study, in order to try to capture the complex indictors of performance in Extension organizations. The index included satisfaction with overall performance; retaining key employees; delivering new programs, products or services for external audiences; improving internal processes; gathering and using knowledge; and managing change. Satisfaction is a fundamental measure of the perception of successful performance, and has been presented within the framework of discrepancy theory, whereby there may be a perceptive gap between what an individual has and what they want to have (Cooper & Artz, 1995). This gap may exist relative to either specific goals or general expectations (Cooper & Artz, 1995). While the combined scale represents complex factors of organizational performance, the collective dimension allows for organizations to report on indicators that best align with the unique opportunities and objectives being addressed during the five year time period from 2000 to 2004.
1.6 Significance of the study This study aimed to contribute to Extension organizational development, as well as to the literature on organizational entrepreneurship. The study explored the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance. Because a positive relationship was found, the Organizational Entrepreneurship 13
framework can be used to address factors that stimulate or inhibit entrepreneurship in Extension. Findings can guide Extension organizations in making decisions and developing behaviors that enhance Extension activities, increase non-appropriated funding, and better leverage federal, state, and local funding to continue fulfilling the mission of the organization. Modern organizations need to operate as entrepreneurial businesses that are stable across situation and time (Scase, 2000). The literature on Organizational Entrepreneurship evolved from the innovation, strategic change, and strategic management literature and has focused on entrepreneurial activities within an organization in order to maximize performance. Organizations developing a continuous entrepreneurial process that infiltrates and permeates the entire organization will realize a number of benefits (Kuratko, Ireland, and Hornsby, 2001). This study extended research focusing on the private, public, and nonprofit sectors to continue building on research by exploring theory and application.
14
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This Chapter examines the literature to develop a framework for this study. This literature review begins with an exploration into the broad field of entrepreneurship and then moves to specific organizational factors that foster entrepreneurship and influence organizational performance. This chapter is organized in the following sections: 2.1
Historical perspectives on entrepreneurship
2.2
Entrepreneurial individuals and teams
2.3
Entrepreneurial organizations
2.4
Entrepreneurship in public and not-for-profit organizations
2.5
Opportunity-based view of entrepreneurship
2.6
The entrepreneurial process
2.7
Entrepreneurial Orientation
2.8
Entrepreneurial Management
2.9
Organizational Performance
2.10
Summary of literature review
15
2.1 Historical perspectives on entrepreneurship The term “entrepreneurship” can be traced back to the twelfth century, rooted in the French verb “entreprendre” which means to do something differently (Long, 1983), and the German word “unternehmen,” which means to “undertake” (Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991). Its noun form “entreprendeur” was documented in the fourteenth century (Hoselitz, 1960). The modern term “entrepreneur” was used during the eighteenth century in the writings of Richard Cantillion (1755/1931). The entrepreneurial conceptualization reflected in the literature has emerged from a diversity of scholarly disciplines and perspectives, beginning with origins in economics. In the mid-1700s, Cantillion (1755/1931), an Irish economist of French descent, defined the term entrepreneur as a speculator searching for profit by buying at a certain price and selling at an uncertain price. In the early 1800s, Say (1803/1971) expanded the concept of entrepreneurship, to include managerial skills and other qualities such as judgment and perseverance to create value in an economy by moving resources out of areas of low productivity and into areas of higher productivity and greater yield. In the mid-1800s economist Mill (1848/1965) suggested that the distinguishing feature of an entrepreneur was that they were more than a capitalist in that they assumed both the risk and the dayto-day operations or management of a business. British economist Marshall (1930/1961) defined the entrepreneurial function as providing innovations for efficiency and consequently progress. Knight (1921), the first American contributor in entrepreneurship theory, discussed foresight and distinguished between risk, which is insurable, and uncertainty, 16
which is not, and noted that the entrepreneur is one who bears all uncertainty and makes decisions for which he takes responsibility. Schumpeter (1934) saw the entrepreneur as the major agent of economic development, an innovator trying new combinations of resources to generate new products, new production methods, entry into new markets, new sources of supplies, and new organizations of any industry. Kirzner (1973, 1997), an Austrian economist, emphasized alertness and suggested that the role of the entrepreneur was an arbitrageur who created incremental-continuous innovations by identifying and exploiting potential opportunities. Casson (1982) attempted to develop a theory linking entrepreneurs with economic development, emphasizing resource coordination and decision making.
2.1.1
Economists Entrepreneurship has been recognized as a dynamic, developing part of the
economy, frequently captured through formal economic indicators. Small businesses make significant contributions to the economy, as reported by Birch (1979) in the Job Generation Process, and Storey (1994), who synthesized a number of studies in Understanding the Small Business Sector. According to the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED), as of the late 1990s, approximately 10.1 million adults in the United States were attempting to create a new business at any given time (Reynolds, Carter, Gartner, and Greene, 2004). However, Drucker (1985), Hornaday (1992), and Venketaraman (1997) stated that not every new small business was entrepreneurial nor represented entrepreneurship. Also, the activities of informal 17
entrepreneurs are rarely quantified or recorded because informal entrepreneurs see their activity less as businesses and more as small-scale or erratic ways one works to make a little money that is not worth reporting (Edgcomb & Thetford, 2004). Economists focus on market factors and consider the entrepreneur as a rational agent contributing to economic activity (Herron, Sapienza, and Smith-Cook, 1991).
2.1.2
Psychologists The psychological approach to entrepreneurship looks upon venture creation as
the manifestation of personality characteristics of the individual (Kets de Vries, 1977). McClelland (1961) explored the “need for achievement” and conducted a cross-cultural study on characteristics of successful entrepreneurs regardless of country and type of business, which identified nine competencies categorized within proactivity, achievement orientation and commitment to others (McClelland, 1987). Hornaday and Aboud, (1971) added core aspects of the entrepreneur, such as autonomy, aggression, and innovation. Borland (1974) used the words “internal locus of control.” Timmons (1978), added characteristics such as self confidence, goal-orientation, creativity, and moderated risk taking to the definition. Sexton and Bowman-Upton (1991) used the adjectives energetic and ambitious, explaining the entrepreneur as someone who had tolerance for ambiguity and reacted positively to setbacks. Welsh and White (1981) explained entrepreneurs as individuals who sought responsibilities and embraced challenges.
18
2.1.3
Sociologists Sociologists have focused on social conditions which enable entrepreneurship,
seeing entrepreneurial activity as a product of structural conditions and social factors (Gerschenkron, 1965; Reynolds, 1991; Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Weber, 1947). Granovetter (1995) argued that an environment that affords profits is not a sufficient condition for organizational survival, but it is more important to consider the social structure within which individuals and groups try to construct it.
2.1.4
Management specialists From the management perspective, entrepreneurship is an organizational process
that encourages and practices innovation, risk taking, and proactiveness toward customers, competition, and opportunities (Miller & Friesen, 1982). The process enables the organization to create value by identifying market opportunities and creating unique combinations of resources to pursue those opportunities (Jacobson, 1992). An entrepreneurial organization is proactive in obtaining intelligence on customers and competitors; is innovative by reconfiguring its resources to formulate a strategic response; and implements the response, which entails some degree of risk and uncertainty (Barrett, Balloun, and Weinstein, 2003). The management perspective of entrepreneurship emphasizes organizational factors as facilitating the success or failure of ventures (Brophy & Shulman, 1992; Sandberg, 1992). Miller (1983) suggested that the degree of entrepreneurial orientation could be seen as the extent to which organizations take risks, innovate, and act proactively. Stevenson (1983) added that entrepreneurial 19
management, defined as a set of opportunity-based management practices, could help organizations remain vital and contribute to organizational and societal level value creation. Within management literature, advocates of corporate entrepreneurship stress its importance for rejuvenating and revitalizing existing organizations (Maes, 2004). Zahra (1991) observed that corporate entrepreneurship may be formal or informal activities aimed at creating new business in established companies through product and process innovations and market developments. It is brought into practice as a tool for business development, revenue growth, profitability enhancement, and pioneering the development of new products, services and processes (Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby, 1990; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miles & Covin, 2002; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra et al., 1999). The pursuit of corporate entrepreneurship has arisen from a variety of challenges including global competition, interest in organizational efficiency for greater profitability, dramatic changes in the marketplace, perceived limitations in the traditional methods of corporate management, and the exodus of innovative-minded employees who are disenchanted with bureaucratic organizations (Morris & Kuratko, 2002).
2.2 Entrepreneurial individuals and teams Early research focused on traits and actions of the individual entrepreneur (Cole, 1946; Collins & Moore, 1970; Hartman, 1959; Schumpeter, 1942). Some authors have advocated that it is individuals who carry out entrepreneurial initiatives (Schumpeter, 1934). While there is no single prototype of the entrepreneur (Bird, 1989), research has 20
explored many variables, including individual characteristics (Cantillon, 1755/1931; Drucker, 1985; Hornady & Abound, 1971; Knight, 1921; McClelland, 1987), perceived barriers (Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Kouriloff, 2000; MacMillan, Block, & Narasimha, 1986; Porter, 1990; Shapero, 1984), motivations, aspirations, competencies, stage of development, and ways of thinking (Gartner, 1988; Zahra, Jennings, and Kuratko, 1999). The cognitive approach to entrepreneurship is concerned with the entrepreneur’s preferred way of gathering, processing, evaluating, and storing information (Allinson, Chell, and Hayes, 2000; Krueger, 2000; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Venkataraman, 1997). Entrepreneurs are driven by a variety of forces, including economic motives such as independence (Collins & Moore, 1964); financial survival or wealth; social causes (Dees, Emerson, and Economy, 2001); or other personal drives such as preferred lifestyle (Reynolds & White 1997) or achievement (McClelland, 1961). Vesper (1980) and Gartner, Mitchell, and Vesper (1989) emphasized the diversity among entrepreneurs and entrepreneur types. Self-employed, lifestyle entrepreneurs have different aspirations, expectations, and needs compared to high-growth oriented, job-creating entrepreneurs (Vesper, 1980). Job-creating, fast-growing entrepreneurs have been referred to as gazelles (Birch, 1987) and described by Kuratko and Hodgetts (1998). Aspirations and expectations may also vary based on stage of venture development. Potential or “intending entrepreneurs” are individuals who, at a particular time, have a preexisting preparedness, but not salient intention, to start a business (Krueger, 1993). Intention is not necessarily a dichotomy; it can be a continuum 21
(Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Krueger, 1993). A precipitating event (Shapero, 1984), may prompt an individual to take entrepreneurial action. Nascent entrepreneurs are those individuals who are in the early process of exploring or developing a new venture (Katz & Gartner, 1988). On the other end of the spectrum, serial entrepreneurs have more than one entrepreneurial experience such as establishing, purchasing, inheriting, or investing in a new business (Delmar & Davidsson, 2000; Westhead & Wright, 1998). Various scales and instruments have been developed to predict and explain individual entrepreneurship, including McClelland’s (1987) characteristics of successful entrepreneurs; the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation© (EAO) which measures entrepreneurship based on attitude rather than personality theory (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt, 1991); the Entrepreneurial Quotient© (EQ), which is a test of how one’s self-perception and personal characteristics compare with those of successful entrepreneurs (Fasiska, 1992); the Carland Entrepreneurship Index (Carland, Carland, and Hoy, 1992); the Bolton Thompson Entrepreneur Indicator (BTEI), which is based on the six character themes of focus, advantage, creativity, ego, team, and social (Bolton & Thompson, 2000); the Entrepreneurial Profile Questionnaire (EPQ), which is designed to survey the effect of individual, societal and environmental factors on entrepreneurial expansion plans (Welsch, 1998); and other instruments such as the Cognitive Style Index (Allinson & Hayes, 1996); the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument© (HBDI™), which measures the preference for certain activities (Herrmann, 1996); the Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1976); and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator© (MBTI™), which is based on Jung’s personality types (Myers, 1962). 22
Individual entrepreneurship has also been explored through studies on intrapreneurship. Harvey and Drolet (1994, p.155) defined the intrapreneur as “the internal organizational version of the entrepreneur.” The intrapreneurship school of entrepreneurship evolved in response to the lack of innovativeness and competitiveness within organizations (Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby, 1990; Pinchot, 1985). Intrapreneurship involves the development of independent units designed to create, market, and expand innovative services, technologies, or methods within the organization (Nielsen, Peters, and Hisrich, 1985). Pinchot (1985) coined the term “intrapreneur” and defined intrapreneurs as people who take hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind within an organization. DeChambeau and Mackenzie (1986) advocated that intrapreneurial activity ranged from the development of a new product to the creation of a more cost-efficient process. Despite the lack of a clearly accepted definition of the term intrapreneur or institutional entrepreneur (DiMaggio, 1988; Zucker, 1991), the literature revealed three trends in the research (Carrier, 1996). The first group of authors presented intrapreneurship as a set of psychological characteristics and personal attributes (Pinchot, 1985). Although it was not always explicit in their work, many of these authors seemed to believe that the psychological profiles of intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs were fairly similar, even though the contexts in which they act were different (Carrier, 1996). The second group of authors concentrated on the roles and functions of intrapreneurs, and presented them as visionaries, change agents, and champions of innovation (Lee & Zemke, 1985; Lessem, 1987). The third group of authors highlighted the importance of 23
organizational factors for the pursuit of intrapreneurship (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Slevin & Covin, 1989). Entrepreneurship within an existing organization is not only possible, but may even be crucial for the success of the organization (Pinchot, 1985). Intrapreneurship is important for organizational survival, growth, profitability, and renewal (Zahra, 1995). A shift of research attention from the individual to the entrepreneurial team gained momentum from outside the field of entrepreneurship. Promoting collective entrepreneurship as a solution to problems of national competitiveness, Robert Reich (1987) cast “the team as hero” and argued that economic success came through the talent, energy, and commitment of a team rather than through the solo efforts encouraged by the myth of the entrepreneurial hero. Scholarly attention to entrepreneurial teams increased after the 1980s, a time period when new enterprises were frequently launched by teams rather than solo founders (Ensley, Carland, Carland, and Banks, 1999). A team that is entrepreneurial is one that is focused on proactively and creatively seeking opportunities to bring into existence future goods and services (Stewart, 1989). The ability of an entrepreneurial team to assess and manage risk is most important for ventures operating in turbulent environments (Dubin, 1989). Timmons, Smollen, and Dingee (1977) argued that the success of entrepreneurship was a result of the interaction between entrepreneurial team characteristics and product and market characteristics. Recent research has concluded that teams are central to the understanding of what makes an organization entrepreneurial (Anderson & West, 1998; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Senge, 1990). Mossaver-Rahmani (1995) identified 24
various pay-offs for creating intrapreneurial teams including increased ideas, energy, and experimentation; increased commitment and ownership; increased integration and performance. Organizations like Extension can excel through successful teams (Franz, 2004).
2.3 Entrepreneurial organizations The idea of entrepreneurship inside an organization has been presented by authors such as Kanter in The Change Masters (1983) and When Giants Learn to Dance (1989). The entrepreneurial literature claims that entrepreneurial organizations are characterized by a set of organizational attitudes and behaviors (Covin & Miles, 1999; Covin & Slevin, 1989; Kuratko, Naffziger, and Montagno, 1993; Lee, Lee, and Pennings, 2001; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Lyon, Lumpkin, and Dess, 2001; Miller, 1983; Morris & Jones, 1999; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Entrepreneurial organizations demonstrate competencies such as opportunity recognition (Miller, 1983; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1986), organizational flexibility (Murray, 1984; Naman & Slevin, 1993; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985), and the ability to measure, encourage, and reward innovative behavior (Zahra, 1993). Drucker (1985) pointed out that entrepreneurship was based upon the same principles, whether the entrepreneur was an existing large organization or an individual starting a new venture. Entrepreneurial management is relevant to all types of organizations, regardless of whether the organization is a for-profit business, a public-service agency, a nonprofit group or a governmental institution.
25
Definitions from the literature that describe the entrepreneurial efforts associated with existing organizations and confirm the possible integration between organizational management and entrepreneurship include corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983; Carrier, 1996; Covin & Miles, 1999; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Dess, Lumpkin, and McGee, 1999; Hisrich & Peters, 1986; Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002; Zahra, Ireland, & Hitt, 2000); corporate venturing (MacMillan, Block, and Narasimha, 1986; Miles & Covin, 2002; von Hippel, 1977); strategic entrepreneurship (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, and Sexton, 2002; Murray, 1984); innovative management (Khandwalla, 1977); entrepreneurial strategic posture (Covin & Slevin, 1991); strategic behavior (Burgelman, 1983); entrepreneurial strategy making (Dess, Lumpkin, and Covin, 1997); entrepreneurial orientation (Covin & Slevin, 1986; Khandwalla, 1977; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller 1983; Miller & Friesen, 1978); and entrepreneurial management (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Michael, Storey, and Thomas, 2002). Entrepreneurial organizations are flexible and adaptable, far from the bureaucratic and mechanistic organization (Birch, 1987). When contrasting traditional organizations with entrepreneurial organizations, complex issues do not lend themselves to concise definitions (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). However, descriptions focusing on various organizational factors evolve throughout this paper. While there is no single agreed upon method for measuring organizational entrepreneurship, there are various instruments that assess a number of critical factors, such as entrepreneurial orientation (Figure 1.2). The Entrepreneurial Performance Index (EPI) captures both the degree and the frequency of entrepreneurship, as well as the underlying dimensions of innovativeness, risk taking, and 26
proactiveness (Morris & Sexton, 1996). The Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI), developed by Kuratko et al. (1990) is a diagnostic tool for evaluating how supportive the corporate environment is, based on management support of organizational entrepreneurship; work discretion; rewards and reinforcements; time availability; organizational boundaries.
Scale Entrepreneurial Orientation
Entrepreneurial Management
Entrepreneurial Performance Index (EPI)
The Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI)
Contributors Khandwalla (1977); Miller & Friesen (1978; 1982); Miller (1983); Covin & Slevin (1986; 1989; 1990; 1991); Lumpkin & Dess (1996; 1997) Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund (2001)
Organizational Factors risk taking, proactiveness, innovativeness competitive aggressiveness, autonomy
strategic orientation, resource orientation, management structure, reward philosophy, growth orientation entrepreneurial culture Morris (1996) Degree of entrepreneurship (company characteristics and behaviors: underlying dimensions of innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness, as well as structure, and reward, strategic & resource orientations) Frequency of entrepreneurship (new product, service and process introductions) Kuratko, Montagno, & management support of organizational Hornsby (1990); Hornsby entrepreneurship; work discretion; et al. (1992) rewards and reinforcements; time availability; organizational boundaries
Table 2.1: Summary of organizational entrepreneurship scales
27
2.4 Entrepreneurship in public organizations The literature has expanded to include the development of frameworks for the emergence of entrepreneurship within the public and nonprofit sectors (Borins, 1998; Boyett, 1996; Dees, Emerson, and Ecnomy, 2002; Forster, Graham, and Wanna, 1996; Graham & Harker, 1996; Morris & Jones, 1999; Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Similar to research focused on the private sector, the literature includes references to individuals, organizations, the process, and strategies. Catford (1998) noted that social and economic entrepreneurs share the same focus on vision and opportunity and the same ability to convince and empower others to help them turn these visions into a reality. Social entrepreneurs share many similarities to economic entrepreneurs operating in the private sector. Brinckeroff (2000, p. 12) described social entrepreneurs as individuals who were constantly looking for new ways to serve their constituencies and to add value to existing services; who were willing to take reasonable risk on behalf of the people their organization serves; who understood that all resource allocations were really stewardship investments; who weighed the social and financial return of each of these investments; and who always kept the mission first, but recognized that without money, there was no mission output. Schuyler (1998) suggested that social entrepreneurship focused on profit as a means, and not an end. Publications from the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund mentioned various terms to describe similar entrepreneurial activities, including: social purpose venture; community wealth venture; nonprofit enterprise (Emerson & Twersky, 1996). Additional terms include venture philanthropy, caring capitalism, social enterprise (Cannon & 28
Fenoglio, 2000), and civic entrepreneurship (Henton, Melville, and Walsh, 1997). Henton et al. (1997, p.1) spoke of a civic entrepreneur as a “...leader who forged new, powerfully productive linkages at the intersection of business, government, education, and community.” In spite of the varying definitions of social entrepreneurship, the commonality is the problem-solving nature of social entrepreneurship and the emphasis on developing and implementing initiatives that produce measurable results in the form of changed social impacts (Johnson, 2000). The concept of public entrepreneurship has been defined in a variety of ways, including the process of creating value for citizens by bringing together unique combinations of public and private resources to exploit social opportunities (Bellone & Goerle, 1992; Linden, 1990; Morris & Jones, 1999; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). The term public implies that an organization is accessible to or shared by all members of a community. In the literature on entrepreneurial public management, scholars emphasize different strategies, depending on whether they focus on launching innovations (Borins, 1998; Levin & Sanger, 1994), managing effective programs (Behn, 1991), or improving overall organizational performance (Light, 1998; Moore, 1995; Osborne & Plastrik, 1997). There have always been elements of innovation and entrepreneurship in public sector organizations (Jordan, 1990; Moore, 1983). Creating value for customers, putting resources together in unique ways, and being opportunity-driven are not inherently in conflict with the purpose of public agencies (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). The term entrepreneurship has appeared in the public administration literature with increasing 29
frequency (Morris & Kuratko, 2002), identifying pioneers which have affected dramatic change in public sector organizations (Cooper & Wright, 1992; Doig & Hargrove, 1987; Lewis, 1980; Ramamurti, 1986). The factor that differentiates public entrepreneurs from ordinary managers is their ability to alter the existing allocation of scarce resources in fundamental ways (Lewis, 1980, p. 233). Looking beyond the function of any one person, other authors link the efforts of groups that influence significant reallocation of societal resources for meaningful social, political, or economic change (Drucker, 1995; Wilson, 1973). Another approach can be found in the “reinventing government” literature popularized by Carroll (1996), Fox (1996), Osborne and Gaebler (1992). A stream of research suggests that entrepreneurship is linked to strategic management that enables public sector organizations to identify new opportunities and generate new process and service innovations (Behn, 1991; Mokwa & Permut, 1981; Nutt & Backoff, 1993). Stevenson et al. (1989) at Harvard described public sector entrepreneurship as the process of creating value for citizens by bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to exploit social opportunities. When applied to existing public organizations, entrepreneurship takes on distinct characteristics (Bower, 1977; Cullen & Cushman, 2000; Frederickson, Rainey, Backoff, and Levine, 1976) and strategic approaches to management are necessary if entrepreneurship is to be facilitated on an ongoing basis (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Jennings & Seaman, 1990; Tropman & Morningstar, 1989).
30
Advocacy for public sector entrepreneurship was supported through the work of Linden (1990), who proposed an operational action agenda for public sector managers that began with strategic thinking and acting, and then led to creating a felt need for change, introducing structural changes to reinforce and validate new approaches, dealing with risk, and using political skills. In the book, Reinventing Government, Osborne and Gaebler (1992) suggested that government organizations could be transformed by focusing on outcomes, customer orientation, proactiveness, and other market mechanisms. In 1999, a large cross-section of public sector managers was surveyed to identify organizational characteristics associated with entrepreneurship in the public sector. A customer focus, efficient operations, a strong leader at the top, and good planning systems, were identified as leading characteristics of an entrepreneurial organization. The highest ranking obstacles to entrepreneurship, as rated by these managers, included policies, procedures, personnel restrictions, and reward limitations. Entrepreneurial governance brings a flexible, dynamic, and innovative approach to the process by which complex problems are collectively solved and society’s needs are met (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Cullen and Cushman, (2000) discussed strategic approaches for organizations to make a transition from traditional function-driven management to more competitive performance-driven management. Entrepreneurship is a universal construct that can be applied in public sector organizations (Morris & Kurako, 2002). As public sector organizations face a turbulent external environment with eroding tax bases, heightened accountability, rapidly changing technology, and increasingly diverse audiences to serve, entrepreneurship can be an 31
integral component that leads to generating alternative revenues, improving internal processes, and developing innovative solutions to meet social and economic needs. Because there are fundamental differences in organizational realities, public sector organizations benefit from addressing unique approaches and outcomes. Bellone and Goerle (1992, p.133) noted that “a strong theory of public entrepreneurship requires a strong theory of citizenship.” Interest in public sector entrepreneurship and innovation continues to grow through research such as Zegans’s (1992) report on innovation in the well-functioning public agency, through debates such as that presented by Borins (2000), and through new initiatives such as the Government Innovators Network, The Center for The Business of Government, the Social Enterprise Initiative at Harvard Business School, the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University and Stanford’s Social Innovation Review. Interest in organizational entrepreneurship is also being explored in nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education. Just as there are a variety of for-profit and public organizations, there are a variety of nonprofit organizations. Generally, they differ from traditional businesses in that they are governed by a board of directors, they have multiple goals beyond selling products and services, and they are driven by multiple constituencies rather than solely on the economic market (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). Similar to public agencies, many nonprofit organizations are facing increased accountability, as well as other various external and internal challenges. The emergence of public sector entrepreneurship has also led to interest in entrepreneurship in the context of higher education. The education environment is evolving as new learning 32
methods, budget constraints, changes in demands based on life long learning precepts and other factors stimulate entrepreneurship. Institutions of higher education can promote or constrain entrepreneurial behavior as they preserve traditional values of education and meet evolving demands of post-secondary education.
2.5 Opportunity-based view of entrepreneurship The discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities are defining features of entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Contemporary definitions of entrepreneurship tend to center around the pursuit of opportunity (Brazael, 1999; Brown at al., 2001; Churchill & Muzyka, 1994; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). The opportunity-based conceptualization of entrepreneurship was first identified by Kirzner (1973) and further developed by the Harvard professor Howard Stevenson (1983). Kirzner (1973) defined entrepreneurship as the alertness to new opportunities. Research has indicated that entrepreneurial activity within organizations is viewed as a distinct mode of management based on opportunities (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990).
Stephenson and Jarillo (1990) defined opportunities as future situations which are deemed desirable and feasible. An entrepreneurial opportunity consists of a set of ideas, beliefs, and actions that enable the creation of future goods and services (Venkataraman, 1997). Entrepreneurial opportunities have been defined as situations in which new goods, services, raw materials, markets, and organizing methods can be introduced through the formation of new means, ends or means-ends relationships (Casson, 1982; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Entrepreneurial opportunity can be viewed from an allocative perspective in which
33
opportunities are recognized through deductive processes (opportunity recognition), a market perspective in which opportunities are recognized through as a discovery process (opportunity discovery), or a market perspective in which opportunities are recognized through a creative process (opportunity creation).
Perception, intention, belief structures, decision making, knowledge representation, and learning influence opportunity recognition and response (Krueger, 2003). Perception of opportunity varies across individuals, situations, and organizations (Shaver & Scott, 1991). Dutton and Jackson (1987) discussed antecedents of perceived opportunity and presented a model that utilized the cognitive phenomenon of categorization, evaluation of positive or negative outcomes, and assessment of the degree of personal control and competence (Bandura, 1986; Krueger & Dickson, 1994). Cognitive biases influence opportunity perception and decisions (Busenitz & Barney, 1987; Epstein, 1998; Kets de Vries, 1985). Researchers have examined various issues related to entrepreneurship and opportunities (Long & Graham, 1988); information search strategies (Busenitz, 1996); opportunity evaluation (Crawford, 1980); social networks (de Koning, 1999; Hills, Lumpkin, & Singh., 1997; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Singh, Hills, & Lumpkin, 1999); entrepreneurial alertness (Gaglio & Katz, 2001; Kirzner, 1973); opportunity identification process (Herron & Sapienza, 1992); prior knowledge and opportunity discovery (Shane, 2000); cognitive processes and opportunity identification (Baron, 1998; de Koning, 1999); a combination of social networks, prior knowledge, creativity, and optimism (Ardichvili, Cardoza, and Ray, 2003); analysis of trends for opportunity recognition
34
(Bluedorn et al., 1994); opportunity evaluation and uncertainty absorption (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999); market orientation for continuous customer, competitor, and market intelligence (Jaworski & Kolhi, 1993; Slater & Narver, 1995); and environmental scanning for external opportunities and internal sources of value (Hambrick, 1982; Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Past empirical research related to opportunity recognition has focused on the variety and quantity of opportunities recognized (Hills & Shrader, 1998; Singh et al., 1999); the importance of the creative discoveries (Amabile, 1990); incremental and innovative opportunities (Gaglio & Katz, 2001); innovation (Fiet, 2002; Shane, 2000); and stages of opportunity recognition (Lumpkin, Hills, and Shrader, 2004). Measures of opportunity perception correlate with measures of innovation, proactiveness, and risk taking (Krueger, 2000).
2.6 The entrepreneurial process The entrepreneurial process defined by Bygrave and Hofer (1991) focuses on the functions, activities, and actions associated with perceiving opportunities and creating teams and resources that exploit them. Although each element of the entrepreneurial process may appear to be a separate element, they are all inter-related and part of a very dynamic, contextual, holistic process (Figure 2.1).
35
Stakeholder-focused Entrepreneurial Process Mission
Operations Entrepreneurial Management
Opportunity Changing Environment
Continuous Learning Entrepreneurial Orientation & Decision Making
Organizational Change
Strategy
Innovation
Figure 2.1: Stakeholder-driven entrepreneurial process
2.6.1
Stages of the process The process begins with a focus on stakeholders and the recognition, discovery,
and creation of opportunities through divergent thinking and new ideas. The next stage of
the entrepreneurial process involves seizing opportunities through experimenting and developing new (or new combinations of) programs, products, services, packaging, pricing, location, resources, marketing strategies, processes, methods, structures, or other incremental or radical innovations that produce value for stakeholders (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; Whipp & Clark, 1986). In order to make innovation a reality, the next 36
area of emphasis is strategy, which is the continuous co-aligning of the organization and its environment (Thompson, 1967). Organizational theory has consistently conveyed how external changes lead to internal adjustments in strategy, structure, and operational methods (Emery & Trist, 1965; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Morris & Jones, 1999; Thompson, 1965). Entrepreneurship theory, takes this idea a step further, distinguishing between reactive and proactive behavior in which organizations take actions that create changes in the environment. To realize the potential of opportunities, innovations, and strategies, the next inter-related stage emphasizes operations. It is at this point that various business functions become operational. While for some organizations, the emphasis is on production and supply chain management, for public and nonprofit organizations, this stage focuses on human resource practices; marketing and communications; financial, legal and risk management; data and technology management; and a variety of activities and logistics that support administration, service delivery, and program development, coordination, and evaluation.
2.6.2
Changing environment Other vital elements of the entrepreneurial process include a changing
environment, continuous learning, decision making, and organizational change. The changing environment includes both internal and external factors that influence the entrepreneurial process. The external environment consists of a myriad of forces that present threats and opportunities. Management research on the environment has 37
encompassed three perspectives (Bourgeois, 1980) including a perspective focused on groups external to the organization such as customers, competitors, suppliers, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders; a second perspective focused on attributes of external forces described as complexity, intensity, dynamism, turbulence, hostility, or munificence (Dess & Beard, 1984); and a third perspective concerned with managerial perceptions about these environmental attributes, exemplified by Swamidass and Newell's (1987) construct of perceived environmental uncertainty (Ward, Duray, Leong, and Sum, 1995). These external forces can influence strategy as well as operations such as the cost of doing business and labor availability. The internal environment has also been investigated, focusing on factors such as decentralization, formalization, and interfunctional coordination or connectedness (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). The continuous alignment between organizational capabilities and resources and the environment remains a central tenet of major strategic management paradigms (Bourgeois, 1985).The consequences of not co-evolving with the environment are evident in the demise of many once prosperous organizations (Nadler & Tushman, 1983).
2.6.3
Continuous learning As Minniti and Bygrave (2001, p.7) stated, “entrepreneurship is a process of
learning, and a theory of entrepreneurship requires a theory of learning.” Organizational learning is considered necessary for continued innovation and sustained entrepreneurial success (Hitt et al., 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Although a complex phenomenon, organizational learning is vital for entrepreneurial ventures (Lumpkin & Lichtenstein, 38
2005). Organizations that are not able to embrace shared learning disappear (Sandelands, 1999). During the past few decades there has been an increasing interest in the process of learning within the organizational context, encouraged by the belief that learning and innovation are essential to survive in competitive and dynamic environments (Lipshitz, Popper, and Oz, 1996). The construct of a learning orientation has three dimensions, including commitment to learning; shared vision; and open-mindedness (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). The open-mindedness construct is described in the literature as closely linked to the concept of unlearning (Sinkula, Baker, and Noordewier, 1997), which is the ability of the organization to dispose of obsolete knowledge, thus opening space for new learning (Huber, 1991; Baker & Sinkula, 1999). To succeed, attention must be given to individual, team, and organizational learning (Lawrie, 1990). Organizational learning occurs through stages of information acquisition, information dissemination, shared interpretation, focused experimentation, diffusion of experience, and knowledge restructuring (Sinkula, 1994; Slater & Narver, 1995). Knowledge, derived from learning, is potentially the most productive resource of an organization (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996). The importance of individual and organizational learning has been emphasized by numerous scholars (Adler & Cole, 1993; Stata, 1989; Ulrich, von Glinow, and Jick, 1993). Various definitions have emphasized the importance of acquiring, improving, transferring, and facilitating individual and collective learning. This is followed by integrating and modifying behaviors and practices so that the enhanced learning yields 39
performance gains (Applebaum & Reichart, 1998; Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Ellinger, Ellinger, Baiyin, and Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Pettigrew & Whipp, 1999). Theories of entrepreneurial learning, learning organizations, and organizational learning provide insight into enhancing continuous learning that supports the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurial learning has focused on the individual adult learner who can benefit from a cumulative learning based on the ongoing process of experience, reflection, learning, and action (Kolb, 1984; Mezirow, 1991). Learning tasks during the entrepreneurial process involve learning about oneself, the organization, the environment, business management, and relationships with key stakeholders (Cope, 2005). Adult learning can be formal or informal, intended or incidental, and is “an individual’s personal discovery of meaning” (Combs & Snygg, 1959, p. 9). Although there is no common definition of learning style (Claxton & Murrell, 1987), Ulrich and Cole (1987) emphasized the importance of learning style preference in enhancing entrepreneurial propensity. Learning styles encompass cognitive (Gagne, 1977), affective (Combs, 1959; Gagne, 1977), behavioral (Gagne, 1977), and physiological traits that served as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment. Because many individuals have limited entrepreneurial education and experience, organizations must provide opportunities for personnel to continually learn as new competencies are needed to exploit opportunities. Continuous learning also occurs at the team and organizational levels. A learning organization is “one that learns continuously and transforms itself” (Watkins & Marscik, 40
1996, p.4). The concept of the learning organization has been linked to market orientation, entrepreneurial culture, flexible organic structures, and facilitative leadership (Lundberg, 1995; Luthans, Rubach & Marsnik, 1995; Slater & Narver, 1995). Leaders of an organization that strives to be a learning organization should be able to create an environment in which questioning current truths and assumptions is the norm and challenging the status quo is expected (Senge, 1990; Slater & Narver, 2000). Organizational learning, a term sometimes used interchangeably with the term learning organization, is a complex concept that describes the activities of the organization that change behavior (Levitt & March, 1988). Initial contributors to the concept of organizational learning included Argysis and Schon (1978) who introduced double-loop learning; Senge (1990), who authored The Fifth Discipline and Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell (1991) who advocated the notion of the learning company. The literature has addressed various areas of focus such as organizational learning as a process or system (Schon, 1971); collectivity of individual learning (Argysis & Schon, 1996); knowledge management (Fiol, 1994); learning for continuous improvement (Peddler et al., 1991); and deuteron-learning which is concerned with learning how to learn (Bateson, 1972). Marsick and Watkins, (1999) proposed actions that include creating continuous leaning opportunities; promoting inquiry and dialogue; encouraging collaboration and team learning; establishing systems to capture and share learning; empowering people toward a collective vision; connecting the organization to its environment; highlighting leaders who model and support learning at the individual, team, and organizational levels. 41
Organizational learning has also been described as a process by which the organizational knowledge base is developed (Shrivastava, 1983). Knowledge-based capabilities of the organization include employee knowledge and skills; technical information systems; information management systems; and information norms and values (Leonard-Barton, 1992). Because organizational learning is a capability allowing organizations to create knowledge as a source of improved performance (Hitt & Ireland, 2000), it is important to understand how organizations use learning in ways that transform the individual, teams, partnerships, and organizations (Franz, 2003).
2.6.4
Decision making In all organizations, the effectiveness of a decision is the quality of the decision
multiplied by the acceptance of it (Loeb, 1994) and commitment to it (Covey, 2002). Entrepreneurial organizations and individuals face a continuous stream of increasingly complex decisions. Research regarding entrepreneurial decision-making encompasses the entrepreneur (Mullins, 1996), environmental factors (Bruno & Tyebjee 1982), the strategic decision process (Frese, van Gelderen, and Ombach., 2000), and decisionspecific characteristics (Papadakis, Lioukas, and Chambers, 1998). Decision-making is a multi-stage and multi-criteria process (Hall & Hofer, 1993) determined by the interplay between the expectations about the future of the decision-maker and the calculation and recalculation of risk and reward (Clark & Marshall, 2002). A research focus on entrepreneurial cognition has explored the way entrepreneurs think and the individual decision-making processes or heuristics adopted by 42
entrepreneurs (Baron, 1998; Busenitz & Barney, 1997; Tversky & Kahneman, 1984; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985). Baron (1998) suggested that because entrepreneurs face situations that involve information overload, high degree of uncertainty, intense emotion, commitment, responsibility, and other factors, their susceptibility to cognitive biases and errors is increased. Some of the literature on decision making addresses cognitive biases such as the emotional biases of anticipated regret (Savage, 1954), affect infusion (Forgas, 1995); self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Brockhaus, 1980); or overconfidence (Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2001). Decision making occurs on both the individual and group levels. From the organizational perspective, there are many types of decision making processes. A management science approach is frequently used when variables can easily be identified and measured. The Carnegie model involves a coalition of managers who negotiate to make a satisfying rather than optimizing decision (Cyert & March, 1963; March & Simon, 1958). The incremental decision process model proposes a decision sequence of identification, development, and selection (Mitzberg, 1973). The garbage can model deals with patterns of multiple decisions and highly uncertain conditions (Cohen, March, and Olson, 1972). Because there are social-psychological factors that enter into the decision process in organizations (Simon, 1978), framing the decision, specifying decision criteria, agreeing on a decision process and understanding decision authority can improve organizational decision making. All decisions are made with some level of uncertainty. Kreitner (2001) presented three types of uncertainty that could affect decision making 43
attitude and performance, including state uncertainty concerning the unpredictable environment; effect uncertainty in predicting impacts of environmental change on the organization; and response uncertainty in predicting consequences of organizational decisions.
2.6.5
Organizational change Another essential element of the entrepreneurial process, is organizational change.
Dealing with organizational change is a kind of chaos (Gleik, 1987) that is an integral part of modern management (Kreitner, 2001). Because organizations can not deny or delay the changes approaching from many directions, organizations should continuously seek change to improve the organization. Change and transformation can be geared toward reengineering for efficiency (Hammer & Champy, 1993); restructuring for more immediate, tangible impacts on systems and structures; renewing to tap into entrepreneurial behavior (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1995); and regeneration which encompasses an opportunity-driven long-term organizational commitment to continuous transformation for innovation (Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Change can be episodic, discontinuous, and intermittent or change can be continuous, evolving, and incremental (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Change has been studied based on various areas of interest, including resistance, receptivity, and commitment to change (Kanter, 1991; Meyer & Allen, 1997; O’Toole, 1995); incremental and radical change (Bateson, 1972); first- and second-order change (Roach & Bednar 1997); and
44
rhythms of change (Greiner 1972). Nadler and Tushman (1990) presented a model that illustrated various types of organizational change (Table 2.2).
Incremental change
Strategic change
Anticipatory change
Tuning
Re-orientation
Reactive change
Adaptation
Re-creation
Table 2.2: Types of organizational change (Nadler & Tushman, 1990)
There are a variety of theories and models for organizational change, many that reflect similarities to equilibrium models such as Lewin’s (1958) triadic model of unfreezing, moving, and freezing for successful change and Gersick’s (1991) multilevel conceptualization of change as an altering state between stability and upheaval. More dynamic models of organizational change integrate concepts such as innovations as catalysts for change and continuous learning that addresses the interaction of the organization and its environment (Greve & Taylor, 2000). In a review of theory and research on organizational change in the 1990s, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) summarized content, contextual, process and outcome issues in the research. Content research included models such as the diagnostic model by Burke and Litwin (1992) that distinguished between transformational and transactional factors and Vollman’s (1996) model that presented a complex matrix portraying the magnitude of the change process. A review of contextual research provided insight into the impact of internal and external factors on organizational change. Process research 45
included various models for change agents implementing change (Galpin, 1996; Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995) and other models that advanced understanding of how organizational members experience change (Isabella, 1990; Jaffe, Scott, and Tobe, 1994). Damanpour’s (1991) meta analysis indicated that successful change efforts may depend more on the congruency between content, contextual and process considerations. Individuals involved in the change process may adopt different approaches, presume distinctive roles, create their own interpretation and have various affective and behavioral reactions to change (Fridja, 1996; Lazarus, 1991). Entrepreneurial individuals are effective agents of change by being mindful of the political realities, framing ideas constructively, building a coalition and keeping it focused through implementation and evaluation. Individuals within organizations are assumed to be capable of purposeful and adaptive behavior; by themselves or in interaction with others, they are able to envision an end state and take action to reach it, while monitoring their progress along the way (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Successful change efforts may depend more on the congruency between content, context, and process considerations than on the nature of the intended change (Damanpour, 1991).
2.7 Entrepreneurial Orientation Two fundamental dimensions essential to the entrepreneurial process are Entrepreneurial Orientation and Entrepreneurial Management which were explored indepth through this study. The study of organizational entrepreneurship has led to the development of an entrepreneurial orientation construct which includes the dimensions of 46
organizational risk taking, proactiveness, and innovativeness (Khandwalla, 1977; Miller 1983; Miller & Friesen, 1978, 1982). The term entrepreneurial orientation has been used to refer to the strategy-making processes and styles of organizations (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Contributions to the evolution of entrepreneurial orientation began with Khandwalla (1977) who defined entrepreneurial orientation as a strategic choice and developed scale elements to measure organizational characteristics, including entrepreneurship. Before Khandwalla (1977), Mintzberg (1973) introduced factors such as proactiveness and risk taking. Miller and Friesen (1978, 1982) defined dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and adapted elements from Khandwalla’s (1977) scale to measure entrepreneurship in organizations. Although the early works of Khandwalla (1977) and Miller and Friesen (1978) were not exclusively focused on entrepreneurship, they did provide some insight into the entrepreneurial orientation construct. Miller (1983) operationalized the concept of entrepreneurial orientation by developing a scale and researching the determinants of entrepreneurship in different types of organizations. Building on the work of Miller (1983), Covin and Slevin (1986, 1989, 1989, 1991) stressed that organizations with high entrepreneurial orientation have specific reoccurring behavior patterns and they proposed internal, external, and strategic variables that had a moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) made further contributions, adding the dimensions of competitive aggressiveness and autonomy, and equating the concept of entrepreneurial orientation to the organization’s key processes, practices, and decision making activities. 47
Knight (1997) tested the entrepreneurial orientation instrument in cross-cultural settings to determine validity, reliability, and freedom from cultural bias. A common theme in the entrepreneurial orientation literature is that researchers have agreed that entrepreneurial orientation is a dynamic organizational-level process that is applicable to any organization, regardless of its size and type (Knight, 1997). In addition to Covin and Slevin’s research (1991), studies of entrepreneurial orientation using Miller’s original or slightly modified instruments included Miles, Arnold, and Thompson (1993); Brown (1996); Knight (1997); Lumpkin and Dess (1996); Zahra (1991, 1993); Zahra and Covin (1995); Zahra and Garvis (2000). More recent work used the definitions, models and frameworks to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and other organizational characteristics, such as market orientation (Miles & Arnold, 1991; Becherer & Maurer, 1997; Slater & Narver, 1995).
2.7.1
Innovativeness Innovativeness is a vital component of an entrepreneurial orientation because it
reflects the organization’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas through experimentation and creative processes that contribute to the development of new products, services, technologies, or processes (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Joseph A. Schumpeter’s (1936) definition of innovation included the introduction of a new good, the introduction of a new method of production, the opening of a new market, the conquest of a new source of supply of new materials, or the carrying out of a new endeavor within any industry. Organizational innovation has been defined as a creative 48
idea that produces value (Hitt & Ireland, 2000); as the adoption of an idea or behavior that is new to the organization (Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992); and as a mindset that drives the organization’s activities (Kuczmarski, 1996). Through such a mindset, innovation can lead to a fundamental reconceptualization of the type of value the organization seeks to create and how to create it (Markides, 1998). Types of innovation include discontinuous breakthrough innovation, dynamically continuous innovation offering dramatic improvements, continuous incremental innovation, and imitation which mimics or adapts prior innovation (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Organizational innovation refers to the creation or adoption of an idea or behavior new to the organization (Daft, 1978; Damanpour, 1996; Damanpour & Evans, 1984). Because innovation is recognized as playing a critical role in the success of organizations, researchers have sought to determine the factors that determine innovation in an organizational setting (Dess et.al., 1997; Goes & Park, 1997). The particular kinds of innovation examined have shifted across time (Hage, 1999). In the 1960s and 1970s the emphasis was on incremental change in public sector organizations (Allen & Cohen, 1969). In the 1980s and 1990s it was on radical change in private sector organizations (Van de Ven, Angle, and Poole, 1989). Now, there is evidence of research focusing on inter-organizational ventures and the types of innovation, determinants of innovation and other factors influencing the rate, scope, and impacts of innovation (Hage, 1999). Some believe that innovation will emerge as the core component of the organization’s strategy in the twenty-first century (Kuczmarski, 1996). Drucker (1985) suggested that innovation was the specific function of entrepreneurship and he identified 49
seven sources of organizational innovation, which included unexpected occurrences; incongruities; process needs; industry and market changes; demographic changes; changes in perception; and new knowledge. Three steps to foster innovation include making sure that existing structures and practices do not present insurmountable roadblocks to the flexibility and fast action required for innovation; providing tools and incentives for entrepreneurial projects; and developing an entrepreneurial climate that spurs new opportunities in new combinations (Kanter, 1985). Success in innovation depends on rapid learning and fast response to what has been learned (Pinchot & Pellman, 1999, p.13). A climate that fosters innovation is one where people are excited and dedicated to problem solving and producing (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Characteristics of innovations that affect the rate of adoption of new innovations include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triability and observabilty (Rogers, 1995). Strategic innovation revolves around a portfolio versus a project approach, that leads to balancing high risk, high return projects with low risk, low return projects; discontinuous or dynamically continuous innovation with continuous innovations and imitations; projects with shorter development cycle times and payoffs with ones with longer-term outcomes; products and services intended for markets currently served by the organization with projects and services intended for markets new to the organization; projects using new and emerging technologies with those relying on familiar technologies (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Entrepreneurial organizations have a planned approach for internal and external sourcing of new ideas for innovations that are new to the world, new to a market, new to an organization, new to a product line, or new as a product extension, 50
product revision, or product support. The literature on organizational innovation has been interpreted through different perspectives, including organizational design (Teece, 1998), organizational cognition (Argyis & Schon, 1996; Nonaka, 1994), and organizational change and adaptation (Burgleman, 1991). Additional research on entrepreneurship, innovativeness, and organizational performance has been published by a number of scholars, including Antoncic and Hisrich (2001); Covin and Miles (1999); Jennings and Young (1990); Knight (1997); Lumpkin and Dess (2001); Schumpter (1934); Zahra (1993); Zahra and Covin (1993); Zajac, Golden, and Shortell (1991).
2.7.2
Proactiveness Proactiveness, as a dimension of entrepreneurship, has been defined as forward-
looking assertive strategy making (Miller, 1987); the continuous search for market opportunities and experimentation with responses to changing environmental trends (Venkatraman, 1989); and a disposition to take action to influence the environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Proactiveness involves focusing on the future; creating an idea; assuming responsibility; anticipating and preventing problems; communicating effectively; remaining adaptable; and persevering through implementation of the new process or launch of a new product (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). While traditional organizations view information selectively and respond defensively, entrepreneurial organizations are open to new opportunities from several sources and seize opportunities by relating proactively to this information.
51
Entrepreneurial thinking should include some sort of propensity to take action on new opportunities (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Kickul and Gundtry (2002) found interesting associations between proactiveness and entrepreneurial activity. Learned optimism has been associated with proactive goal-directed behavior (Seligman, 1990). Miller (1987) operationalized proactiveness through a scale that included following versus leading competitors in innovation; favoring the tried and true versus emphasizing growth, innovation, and development; trying to cooperate with competitors versus trying to undo them. Proactiveness also been explored by researches such as Antoncic and Hisrich, (2001); Knight, (1997); Lumpkin and Dess (2001); Stevenson and Jarillo (1990).
2.7.3 Risk Taking Early definitions of entrepreneurship centered around a willingness to engage in calculated business risks (Brockhaus, 1980). Entrepreneurial risk, with the potential for both gains and losses, has been defined as decision making about new ventures, products or processes under conditions of risk and uncertainty (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). Dickson and Giglierano (1986) discussed two types of risk. “Sinking the boat” risks are the result of factors such as poorly thought-out concepts, bad timing, an already-satisfied market, inadequate marketing and distribution approaches, and inappropriate pricing (Dickson & Giglierano, 1986). “Missing the boat” risks result from being too cautious overlooking or dismissing opportunities, not pursuing a course of action, or delaying action for so long that competitors profit or the market opportunity changes (Dickson & Giglierano, 1986). 52
Risk taking has been explored from both the individual and organizational perspectives. Factors investigated have included a tolerance for ambiguity (Hai & See, 1997); risk aversion due to cognitive biases such as overconfidence (Houghton, Simon, and Aquino, 2000); risk propensity due to optimism (Hayek, 1945); and information acquisition to reduce uncertainty and risks (Fiet, 1996). Additional research on risk taking perception has also been presented by Brockhaus (1980); Burgelman (1983); Sathe (1985); Kanter (1985); Quinn (1985); MacMillan, Block, and Narasimha (1986); McClelland (1961); Bird (1988); Palich and Bagby (1996).
2.8 Entrepreneurial Management Stevenson (1983) defined entrepreneurial management as a set of opportunitybased management practices which can help organizations remain vital and contribute to organizational and societal value creation. Day (1992) defined entrepreneurial management as all management actions and decisions concerning development of innovation from new or reconfigured resources, regardless of the scope of such development efforts. Stevenson (1983) conceptualized entrepreneurship as a management approach focused on the pursuit and exploitation of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled. Entrepreneurial management behaviors promote a culture of creativity and risk taking, create flat informal structures, and formulate strategy in order to take advantage of identified opportunities (Sadler-Smith, Hampson, Chaston, and Badger, 2003). Entrepreneurial management can be viewed from two extremes, with promoters at one end of a spectrum representing entrepreneurial behaviors 53
and trustees at the other, representing administrative behaviors (Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985). Stevenson (1983) categorized management behaviors of the promoter and trustee organizations along the dimensions which have evolved to represent strategic orientation and commitment to opportunity; resource orientation; management structure; reward philosophy; and entrepreneurial culture. Consistent with the views of Covin and Slevin (1989), Stevenson (1983) characterized entrepreneurship in terms of behavior. He argued that entrepreneurial management was a set of behaviors that fostered entrepreneurial activity in the organization. Similar to Miller (1983) and Lumpkin & Dess (1996), Stevenson (1983) also emphasized the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneurial management construct developed by Stevenson (1983) and Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) differs from the entrepreneurial orientation literature in that it emphasizes management behaviors that can be taught and key stages of the process include detecting an opportunity, pursuing an opportunity, and facilitating the development of opportunity. Brown and Davidsson (1998) began operationalizing the concepts presented by Stevenson (1983). Brown and Davidsson (1998) found that entrepreneurial orientation and the opportunity-based view presented by Stevenson (1983) were related but both captured distinct aspects of entrepreneurship.
2.8.1
Strategic Orientation Among the management practices believed to facilitate entrepreneurial behavior
are an organization’s strategic orientation and strategic management practices (Covin & 54
Slevin, 1991; Murray, 1984). Strategic orientation describes what factors drive the creation of strategy. For Stevenson (1983), the strategy of the promoter-oriented organization is driven by opportunities that exist in the environment and not the resources that may be required to exploit them, while the trustee-oriented organizational strategy is based on utilizing resources of the organization efficiently. Entrepreneurial promoteroriented organizations often see opportunities where others do not, and envision future possibilities that others fail to recognize (Allinson, Chell, and Hayes, 2000; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985). While the fields of strategic management and entrepreneurship have developed largely independently of each other, they both are focused on how organizations adapt to environmental change and exploit opportunities created by uncertainties and discontinuities (Hitt & Ireland, 2000). Various scholars have explored the integration of strategic management and entrepreneurial perspectives (Hitt et al., 2002; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer & Heppard, 2000). According to Prahalad and Hamel (1994), an organization’s strategic orientation is comprised of an overall strategic intent with mission, goals, and objectives, as well as the core organizational processes, systems, and culture that facilitate achievement of the goals. Porter (1980) revealed differentiation strategies of organizations offering customers unique products or services. Differentiators are similar to Miles and Snow’s (1978) prospector-type organizations that are characterized by risk taking and a proactive external orientation. The concept of strategic orientation was also developed by Cornwall and Perlman (1990), who contrasted traditional organizations with 55
entrepreneurial organizations. This same theme was echoed in the work of Stevenson (1983), who elaborated on a continuum with promoter-oriented organizations that were driven by opportunities at one end and trustee-oriented organizations that were devoted to efficiently utilizing the organization’s resources on the other end. This study focused on Stevenson’s description of strategic orientation.
Authors Burns & Stalker, 1971
Strategic Orientation Continuum Mechanistic
Cornwall & Perlman, 1990 Miles & Snow, 1978
Traditional Protect status quo Reactor Defender Protect core business Trustee Resource-driven
Stevenson, 1983
Organic
Entrepreneurial Actively seek new value Analyzer Prospector Proactive external focus Promoter Opportunity-driven
Table 2.3: Strategic Orientation continuums
Entrepreneurial organizations approach strategy by creating and facilitating more of a dynamic organic perspective, rather than accepting the more static and sequential mechanistic perspective (Farjoun, 2002). This organic perspective involves the continuous learning and aligning of goals, structure, actions, systems, processes (Chandler, 1962), policies (Selznick, 1957), and the resource mix. This goes beyond the more traditional linear mechanistic perspectives that define strategy as a posture or plan rather than a continuous process. Mechanistic perspectives include resource-based views and linear approaches linking strategy, structure, conduct, and performance (Farjoun, 2002). The organic perspective has emerged through research streams highlighting new 56
views of continuous strategic processes, strategic change, interactive influences, and strategy formation in a complex, interconnected, uncertain, and constantly changing environment.
2.8.2
Resource Orientation Promoter-oriented organizations act as if all they need from resources is the
ability to use them, which enables the organization to access specialization as needed, reduce the risk of expensive obsolescence and maintain flexibility. Trustee-oriented organizations seek stability and efficiency through resource ownership, which they associate with control, power and status. Promoters become skilled at the use of other people’s resources including financial, intellectual and political capital. (Starr & MacMillan, 1990). Entrepreneurial organizations create new resources or obtain and combine existing resources in unique ways to innovate (Schumpeter, 1934). Resources can be knowledge-based or property-based (Galunic & Rodan, 1998). Knowledge-based resources can be focused in various areas such as procedural (Lesgold, 1988), market (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Shane, 2000; von Hippel, 1986; 1994), or technological (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; McEvily & Chakravarthy, 2002). Compared to tangible resources, intangible resources such as entrepreneurial knowledge, are more likely to contribute to a competitive advantage because they are socially complex and difficult for current and potential rivals to understand and imitate
57
(Hitt et al., 2001). Entrepreneurial knowledge includes where to obtain undervalued resources and how to exploit those resources (Alvarez & Barney, 2001). Increasingly, organizations are using alliances and networks to access markets, information, technology, and other resources (Hitt et al., 2001) that are important for innovation and the implementation of organizational entrepreneurship strategies (Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000). From a resource-based view, Barney (1991) suggested evaluating the sustainability of a resource’s advantages by determining the degree to which resources were valuable, rare, hard to imitate, and hard to substitute. Other research focused on resources has been reported by Brush, Greene, and Hart (2001); Burgelman and Sayles (1986); Damanpour (1991); Hisrich and Peters (1986); Kanter (1985); Katz and Gartner (1988); Sathe (1985); von Hippel (1988); Wernerfelt (1984).
2.8.3
Management Structure Different types of structures are good for accomplishing particular outcomes
under particular circumstances (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). The management structure and strategic position of the promoter-oriented organization is organic (Burns & Stalker, 1961), which is especially appropriate when organizations are faced with high levels of environmental change (Burgelman, 1983; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Miller, 1983). This organic management structure is flat, flexible, and made of multiple informal networks (Brown et al., 2001). The trustee-oriented organization is more mechanistic and organized as a formalized hierarchy characterized by clearly defined lines of authority.
58
Organizational structure can enhance entrepreneurial activity within organizations (Bird, 1988; Burgelman, 1983; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hisrich & Peters, 1986; Sathe, 1985; Schuler, 1986; Zahra, 1993). Miller (1996) suggested that the strategy-structure linkage could be categorized into four types, including simple structure, which is highly informal and works well in small, rapid-growth ventures; machine bureaucracy, which focuses on standardization and works well in achieving production efficiencies in predictable environments; organic, which is flexible, collaborative, and accommodating to innovation; and divisional, which operates with formal independent teams and sophisticated management information systems. Organizational theory has long held that external change leads to internal adjustments in structure, strategy, and operational methods (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Other research on organizational structure and organizational entrepreneurship has been published by Guth and Ginsberg (1990); Jennings (1994); Zahra (1991, 1993). Mechanistic and organic forms are polar types at the opposite end of a continuum and, in some organizations, a mixture of both types can be found (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
2.8.4
Reward Philosophy Entrepreneurship is about risk and reward (Morris & Kuratko, 2002).
Entrepreneurially managed organizations tend to base compensation on how individuals contribute to value creation, rather than solely rewarding seniority. Compensation can be grouped into categories such as indirect pay in the form of benefits and services; direct pay, including base pay, merit pay and incentives; relational forms through recognition, 59
challenging work, and learning opportunities (Milkovich & Newman, 1999). A mixture of variable pay or incentives results in a more significant effect on organizational performance than does any single compensation source (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992). Appropriate use of rewards enhances entrepreneurial activity within organizations (Barringer & Milkovich, 1998; Block & Ornati, 1987; Kanter, 1985; Sathe, 1985; Souder, 1981; Sykes, 1992). Compensation can have a powerful effect on outcomes resulting from individual and team efforts, and ultimately, on organizational performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Lepak & Snell, 1999 Research findings confirm a relationship among strategies, compensation, and performance (Miles & Snow, 1978). Reward systems in public agencies and higher education present structured and often inflexible situations that support a more mechanistic organization, but public and nonprofit organizations are beginning to explore degrees of flexibility (Miller, 2005; Morris & Kuratko, 2002). The type of compensation system, linked with strategy, has a greater effect on firm performance than does the amount of compensation (Kuratko, Ireland, and Hornsby, 2001).
2.8.5
Entrepreneurial Culture Researchers claim that organizational culture plays a key role in organizational
entrepreneurship (Bygrave, 1997; Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Hood & Young 1993; Morris, 1998; Peters, 1997; Timmons, 1999). Although over 150 definitions of culture have been identified (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952), two primary approaches address 60
culture either through a functional approach that emerges from collective behavior or through a semiotic approach, with culture residing in individual interpretations and cognitions. Culture, a concept borrowed originally from the fields of sociology and anthropology, can be defined as an organization’s basic beliefs and assumptions about what the organization is about, how its members should behave, and how it defines itself in relation to its external environment (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). Culture consists of substance such as shared systems of values, beliefs, and norms as well as forms, such as vocabulary, myths, rituals, ways of dressing, and office décor (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Hofstede (1991) provided a framework with five dimensions used to differentiate between cultures, including power distance which is the degree of perceived inequality among people; individualism which is the degree people prefer to act as individuals or a member of a group; masculinity which is the degree in which traditionally masculine values such as assertiveness and competition are emphasized over traditionally feminine values such as relationships and service; uncertainty avoidance which is the degree to which people prefer structured situations; and long-term orientation. Cameron and Ettington (1988) found more than twenty dimensions of organizational culture, such as internal-external focus, clarity, and speed. Components of an entrepreneurial culture include value creation through innovation and change; a focus on people and empowerment; hands-on management; freedom to grow and fail; commitment and personal responsibility; emphasis on the future and a sense of urgency (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Timmons, 1999).
61
In various studies (Berrio, 2003; Cameron, 1997; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981), organizational culture has been measured through a Competing Values Framework intended to profile the dominant culture within the four quadrants of clan (Ouchi, 1981), adhocracy (Mintzberg, 1973), market (Williamson, 1975), and hierarchy (Weber, 1947). Deal and Kennedy (2000) argued that distinct types of cultures evolve within organizations and these types have a direct and measurable impact on strategy and performance. Although there are distinctions between the meanings of organizational culture and organizational climate, Extension organizations can learn from both because the terms have frequently been used interchangeably in the literature. The concept of climate has its roots in the work of Lewin (1951); Likert (1961, 1967); Tagiuri & Litwin, (1968). Various perspectives have presented climate as either a shared perception or as a shared set of conditions. Other climate researchers have explored the formation of climate through a social construction approach (Ashforth, 1985; Poole & McPhee, 1983). In various studies, climate has been studied through models such as Gibb’s (1961) defensive and supportive climate model. While culture refers more to the deep rooted, slow to change values held by organizational members, climate tends to portray social environments as a set of more temporary perceptions and dimensions (Denison, 1990; Schneider, 1990). Organizational culture and climate have also been linked to corporate character (Wilkins, 1989) which focuses more on an external reputation than on the internally focused dimensions of culture. A scale to assess corporate character through employee 62
and customer views was developed by Davies, Chun, da Silva, and Roper (2004). The scale addressed dimensions labeled agreeable, enterprising, competent, chic, ruthless, informality, and machismo. Effective organizational entrepreneurship involves managing a culture which includes all personnel as self-perceived intrapreneurs, applauds failures as well as successes, integrates screening mechanisms to foster innovation, and nurtures frequent communication among people with dissimilar views (Van de Ven, 1989). According to Stephenson and Jarillo (1990) a promoter-oriented organization with an entrepreneurial culture, encourages ideas, experimentation, and creativity. Creating an entrepreneurial culture is not simply a matter of emphasizing certain values, it also involves choosing between conflicting values that coexist in an organization (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Entrepreneurial organizations achieve a balance on a continuum of primary values, such as performance-based rewards versus power and tenure-based rewards; personal purpose and organizational purpose; command decision making and consensus decision making (Tropman & Morningstar, 1989).
2.9 Organizational Performance Understanding and improving performance is a central aim of entrepreneurship research (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Murphy, Trailer, and Hill, 1996). Researchers suggest that organizational-level entrepreneurship leads to improved performance (Brown, 1996; Naman & Slevin, 1993; Zahra, 1986; Zahra & Covin, 1995). Studies have included both
objective measures which are obtained from organizational records (Seashore & 63
Yuchtman, 1967) and subjective measures which are perceptions collected from organizational members and stakeholders (Campbell, 1977). Rigorous empirical research examining the link between entrepreneurship and performance is still limited (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1993). Recognizing the multidimensional nature of the
performance construct, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) recommended using multiple performance measures, such as financial indicators, satisfaction with overall performance, and stakeholder support (Voss, Voss & Moorman, 2004). The immense debate on what measures are preferable when measuring performance has revolved around the use of financial or non-financial indicators (Hayes & Abernathy, 1980; Johnson & Kaplan, 1987). In addition to financial indicators, the literature has mentioned several possible non-financial outcomes to evaluate the potential influence of entrepreneurship on organizational performance (Bromwich & Bhimani, 1994; Zahra, 1993). Some of the very best managerial actions and innovations do not yield measurable financial performance but they define the organization and give meaning to its different activities (Kanter, 1989). Possible non-financial outcomes include keeping the organizations’ most talented people (Peters & Waterman, 1982); creating value for a variety of stakeholders (Graves & Waddock, 1994; McGrath, Venaktraman, and MacMillan, 1992; Ogden & Watson, 1999; Ruf, Muralidhar, Brown, Janney, and Paul, 2001) process innovations (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003); gathering and using knowledge (Lumpkin & Lichtenstein, 2005); and managing change (Hage, 1999). An organizational performance construct was operationalized by Jawaorski and Kohli (1993) with two judgmental questions. In 64
their study, respondents were asked for their opinion of the previous year’s overall performance of their organization and their overall performance relative to leading competitors. The concepts of performance and effectiveness have been central to organizational and management theory (Boyne, 2003; Rainey, 1997). Organizational performance is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon which can be difficult to operationalize (Dess & Robinson, 1984; Ford & Schellenberg, 1982). Performance evaluation practices involve a number of performance measures used to systematically measure the performance of the organization in order to maintain or alter organizational activities (Simmons, 2000). The goal approach focuses on output and explicit goal-based behaviors (Eztioni, 1964). The systems resource approach provides a framework based on how effectively an organization obtains resources needed for high performance and survival (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967). The internal process approach addresses efficient use of resources and harmonious internal functioning. The constituency or stakeholder approach focuses on benefiting numerous internal and external constituencies (Thompson, 1967). The competing values approach integrates diverse concepts of effectiveness.
2.10 Summary of Literature Review Research indicates that entrepreneurial activities within organizations are not limited to size or age of the organization (Chittipeddi & Wallett, 1991), nor confined to particular industry sectors (Morris & Jones, 1999). The construct of entrepreneurship and performance can be complex and multidimensional, especially as scholars continue to 65
debate such fundamental issues as the definition of entrepreneurship and the evidence of performance. The core of entrepreneurship, both individual and organizational, is this pursuit of opportunity (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). One way of viewing entrepreneurship is through the emerging consensus in the field that the boundaries of entrepreneurship embrace an incremental innovation process (Pavitt, 1991) which eventually triggers an entrepreneurial event (Bygrave, 1989; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991) or a meaningful change and substantive redefinition or discovery of value or application. The efforts to further develop the concept of entrepreneurship are growing as is evidenced by the proliferation of journals, professional associations, conferences, and academic appointments (Kuratko, 2003). From the global perspective, several models have been developed to create insight into entrepreneurial activity which varies across countries and over time (Blanchflower, 2000; De Wit & van Winden, 1989). Emerging theory and practice can guide individuals, teams, organizations, and communities as they operate with unique characteristics and needs in an environment influenced by a rapid pace of change, complexity, chaos, and contradiction (Hitt & Reed, 2000). This study focused on organizational entrepreneurship theory and application from the perspective of Cooperative Extension leadership and provides an opportunity to further explore and expand entrepreneurship throughout the Extension organization to improve organizational performance. The framework developed through this literature review provides a solid research-based foundation for this study.
66
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES
The goal of this study was to analyze the relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and organizational performance in the Cooperative Extension System. Authorization for this study was approved by The Ohio State University Human Subjects Review Committee (Appendix D). This chapter outlines the process for systematically designing, collecting, and analyzing the research data to increase understanding about the organizational entrepreneurship and organizational performance relationship. Sections include: 3.1
Research design
3.2
Population and sampling
3.3
Instrumentation
3.4
Data collection
3.5
Data analysis
67
Consistent with most survey-based entrepreneurship research, the state Directors, as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), were placed in the role of key informant to minimize biases associated with hierarchical levels (Glick, Huber, Miller, Doty, and Sutcliffe, 1990) and the perceptual agreement problem (James, 1982). Senior leaders typically provide a reasonably accurate picture of the organization’s conditions (Chandler & Hanks, 1993).
3. 1 Research Design This study was classified as non-experimental quantitative research. This study did not seek to demonstrate causality, but explored the extent to which organizational entrepreneurship was associated with organizational performance within the Cooperative Extension System.
3.2 Population and Sampling The most senior managers of the Extension organizations were targeted for data collection because CEOs are typically the most knowledgeable persons regarding their organizations’ strategies and overall business situations (Hambrick, 1982). The population frame used for this study was drawn from a data set of Extension Directors in four geographical regions (Appendix C). This data set was available through NASULGC and contained 54 Extension organizations at NASULGC-member land-grant institutions established through the Morrill Act of 1862. The 1862 organizations were selected because of their long history and similarities in funding compared to 1890 institutions 68
and 1994 tribal institutions which have different funding structures and opportunities. With this purposive targeted population, limitations included the inability to infer to a larger population (Bracht & Glass, 1968; Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Extension Directors are appointed by the Land Grant College or University and the Secretary of Agriculture or designee. The Cooperative Extension System (CES) Directors are responsible for the administration and delivery of the university Cooperative Extension program and the management of the federal funds allocated to the university to carry out the programs. The Directors are also responsible for the employment of highly qualified Cooperative Extension educators who make significant program impacts. The USDA CSREES Directory of State Extension System Directors and Administrators lists the upper management of the state Extension System in the United States and territories. The 54 State Directors represent the CES in four geographic regions: Northeast Region, North Central Region, Southern Region, and Western Region. For populations of one hundred or less, Leedy and Ormond (2001) suggested surveying the entire population.
3.3 Instrumentation Data was gathered through a single informant survey (Appendix A). There are a number of advantages to using only a single informant (Lyons, Lumpkin, and Dess, 2000). Glick et al. (1990) noted there was a high likelihood that the CEO was the most knowledgeable individual in the organization to provide the information. Entrepreneurship studies have often used self-reports to gather performance data and they have been shown to be reliable (Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino, and Buchholz, 2001). 69
3.3.1
Independent variable: Organizational Entrepreneurship The first part of the questionnaire was an organizational-level scale for
Organizational Entrepreneurship which included both the extensively used measure of Entrepreneurial Orientation, as well as a scale for Entrepreneurial Management, which was based on a modified instrument developed by Brown et al. (2001) that operationalized Stevenson’s (1983) conceptualization of entrepreneurship. The independent variable Organizational Entrepreneurship measured Entrepreneurial Orientation (Covin & Slevin, 1989), which included three sub-dimensions and Entrepreneurial Management (Brown et al., 2001), which included five sub-dimensions. The Entrepreneurial Orientation scale was designed to explore distinct dimensions of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking (Figure 3.1). The scale used in this study has evolved through extensive theoretical work and has proven to serve as a reliable firmlevel analysis of Entrepreneurial Orientation (Kreiser, Marino, and Weaver, 2002). The Entrepreneurial Management scale was designed to explore distinct dimensions of strategic orientation, resource orientation, management structure, reward philosophy, and entrepreneurial culture (Figure 3.1). Both scales have also been used as summed indexes. These two prominent scales have been analyzed with various samples, differing in organization size, governance, and industry sector. The items were measured through a forced choice, eight-point opposite statement interval level scale. The questions were arranged in order to avoid response set contamination.
70
Independent Variable: Organizational Entrepreneurship Innovation Proactiveness
Entrepreneurial Orientation
Risk-Taking
Organizational Entrepreneurship
Strategic Orientation Resource Orientation Entrepreneurial Management
Management Structure Reward Philosophy Entrepreneurial Culture
Figure 3.1: Indicators of Organizational Entrepreneurship
71
3.3.2
Dependent variable: Organizational Performance The second part of the questionnaire focused on Organizational Performance.
Performance is multidimensional in nature and it is advantageous to integrate different dimensions of performance in empirical studies (Cameron, 1978; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). For this study, the performance construct was explored through both financial and non-financial dimensions (Figure 3.2).
Dependent Variable: Organizational Performance
Financial Indicators Revenue Trend total appropriated funding + non-appropriated funding TOTAL FUNDING change in % of non-appropriated funding as a percentage of total percent budget change over 5 years
Organizational Performance Non-financial Indicator Performance Satisfaction - overall performance - retaining key employees - delivering new products and services for external audiences - improving internal processes - gathering and using knowledge - managing change
Figure 3.2: Indicators of Organizational Performance 72
Identifying the rate of revenue change permits an assessment of the economic success of the organization (Sexton & Smilor, 1997). Appropriated funding and nonappropriated revenue for the past five years provided information to determine a revenue trend scale focused on change in total funding and change in percentage of nonappropriated funding over five years. Non-appropriated revenue was defined by ECOP’s Personnel and Organizational Development Committee (PODC) as monies that were not appropriated directly to Cooperative Extension or research units by federal, state, and local governments. There is a distinction between sources of monies and methods to transfer monies. Sources of non-appropriated funding include non-Smith Lever federal dollars, non-appropriated funds from state and local governments, monies from private foundations, associations, other organizations and individuals. Methods include grants, contracts, gifts and donations, royalties, user fees, direct sales and other revenue generating opportunities. If it was not convenient for Extension Directors to report the financial information portion of the questionnaire, they were given the option to include the name and contact information for the individual in their organization who could provide financial information. These individuals were then contacted with a request for 2000 and 2004 appropriated and non-appropriated funding. In the Performance Satisfaction section of the questionnaire, Extension Directors were asked to rate six items on a Likert-type scale, with 1 representing unsatisfactory and 6 representing fully satisfactory. The level of satisfaction with overall Organizational Performance was indicated through six items focused on overall performance; retaining key employees; delivering new programs, products, or services for external audiences; 73
improving internal processes; gathering and using knowledge; and managing change. Subjective performance measures, used in prior entrepreneurial organization research, have been shown to be correlated to objective measures of performance (Dess & Robinson 1984). Because Extension organizations throughout the United States focus on a variety of specialized programs, overall organizational performance satisfaction was based on outputs and impacts. Outputs are the number of service units provided through activities such as the number of client contact hours, the number of publications delivered, or the number of participants and presentations. Impacts are the observed outcomes evident in short-term learning, medium term actions and long-term conditions (Chinman, Imm, and Wandersman, 2004; Taylor-Powell, 2002). The overall performance dimension as a nonfinancial indicator of performance is linked to the rational goal model of organizational effectiveness (Etzioni, 1964; Maynard-Moody & McClintock, 1987). Key employee retention is the ability of Extension to keep the organization’s best and most talented people. Research shows that purposeful talent management is a critical source of competitive advantage and improved performance (Ramlall, 2004; Thompsen, 2002). When an organization loses a critical employee, it is costly (Fitz-enz, 1997; Hale, 1998), and there is negative impact on innovation, a decline in service, an adverse affect on the satisfaction of internal and external customers, and negative consequences in the profitability of the organization (Abbasi & Hollman, 2000). Where it was once common for faculty to be hired exclusively for Extension work, now universities are hiring faculty with split appointments and expectations of Extension, research, and teaching. 74
Requirements for these positions require increasing formal university education, certifications, accountability, and performance standards. Within the performance satisfaction index, delivering quality products and services for external audiences included new programs, new delivery methods and reaching new people. As populations have shifted in various states, Extension organizations have had to maintain customer-focused performance, and in some instances compete with the private market, to extend the reach of programming to larger and more diverse audiences. Improving internal processes included new operational structures or new methods to process financial transactions, enhance communications, or create efficiencies in workflow. Internal process performance is especially important as new technologies enable organizations to use resources in ways that add value for internal and external stakeholders. This dimension as a non-financial indicator of performance is closely associated to the internal process model of organizational effectiveness (Spray, 1976). Gathering and using knowledge included market research, new advisory groups, trend reports, or other approaches that provide Extension personnel with timely and quality information for decision making. Knowledge is context-bound and can be characterized by information which ranges from precise to speculative (Barnard, 1938). Information should be easily accessible throughout the organization. The decisions made based on the information are influenced by attitude and capacity to interpret information in order to make it meaningful and useful (Beijerse, 2000). Knowledge can be implicit, which is personal and includes creative ideas or explicit which is linked to systems and 75
consists of information which can easily be reproduced, transferred and spread (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1997). The knowledge cycle consists of determining the knowledge necessary; examining the knowledge available; interpreting and developing knowledge; sharing and applying knowledge; and evaluating knowledge (Weggeman, 1997). Personnel throughout the Extension organization enhance organizational performance by being attentive to external changes and leading internal changes in structure, strategy, and operational methods. Changes are evident in all sectors of the economy and organizations must mobilize to search for them, seize them as they emerge, and use them to create new value for stakeholders (Harari, 1998, p.42). Changes in and around Extension are evolving at a rapid pace and coming from many directions, including changes in higher education; changes in the funding mix; changes in personnel requirements, responsibilities, and expectations; changes in competition from other information sources and educational providers; changes in customers and their needs and expectations; changes in organizational partners and accountability obligations. The body of literature on organizational response to discontinuously changing environments is expanding rapidly (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994), and various scholars have presented research on the change process (Galpin, 1996; Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1947, 1958).
3.3.3
Other covariates Other covariates were explored to mitigate any potential false interpretations of
the findings. Other variable data used in this study included state population change 76
between the years 2000 and 2004 and respondent’s length of service as an Extension Director (tenure), which was included as part of the questionnaire.
3.3.4 Instrument validity and reliability The approach to measuring Organizational Entrepreneurship and non-financial indicators of Organizational Performance was the use of an instrument for capturing senior level managerial perceptions. There are advantages and disadvantages to an approach based on managerial perceptions. Advantages include practicality of convenience and interpretability, as well as validity advantages because perceptions typically provide the most precise assessments of conditions within an organization (Lyons, Lumpkin, and Dess, 2000). Disadvantages include measures of perception may lack internal consistency due to functional bias which can impact reliability. To establish reliability and validity, the questionnaire was first reviewed by a panel of experts and pilot tested with a convenience sample of national and regional organizational leaders in Extension (Appendix B). The Cronbah’s alpha was used as part of the analysis because it has been a common method for assessing the measure of reliability of entrepreneurship in organizations (Knight, 1997). According to Nunnally (1978), alpha levels above 0.70 are typically considered acceptable for the purpose of organizational research. The alpha levels in this study were acceptable.
77
Dimension Innovativeness Proactiveness Risk Taking Entrepreneurial Orientation
N Cronbach’s Alpha 38 .664 38 .661 38 .793 38 .821
Strategic Orientation Resource Orientation Management Structure Reward Philosophy Entrepreneurial Culture Entrepreneurial Management
38 38 38 38 38 38
.851 .624 .846 .714 .845 .832
Organizational Entrepreneurship 38
.882
Performance Satisfaction
.775
38
Table 3.1: Cronbach’s alpha for the dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship and Performance Satisfaction
The Entrepreneurial Orientation scale has been slightly modified several times and consistently scored high on validity and reliability in numerous research settings (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Becherer & Maurer, 1997; Covin & Slevin, 1989; Khandwalla, 1977; Knight, 1997; Kreiser et al., 2002). Brown et al. (2001), confirmed validity and reliability of the Entrepreneurial Management instrument. To further check reliability, Extension Directors were asked to provide contact information for their direct supervisor, who served as their Vice President, Dean, or other leader who could provide perspective on their Extension organization. Analysis for this study included a comparison of these two related groups of responding directors and supervisors, representing all 4 Extension regions. In addition, analysis explored the two 78
independent groups of respondents and non-respondents, to see if there was a different pattern between respondents and non-respondents with regard to census data.
3.4 Data Collection The questionnaire was developed based on the Tailored Designed Method (TDM) consisting of five elements which individually have been shown to significantly improve response to mail surveys (Dillman, 2000). These elements include a respondent-friendly questionnaire, up to five carefully timed contacts with the questionnaire recipient, inclusion of stamped return envelope, personalized correspondence, and an offer to send an executive summary of findings as a token incentive (Dillman, 2000). Tailored Design is a set of procedures for conducting successful self-administered surveys that produce both high quality information and high response rates (Dillman, 2000, p. 29). For this study, the target population was initially contacted through email to introduce the study. One week after this email, a package, with a personalized letter, a printed questionnaire, and a stamped return envelope, was mailed to the target population. One week later, non-respondents were sent an email with a second invitation to participate and a link to a web-based version of the questionnaire. A second email was sent to non-respondents the following week. After two weeks with the web-based option, non-respondents were sent a fax reminder with response options. As a final contact, nonrespondents were contacted through a telephone call to request their participation in this study. All respondents were mailed a summary of the study (Figure 3.3).
79
2005 Schedule of Contacts (May – June, 2005) (Panel Review & Pilot Study – April, 2005) Contact 1
1 – Sent email introducing the project.
May 3
Contact 2
2 –Mailed letter and printed survey with the option to respond via the mail
May 10
with an enclosed mailing label or a via web-based survey
Contact 3
3 – Response: Thank-
3 – Non-response:
May 17
you and follow-up
Email reminder with link to web-based survey
Contact 4
4 – Response: Thank-you and
4 – Non-response: Email
May 23
follow-up contacts
reminder with response options
Contact 5 June 6
5 – Response: Thank-you
5 – Non-response: Fax
and follow-up contacts
reminder/response options
Response: Thank-you and
Follow-up
follow-up contacts
All respondents receive an executive summary of findings
Figure 3.3: Schedule of contacts 80
3.5 Data Analysis Data was entered and analyzed through multiple regression and other descriptive statistics, using SPSS 13.0, a statistical software program commonly used for analyzing research data (Norusis, 2004). Regression analysis is the most widely used and versatile dependence technique, applicable in every facet of business decision making (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1998). The researcher was interested in explaining variance by regressing the dimensions of Organizational Performance on the dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship. The objective of multiple regression for this study was explanation of the extent to which Organizational Entrepreneurship was related to Organizational Performance. The independent variable, Organizational Entrepreneurship consisted of three subdimensions within Entrepreneurial Orientation including innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking and five sub-dimensions within Entrepreneurial Management, including strategic orientation, resource orientation, management structure, reward philosophy, and entrepreneurial culture. Data from the questionnaire was recoded as needed for consistent reporting of 1 as an indication of a less entrepreneurial organization and 8 as an indication of a more entrepreneurial organization. The dependent variable, Organizational Performance, consisted of two financial revenue trend indicators, including the percentage change in total funding for the past five years (2000-2004) and the percentage change in non-appropriated revenue as a percentage of the total funding change, for the past five years. These two trend indicators were calculated based on funding data from the year 2000 and the year 2004. The dependent variable, 81
Organizational Performance, also consisted of a non-financial Performance Satisfaction index based on 6 items related to overall performance; retaining key employees; delivering new programs, products, or services for external audiences; improving internal processes; managing knowledge; and dealing with change. Analysis included screening data for potential errors, assessing the variables for meeting the assumptions of regression, exploring potential moderating factors, examining collinearity statistics and residuals, and considering non-response bias. Results were reported in statistical summaries and in aggregate by region so that information about individual organizations could not be identified. Using Davis (1971) as a guide, the absolute value of numbers was described with low |.10 to .29|, moderate|.30 to .49|, substantial |.50 to .69|, and very high |.70 to .99|.
82
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This study explored the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance within the Cooperative Extension System (CES), as perceived and reported by state Extension Directors. The data were from a census of Extension Directors at NASULGC-member land-grant institutions established through the Morrill Act of 1862. This chapter begins with a description of respondents and then is organized into an additional sections, each representing findings from data analysis based on the objectives of this study. 4.1
A description of respondents and non-respondents
4.2
The extent to which organizational-level entrepreneurship was evident in Extension
4.3
The financial and non-financial dimensions of Organizational Performance in Extension
4.4
The relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in Extension
4.5
Summary of findings 83
4.1 Respondents and non-respondents 4.1.1 Respondents Extension Directors participated through various response options, including printed and mailed questionnaires (58%) online web-based questionnaires (34%), and faxed questionnaires (8%). Results for this study were aggregated by categories, based on regional assignments of the NASULGC member land-grant institutions (1862) Cooperative Extension system Regions (Appendix C). The overall response rate was 70% (n=38), with each region represented by a fairly equal number of respondents (Figure 4.1). Descriptive statistics provided data on central tendency and variability for all variables.
Region 1: Western 9 Respondents 24%
Region 4: Northeast 9 Respondents 24%
Region 2: North Central 10 Respondents 26%
Region 3: Southern 10 Respondents 26%
Figure 4.1: Respondents by region
84
Respondents: Tenure While this study focused on organizational characteristics, versus individual characteristics, tenure of the sole respondent was included as a potential covariate. The number of years that respondents have served as an Extension Director (tenure) ranged from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 16 years. Tenure by region varied from a mean of 3.9 (S.D. 1.77) in Region 3 to 7.2 (S.D. 4.99) in Region 1. Region 1: Western 2: N. Central 3: Southern 4: Northeast Total
N 9 10 10 9 38
Minimum Maximum 1.0 16.0 1.0 12.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 12.0 1.0 16.0
Mean 7.2 4.8 3.9 5.6 5.3
Std. Deviation 4.99 4.26 1.77 3.82 3.90
Table 4.1: Respondent tenure by region (number of years as an Extension director)
Respondents: State population change Directors represented Cooperative Extension Systems (CES) in 38 different states with a wide range of percent population change during 2000-2004, beginning with a minimum percent change of -1.2 and a maximum of 16.8. This five year time span was used because the financial measure for Organizational Performance was based on a 5year funding trend, calculated by using 2000 and 2004 financial data provided by respondents. Because the CES serves the public good, state population change data was explored as a potential covariate in this study. Region 1 had the highest mean and the greatest standard deviation in percent change in state population (Table 4.2).
85
Region 1: Western 2: N. Central 3: Southern 4: Northeast Total
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
9 10 10 9 38
6.5 1.9 3.2 3.1 3.6
5.12 1.34 1.67 1.90 3.22
Table 4.2: Respondents - percent state population change by region
Respondents: A comparison of Extension Directors and their supervisors Some response error is inherent in all social science research (Kerlinger, 1986). Because Extension Directors were used as the sole respondent for this study, Extension Directors were asked to provide contact information for their direct supervisor, who served as their Vice President, Dean, or other leader who could provide perspective on their Extension organization. While only 24 percent of the responding Directors provided the name of someone who then completed the survey, the data represented all 4 Extension regions. A review of the overall means indicated similar responses from directors and their supervisors (Table 4.3).
86
Organization
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overall
Entrepreneurial Orientation Dir. Sup.
Entrepreneurial Management Dir. Sup.
Organizational Entrepreneurship Dir. Sup.
Performance Satisfaction Dir. Sup.
6.0 5.7 5.9 5.7 6.1 6.0 5.3 6.4 7.0
4.7 6.1 5.0 5.1 6.7 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.4
4.4 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.5 4.2 3.9 5.9 4.7
4.4 4.5 3.8 3.6 4.4 3.7 3.3 3.3 4.7
4.8 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.3 6.0 5.4
4.5 5.0 4.1 4.0 5.1 4.3 4.0 3.9 4.9
4.3 4.8 4.2 3.7 4.8 4.2 4.3 3.7 4.8
3.8 5.2 4.3 3.0 4.5 4.8 4.2 1.8 2.7
6.0
5.6
4.2
4.0
4.7
4.4
4.3
3.8
Table 4.3: Director and Supervisor responses
4.1.2
Non-respondents While there were a fairly equal number of respondents by region, the non-
response rate was moderate in Region 1 and low in the other regions. Non-response included questionnaires with incomplete information and organizations with open positions or new personnel.
Region
1: Western 2: N. Central 3: Southern 4: Northeast Total
Population
Respondents
16 12 15 11 54
9 10 10 9 38
Table 4.4: Non-respondents by region
87
NonRespondents 7 2 5 2 16
Response Rate .56 .83 .67 .82 .70
Non-Resp. Rate .44 .17 .23 .18 .30
4.2 Organizational Entrepreneurship To describe the extent to which Organizational Entrepreneurship was evident in Extension, the following descriptive statistics were reported for the total population, as well as by regional categories. All items were measured through a forced choice, eightpoint opposite statement interval level scale. Extension Directors were asked to respond as candidly as possible by circling a number between 1 and 8 on the opposite statement scale that best represented their organization as it was during the past five years. The questions were arranged in order to avoid response set contamination. Data was then recoded in SPSS 13.0, as needed, so that 1 indicted less entrepreneurial and 8 indicated more entrepreneurial, based on each dimension.
4.2.1
Entrepreneurial Orientation The first seven items focused on the 3 sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial
Orientation, using a scale developed by Covin and Slevin (1989). All regions reported substantial means for the measure of Entrepreneurial Orientation, with a overall mean of 5.5 (S.D. .92) (Figure 4.3).
88
8.00
Entrepreneurial Orientation
7.00
M 5.8 (S.D. .84)
6.00
M 5.8 (S.D. .88)
M 5.4 (S.D. .87) M 5.1 (S.D.1.07)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Western
North Central
Southern
1
2
3
Northeast 4
Region
Figure: 4.2: Entrepreneurial Orientation in Extension by region
Within the Entrepreneurial Orientation scale, descriptive statistics revealed that responses to each of the sub-dimensions had a mean above 5 on the scale of 1-8.
Sub-dimension Innovativeness Proactiveness Risk Taking Overall
N Minimum Maximum Mean 38 3.0 7.5 5.6 38 2.5 7.5 5.6 38 2.7 7.3 5.4 38 5.5
Std. Deviation 1.19 1.17 1.07 .92
Table 4.5: Sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Extension 89
4.2.2
Entrepreneurial Management In order to get a more complete assessment of Organizational Entrepreneurship,
this study also explored Entrepreneurial Management, in addition to the extensively used Entrepreneurial Orientation construct. The Entrepreneurial Management scale consisted of eighteen items within 5 sub-dimensions. This scale was developed by Brown et al. (2001) to operationalize Stevenson’s (1983) conceptualization of entrepreneurship as a set of opportunity-based management practices. All regions reported means above 5.0 on a scale of 1-8 for the measure of Entrepreneurial Management, with an overall mean of 5.25 (S.D. .74).
8.00
Entrepreneurial Management
7.00
6.00
M 5.5 (S.D. .83)
M 5.3 (S.D. .91)
M 5.1 (S.D. .97)
M 51 (S.D..54)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Western 1
North Central 2
Southern 3
Region
Figure 4.3: Entrepreneurial Management in Extension by region 90
Northeast 4
Within the Entrepreneurial Management scale, descriptive statistics revealed responses to each of the sub-dimensions, with entrepreneurial culture having the highest mean and reward philosophy and management structure having the lowest mean.
Sub-dimension Strategic Orientation Resource Orientation Management Structure Reward Philosophy Entrepreneurial Culture Overall
N
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
Mean
38
1.7
7.0
5.1
1.25
38
2.3
7.0
5.2
1.04
38
1.8
6.6
5.0
1.12
38
2.0
7.5
4.4
1.46
38
3.6
7.6
6.0
1.13
5.2
.74
38
Table 4.6: Sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Management in Extension
4.2.3
Organizational Entrepreneurship Organizational Entrepreneurship consisted of the combined dimensions of
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Entrepreneurial Management, which included the subdimensions of each. The twenty-five items were summated to create an Organizational Entrepreneurship indicator. Figure 4.5 revealed that all regions reported a mean above 5.0 for the measure of Organizational Entrepreneurship. In each of the 4 regions, the mean for Entrepreneurial Orientation was slightly higher than the dimension of Entrepreneurial Management and the combined measure, Organizational Entrepreneurship (Figure 4.5).
91
8 Entrepreneurial Orientation Entrepreneurial Management Organizational Entrepreneruship
Mean 1 = less entrepreneurial & 8 = more entrepreneurial
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Western
North Central
Southern
Region 4 Northeast
Figure: 4.4: Organizational Entrepreneurship in Extension by region
92
4.3 Organizational Performance
To describe Organizational Performance in Extension this study explored both financial and non-financial dimensions. For the financial dimension, respondents were asked to report appropriated funding and non-appropriated funding for the year 2000 and the year 2004. These figures were used to compute five-year funding trend indicators. In addition to financial indicators, the non-financial dimension of organizational performance was measured through an Performance Satisfaction construct to indicate satisfaction with overall performance. Extension Directors were asked to rate six items on a Likert-type scale, regarding their organization’s performance as it was during the past five years. 4.3.1
Total funding The total funding indicator for the financial dimension of Organizational
Performance was a combination of appropriated and non-appropriated funding. The percent change in total funding from the year 2000 to the year 2004, was .10 (S.D. .12) and ranged from a minimum of -1.20 to a maximum of .40. There was some difference in the total change of regional group means as exhibited in Figure 4.6. The change in total funding indicator does not completely reflect the complex range of changes in various Extension organizations that have experienced significant shifts in federal, state, or local funding within the appropriated funding measure. It also does not reflect shifts in grants, contracts, gifts, and fees within
93
non-appropriated funding measures (Figure 4.7). Also, because only two years of data were requested and reported, there was a limitation due to the possibility that the year 2000 and/or the year 2004 represented unusual funding circumstances that did not capture the most complete trend for the Extension organization.
Percent change in total funding 2000-2004
0.400
0.300
0.200
M .13 (S.D..13)
M .12 (S.D. .12) M .10 (S.D. ..13)
0.100
M .07 (S.D. .09)
0.000
-0.100
-0.200
Western 1
North Central
Southern
2
3
Region
Figure 4.5: Percent change in total funding by region
94
Northeast 4
4.3.2 Appropriated funding Appropriated funding was the monies that were appropriated directly to Cooperative Extension by federal, state, and local governments. A frequency analysis indicated that 37% of the respondents reported decreases in appropriated funding between the year 2000 and the year 2004. The mean for the percent change in appropriated funding from the year 2000 to the year 2004 was .04 (S.D. .11), and ranged from a minimum of -.29 to a maximum of .24. There was some difference in the appropriated funding change of regional group means as exhibited in Figure 4.7.
4.3.3 Non-appropriated funding Non-appropriated funding included non-appropriated government funding, foundation funding, and all monies generated through grants and contracts; gifts and donations; royalties, user fees, direct sales, and other methods. A frequency analysis revealed that 79% of the respondents reported increases in non-appropriated funding, when comparing the year 2000 and the year 2004. The mean for the percent change in appropriated funding from the year 2000 to the year 2004, was .27 (S.D. .28) and ranged from a minimum of -.30 to a maximum of .74. There was some difference in the nonappropriated funding change of regional group means as exhibited in Figure 4.7.
95
0.35
Region 3 Southern
Region 4 Northeast
0.3
Percent change (mean)
Region 2 N. Central 0.25
Region 1 Western
0.2
0.15
0.1
Region 1 Western Region 3 Southern
0.05
Region 2 N. Central
Region 4 Northeast
0
Appropriated funding
Non-appropriated funding
Figure 4.6: Percent change in appropriated and non-appropriated funding by region
As funding portfolios change for Extension organization’s nationwide, the value of non-appropriated funding seemed evident as a frequency analysis indicated that while 37% of the respondents reported decreases in appropriated funding, only 16% reported a decrease in total funding. As part of the financial dimension of Organizational Performance, this study also explored the percent change in non-appropriated funding as a percentage of total funding. The overall mean was .05 (S.D. .06), with a range of means from a minimum of -.08 to a maximum of .20.
96
Percent change in non-appropriated funding as a % of total $
0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
M .08 (S.D. .08) M .05 (S.D. .05)
0.0500
M .05 (S.D. .06)
M .02 (S.D. .06) 0.0000
-0.0500
-0.1000
Western 1
North Central 2
Southern 3
Northeast 4
Region
Figure 4.7: Percent change in non-appropriated funding as a percentage of total funding change
4.3.4 Performance Satisfaction A non-financial indicator of performance was measured through a series of six items indicating satisfaction with performance during the past five years, which summed into a single non-financial performance index, Performance Satisfaction. Extension Directors were asked to rate six items on a Likert-type scale, regarding their organization’s performance as it was during the past five years. On this scale,
97
1 represented unsatisfactory and 6 represented fully satisfactory. The mean for the summed index for the total population was 4.5 (S.D. .12), and ranged from a minimum of 2.8 to a maximum of 5.5. There was some difference in the regional group means and medians (Figure 4.8).
5.50
Performance Satisfaction
5.00
M 4.6 (S.D. .60)
4.50
M 4.5 (S.D. .73)
M 4.4 (S.D. .54)
M 4.3 (S.D..76)
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
Western
North Central
Southern
1
2
3
Region
Figure 4.8: Performance Satisfaction by region
98
Northeast 4
4.4 The relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational P`erformance in Extension
In order to explore the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and the Organizational Performance, bi-variate correlations (Tables 4.7 and 4.10) and multiple regression analyses were explored.
4.4.1
Relationship between the non-financial dimension of Organizational Performance and selected variables Regression of Performance Satisfaction on selected variables (Table 4.8) resulted
in 58 percent of variance explained. Variables were entered using the hierarchical entry with the co-variates of tenure and state population change entered first, followed by the 3 sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking), and then the 5 sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Management (strategic orientation, resource orientation, management structure, reward philosophy, entrepreneurial culture). With Performance Satisfaction as the dependent variable, tenure and population change accounted for 5 percent of the variance, Entrepreneurial Orientation accounted for 32 percent of the variance and Entrepreneurial Management accounted for 21 percent of the variance (Table 4.8). A review of regression Beta coefficients indicated that risk taking and tenure accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable Performance Satisfaction (Table 4.9). An examination of collinearity statistics indicated no collinearity problems and an examination of residuals showed no violation of the assumptions for linear regression. 99
100
Table 4.7: Summary data for independent variables and dependent variable, Performance Satisfaction (n = 38)
Variance Summary
Model 1 2 3
R R Square .230a .053 b .611 .373 .762c .580
Change Statistics R Square Change .053 .320 .207
a. Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Population Change 2000-2004 b. Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Population Change 2000-2004, Risk Taking, Proactiveness, Innovativeness c. Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Population Change 2000-2004, Risk Taking, Proactiveness, Innovativeness, Resource Orientation, Reward Philosophy, Entrepreneurial Culture, Strategic Orientation, Management Structure
Table 4.8: Variance summary: Regression of Performance Satisfaction on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry)
Variable (Constant) Population Change 2000-2004 Tenure Innovativeness Proactiveness Risk Taking Strategic Orientation Resource Orientation Management Structure Reward Philosophy Entrepreneurial Culture
Unstandardized Coefficients B .872
Standardized Coefficients Beta
-.020
-.100
.098
-.138
.046 -.076 .013 .230 .126 .167 -.048 .100 .135
.280 -.140 .023 .379 .244 .268 -.083 .224 .236
.229 .400 .364 .532 .536 .347 .320 .294 .462
.340 -.114 .023 .389 .249 .290 -.083 .249 .253
Correlations Zero-order Partial
Table 4.9: Regression coefficients: Regression of Performance Satisfaction on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry) 101
4.4.2 Relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and the financial dimension of Organizational Performance
This study also included an exploration of the relationship between selected variables and the financial indicator of performance, percent change in total funding. Regression of percent change in total funding on selected variables (Table 4.11) resulted in 32 percent variance explained. Variables were entered using the hierarchical entry with the co-variates of tenure and state population change entered first, followed by the 3 sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking), and then the 5 sub-dimensions of Entrepreneurial Management (strategic orientation, resource orientation, management structure, reward philosophy, entrepreneurial culture). With percent change in total funding as the dependent variable, tenure and population change accounted for 3 percent of the variance, Entrepreneurial Orientation accounted for 12 percent of the variance and Entrepreneurial Management accounted for 17 percent of the variance (Table 4.11). A review of regression Beta coefficients indicated that strategic orientation and risk taking accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable, percent change in total funding (Table 4.12). An examination of collinearity statistics indicated no collinearity problems and an examination of residuals showed no violation of the assumptions for linear regression.
102
103
Table 4.10: Summary data for independent variables and dependent variable, Percent change in total funding (n = 38)
Variance Summary
Model 1 2 3
R R Square a .181 .033 b .389 .152 c .567 .321
Change Statistics R Square Change .033 .119 .170
a. Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Population Change 2000-2004 b. Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Population Change 2000-2004, Risk Taking, Proactiveness, Innovativeness c. Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Population Change 2000-2004, Risk Taking, Proactiveness, Innovativeness, Resource Orientation, Reward Philosophy, Entrepreneurial Culture, Strategic Orientation, Management Structure
Table 4.11: Variance summary: Regression of Percent Change in Total Funding on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry)
Variable (Constant) Population Change 2000-2004 Tenure Innovativeness Proactiveness Risk Taking Strategic Orientation Resource Orientation Management Structure Reward Philosophy Entrepreneurial Culture
Unstandardized Coefficients B .111
Standardized Coefficients Beta
.002
.041
.163
.045
-2.25E-005 .012 .023 -.047 .044 .015 -.021 .000 -.025
-.001 .118 .232 -.428 .466 .136 -.200 .002 -.240
.130 .152 .248 -.163 .274 .143 -.058 -.050 -.045
-.001 .075 .180 -.351 .361 .120 -.156 .002 -.205
Correlations Zero-order Partial
Table 4.12: Regression coefficients: Regression of Percent Change in Total Funding on selected variables (n=38) (Hierarchical Entry) 104
4.5 Summary of Findings
Extension directors in all four geographic regions reported substantial levels of Organizational Entrepreneurship, as measured through the Entrepreneurial Orientation and Entrepreneurial Management scales. For Organizational Performance, the five-year trend indicated a range of funding changes based on a financial report of 2000 and 2004 appropriated and non-appropriated funding. This confirmed evidence gathered through a 2004 Revenue Generation report referenced in Chapter 1 (Figure 1.3). Extension directors in all four geographic regions reported very high means of Performance Satisfaction. Through multiple regression, risk taking and tenure accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable Performance Satisfaction. Strategic orientation and risk taking accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable, percent change in total funding. These findings provide a framework for further discussion and recommendations.
105
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS For nearly 100 years, Cooperative Extension has proven to be a successful model for local, state, and federal governments to work in cooperation with the national system of land-grant universities and citizens in local communities. Changes in society, technology, and funding have prompted Extension organizations to create new partnerships, programs, funding sources, and approaches to fulfill the mission of enabling people to improve their lives and communities through learning partnerships that put knowledge to work. While some organizations have adapted to a rapidly changing world and grown as a result of new opportunities, other organizations have found it difficult to adapt fully (Muzyka, deKoning, and Churchill, 1995; Pfeffer, 1994) The literature revealed that the field of entrepreneurship has evolved to include a focus on organizational-level perspectives. Among the various views of entrepreneurship, this study aligned with work of Miller (1983), Stephenson (1983), and Schumpeter (1942), as well as emerging concepts focusing on public entrepreneurship. Miller (1983, p. 771) advocated that entrepreneurial organizations “engage in product market innovation, undertake somewhat risky ventures and are first to come up with proactive innovations.” Stevenson’s (1983) conceptualized entrepreneurship as a set of 106
opportunity-based management practices. Schumpeter (1942), emphasized innovation and economic success. Public sector entrepreneurship definitions and themes were consistent with the mainstream entrepreneurship literature (Morris & Jones, 1999). Bellone and Goerl (1992) suggested that public sector entrepreneurship was an active approach to administrative responsibility that included generating new sources of revenue, providing enhanced services, and helping facilitate increased citizen education and involvement. Morris and Jones (1999, p. 74) proposed that public entrepreneurship was the process of creating value for citizens by bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to exploit social opportunities.
5.1 Summary and Conclusions Through survey research with Extension Directors in the 1862 land-grant institutions, this study examined the extent to which organizational-level entrepreneurship was evident in Extension and found that Extension organizations throughout the United States reported substantial levels of all measured dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship. The study also found that the majority of Extension organizations reported increases in total funding and had high levels of Performance Satisfaction. On the overall Performance Satisfaction index, Entrepreneurial Culture had the highest mean of 6.0 (S.D. 1.13) on a scale of 1-8 (Table 4.7 and Figure 5.1). Stephenson and Jarillo (1990) noted that an organization with an entrepreneurial culture, encouraged 107
ideas, experimentation, and creativity. An Entrepreneurial Culture includes various elements such as value creation through innovation and change; freedom to grow and fail; commitment and personal responsibility; and ethics of integrity, trust and credibility (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Morris & Kuratko, 2002).
8 7
6.0
6
5.6
5.6
(S .D. 1.19)
(S .D. 1.17)
(S .D. 1.13)
5.4
5
Overall Mean
5.1
5.2
(S .D. 1.25)
(S .D. 1.04)
(S .D. 1.07)
5.0 (S .D. 1.12)
4.4 (S .D. 1.46)
4 3 2 1
nt ati on ge m en tS tru ctu Re re w ar d Ph il o En so tre ph pr y en eu r ia lC ul tu re an a
M
rie
Re so ur ce
ic O teg
St ra
Or ie
nt at
io n
ki ng Ta Ri sk
ne ss iv e
In no va t
Pr oa c
tiv en
es s
0
Figure 5.1: Sub-dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship
Various types of organizations have reported a range of responses to these measures of Organizational Performance (Brown et al., 2001; Covin & Slevin, 1989), with some variance based on industry sector, age of the organizations surveyed, and other factors that influence survey research (Dillman, 2000; Krosnick, 1999). Respondents to the questionnaire used in this study may have selected reasonable answers with limited 108
comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response selection. An additional limitation is potential social desirability bias in which respondents overreport admirable attitudes and behaviors and underreport those that are less respected. Results from multivariate data analysis indicated that risk taking and tenure accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable Performance Satisfaction. Strategic orientation and risk taking accounted for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variable, percent change in total funding. Entrepreneurship is about risk and reward (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). However, both risk and reward involve perceptions which influence how survey respondents judge what is cautious or bold. Strategic orientation determines whether an organization is driven more by opportunity or by resources currently controlled. In addition to Strategic Orientation, Entrepreneurial Culture was the other sub-dimension included in the regression model. The individual sub-dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship are distinct yet related measures, therefore each dimension, as well as the combined scales can be used for further discussion and development of entrepreneurship in Extension organizations. All Extension organizations reported indications of Organizational Entrepreneurship during a time when changing financial portfolios required greater effort to generate both appropriated and non-appropriated funding. Change has been a constant feature for the Extension system since its creation almost 100 years ago. The system has changed significantly in the past 35 years, expanding programming and adding new categories of Extension through the Historically Black Land Grant Colleges, the Territorial colleges, the District of Columbia, and Tribal Colleges. In recent years, the 109
rapid pace of change has placed intense demands on Extension organizations and how the system maximizes opportunities presented by these changes will help determine how Extension will look in the future. As change continues to be a theme permeating throughout all types and sizes of organizations, including Extension, the field of entrepreneurship provides insight through valuable theory and practice. When adopted, these principles will not necessarily result in a high degree of entrepreneurial intensity all of the time and in all situations. However, development of an entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial behaviors can improve performance as the principles become embedded throughout the organization. Results from this study indicated that Extension organizations were promoter-oriented, but entrepreneurship is not a static phenomenon. The framework can be used as Extension organizations continue to build upon the rich history of the organizations and maximize new opportunities most relevant for the future.
5.2 Recommendations This study focused on the organizational-level entrepreneurship and performance based on public and private sector entrepreneurship theory and practice. Using the research findings and framework from this study, as well as diverse perspectives from the literature, Organizational Entrepreneurship in Extension can be enhanced by developing the entrepreneurial principles and process in Extension organizations, as well as conducting and learning from future research and practice.
110
Extension organizations across the United States have faced unique challenges and as resource and impact portfolios become more diversified, the opportunity-based perspective of Organizational Entrepreneurship can be relied upon for actively interpreting and acting upon opportunities. Each organization, each region, and the entire Cooperative Extension System can integrate principles of entrepreneurship, while maintaining the quality and integrity of Extension.
5.2.1
Develop risk taking and strategic orientation, two sub-dimensions identified in this study to account for the highest relative contribution to the dependent variables To develop risk taking, extension organizations can: •
Balance the Extension portfolio with projects ranging in degrees of risk and return; requiring different development and payoff times; targeting current versus new markets; utilizing familiar or emerging technologies.
•
Recognize that organizational and personal risks are driven by cognitive biases and perceived intensity of threat based on financial, emotional, reputation or other implications. Create an award for individuals or groups that accepted uncertainty and ambiguity, then took risks, perhaps failed on numerous occasions, learned, and then accomplished their objective.
•
Examine if there have been situations when those trying new ideas experienced negative consequences, because when this happens, people become risk averse, stop experimenting and mistakes are covered up 111
which limits organizational learning results. Empower people throughout the organization with tools, resources and systems for continuous information flow and decision making. To move toward an opportunity-driven rather than resource-driven strategic orientation, Extension organizations can: •
Shift emphasis from budgets, human resource constraints, and other resource challenges to opportunity.
•
Gather information and ideas on perceived limitations that have halted action to pursue opportunities. Use this information to identify patterns and improve systems that support strategic orientation. This shifts primary attention from resources to opportunity so that decisions and actions are guided more by stakeholder-focused ends rather than by an excessive and restrictive fixation on the means.
5.2.2
Develop other interrelated factors of Organizational Entrepreneurship To improve innovativeness, provide tools, resources, and systems that tap into
stakeholder-focused opportunities and encourage, measure, and reward innovative individual and team behavior. Identify stimulants and obstacles for the flexibility and fast action needed to identify, experiment with and develop ideas. Use trends unveiled through opportunity findings and involve lead users and innovation champions to develop and refine innovations. Integrate measures of innovation into the organizational reporting and decision systems. Feature a range of innovations in Extension and link them to 112
relevant impact multipliers and narrative that reinforce stakeholder-focused entrepreneurial process. Proactiveness is linked to locus of control, therefore, in order to promote a bias for action, Extension organizations should focus on results rather than processes and personnel should be enabled with the flexibility, authority, and accountability to link actions to meaningful outcomes (Harper, 1994). A person with an internal locus of control is alert to opportunities and tends to believe that events are contingent upon his/her own behavior or his/her relatively permanent characteristics (Rotter, 1966). Those with an external locus of control tend to see their actions as less effective in producing outcomes because of lack of power or predictability because of the great complexity of the forces. Balance stories of partnership with reports of Extension organizations providing fast-actions that lead to being first with solutions and innovations that addressed rapidly emerging opportunities. To advance resource orientation, recognize personnel who reach across organizational boundaries to leverage resources for high priority purposes. Highlight best practices demonstrating the value of accessing, not necessarily owning resources. Develop unique and flexible resources for competitive advantage that are valued by stakeholders. At all levels, use slack resources such as time, money and materials for idea development that supports the stakeholder-focused entrepreneurial process. Match levels of formal approval systems with levels of resources requested. Management structure is another factor Extension organizations could develop. To serve stakeholders whose needs are not organized in the pattern of the Extension 113
organization chart, personnel should be encouraged to develop ideas and share resource beyond the boundaries of departments, state organizations and local or program teams. Enhance a flat and flexible structure through Communities of Practice (Snyder & Briggs, 2003) and other teams with adaptable role definitions, authority and responsibilities that are contingent on changing circumstances and aligned with environment and strategy To enhance reward philosophy, Extension organizations can go beyond tenurebased rewards and link short- and long-term strategy, goals, performance results, and creative compensation such as indirect pay, direct pay, recognition, challenging work, and learning opportunities. Tailor recognition and reward to the unique interests of the people involved, but don’t appear to be random or casual (Kanter, 1994). Morris and Kuratko (2002, p. 247) suggest numerous examples of creative approaches to rewarding employees. Although modifying organizational culture can be challenging (Barney, 1986), Extension organizations can adopt integrated actions such as clarifying meaning, identifying stories, determining strategic initiatives, recognizing small wins and unique contributions that distinguish the organization, developing shared knowledge and buy in of key measures and milestones, focusing on communication and symbols, supporting leadership development (Cameron, 2004).
5.2.3
Develop a stakeholder focus Stakeholders are any individuals or groups that can influence or are affected by
the achievement of the organization’s objectives (Freeman, 1984). Extension 114
organizations involve diverse stakeholder groups, including customers, suppliers, employees, volunteers, advocates, funding agencies, alliances, networks, media, delivery partners, co-developers, as well as other public and private groups. Research has suggested that long-term organizational success depends upon the organization’s ability to create value and satisfaction for a variety of stakeholders (Berman, Wicks, Kotha, and Jones, 1999; Graves & Waddock, 1994; Ogden & Watson, 1999; Ruf et al., 2001). These stakeholders include intrapreneurs, who are employees behaving like entrepreneurs on behalf of the organization (Pinchot, 1985). These intrapreneurial individuals and cross disciplinary project teams are empowered throughout the entrepreneurial process. Stakeholders also include alliances and networks, demonstrating that collective entrepreneurial efforts exceed the sum of individuals’ contributions (Reich, 1987). When managing multiple constituencies, tensions are inevitable due to divergent demands and various levels of power and urgency (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997). Organizational decisions are further complicated when stakeholders’ needs or demands are dynamic, latent, or difficult to discern (Veryzer, 1998; Voss et al., 2004). Effective organizations have a clear, challenging, and powerful vision that aligns activities that focus on customers and empower employees. A wide range of talent, with individual characteristics and cognitive styles, is required to support all stages of the entrepreneurial process (Thompsen, 2002).
115
5.2.4
Throughout the Extension organization, increase awareness of the entrepreneurial process (Figure 2.1)
Opportunity Entrepreneurial organizations draw upon diverse perspectives to identify and evaluate opportunities. Because of the increased complexity of Extension organizations, tracking trends and exploiting opportunities presents some challenges. To address this complexity, Extension organizations can benefit from enhanced scanning for and development of opportunities from many diverse perspectives. By expanding who scans, how they scan, where they scan, how they scan, and what they scan for, a variety of stakeholders can be involved in identifying, evaluating, and acting upon opportunities that arise from social, economic, political, technological, institutional, and other shifts. For Extension organizations, social factors include changes in stakeholder profiles, preferences, expectations, and transactional behaviors. Economic factors include new or altered funding sources, new competition for funding, and other financial forces on stakeholders. Political factors encompass regulatory issues, legal aspects, and the current political climate that influences the funding, development, delivery, dissemination, and evaluation of Extension initiatives. Technology factors consist of everything that affects Extension products, services, markets, or interaction with stakeholders that comes as a result of changes in technology. Institutional factors include shifts in resources, processes, procedures, structures, and other ways of conducting business in the scope of the national Extension system, the state land-grant system and local operations. 116
In addition to employee involvement in opportunity-focused activity, outsiders often have more freedom to direct their attention and energy to this part of the entrepreneurial process. Their organizational detachment enables them to perceive opportunities without the distraction of operational concerns surrounding the organization. As Roberts and King (1996) argued, it can be better to be on the outside cultivating ties with well-placed insiders than it is to be on the inside suffering from restrictions imposed by bureaucratic constraints. Together, internal and external opportunity seekers can foster alertness to opportunities and collaborate for information acquisition, shared interpretation, and creative exploration for further experimentation and development. The challenge is to go from chaos to concept by taking a lump of unorganized information, seeing patterns, and extracting order from the mess (Collins, 2001, p. 11). Krueger (2000) found that measures of opportunity perception correlated with the measures of Entrepreneurial Orientation.
Innovation Exploit opportunities to maximize value creation. As Extension organizations develop a portfolio of innovations, resource investment decisions must be made based on assessment of added stakeholder value; degree of uncertainty and risk; short and longterm objectives and implications; key drivers that influence innovation success; and projected project impacts. The innovation stage of the entrepreneurial process benefits from internal and external stakeholder interaction because sometimes contributions from outside Extension’s knowledge and experience base trigger the creative solutions needed 117
to innovate. Taking the entrepreneurial marketing approach to innovation, this stage brings the Extension organization and stakeholders even closer together as stakeholders become active participants in the organization’s decisions on what products, programs, and services to keep or preserve, what to destroy or eliminate, and what to create that is new.
Strategy Strategy for Extension organizations evolves through the context of the formal and informal organizational structure, processes, decision authority systems, resources, relationships, and work-flow. Strategy is influenced by the environment which includes past, current, and future political, economic, social, institutional, technological, and demographic aspects. Extension organizations can benefit from the organic perspective of strategy because of the diverse group of stakeholders, multiple influences, the complex nature of decision making, and the dynamic contexts of the national Extension system, state land-grant institution, and local operations. As the Extension organization and the environment co-evolve, strategy plays a critical role in moving opportunities and innovations forward by formulating and enabling strategies that capitalize on synergies, reconcile contradictions, and concentrate on stakeholder-focused priorities. The organic perspective of strategy supports the strategic orientation continuum addressed in earlier chapters, that range from trustee and mechanistic to promoter and organic orientations.
118
Operations In the operational stage of the process, Extension organizations shift focus to functions and meaningful measures of performance. Performance effectiveness measures could be addressed from various approaches, including goal, system resource, internal process, stakeholder, or competing values approaches. Entrepreneurial organizations develop measurements that encourage opportunity identification, innovation and organic strategic management. Depending on the approach and the short and long-term priorities of the Extension organization, various performance measures could be gathered from multiple sources for continuous learning improvement. Entrepreneurial organizations exist on the boundary between chaos and order, relying on self-organizing systems in which the choices of individuals and teams lead naturally to alignment and cost effectiveness in fulfilling of stakeholder needs (Pinchot & Pellman, 1999). Ultimately, the operational stage addresses antecedents and barriers to performance and leads to many new opportunities, innovations, and strategies that replace or enhance existing operations.
5.2.5
Conduct and learn from future research and practice In addition to this study, there are numerous opportunities for future research
based on multiple respondents, other interactive variables, additional methods to gather and analyze data, and investigations into related fields of study. The bulk of entrepreneurship has primarily focused on profit ventures, especially during the start-up phase of operation. As lines blur between public, private and not-for-profit ventures, 119
there is a need for research focused in a variety of contexts, including new organizational alliances.
Engage multiple respondents This study used a single respondent, an approach that has both advocates and critics. The literature dealing with the justification for using a single respondent to make inferences about an organization’s situations has been supported by Snow and Hrebiniak (1980, p. 320) who advocated that “top managers have the best vantage point for viewing the entire organizational system,” and Hambrick (1981), who strongly promoted using only the CEO. Critics of using the sole respondent included Phillips (1981), who argued that no single executive could accurately report on a wide range of organizational concepts, because of systematic sources of error such as bias and random error resulting from placing unrealistic demands on respondents to make complex judgments about organizational characteristics. Future research could include multiple respondents, including both internal and external stakeholders. For example, the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument, developed Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby (1990), could be used for county directors and specialists to report on organizational entrepreneurship. Various stakeholders could provide input on satisfaction with overall performance.
120
Integrate other variables A multitude of options are available for future research integrating additional variables. The existing scales could be refined through more in-depth development and validation of the items within the sub-dimensions of Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance. Relationships could be further explored by looking more closely at items such as state population, tenure and environmental factors. According to the organic perspective of strategy, performance could also be explored an independent variable. Additional dependent variables could include performance over different periods of time; shifts in the financial value of volunteers and other in-kind contributions; stakeholder satisfaction (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993); or factors influencing sustainability of the Organizational Entrepreneurship-Organizational Performance linkage. Other variables that could interact with entrepreneurship and performance could include scanning intensity as measured by Barringer and Bluedorn (1999); market orientation, using the MARKOR scale developed by Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993) or the MKTOR scale developed by Narver and Slater (1990); various dimensions from an organizational flexibility scale (Khandwalla, 1977); learning orientation (Yim-Teo, 2002); new economy indicators (Atkinson & Court, 2002) or leading indicators that represent value drivers (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).
Explore individual and team entrepreneurship Because entrepreneurship has been explored from individual, team, and organizational perspectives, future studies could focus on team dynamics, as well 121
intrapreneurial characteristics and behaviors of individuals at all levels of the organization. Data could be gathered and explored through a variety of methods. Findings from these additional studies enhance those focused on organizational-level factors.
Utilize additional methods To better understand the relationship between Organizational Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance in Extension, additional methods could be used to gather and analyze data. Additional items could be generated through deductive and inductive approaches. An inductive approach could begin with qualitative interviews (Hinkin, 1995) while the deductive approach would begin with theoretically based construct definitions of established dimensions. Researchers could combine quantitative methods with qualitative approaches that attempt to increase understanding of perceptions of the multiple influences unique to Extension organizations (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Morris & Stenberg, 1991). Qualitative methods have been used for research in a variety of entrepreneurial studies, including entrepreneurial cognition research (Hindle, 2004) and the exploration of the entrepreneurship and marketing interface (Carson & Coviello, 1996). While qualitative methods are used more extensively in many other domains of the social sciences, there is a need for more scholars of entrepreneurship to involve themselves in qualitative methodology. Chandler and Lyon (2001) reviewed more than four hundred refereed journal articles in top-tier journals and found that in the broad field of entrepreneurship, only 18% of the empirical studies in their sample utilized any 122
qualitative techniques. Because entrepreneurship is not a static concept, original research designs and context specific studies are fundamental to broaden and deepen existing research.
Explore additional Extension organizations and partnerships In addition to the population of Extension organizations in this study, other Extension organizations throughout the world could be considered for future research. Each type of Extension organization has characteristics unique in structure, funding and delivery. Here in the United States, there are additional Extension organizations at Historically Black Land Grant Colleges, the Territorial colleges, the District of Columbia, and Tribal Colleges. Future research could have a vast reach because Extension organizations serve through an integrated and complex set of public and private activities internationally. Worldwide agricultural Extension organizations have long played a vital role in advancing technology transfer and human resource development in 115 developed and developing countries. According to the World Bank, Extension operations of the past four decades is one of the largest institutional development effort the world has ever known (Anderson & Feder, 2004). In addition, future research could explore interorganizational networks, research and Extension consortia and strategic alliances that are used to develop original and innovative ways to add stakeholder value. Future research should tap into the growing body of research and practice in the field of entrepreneurship and related disciplines, such as management, public administration, organizational development, strategy, innovation, higher education and 123
lifelong learning. Extension organizations benefit from research focusing specifically on entrepreneurship in public and not-for-profit organizations.
Conduct research focused on individual and team entrepreneurship Because entrepreneurship involves interrelated individual, team, and organizational factors, a variety of methods could be used to gather and analyze additional data. Findings could be used to increase awareness and development of individual and team entrepreneurship throughout Extension. Factors focused on individual characteristics, cognitive styles, and behaviors could be explored through instruments such as McClelland’s (1987) characteristics of successful entrepreneurs or Pinchot’s (1985) resources on intrapreneurship. Extension organizations focusing on teams can explore the work of Pinchot (1999), as well as team entrepreneurship theory advocated by authors such as Kreueger (2002) and Stewart (1989). This research adds depth through involvement of Extension personnel at many levels throughout the organization.
5.2.5
Summary of recommendations This study made a contribution to the field of entrepreneurship and to
organizational development in university Extension. Understanding and improving entrepreneurship in Extension responds to the call for theoretical and practical solutions to the new competitive landscape (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Bettis & Hitt, 1995). To further develop Organizational Entrepreneurship, Extension can leverage the system’s 124
national infrastructure that links citizens and communities with their public universities and all levels of government. New initiatives such as eXtension that build on knowledgebased communities of practice and Outreach and Engagement efforts that encourage cross-campus collaboration, offer entrepreneurial opportunities beyond the scope of individual organizations. Entrepreneurial individuals and teams in Extension organizations have a proactive approach and an experimental and learning attitude as they seek to determine the nature of a problem or opportunity and its cause; the potential range of innovative solutions; and the most valuable strategy to access resources, accomplish desired outcomes and achieve meaningful impacts. Extension personnel must create a shared vision, be proactive in dealing with the future, support change, champion the holistic view of Extension, and create an environment for innovation (Buchanan, 1993). Although budget cuts at the federal, state, or local levels have been a primary reason for Extension organizations to emphasize non-appropriated funding and entrepreneurial initiatives, much more can be gained by taking a holistic approach to the entrepreneurial process and the key factors explored in this study. Extension organizations must be creative in continuously facing the various conflicts that public managers face when attempting to deliver stakeholder value. As organizations become more entrepreneurial, there will inevitably be tension between rules, roles, and routines and the evolving flow of work that often does not fit established procedural channels (Brower & Abolafia, 1996). Throughout all stages of the process, especially the operational stage, organizations must find cooperative and constructive (Tjosvold, 1993) solutions when constrained from implementing a practical solution because of established 125
personnel or procurement procedures. In addition to procedural conflicts, Extension organizations must also contend with substantive and affective conflicts (Burnett, 1991). Although contradictions are sometimes perplexing aspects of the entrepreneurial process, entrepreneurship reconciles opportunities and action, vision and venture, resources and organizational architecture, achievement of long-term equity value and short-term effectiveness, creativity and discipline, internal and external aspects of managing change (Bratnicki, 2005, p.22). Entrepreneurship is a journey and not a stable destination. As society changes, new technologies evolve and competition increases the entrepreneurial process and principles can guide organizations in linking opportunities with behaviors that are essential for carrying out the Extension mission. In a rapidly changing world, organizations need to continually leverage their human, financial, political and social capital to identify new opportunities beyond existing competencies (Hamel, et al., 1989; Mintzberg, 1994). Extension organizations can use the Organizational Entrepreneurship framework to develop dynamic capabilities that integrate, build, renew and reconfigure internal competencies (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997) so change becomes more fluid. Extension organizations are unique in a number of ways and can enhance much of their existing efforts by involving personnel throughout the organization and engaging advisory groups and other volunteers in the entrepreneurial process. As the organization approaches new opportunities and challenges, everyone can be involved in decisions that impact what elements of the organization’s rich tradition and core values to keep; what programs, processes and assumptions to destroy; and what new approaches, behaviors 126
and innovations to create. To benefit from the framework and findings in this study, Extension organizations can engage in focusing on priorities that improve organizational performance through organizational entrepreneurship. Organizations can maintain a balanced effort of conducting additional research for new knowledge while simultaneously exploiting existing knowledge to develop opportunity-based individual, team, and organizational entrepreneurship.
127
APPENDICES
A
Questionnaire
B
Panel of experts
C
Cooperative Extension System Regions
D
Exemption from human subjects committee review
128
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE
129
130
131
132
133
Personalized Letter
Letter included with questionnaire
134
APPENDIX B PANEL OF EXPERTS
135
PANEL OF EXPERTS
National Contacts Dick Wooten Director, Extension and Outreach NASULGC Washington, D. C. James C. Wade Director, Center for Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of Maryland (Replaced Dick Wooten July 1, 2005 - previously at the University of Maryland)
Regional Contacts Ronald A. Brown, Executive Director Association of Southern Regional Extension Directors Mississippi State, MS Carl W. O’Connor Executive Director North Central Cooperative Extension Association Madison, WI
Past State Director Contacts Lyla E. Houglum, Director of Special Initiatives Oregon State University Sharon D. Anderson, Special Consultant to the President National 4-H Council
136
APPENDIX C COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM REGIONS
137
NASULGC Member Land-Grant Institutions (1862) Cooperative Extension System Regions Western Alaska Arizona California Colorado Hawaii Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming American Samoa Guam
North Central Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio South Dakota Wisconsin
Southern Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Puerto Rico Virgin Islands
138
Northeast Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont West Virginia
APPENDIX D EXEMPTION FROM HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE REVIEW
139
140
REFERENCES
Abassi, S., & Hollman, K.W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel Management, 2(3), 333-342. Abernathy, W.J., & Utterback, J. (1978;). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technological Review, 80(7), 40-47. Adler, P.S., & Cole, R.E. (1993). Designed for learning: a tale of two auto plants. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 85–94. Allen, T.J., & Cohen, S.I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19. Allinson, C.W.& Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuitionanalysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119135. Allinson, C.W., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. (2000). Intuition and entrepreneurial performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 31-43. Alvarez, S.A., & Barney, J.B. (2001). How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 139-48. Amabile, T.M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity and beyond. In M.A. Runco & R.S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 61-91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurial research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 275-294. Anderson, J.R., & Feder, G. (2004). Agricultural Extension: Good intentions and hard realities. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 41-60. Anderson, E.W., & Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12, Spring, 125–143. 141
Anderson, N.R., & West, M.A. (1998). Measuring climate for work-group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235-258. Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and crosscultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527. Applebaum, S.H., & Reichart, W. (1998). How to measure an organization’s learning ability: The facilitating factors – Part II. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(1), 15-28. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123. Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315. Ashforth, B. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Review, 10, 837-847. Atkinson, R., & Court, R. (2002). The new economy index: Understanding America’s economic transformation. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Baker, W.E., & Sinkula, J.M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427. Bandura, A. (1986). The social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656-665. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1), 99-120.
142
Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 275-294. Barrett, H., Balloun, J., & Weinstein, A. (2003). Success factors for entrepreneurial organizations. UIC Research Symposium Papers. Chicago: University of Illinois Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies. Barringer, B.R., & Bluedorn, A.C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (5), 421-444. Barringer, M.S., & Milkovich, G.T. (1998). A theoretical exploration of the adoption and design of flexible benefit plans: A case of human resource innovation. Academy of Management Review, 23, 305-324. Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103118. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Becherer, R.C., & Maurer, J.G. (1997). The moderating effect of environmental variables on the entrepreneurial and marketing orientation of entrepreneur-led firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 22(1), 47-58. Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779- 801. Behn, R.D. (1991). Leadership counts: Lessons for public managers from the Massachusetts welfare, training, and employment program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beijerse, R.P. (2000). Knowledge management in small and medium-sized companies: Knowledge management for entrepreneurs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 162-179. Bellone, C.J., & Goerle, G.F. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 130-134. Berman, S.L., Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T.M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488-506. 143
Berrio, A.A. (2003). An organizational culture assessment using the competing values framework: A profile of Ohio State University Extension. Journal of Extension, 41(2). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2003april/a3.shtml. Bettis, R., & Hitt, M. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 7-20. Birch, D.L. (1979). The job generating process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change. Birch, D.L. (1987). Job creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to work. New York: Free Press. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13, 442-453. Bird, B.J. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Company. Blanchflower, D.G. (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries. Labor Economics, 7(5), 471-505. Block, Z., & Ornati, O. (1987). Compensating corporate venture managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 41-52. Bluedorn, A.C., Johnson, R.A., & Cartwright, D.K. (1994). The interface and convergence of the strategic management and organizational environment domains. Journal of Management, 20, 201-262. Bolton, W.K., & Thompson, J.L. (2000). Entrepreneurs: Talent, temperament, technique. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Borland, C. (1974). Locus of control, need for achievement, and entrepreneurship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Borins, S. (1998). Innovating with integrity: How local heroes are transforming American government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498-507. Bourgeois, L.J. III (1980). Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 25-39. 144
Bourgeois, L.J. III (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty and economic performance in volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 548-573. Bower, J.L. (1977). Effective public management. Harvard Business Review, 55(2), 135. Boyett, I. (1996). The public sector entrepreneur: A definition. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(2), 36 - 51. Boyne, G. (2003). What is public service improvement? Public Administration, 81(2), 211-227. Bracht, G., & Glass, G. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437-74. Brandt, S.C. (1986). Entrepreneuring in established companies. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Bratnicki, M. (2005). Organizational entrepreneurship: Theoretical background, some empirical tests, and directions for future research. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 15(1), 15-33. Brazael D.V. (1999). The genesis of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 29-45. Brinckerhoff, P.C. (2000). Social entrepreneurship: The art of mission-based venture development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brockhaus, R.H. (1980). Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 509-520. Brophy, D.J., & Shulman, J.M. (1992). A finance perspective on entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(3), 61-71. Bromwich, M., & Bhimani, A. (1994). Management accounting: Pathways to progress. London: CIMA Publications. Brower, R.S., & Abolafia, M.Y. (1996). Procedural entrepreneurship: Enacting alternative channels to administrative effectiveness. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 287-308. Brown, T. (1996) Resource orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and growth: How the perception of resource availability affects small firm growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Rutgers University. 145
Brown, T.H., & Davidsson, P. (1998). Entrepreneurial orientation versus entrepreneurial management: Relating Miller/Covin & Slevin’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship to Stevenson’s. In P.D. Reynolds, W.D. Bygrave, N.M. Carter, S. Manigart, C. M. Mason, G.D. Meyer, & K.G. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 352-353). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Brown, T.H, Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J., (2001). An operationlization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 953–968. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings and future direction. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343-378. Bruno, A., & T. Tyebjee (1982). The Environment for Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 288-315). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brush C., Greene, P., & Hart, M.M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge to constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 64-81. Buchanan, P.J. (1993). Environment for innovation and professionalism. Journal of Extension, 31(1). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/tp1.html. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29, 1349-1364. Burgelman, R.A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, 239-262. Burgelman, R.A., & Sayles, L.R. (1986). Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure and managerial skills. New York: Free Press. Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational change. Work & Stress, 7, 63-75. Burnett, R.E. (1991). Substantive conflict in a cooperative context: A way to improve the collaborative planning of workplace documents. Technology Communication, 38(3), 532-539. Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications. 146
Busenitz, L.W. (1996). Research on entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(4), 35–44. Busenitz, L., & Barney, J. (1987). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30. Bygrave, W.D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm: A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 14(1), 7-26. Bygrave, W.D. (1997). The portable MBA in entrepreneurship. New York: Wiley. Bygrave, W.D., & Hofer, C.W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 15(4), 13-22. Cameron, K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 604-632. Cameron, K. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539-553. Cameron, K.S. (1997). Techniques for making organizations effective. In D. Druckman, J. Singer, & H. Van Cott (Eds.), Enhancing organizational performance (pp. 3964). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cameron, K.S., & Ettington, D.R. (1998). The conceptual foundations of organizational culture. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Volume 4 (pp. 356-396). New York: Agathon Press. Campbell, J.P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P.S. Goodman & J.M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness (pp. 1355). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago: Rand McNally. Cannon, C., & Fenoglio, G. (2000). Charity for profit: How the new social entrepreneurs are creating good by creating wealth. National Journal, 32(25), 1898-1904. Cantillion, R. (1931). Essay on the nature of commerce (H. Higgs, Trans.). London: Macmillan. (Original work published 1755)
147
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.C., & Hoy, F. (1992). An entrepreneurship index: An empirical validation. Paper presented at the annual Babson Entrepreneurship Conference, Fontainbleau, France, July. Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in small business: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 21(1), 5-20. Carroll, J.D. (1996). Reinventing public administration. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 245-246. Carson, D., & Coviello, N. (1996). Qualitative research issues at the marketing/ entrepreneurship interface. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14(6), 51-58. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Oxford: Martin Robinson. Catford, J. (1998). Social entrepreneurs are vital for health promotion, but they need supportive environments too. Health Promotion International, 13(2), 95-97. Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press . Chandler, G.N., & Hanks, S.H. (1993). Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 391-408. Chandler , G.N., & Lyon, D. (2001). Issues of design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 101-113. Cheah, H. (1990). Schumpeterian and Austrian entrepreneurship: Unity within duality. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 341–347. Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Getting to outcomes: Promoting accountability through methods and tools for planning, implementation, and evaluation. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation. Chittipeddi, K., & Wallett, T.A. (1991). Entrepreneurship and competitive strategy for the 1990s. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1), 94-98. Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73. Churchill, N.C., & Muzyka, D.F. (1994). Defining and conceptualizing entrepreneurship: A process approach. In G.E. Hills (Eds.), Marketing and entrepreneurship (pp. 11-23). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. 148
Clark, G., & Marshall, J. (2002). Decision-making: Models of the real-world and expertise. Paper presented at the National Association of Pension Funds, Edinburgh. Claxton, C.S., & Murrell, P.H. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improving educational practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olson, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25. Cole, A.H. (1946). An approach to the study of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic History, 4, 1-15. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York: Harper-Business Collins, O.F., & Moore, D.G. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Collins, O.F., & Moore, D.G. (1970). The organization makers. New York: AppletonCentury-Croft. Combs, A., & Snygg, D. (1959). Individual Behavior. (3d ed.). New York: Harper’s & Row Publishers. Cooper, A. C., & Artz, K. W. (1995). Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 439-457. Cooper, T.L., & Wright, N.D. (1992). Exemplary public administrators: Character and leadership in government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(4), 373-397. Cornwall, J.R., & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entrepreneurship. Homewood, IL: Boston-Irvin. Covey, S. (2002). Managing change in crisis: Covey live from NYC (Audio Recording). Salt Lake City, UT: Covey Leadership Center. 149
Covin J.G., & Miles, M. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 47-62. Covin, J.G., & Slevin D.P. (1986). The development and testing of an organizationallevel entrepreneurship scale. In R. Ronstadt, J.A. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 628-639). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Covin, J.G., & Slevin D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87. Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1990). Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context, and small firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 14(4):35-50. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(1), 43-51. Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., & Heeley, M.B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175210. Crawford, C.M. (1980). The idea evaluation function in smaller firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 18(2), 31–40. Cullen, R.B., & Cushman, D.P. (2000). Transitions to competitive government: Speed, consensus, and performance. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 29, 45-61. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Daft, R.L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 193-210. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590. Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), 693-716. Damanpour, F., & Evans, W. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-402. 150
Davies, G., Chun, R., deSilva, R.V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146. Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 43-51. Day, D.L. (1992). Research linkages between entrepreneurship and strategic management. In D.L. Sexton & J.D. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of entrepreneurship (pp. 177-163). Boston: PWS-Kent. Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (2000). Corporate cultures, the rites and rituals of corporate life. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing. de Chambeau, F.A., & Mackenzie, F. (1986). Intrapreneurship. Personnel Journal, July, 40-45. Denison, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley. Dess, G.G., & Beard, D.W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73. Dees, G.G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Dees, G.G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing performance of your enterprising nonprofit. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Dess, G.G., & Robinson, R.B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265-273. de Koning, A.J. (1999). Opportunity formation as a socio-cognitive process. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Delmar, F., & Davidsson, P. (2000). Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12, 1-23.
151
Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T., & Covin, J.G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677-695. Dess, G.D., Lumpkin, G.T., & McGee, J.E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 85-102. Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. (1984). Measuring organizational Performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265–273. De Wit, G., & van Winden, F.A.A.M. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business Economics, 1(3), 263–272. Dickson, P.R., & Giglierano (1986). Missing the boat and sinking the boat: A conceptual model of entrepreneurial risk. Journal of Marketing, 50, 43-51. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L.G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations culture and environment (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co. Doig, J.W., & Hargrove, E.C. (1987). Leadership and innovation: A biographical perspective on entrepreneurs in government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 31-44. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: Harpercollins Publishers, Inc. Drucker, P.D. (1995). Really reinventing government. The Atlantic Monthly, Feb., 49-61. Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. New York: Free Press. Dutton, J.E., & Jackson, S.E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Journal, 12, 76-90. Edgcomb, E., & Thetford, T. (2004). The informal economy: Making it in rural America. Washington: DC: The Aspen Institute. 152
Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Baiyin, Y., & Howton, S.W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5-18. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E. (1965). The casual texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21-32. Emerson, M.S.W., & Twersky, M.C.P. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of nonprofit enterprise creation. San Francisco: The Roberts Foundation. Ensley, M.D., Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., & Banks, M. (1999). Exploring the existence of entrepreneurial teams. International Journal of Management 16(2), 276–86. Epstein, S. (1998). Constructive thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. New York: Praeger. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (2002). The Extension System: A Vision for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (2003). The Cooperative Extension System: More relevant today than ever. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 561-594. Fiet, J.O. (1996). The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8, 419-430. Fiet, J.O. (2002). The systematic search for entrepreneurial discoveries. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Fiol, C.M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5(3), 403-420. Fasiska, E.J. (1992). Managerial type determination and its role in the development of an Entrepreneurial Quotient (EQ) instrument. International Journal of Value-Based Management 5, 17–37. Fitz-enz, J. (1997). It’s costly to lose good employees. Workforce, August, 50-51. 153
Ford, J.D., & Schellenberg, D.A. (1982). Conceptual issues of linkage in the assessment of organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 49-58. Forgas, J. (1995). Emotion in social judgments: Review and a new affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66. Forster, J., Graham, P., & Wanna J. (1996). The new public entrepreneurialism. In J. Wanna, J. Forster, & P. Graham, (Eds.), Entrepreneurial management in the public sector (pp. 1-14). South Melbourne, Victoria: Macmillan. Fox, C.J. (1996). Reinventing government as postmodern symbolic politics. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 256-262. Franz, N.K. (2003). Transformative learning in Extension staff partnerships: Facilitating personal, joint and organizational change. Journal of Extension, 41(2). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2003april/a1.shtml. Franz, N.K. (2004). Self-directed work teams. Journal of Extension, 42(2). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/tt1.shtml. Franz, N. K., Peterson, R. S., & Dailey, A. L. (2002). Leading organizational change: A comparison of county and campus views of Extension engagement. Journal of Extension, 40(3). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/rb1.html. Frederickson, H., Rainey, H.G., Backoff, R.W., & Levine, C.H. (1976). Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36(2), 233-244. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Frese, M., van Gelderen, M., & Ombach, M. (2000). How to plan a small scale business owner: Psychological characteristics of action strategies and success. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2), 1-19. Fridja, N.H. (1996). Passions: Emotion and socially consequential behavior. In R.D. Kavanaugh, B. Zimmerberg, & S. Fein (Eds.), Emotions: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gaglio, C.M., & Katz, J.A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16, 95–111. Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 154
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organization redesign. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Galunic, D.C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource combinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumperterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1193-1201. Gartner, W.B. (1988). Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32. Gartner, W.B., Mitchell, T.R., & Vesper, K.H. (1989). A taxonomy of new business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 169-186. Gerschenkron, A. (1965). Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Gersik, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C.A. (1995). Building the entrepreneurial corporation: New organizational processes, new managerial tasks. The European Management Journal, 13(2), 139-155. Gibb, J.R. (1961). Defense level and influence potential in small groups. In L. Perrullo & B.M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership an interpersonal behavior (pp. 66-81). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Gleik, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking. Glick, W.H., Huber, G.P., Miller, C.C., Doty, D.H., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (1990). Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness: Retrospective event histories and periodic assessments. Organization Science, 1, 293-312. Goes, J.B., & Park, S.H. (1997). Interorganizational links and innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 673-96. Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Balkin, D. (1992). Compensation, organizational strategy, and firm performance. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Graham, P., & Harker, M. (1996). Skills for entrepreneurial management. In J. Wanna, J. Forster, & P. Graham, (Eds.), Entrepreneurial management in the public sector (pp. 55 – 65). Melbourne: Macmillan.
155
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122. Graves, S.B., & Waddock, S.A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034-46. Greiner, L. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46. Greve, H.R., & Taylor, A. (2000). Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: Shifts in organizational cognition and search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 54-80. Guth, W.D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15. Hage, J.T. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 597-622. Hai, Y.T., & See, L.F. (1997). Moderating effects of tolerance for ambiguity and risktaking propensity on the role conflict-perceived performance relationship: evidence from Singaporean entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 67-81. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan. Hale, J. (1998). Strategic rewards: Keeping your best talent from walking out the door. Compensation & Benefits Management, 14(3), 39-50. Hall, J., & Hofer, C.W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 25-42. Hambrick, D.C. (1981). Specialization of environmental scanning activities among upper level executives. Journal of Management Studies, 18(3), 299-320. Hambrick, D.C. (1981). Strategic awareness within the top management team. Strategic Management Journal, 2, 263-279. 156
Hambrick, D. C. (1982). Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2), 159-174. Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 133-139. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Business. Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harari (1998). Eat change for breakfast. Management Review, 87(2), 39-42. Harper, D.A. (1994). A new approach to modeling endogenous learning processes in economic theory. Advances in Austrian Economics, 1, 49-79. Hartman, H. (1959). Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful definition. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11-32. Harvey, T.R., & Drolet, B. (1994). Building teams building people: Expanding the fifth resource. Pennsylvania: Technomic Publishing. Hayek, Friedrich. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530. Hayes, R. H., & Abernathy, W.J., (1980). Managing our way to economic decline. Harvard Business Review, 58(4), 67–77. Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walsh, K. (1997). Grassroots leaders for a new economy: How civic entrepreneurs are building prosperous communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Herrmann, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. New York: McGraw Hill. Herron, L., & Sapienza, H.J. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(1), 49 55.
157
Herron, L., Sapienza, H.J., & Smith-Cook, D. (1991). Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume I. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 16(2), 7-12. Hills, G.E., & Shrader, R.C. (1998). Successful entrepreneurs’ insights into opportunity recognition. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., & Singh, P. R. (1997). Opportunity recognition: Perception and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Hindle K. (2004). Choosing qualitative methods for entrepreneurial cognition research: A canonical development approach. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28(6), 575-598. Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-987. Hisrich, R.D., & Peters, M.P. (1986). Establishing a new business venture unit within a firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 307-322. Hitt, M.A., & Ireland, R. (2000). Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth, and performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 231-246. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, M.S., & Sexton, D.L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship, Creating a new mindset. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hitt, M. A., & Reed, T. S. (2000). Entrepreneurship in the new competitive landscape. In G. D. Meyer & K. A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 23 48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hood, J., & Young, E. (1993). Entrepreneurship requisite areas of development: A survey of top executives in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 115-36. Hopkins, K.D., Hopkins, B.R., & Glass, G.V. (1996). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
158
Hornaday, R.W. (1992). Thinking about entrepreneurship: A fuzzy set approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(4), 12 – 23. Hornaday, J.A., & Abound, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personal Psychology, 24, 141-153. Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273. Houghton, S.M., Simon, M., Aquino, K., & Goldberg, C. (2000). No safety in numbers: Persistence of biases and their effects on team perception and team decision making. Group and Organization Management, 25(4), 325–353. Hoselitz, B.F. (1960). The early history of entrepreneurial theory. In J. J. Spengler & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Essays in economic thought: Aristotle to Marshall. Chicago: Rand McNally. Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. Ireland, R.D., & Hitt, M.A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the twenty-first century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49-63. Isabella, L. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41. Jackson, D.N. (1976). Jackson personality inventory manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press. Jacobson, R.J. (1992). The Austrian school of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 782-807. Jaffe, D., Scott, C., & Tobe, G. (1994). Rekindling commitment: How to revitalize yourself, your work, and your organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. James, L.R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219-229. Jaworski , B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53-70.
159
Jennings, D.F. (1994). Multiple perspectives of entrepreneurship. Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern College Publishing. Jennings, D.F., & Young, D.M. (1990). An empirical comparison between objective and subjective measures of the product innovation domain of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 15(1), 53-66. Jennings, D.F., & Seaman, S.L. (1990). Aggressiveness of response to new business opportunities following deregulation: An empirical study of established financial firms. Journal of Business and Venturing, 5, 177-189. Johnson, S. (2000). Literature review of social entrepreneurship. Edmonton, Alberta: The Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. Johnson, H. T., & Kaplan, R. S. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Jordan, F. (1990). Innovating American. New York: The Ford Foundation. Judson, A. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 217-37 Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kanter, R.M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kanter, R. (1991). Transcending business boundaries: 12,000 world managers view change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Katz, J., & Gartner, W.B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13, 429-441. Kellogg Commission on the future of state and Land-Grant Universities (2000). Renewing the covenant, Learning discovery, and engagement in a new age and different world. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. 160
Kellogg Commission on the future of state and Land-Grant Universities (2000). Returning to our roots, Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Kets de Vries, M.F.R., (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal of Management Studies, 14(1), 34-57. Kets de Vries, M.F.R., (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(6), 160-167. Khandwalla, P.D. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Kickul, J., & Gundry, L.K. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2), 85-97. King, E. (1999). Education revised for a world in transformation. Comparative Education, 35(2), 109-117. King, D., & Boehlje, M. (2000). Extension: on the brink of distinction or extinction? Journal of Extension, 38(5). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.html. Kirchhoff, B.A. (1991). Entrepreneurship’s contribution to economics. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(2), 93-112. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60-85. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Knight, G.A. (1997). Cross cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 213-226.
161
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOT: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 467-477. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Entrepreneurial learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67. Kouriloff, M. (2000). Exploring perceptions of a priori barriers to entrepreneurship: A multidisciplinary approach. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(2), 59-67. Kreiser, P., Marino, L., & Weaver, K. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 26(4), 71-94. Kreitner, R. (2001). Management (8th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, 47, 1-223. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Krosnick, J.A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 537-567. Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(1), 521. Krueger, N (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(3), 5-23. Krueger, N. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In Z.J. Acs & D.B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 105-140). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Krueger, N., & Dickson, P. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385-400. Kuczmarski, T.D. (1996). Creating an innovative mind-set. Management Review, 85(11), 47-51. Kuratko, D.F. (2003). Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century. Coleman White Paper Series. Madison, WI: USASBE.
162
Kuratko, D.F., & Hodgetts, R.M. (1998). Entrepreneurship: A contemporary approach. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J.S. (2001). Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 60-71. Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., & Hornsby, J.S. (1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 49-58. Kuratko, D. F., Naffziger, D.W., & Montagno, R.V. (1993). Implement entrepreneurial thinking in established organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1), 28-39. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47. Lawrie, J. (1990). Differentiate between training, education and development. Personnel Journal, 69(10), 44. Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford Press. Leedy, P. , & Ormond, J. (2001). Practical research. Planning and design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J.M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study of technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 615-640. Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1985). Intrapreneuring: New-age fieldoms for big business. Training, 22(2), 27-41. Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48. Leonard-Barton, D.F. (1992). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the source of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lesgold, A. (1988). Problem solving. In R.J. Sternberg & E.E. Smith, E.E. (Eds.), The Psychology of Human Thought (pp. 188-213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 163
Lessem, R. (1987). Intrapreneurship: How to be an enterprising individual in a successful business. Aldershot, UK: Wilswood House. Levin, M. S., & Sanger, M. B. (1994). Making government work: How entrepreneurial executives turn bright ideas into real results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Levitt, B., & March, J.G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 95-112. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41. Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley, (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd. ed.) (pp. 197-211). New York: Holt, Rinehart. Lewis, E. (1980). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of political power. Bloomington, IN: University Press. Light, P.C. (1998). Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations that innovate naturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Likert, R.L. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Likert R.L. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Linden, R. (1990). From vision to reality: Strategies of successful innovators in government. Charlottesville, VA: LEL Enterprises. Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Oz, S. (1996). Building learning organizations: The design and implementation of organizational learning mechanisms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 292-305. Loeb, M. (1994). Where leaders come from. Fortune, 130(6), 241-242. Long , W. (1983). The meaning of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business, 8(2), 47-59 Long, W., & Graham, J.B. (1988). Opportunity identification process: Revisited. In G.E. Hills, R.W. Laforge, & B.J. Parker (Eds.), Research and the Marketing/ Entrepreneurship Interface (209-220). Chicago: Office of Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago. Low, M.B., & MacMillan, I.C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161. 164
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172. Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimension of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 42-451. Lumpkin, G.T., & Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(4), 451-472 Lumpkin, G.T., Hills, G.E., & Shrader, R.C. (2004). Opportunity recognition. In H.P. Welsch (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The way ahead (pp. 73-90). London: Routledge. Lundberg, C.C. (1995). Learning in and by organizations: Three conceptual issues. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 10-23. Luthans, F., Rubach, M.J., & Marsnik, P. (1995). Going beyond total quality: The characteristics, techniques, and measures of learning organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 24-44. Lyons, D., Lumpkin G., & Dess, G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055-1085. MacMillan, I.C., Block, Z., & Narasimha, P.N.S. (1986). Corporate venturing: Alternatives, obstacles encountered, and experience effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 177-191. Maes, J. (2004). The search for corporate entrepreneurship: a clarification of the concept and its measures. DTEW Research Report 0429. March, J.G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Markides, C. (1998). Strategic innovation in established companies. Sloan Management Review, 39, 31-42. Marshall, A. (1930/1961). Principles of economics (9th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K.E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count. Aldershot, England: Gower. Maynard-Moody, S., & McClintoch, C. (1987). Weeding an old garden: Toward a new understanding of organizational goals. Administration and Society, 18, 125-142. 165
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McClelland, D. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(2), 219-233. McEvily, S.K., & Chakravarthy, B. (2002). The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 118-131. McGrath, R.G., & MacMillan, I.C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. McGrath, R., Venaktraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1992). Measuring outcomes of corporate venturing: An alternative perspective. Academy of Management Best Practice Proceedings, Las Vegas, NV, 85-89. Meyer, G.D., & Heppard, K.A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Micheal S., Storey D., & Thomas H. (2002). Discovery and coordination in strategic management and entrepreneurship. In A.M. Hitt, D.R. Ireland, M.S. Camp, & L.D. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Miles, M.P. ,& Arnold, D.R. (1991). The relationship between marketing orientation and entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(1), 71-91. Miles, M. P., Arnold, D. R., & Thompson, D. L. (1993). The interrelationship between environmental hostility and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 9(4), 12-23. Miles, M. P., & Covin, J.G. (2002). Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 26(3) 21-40. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage. 166
Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Milkovich, G.T., & Newman, J.M. (1999). Compensation ( 6th ed.). Boston: McGrawHill/Irwin. Mill, J.S. (1848/1965). Principles of political economy. Reprinted in J.M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233–249. Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implication for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32. Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17,505-512. Miller, D. & Friesen, P. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science 24(9), 921-933. 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, R. (2005). Revenue generation, A snapshot of revenue generation policies and practices in Cooperative Extension. Manhattan, KS: K-State Research and Extension. Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(3), 5-16. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107-114. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J.A. (1982). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257-272. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. 167
Mokwa, M., & Permut, S. (1981). Government marketing. New York: Praeger. Moore, M. (1983). A conception of public management. Cambridge,MA: Kennedy School of Government. Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Morris, M.H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustainable advantages for individuals, organizations, and societies. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Morris, M., & Jones, F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(1), 71-91. Morris, M.H., & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. Morris, M.H., & Sexton, D. (1996). The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for company performance. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 514. Morris, L.J., & Stenberg, L. (1991). Entrepreneurship research: Methodological issues in marketing strategy studies. In G.E. Hills & R.W. LaForge (Eds.), Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface (pp. 185-201). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago. Mossaver-Rahmani, A. (1995). Intrapreneurial climate factors evidenced in California colleges and university housing programs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (03), 784. (UMI No. 9522602). Mullins, J. (1996). Early growth decisions of entrepreneurs: The influence of competency and prior performance under changing market conditions. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(2), 89-105. Murphy, G.B., Trailer, J.W., & Hill, R.C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36, 15-23. Murray, J.A. (1984 ). A concept of entrepreneurial strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 5(1), 1-13.
168
Muzyka, D., deKoning, A., & Churchill, N. (1995). On transformation and adaptation: Building the entrepreneurial corporation. European Management Journal, 13(4), 346-362. Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs type indicator manual. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Nadler, D.A., & Tushman, M.L. (1983). A general diagnostic model for organizational behavior: Applying a congruence perspective. In J.R. Hackman, E.E. Lawler III & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Perspectives on behavior in organizations (pp. 112-124). New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. Nadler, D.A., & Tushman, M.L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic Leader: leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77-97. Naman J.L., & Slevin D.P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 137-153. Narver J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, (NASULGC, 2001). Strategic directions of the Cooperative Extension System. United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension System, Extension Committee on Organization and Policy Board on Agriculture. Washington, DC: NASULGC. Nielsen, R.P., Peters, M.P., & Hisrich, R.D. (1985). Intrapreneurship strategy for internal markets: Corporate, nonprofit, and government institution cases. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2) 181-189. Nonaka I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5(1), 714-737. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). The knowledge creating business enterprise: How Japanese companies start innovative processes. New York: Oxford University Press. Norusis, M.J. (2004). SPSS 12.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall. advanced statistics student guide. Chicago: SPSS. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
169
Nutt, P.C., & Backoff, R.W. (1993). Transforming public organizations with strategic management and strategic leadership. Journal of Management, 19(2), 299-347. Ogden, S., & Watson, R. (1999). Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry. Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 526-538. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory A: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley. Palich, L., & Bagby, D. (1996). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risktaking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 425-438. Papdakis, V., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. (1998). Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 115147. Paulin, W.L., Coffey, R.E., & Spaulding, M.E. (1982). Entrepreneurship research: Methods and directions. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 352-373). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pavitt, K. (1991). Key characteristics pf the large innovating firm. British Journal of Management, 2, 41-50. Peddler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. Maidenhead UK: McGraw-Hill. Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper. Peters, T. (1997). The circle of innovation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Pettigrew, A., & Whipp, R. (1999). Managing change for competitive success. Oxford: Blackwell. 170
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Boston: Harvard Business School. Phillips, L.W. (1981). Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: A methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, XVIII, 395-415. Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Rowe. Pinchot, G., & Pellman, R. (1999). Intrapreneuring in Action: A handbook for business innovation. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Poole, M.S., & McPhee, R.D. (1983). A structural analysis of organizational climates. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsly (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 195-220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Boston: Free Press. Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73-93. Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5-16. Quinn, J.B. (1985). Managing innovation: Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 73-85. Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A special model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377. Rainey, H.G (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ramamurti, R. (1986). Public entrepreneurs: Who they are and how they operate. Californian Management Review, 28(3), 142-158. Ramlall, S. (2004). Managing employee retention as a strategy for increasing organizational competitiveness. Applied H.R.M. Research, 8(2), 3-72. Rasmussen, W.D. (1989). Taking the university to the people. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 171
Reich, R.B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero. Harvard Business Review, 65(3), 77-83. Reynolds, P. (1991). Sociology and entrepreneurship: Concepts and contributions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(2), 47-70. Reynolds, P.D., Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., & Greene, P.G. (2004). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Small Business Economics, 23, 263-284. Reynolds, P.D., & White, S.B. (1997). The entrepreneurial process. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. Roach, D.W., & Bednar, D.A. (1997). The theory of logic types: A tool for understanding levels and types of change in organizations. Human Relations, 50, 671-699. Roberts, N.C. (1998). Radical change by entrepreneurial design. Acquisition Review Quarterly, Spring, 107-128. Roberts, N., & King, P. (1996). Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy entrepreneurship and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, H.K. (1991). The predictions of entrepreneurship based on an attitude consistency model. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 15(4), 13-31. Robinson, J.P. Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1-16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Press. Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations. New York: Free Press Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M.L. (1994). Organizational transformations as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 11411166. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609). 172
Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J., & Paul, K (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143-156. Sadler-Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaston, I., & Badger, B. (2003). Managerial behavior: Entrepreneurial style and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 47-68. Safrit, R.D., Conklin, N.L., & Jones, J.M. (1995). Extension values: A bridge across turbulent times. Journal of Extension, 33(1). Retrieved February 7, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1995february/a1.html Sandberg, W.R. (1992). Strategic management’s potential contributions to a theory of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16, 73-90. Sandberg, W., & Hofer, C. (1987). Improving new venture performance: The role of strategy, industry structure and the Entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing, May, 5-28. Sandelands, E (1999). Learning organizations: A review of the literature relating to strategies, building blocks and barriers. Management Literature in Review, 1(1), 1-28. Sathe, V. (1985). Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: Nurturing entrepreneurship and control in larger corporations. In R. Ronstadt, J.A. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K.H. Vesper, (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research (pp. 636-656). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York, NY: Wiley. Say, J.B. (1971). A treatise on political economy or the production, distribution and consumption of wealth (C.R. Prinsep, Trans.). New York: A.M. Kelley Publishers. (Original work published 1803) Scase, R. (2000). The enterprise culture: The socio-economic context of small firms. In S. Carter & D. Jones-Evans (Eds.), Enterprise and small business, principles, practice and policy (pp. 32-47). Harlow/Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 173
Schon, D.A. (1971). Beyond the stable state. New York: Random House. Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., Dino, R. N., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms:theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(2), 99–116. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1936). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (Rev. ed.). New York: Harper and Sons. Schuyler, G. (1998): Social entrepreneurship: Profit as a means, not an end. DIGEST Number 98-7. Kansas City: CELCEE. Schuler, R.S. (1986). Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations: Implications for organization structure and human resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 25(3), 11-27. Seashore, S.E., & Yuchtman, E. (1967). Factorial analysis of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 377-395. Seligman, M.E.P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. London: University of California Press. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Sexton, D.L. (1982). Research needs and issues in entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 383389). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sexton, D., & N. Bowman-Upton. (1991) Entrepreneurship: Creativity and growth. New York: Macmillan. Sexton, D.L., & Smilor, R.W. (1997). Entrepreneurship 2000. Chicago: Upstart. 174
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Organization Science, 11, 448-469. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-26. Shapero, A. (1984). The entrepreneurial event. In C.A. Kent (Ed.), Environment for entrepreneurship (pp. 21-40). Lexington, MA: Health Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (Ed.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shaver, K.G., & Scott, L.R. (1991). Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(2), 23-45. Shrivastava P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7-28. Simmons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Simon, H.A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Review, 68, 1-16. Singh, R., Hills, H., Lumpkin, G.T., (1999). Examining the role of self-perceived entrepreneurial alertness in the opportunity recognition process. Presented at the 13th UIC/AMA Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship Interface, Nice, June. Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 305-18. Slater, S.F., & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation is more than being customer-led. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1155-1068. Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (2000). The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: a balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(2), 69-73. Slevin, D.P., & Covin, J.G. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.
175
Slevin, D.P., & Covin, J. G. (1992). Creating and maintaining high-performance teams. In D.L. Sexton & J.D. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art of entrepreneurship (pp. 358-386). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. Snow, C.C., & Hrebiniak, L.G. (1980). Strategy distinctive competence, and organizational performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 317-335. Snyder, W., & Briggs, X. (2003). Communities of Practice: A new tool for government managers. Collaboration Series. Arlington VA: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Sorenson, (2004). Entrepreneurial orientation and sustained organizational vitality (Doctoral dissertation, Capella Univeristy, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(02), 606. (UMI No. 3123506). Souder, W.E. (1981). Encouraging entrepreneurship in the large corporations. Research Management, 14(3), 18-22. Spray, L. (1976). Organizational effectiveness. Kent State, OH: Kent State University Press. Starr, J.A., & MacMillan, I.C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 79-92. Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63-74. Stevenson, H.H. (1983). A perspective on entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 9-384-131. Stevenson, H.H., Roberts, M., & Grousbeck, H.I., (1989). New business ventures and the entrepreneur (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL.: Richard D. Irvwin Stevenson, H.H. & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 85-94. Stevenson, H.H, & Jarillo-Mossi, J.C. (1986). Preserving entrepreneurship as companies grow. Journal of Business Strategy, 7(1), 10-24. Stevenson, H.H., & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27.
176
Stevenson, H.H., Roberts, M.I., & Grousbeck, HI. (1994). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Stewart, A. (1989). Team entrepreneurship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Storey, D.J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge. Swamidass, P.M. & Newell, W.T. (1987). Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance: A path analytic model. Management Science, 33(4): 509-524. Sykes, H. B. (1992). Incentive compensation for corporate venture personnel. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 253-266. Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. (Eds.). 1968. Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard Business School. Taylor-Powell, E. (2002). The logic model: A program performance framework. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension. Teece, D. (1998). Design issues for innovative firms: Bureaucracy, incentives and industrial structure. In A. Chandler Jr., P. Hagstrom, O. Solvell, (Eds.), The dynamic firm (pp. 134-165). New York: Oxford University Press. Teece, D.J, Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. Thompsen, J.A. (2002). Achieving return on critical talent in technology-intensive organizations. Proceedings of the International Engineering Management Conference, St. John’s College, Cambridge UK, 515-591. Thompson, V.A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administration Science Quarterly, 10, 1-20. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Timmons, J.A. (1978). Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business, 3, 5-17. Timmons, J.A. (1999) New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Timmons, J.A., Smollen, L.E., & Dingee, A.L.M. (1977). New venture creation Homewoods IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 177
Tjosvold, D. (1993). Leaning to manage conflict: Getting people to work together productively. New York: Lexington Books. Trice, H.M. & Beyer, J.M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tropman, J.E., & Morningstar, G. (1989). Entrepreneurial systems for the 1990's. New York: Quorum Books. Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74-92. Tversky, A. & Kahneman D. (1984). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251-279. Ulrich, T.A., & Cole, G.S. (1987). Toward more effective training of future entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 25, 32-39. Ulrich, D., von Glinow, M.A. & Jick, T. (1993). High-impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52-66. Van den Ven, A.H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486-489. Van den Ven, A.H., Angle, H., & Poole, M. (1989). Research on the Management of Innovation. New York: Harper & Row. Van de Ven, A.H., & Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor's perspective. In J. Katz & J. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (pp. 119-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Veryzer, R.W., Jr. (1998). Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 136-150. Vesper, K.H. (1980). New venture strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vollman, T. (1996). The transformation imperative. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
178
von Hippel, E. (1977). Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: An empirical analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 163-174. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805. von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. von Hippel, E. (1994) . Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429-439. Voss, Z.G., Voss, G.B., & Moorman, C. (2004). An empirical examination of the complex relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder support. Case working paper series, No., 6. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship. Ward, P.T., Duray, R., Leong, G.K., & Sum, C. (1995). Business environment, operations strategy, and performance: An empirical study of Singapore Manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management, 13(2), 99-115. Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A.M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Oxford University Press. Weggerman, M.C.D.P. (1997). Knowledge management: Setting-up and steering knowledge intensive organizations. Schiedam: Scriptum Management. Weick, K. & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386. Welsh, J.A., & White, J.F. (1981). A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business Review, 59(4), 18-32. Welsch, H. (1998). North American entrepreneurs. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Entrepreneurship : An international perspective (pp.115-136). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180. Westhead, P., & Wright, M.. (1998). Novice, serial and portfolio founders: Are they different? Journal of Business Venturing 13, 173-204. 179
Whipp, R., & Clark, P. (1986). Innovation and the auto industry: Product, process and work organization. London: Francis Pinter. Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(1), 37-48. Wiklund J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small an medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1307-1314. Wilkins, A.L. (1989). Developing corporate character: How to successfully change an organization without destroying it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press. Wilson, J.Q. (1973). Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S.E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903. Yim-Teo, T.H. (2002). Learning organization: A cultural breakthrough in the public sector. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 48-71. Zacharakis, A., & Shepherd, D. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists’ decision process. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 311332. Zahra, S.A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259-285. Zahra, S.A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing. 8, 319-340. Zahra, S.A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225-247. 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. (1999). The changing rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 36-42. 180
Zahra, S.A., & Covin, J.G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationships: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58. Zahra, S., & Dess, G. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: encouraging dialogue and debate. Academy of Management Review, 26, 8-10. Zahra, S.A., & Garvis, D. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and company performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 469-492. Zahra S., Ireland, R., & Hitt, M. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: international diversity, mode and market entry, technological learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 925-950. Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24, 45-65. 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. Zajac, E.J., Golden, B.R., & Shortell, S.M. (1991). New organizational forms for enhancing innovation. The case of internal corporate ventures. Management Science, 37(2), 170-184. Zegans, M.D. (1992). Innovation in the well-functioning public agency. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(2), 141-152. Zucker, L.G. (1991). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. In W.W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 83-107). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Zammuto, R. & O’Connor, E. (1992). Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies benefits: The role of organizational design and culture. Academy of Management Review, 17, 701-728.
181
