Creating an internal environment that effectively supports entrepreneurial orientation : a multiple case study in the Dutch Telecommunications sector

(1)

Master thesis

Creating an internal environment that effectively

supports entrepreneurial orientation.

A multiple case study in the Dutch Telecommunications sector.

Ahilya Abhelakh: 10730567 Supervisor: J. Kraaienbrink University of Amsterdam: EPMS

Date: January 31st₂₀₁₆

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Ahilya Abhelakh declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new."

-Albert

(4)

Einstein-Abstract

In this research project a multiple case study of five cases within the Dutch Telecommunication sector is executed. These cases are analysed on their entrepreneurial orientation (EO) intensity. EO is according to prior research seen as the pursuit of entrepreneurial activities and organisational performance. Four of these cases are world leading and very high performing firms. The basis of this research project is to ask the senior management of these firms about how they create such an entrepreneurial environment and how they stimulate employees in order to be entrepreneurial. Through many in-depth interviews on different levels of these cases a cross case analysis has been executed. Within this cross case analysis the results of the different cases are compared and the best practices are highlighted. The results of this cross case analysis show that entrepreneurial and excellent employees are the most valuable assets high performing firms have. Moreover, senior and top management needs to create an environment where very skilled people can acknowledge their skills and bring the firm to the next level of entrepreneurial orientation.

(5)

Acknowledgments

This master thesis is the last assignment in order to complete the Master of Business administration executive programme at the University of Amsterdam. During this programme I have been supported by many people. Hereby, I will take this opportunity in order to say thanks.

In order to execute the multiple case studies I would like to thank everyone who has helped me to find the interviewees. Moreover, I would like to thank the interviewees for their time, input and good advice.

I would like to thank my supervisor Jeroen Kraaienbrink for his guidance, help and feedback through the whole process of this research project.

Furthermore, a very special thanks goes to my inspirational, caring and beloved husband Santosh and my sweet and lovely daughter Shreya. They are my most precious gift in life, my love and my happiness. Thank you from the deepest of my heart for your belief in me, your loving support and motivation in order to finish this programme. I love you!

Last but not least a special thanks to my dearest parents and my dearest parents in law for their support and love. Also, a big thanks to my sister Chantal for her lovely motivational support. Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me through this whole process. I sincerely thank you all.

(6)

Chapter 1 Introduction

Since the twenty-first century entrepreneurial behaviour is seen as an important source of competitive advantage and the creation of wealth (Ireland, et all., 2006). According to Business week (1993) entrepreneurial activities represents major engines behind economic growth (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) and job creation (Kirchhoff & Phillips, 1988). However, because of hyper competitive environment, international competition, technological developments and non flexibility to adapt fast to the environment, firms may fail to create the maximum wealth.

Moreover, to be successful in health creation for the organization, firms must create a work environment that supports EO (Covin & Wales, 2011). EO can be conceived of as an organizational decision-making proclivity favouring entrepreneurial activities (Covin & Wales, 2011, p.677). However, EO differs from corporate entrepreneurship because EO “refers to the processes, practices and decision – making activities that lead to new entry” (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p.136). Whereas, corporate entrepreneurship has a main focus on new entry.

EO has been researched extensively in the pas decades (Covin & Wales, 2011). However most research on EO has a focus on EO and the link with organisational performance. Most studies about EO find that EO enhances firm performance, but highlights the importance of considering boundary conditions (Van Doorn et all., 2013, p.821) gave examples of this. For example, prior studies have focussed on assessing the moderating role of firm resources (Wilkund & Shepherd, 2003), form culture (Burgelman, 1984), firm structure and environmental attributes

(Covin & Slevin, 1990) Van Doorn et all (2013., p.821). However, research has paid little attention to the role of senior management (Van Doorn et all., 2013) and how senior management behaviour can stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour (Dess et all,. 2005). Moreover, there is more research needed for “best practices of senior management in order to provide useful insights into EO performance (McFarlin, 2005, p.154). Dess et al. (2003) suggest there is an important need for future research to show how firms develop effective structures and processes that spur entrepreneurial behaviour. Prior research has analysed that further research is needed on the role of

(9)

senior management in order to stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour. For example, focus on the managers role in the success of a corporate entrepreneurial strategy and the outcome of managers that incorporate entrepreneurial behaviour (Kurtatko, 2010), guidelines to direct or redirect resources towards establishing effective intrapreneuring strategies” (Hornsby et al. 1993, p. 29), the need for strategic guideline (Birkinshaw, 1997), a supportive internal structure to support and guide entrepreneurs (Kelly, 2010).

1.1 Central question and central model

This research project answers the following research question outline 1) “ How can senior management create an internal work environment that effectively stimulates entrepreneurial orientation” and 2) “what are the best practices of senior management in order to stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour”.

In order to answer these questions, qualitative research has been executed within five Telecommunication firms. The Telecom sector is an important sector for The Netherlands. This sector creates many job opportunities and innovations. However, this sector is mature and the environment is hypercompetitive. Because of this environment and competition, adaptation and innovations are necessary in order to survive. However, the premium A companies are mature, large and tradition and need to able to adapt to the environment, in order to be competitive.

(10)

In order to answer the research questions a central model has been create in order to answer the research questions. This model is based on the framework for sustainable corporate entrepreneurship ( Ireland et all., 2006).

Figure 1 Central research model

1.2 Thesis structure

In order to provide a structured answer to the research question, this research project is divided into five chapters. First, this research projects starts with an introduction with the problem statement and the goal of this research project. Secondly, the theoretical framework will be outlined and this chapter end, with an overall framework about the theory and a conclusion of the literature chapter. Hereafter, the methodology of this research project in order to conduct this research will be outlined. Following this, the analysis s will be outlined, this includes the within analysis and the cross case analysis. The within case analysis will reflect on the individual cases and the cross case analysis will compare the cases. Moreover, at the end of this chapter the adjusted theoretical framework will be presented, based on the literature and the analysis. Finally the remaining and last chapter will outline the conclusion and discussion, theoretical implications and further research.

(11)

Chapter 2 Literature review

This chapter will outline central concepts in order to answer the central research questions. The concept of EO will be outlined. Followed by the dimensions of EO and other important dimensions. In addition to this the difference between corporate entrepreneurship and EO will be explained. Next, the internal environment that supports entrepreneurial orientation will be outlined. Finally, this chapters ends with an sort summary.

2.1 The concept of EO

The roots of EO can be found in the theory of strategic decision-making and strategic-choice perspectives (Child, 1972). EO acts upon the decision making of the firms and is a corollary concept. Mintzberg conceived of an entrepreneurial strategy-making mode as a managerial disposition characterised EO by the active search for new opportunities (Goving & Wales, 2011). Moreover, EO can be explained as “policies and practices that provides basis for entrepreneurial decisions and key decision makers use to enact their firm’s organizational purpose, sustain its vision, and create competitive advantages” (Rauch et all., 2009, p.763).

The entrepreneurial process has the focus on how the firm operates than the actual activities (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). EO will be successful if new-entry opportunities are undertaken by “purposeful enactment” (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). The characterises of an entrepreneurial firm are summarized by Miller (1983): “An entrepreneurial firm is one that engages in products market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with “proactive innovations, beating competitors to the punch” (Miller, 1982, p.771). According to Wilkund and Shepherd (2004) several researchers acknowledge that EO is the combination of the three dimensions: innovativeness, pro activeness and risk taking. Thus, EO involves a willingness to innovate to rejuvenate market offerings, take risks to try out new and uncertain products, services and markets and be more proactive than the competitors towards new marketplace opportunities (Wilkund & Shepherd, 2004, pp.75). Dess and Lumpkin (2001, PP.3) view EO as an organizational-level phenomena involving

(12)

key decisions made on behalf of the entire organisation. According to Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) EO refers to entrepreneurial process of the firm and the eagerness to search, find and act upon opportunities, disregarding the resources under control. Given the various labels attached to EO, researchers have not settled upon a widely accepted definition or an acknowledged framework of EO (Goving & Wales, 2011). EO refers to firm engaging in terms of risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness (Miller, 1983). Morris and Kuratko (2002, p.39) define EO as: “Entrepreneurship orientation provides a platform to empower employees in decision making”. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define EO as: “EO refers to the processes, practices, and decision-making activities that lead to new entry” as characterized by one, or more of the following dimensions: “a propensity to act autonomously, a willingness to innovate and take-risks, and a tendency to be aggressive toward competitors and proactive relative to marketplace opportunities” (pp. 136–137). According to Zahra and Neubaum (1998, p.124) “EO is “the sum total of a firm’s radical innovation, proactive strategic action, and risk taking activities that are manifested in support of projects with uncertain outcomes”. Cools and Van den Broeck (2007/2008, p.27) define EO as: “Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) refers to the top management’s strategy in relation to innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking”. Moreover, Pearce, Fritz, and Davis (2010, p.27) define EO as: (EO) refers to the top managements’ strategy in relation to innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking” As such, all definitions about EO have strategic decision-making and innovation as an important tool for entrepreneurial orientation. “EO refers to the process, practices and decision-making activities that lead to new entry” as characterised by one, or more of the following dimensions: “a propensity to act autonomously, a willingness to innovate and take risks, and a tendency to be aggressive towards competition and pro-active towards market place opportunities” (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, p. 136-137). Schumpeter (1942) was the first to emphasize innovation as a very important driver for entrepreneurship. Recently Morris et al (1994) define that entrepreneurship in established firms are affected by culture and are build around risk, innovation, emotional commitment, autonomy, and empowerment (Morris et al. 1994). According to McGrath and MacMillan (2000) an entrepreneurial orientation is about the useful

(13)

in capturing the benefits of uncertainty. According to Lumpking and Dess (1996), EO refers to the process of decision making.

Kandwalla (1977) emphasised the managerial disposition in EO, which is central in decision making. This method has been adopted my many prior scholars about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation. Such as: EO as firm level and key decisions making on behalf of the entire firm ( Dess & Lumpkin , 2001, p.3), and top managers entrepreneurial management style evidenced by the firms strategic design making (Covin & Slevin, 1989, p.77). Finally Millen and Friesen (1982, p.1) “EO captures the nature of the innovative strategy of the firm, something that is often determined by executives on the basis of their goals and temperatures”. Van Doorn et all (2013, p. 821) stated that “Senior team shared vision plays an important role in leveraging EO as it provides selected entrepreneurial initiatives with support in terms of legitimacy and resources, providing a context supportive to entrepreneurial champions and alleviating the tensions associated with new entrepreneurial initiatives”.

Miller (1983) started to define EO by the construct composed of three dimensions: risk taking, proactiveness and innovativeness. Hereafter Lumpkin & Dess (1996, p.136) suggest, “EO refers to the process, practices and decision making activities that will lead to new entry”. Hence, Lumpkin & Dess (2001) describe EO as an organisational-level strategy making process, the dimensionality of which is unable to be specified a priori, independent of circumstances (Covin & Wales, 2011, p.680). Therefore they expanded the dimensions into autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). The entrepreneurial firm according to Lumpkin & Dess (1996) must have at least one of these dimensions and they can vary from high to low and are independed from each other.

2.2 Dimensions of EO

Many scholars and prior researchers have emphasised a set of organisational processes from which strategic decisions evolve (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). These are

(14)

modes of patterns that can be identified across the firm and on firm level (Hart, 1992). Entrepreneurial orientation research has focused on the dimensions of strategic decision making, in order to find the variables that are important to entrepreneurial modes (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Different concepts about strategy making dimensions, have been identified. Miller & Friesen (1987) identified 11 dimensions, including adaptiveness, analysis, integration, risk taking, and product-market innovation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p.139).

Moreover Miller (1983) introduced a useful starting point and conceptualization to characterise and test entrepreneurship, such as: innovativeness, risk taking and pro-activeness. These dimensions have been used frequently and consequently in the EO literature (Dimitratos et al., 2004). Many researchers have used this approach form their research (Wilkund, 1999). According to Hughes & Morgen (2007) these dimensions can vary independently from each other and Lumpkin & Dess (1996) emphasize that is also should be allowed to. Covin et al (2006) emphasise that the important discussion is not about if the dimensions can work independently, only that a firm should score on all the dimensions. According to Lumpkin & Dess (1996) not all dimensions have a direct positive effect on performance under different means. Since the conceptualisation of Lumpkin & Dess (1996) following relevant and significant adoptions about the EO construct is lacking (Covin & Wales, 2011). Lumpkin & Dess (1996) added two other dimensions to the concept of Miller (1983), which are competitive aggressiveness and autonomy. Consequently, expanding the number of dimensions to independently and collectively characterise EO, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) represent five dimensions: innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy. “All of these factors-autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness-may be present when a firm engages in new entry. In contrast, successful new entry may also be achieved when only some of these factors are operating” (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, pp.137). These dimensions can vary from high to low (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Accordingly to understand the influence and the impact of EO, the dimensions will be clarified in the next 5 sections.

(15)

2.2.1 Autonomy

Burgelman (2011) explains autonomy as individuals should have freedom and an independent spirit, in order to create new venture developments, which is the key force of entrepreneurial orientation. For entrepreneurship to thrive in many organizational contexts, “the exercise of autonomy by strong leaders, unfettered teams, or creative individuals who are disengaged from organizational constraints” is required (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p. 140). Moreover, autonomy affords organizational members the freedom and flexibility to develop and enact entrepreneurial initiatives ( Lumpkin, 2009, p.47).

Actors must be self-directed in order to find opportunities, to take action and to process (Gulowsen, 1972). Structural autonomy means that the degree of autonomy contens off a group that has to make decisions, within the context of the work environment. Conversely to this is strategic autonomy: the degree of a group to make decision over the goals to take. Bouchard (2002) named it “autonomy of goals” and emphasis on working outside the day-to-day operations (Lumpkin et al, 2009).

The concept of autonomy is the key concept of an entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpking & Dess, 1996). This has also been defined in the context of Strategy-making theory (Burgelman, 2001): the independent spirit and freedom of action necessary to advance new venture development is a driving force of entrepreneurial value creation (Lumpkin et al, 2009, p.47). For entrepreneurship to thrive in many organizational contexts, “the exercise of autonomy by strong leaders, unfettered teams, or creative individuals who are disengaged from organizational constraints” is required (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p. 140). Entrepreneurs should be free from the day to day operations and be allowed a degree of self-sufficacy (Lumpkin et al, 2009, Dess & Lumpkin, 2005, Burgelman & Sayles, 1986).

Autonomy refers to the independent action of an individual or a team in brining forth an idea or a vision and carrying it through to completion (Lumpking & Dess, 1996, p. 140). Similar to this definition: Autonomy refers to independent action undertaken by

(16)

entrepreneurial leaders or teams directed at bringing about a new venture and seeing it to fruition (Rauch et all, 2004, p. 7).

Senior managers must support programs and incentives to support an entrepreneurial environment. However, many of the entrepreneurial ideas come from bottom-up (Dess & Lumpkin, 2005). An entrepreneurial idea must pass through two stages. Project definition: justification of promising entrepreneurial opportunities and the strategic fit and project urge: which requires the support of senior management (Dess & Lumpkin, 2006). In order to succeed, a product champion is necessary, who must procure resources and promote the ideas (Dess & Lumpkin, 2006).

2.2.2 Innovativeness

Schumpeter (1934) was the first to introduce the importance of creativity and innovation on the entrepreneurial process and within the context of market dynamics. Schumpeter (1942) created the outlined process of “ creative destruction”, by which wealth was created when existing market structures were disrupted by the introduction of new goods or services that shifted resources away from existing firms and caused new firms to grow (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Schumpeter (1934) emphasized that the competitive entry of innovation “new combinations” are the essence of innovation.

Lumpkin & Dess define innovativeness as the tendency of a firm to engage in and support new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative presses that may result in new products, services and technological processes (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). According to Dess & Lumpkin (2005, p. 150) innovativeness refers to a firm’s effort to find new opportunities and novel solutions.

Innovativeness can vary from type and degree of radicalness and classification (Hage, 1980). Accordingly Lumpkin & Dess (1996) state define that the most useful distinction is between product-market innovation and technological innovation.

(17)

Product-market innovation suggests an emphasis on product design, market research and advertising and promotion (Miller & Friesen, 1978). Technological innovation consists primary of product and process development, technical expertise and industry knowledge. Dess & Lumpkin (2005) added another innovation: administrative innovation and refers to novelty in management systems, control techniques and organizational structure. However, to incorporate a high level of innovativeness it is very important to have professionals and (technical) trained specialists in a firm (Hage, 1980 & Miller & Friesen 1982).

2.2.3 Risk Taking

Risk taking in entrepreneurship origins from Cantillon (1734), which defined risk taking as the important quality of separating entrepreneurs from hired employees. Central in the concept of entrepreneurship is the uncertainty and riskiness of self-employment. According to Dess & Lumpkin (2005, p. 152) risk taking refers to the willingness to seize venture opportunities, even though it is unknown whether the venture will be successful and to act boldly without knowing the consequences. The dimension of risk-taking is considered as a key and important attribute to EO (Venkataram, 1989). Lumpkin & Dess (1996) describe risk taking as a quality to describe entrepreneurship. According to Braid and Thomas (1985), in the context of strategy there are three types of risks; venturing into the unknown, committing to a relative large amount of assets and borrowing heavily. More generally risks which are discussed in the entrepreneurship literature are personal risks, social risks and psychological risks (Gasse, 1982). Dess & Lumpkin (2005) have a distinction into three types of entrepreneurial risks; business risks, financial risks and personal risks. Business risk refers to entering unknown or untested technology and without knowing the probability of success. Financial risks refers to heavily borrowing and personal risk refers to the executive and his strategic decision about a risk (Dess & Lumpkin (2005).

Risk taking is a very broad concept and it should be applied in the specific context. Scholars have endeavoured to define the risk-taking on firm level. According to

(18)

Miller and Friesen (1878, p.923) risk taking can be defined as “the degree to which managers are willing to make large and risky resource commitments, i.e. these which have a reasonable chance of costly failures”. However Peter Drucker emphasizes that entrepreneurs should not be risk takers, only they should carefully understand them and remain focused on the opportunity (Ducker, 1985). The degree of understanding for an entrepreneurial behaviour will be positive because according to Avlonitis and Salavou (2007) entrepreneurial firm which engage with projects of higher level risk get higher levels of return. Conversely, firms who avoid risk taking will result in weak levels of return because of the lack to confiscate competitive and market opportunities (Highes & Morgan, 2007). However, meta analysis of Rauch et al (2005) showed that risk taking has the lowest correlation between de dimension of EO and performance.

2.2.4 Proactiveness

The importance of initiatives, opportunistic expansion and first mover advantage in the entrepreneurial process have been defined by economic scholars for decades, since Schumpeter refers to the importance of initiatives (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). According to Venkataram, “pro-activeness is about “seeking new opportunities which may or may not be related to the present line of operations, introduction of new products and brands ahead of competition and strategically eliminating operations which are in the mature or declining stages of the life cycle” (Venkatraman 1989, p. 949).

Lumpkin & Dess (1996) agrees with Venkatraman and defines proactiveness as taking initiatives to create opportunities to enter emerging markets, and will turn the firm into a leader instead a follower.

Proactive organisations monitor trends, identity the future needs of existing customers, and anticipate changes and demand or emerging problems that can lead to new venture opportunities (Dess & Lumpkin, 2005). However, according to Dess & Lumpkin (2005) emphasize the importance of acting upon insights of the opportunities before the competitor. This will lead to competitive advantage, because the competitor has to respond to successful initiatives, although of the absence of

(19)

competing goods (Frishammar & Andersson, 2008). However, the research of Hughes et al, 2008 emphasised that the initiatives and proactive behaviour is more important for start-ups and that incubating firms. Incubating firms should focus on ambidexterity, the challenge of balancing exploitation and exploration.

2.2.5 Competitive aggressiveness

The importance for start-ups to build liability of newness and to create dependability to create power against competitors origins from Stinchcombe (1965). Many scholars have also argues that firms should take effort to create intense competition and outperform competitors in order to survive ( Porter, 1985 & Lumpkin & Dess 1996 & Dess & Lumpkin, 2005).

Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define competitive aggressiveness as a firms propensity to directly and intensely challenge its competitors to achieve entry or improve position, that us, to outperform industry rivals in the market place.

Examples of competitive aggressiveness for start-ups are: adopting unconventional tactics to challenge industry leaders, analysing and targeting competitors weaknesses, focussing on high value added products while carefully monitoring discretionary expenses (Limpkin & Dess, 1996).

According to Porter (1985) three ways for competitive advantage: reconfiguration (doing things differently), redefinition (changing the context) and outspending the industry leader.

Research of Lumpkin & Dess (2001) defines that prior theory and research have treated proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness as identical. According to Lumpkin & Dess (2001) the two concepts are distinct. Proactiveness refers to the forward-looking perspective and to anticipate on future market demand and to shape the future. However, competitive aggressiveness refers to the intensity of the actions taken by a firm to outperform the industry rivals. For example, according to the

(20)

resource based view the creation of resources refers to proactiveness and the defends of VRIN (Barney,1991) resources is achieved by competitively aggressive approach (Lumpking & Dess, 2001).

2.2.7 Other dimensions

Prior research have claimed that the dimensions of EO can improve performance if they are correctly aligned (Naman & Slevin, 1993). Therefore, the complexity of EO makes research on this topic extensive and the dimensions of EO are extensively researched by many scholars. For example, et all (2004) executed a meta-analysis of 51 publications about EO, with the dimensions of Miller and Covin & Slevin, are the basis for these studies. They found that, half of these studies analysed additional dimension (Rauch et all., 2009). The most important for this research are: senior team attributes, entrepreneurial management and defensiveness.

Senior team attributes

Multiple studies have researched the link between entrepreneurial orientation and performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Many boundary conditions have been highlighted, for instance: firm resources, firm culture, firm structure and environment attributes (Van Doorn et al., 2013). According to Van Doorn et al. (2013) it is surprising that the role of senior team attributes has not been researched. Senior teams are important for corporate strategy ad synergies which will lead to entrepreneurial initiatives (Hambrick, 1994). Senior teams are important to create across firm functions to stimulate innovative ideas (Van Doorn et al., 2013). Senior teams are key decision makers and are bounded rational and must find opportunities and link them to current activities (van Doorn et al, 2013 & Simon, 1979).

Senior team shape strategic decision-making and the relationship between EO and firm performance. Van Doorn et al. (2013) did research in two attributes that are fundamental for EO and firm performance, that is task-related heterogeneity and shared vision of the senior team. Senior team heterogeneity refers to differences across senior team members in terms of task related aspects, that is, differences in the specific skills and abilities needed to perform a job (Van Doorn et al., 2013, p.823).

(21)

Senior team shared vision to which senior team members have collective goals and shared aspirations as well as the level of commitment accompanying these goals and aspirations (Van Doorn et al., 2013, p.823).

Heterogeneity in senior management is an important resource of human capital and important for the creation of socicognitive capabilities which will lead to a sustained competitive advantages: a heterogeneous demand for labor makes human resources valuable; high ability levels are rare; unique historical conditions, causal ambiguity, and social complexity of human resource practices make them inimitable; and they are not easily substituted by new technology (Ginsberg, 1994, P.154). Heterogeneity in task related aspects among senior team members would provide a range of knowledge, skills and attention to create value for emerging entrepreneurial initiatives (Van Doorn et al., 2013).

Shared vision is important to create commitment through cross-functional activities and provides legitimacy to emerging entrepreneurial initiatives (Day, 1994). Baum et al., 1998 emphasise the importance of the shared to better integrate entrepreneurial efforts into daily operations. Senior team shared value help create members across the firm to recognise potential value of resource exchange as well as it flexibility (Van Doorn et al., 2013).

Entrepreneurial management

According to Kuratko et al (1990) the entrepreneurial behaviour of managers is also important and defines three factors are important to stimulate entrepreneurial orientation. These factors are management support, organisational structure and rewards. Forthwith, Hornsby et al, (1999) extended these three managerial factors into five factors, which are: top-management support, work discretion/autonomy, rewards/reinforcement, time availability and organisational boundaries. These underlying factors will stimulate individuals to be entrepreneurial.

Top management support refers to the extent that individual member perceives that top managers support, facilitate and promote entrepreneurial behaviour; including the championing of innovative ideas and providing the resources people require to take entrepreneurial actions (Goodale et al, 2011, p.119). Work discretion refers to the extent to which one perceives that the organization tolerates failure, provides decision-making latitude and freedom from excessive oversight, and delegates

(22)

authority and responsibility to lower-level managers and workers (Goodale et al, 2011, p.119). Rewards and reinforcement refers to the extent to which one perceives that the organization uses systems that reward based on entrepreneurial activity and success to the extent to which one perceives that the organization uses systems that reward based on entrepreneurial activity and success. Time availability refers to workloads ensuring that individuals and groups have the time needed to pursue innovations, with jobs structured in ways to support such efforts and achieve short and long-term organizational goals. Research suggests that time availability among managers is an important resource for generating entrepreneurial outcomes (Goodale et al, 2011, p.119).

Defensiveness

According to Morgan & Strong (2003) it is important to be innovative, only also keep the strategic fit. This dimension is called defensivessness. Morgan & Strong (2003) emphasis the focus on the existence strategy and domain. With this the strong acceptance and believe that the knowledge sharing of experts and specialization will lead to high performance. Competitive aggressiveness should be balanced with defensiveness, and can be achieved by being able to “accumulate selected capabilities and skills and develop composite strategies to outperform less domain-focused firms” Morgan & Strong (2003, p.167). Senior management should create skills in order to outperform “less-domain focused firms” (Hart and Banbury, 1994).

2.3 Difference of CE and EO

Prior scholars have defined that entrepreneurship has numerous typologies and classifications that influence entrepreneurship as it does, like individual, organizational or environmental factors (Lumpkin & Dess, 1991). Corporate entrepreneurship has two focus areas according to Guth and Ginsberg (1990), entering and creating new business within existing organisations and strategic renewal, by transforming the key ideas of the organisation. According to Lumping & Dess (1996) the essential act of entrepreneurship is “new entry”, which can be described as

(23)

entering new markets or creating new markets. According to Burgelman (1983) new entry is the act of creating a new venture through a start up or through an existing venture, which is called, internal corporate venturing. However, CE refers to the individuals in established firms which are involved with identifying entrepreneurial opportunities (Sharma and Chrisman 1999). Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) define CE as: “entrepreneurship is a process by which individuals-either on their own or inside organizations-pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control”.

To explain the difference of CE and EO, the distinction can be made with the strategic management literature between content and process (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Content represents answering the question: what business shall we enter and the answer can be guided by its product-market relationships and resource deployments. However the strategic management theory has the focus on the entrepreneurial process. That includes the methods, practices ad decision making styles managers use to act entrepreneurial (Lumkpin & Dess, 1996). Decades ago, the literature emphasised on the main entrepreneurial question, and according to Miles and Snow (1978) that is: What business hall we enter?). However, this question was depended on the firms product market relationship and recourse deployment (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). However, literature and research shifted from content the focus towards process (methods, practices and decision making styles of managers to act entrepreneuriall (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p.136). Processes, such as, experimentation of emerging new technologies and product-market opportunities and to undertake risky ventures (Lumpkin & Dess, 1991). Moreover, this means the shift from strategy making focus in research to firm level entrepreneurship level.

The focus on entrepreneurship as firm level behaviour origins from Miller’s (1983) work. Miller used the configurationally approach and linked different configurations divergent types of configurations of firms (from simple to organic) to entrepreneurial behaviour in the firms (Miller & Friesen, 1984). Miller introduced the EO concept merely as a side issue to illustrate the predictive power of organizational configurations (Harms, 2013). Although much of the empirical entrepreneurship research has focused on the individual level of analyses, researchers recently have focused on entrepreneurial orientation as firm level behaviour (Wilkund, 1999).

(24)

The firm level aspect / business unit level has also be defined by Schumpeter (1942), because he defines the entrepreneurship would be eventually dominated by firms, because firms are capable of devoting resources to innovation. Covin and Slevin (1991) also created a model which emphasised entrepreneurship as firm behaviour.

2.4 Internal environment that supports entrepreneurial behaviour

There are many factors that stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour, such as control systems (Sathe, 1985), organisational structure (Naman & Slevin, 1993), management commitment (Kuratko et al., 1993) and culture (Brazeal, 1993).

The climate for entrepreneurship should take fears away and prevent hierarchies and bureaucracy from limiting innovation (Maxon,1986). To establish a work environment that supports entrepreneurial behaviour, the most critical steps are to heavily invest in an innovative internal work environment (Kuratko, 2013).

The role of the senior managers is to create an environment conducive to entrepreneurial behaviour so each employee has the opportunity and tools to “step up to the plate” (Kuratko, 2013). According to Kuratko & Hodges (1998) firms need to provide autonomy a encourage employees to develop their ideas. There are four central practices management should follow in order to create en supportive work environment (Kuratko & Hodges, 1998): 1) the presence of explicit goals; 2) feedback systems and positive reinforcement; 3) individual responsibility and training and 4) result based rewards.

Together with central management practices a firm should recognise the ability of management to act on triggers (Ireland et all, 2006). A trigger can be explained as “ what drives a person to act entrepreneurially and “make the leap” (Kuratko, Hornsby, and Naffziger, 1997). Triggers emerges from inside or outside the organisation (Ireland et all, 2006). Triggers that arise from the external environment, create the greatest pressure for a firm. Triggers such as changes in technology and aggressive competitors moves, will lead to entrepreneurial projects inside the firm (Ireland et all, 2006). Triggers from inside the company, such as employee rewards, directives from

(25)

top-level management and slack resources, will wake up management to support entrepreneurial behaviour (Ireland et all, 2006). External and internal triggers have different effects on entrepreneurial behaviour and characterises of a firm are a strong determinant of these effects (Ireland et all, 2006).

Assuming that all individuals can act entrepreneurial, the senior has to create a work environment that support entrepreneurial behaviour with workplace design elements (Ireland et all, 2006). According to Ireland et all (2006) there are four critical design elements to create this environment: structure, controls, human resource management systems and culture. In this research project these four design elements are central to analyse the internal environment to support entrepreneurial orientation.

The first design element is ‘Structure’. Organisational structure and processes must fit the competitive strategy of the firm (Miles & Snow, 1978). Organisational structure can be defined by formal patterns of the allocation of employees, hierarchical relationships and communications flows (Noorderhaven, 1995). Centrally, organizational structure if the form to fit the environment (Nelson & Quick, 2011) and the settlement of authority, workflow relationships and communication (Ireland et al, 2009). According to Mintzberg (2009) organisational structure can be differentiated along three basic dimensions: the key competitive part, prime coordination mechanisms and type of decentralization (decision making process). The first type of decentralization is called vertical decentralization and can be defined as the distribution of power down the chain of command,\ or shared authority between superordinate’s and subordinates in any organization. The second type of decentralization is called horizontal decentralization and can be defined as the extent to which non administrators (including staff) make decisions, or shared authority between line and staff. The third type of decentralization is called selective decentralization and can be defined as the extent to which decision-making power is delegated to different units within the organization. In school districts, these units might include instruction, business, personnel, public relations, and research and development divisions (Mintsberg, 2009, Lunenburg, 2012. p3). Horizontal over vertical: Ireland et all ( 2006) explain in their model that the it is important to choose horizontal decentralisation over vertical decentralisation. It is important to diminish the number of layers in order to create a broader span of control, which leads to the

(26)

creation of entrepreneurial behaviour and opportunities. The span of control means how many levels of management a firm has (Robbins & Judge, 2009).

Under these circumstances employees are encouraged to have lateral interactions. This learning process refers to the autonomous strategic behaviour of Burgelman (1983), exploration (Mintzberg, 1979) and double loop learning which refers to changing the objective of the system) Decentralized authority will eventually lead to organizational learning by cross-functional processes. Organisational learning refers to the transfer process of knowledge and collective behaviour across the firm (Crossan et al., 1998) According to Ireland et al, 1997 cross functional processes are fundamental for the creation of entrepreneurial behaviour. This means that employees throughout the whole firm will communicate effectively and on a frequent basis and this will lead to less formalization and an open communication flow. This will lead to knowledge transfer and will result in innovations, risk taking and proactive behaviour across functional processes create knowledge transfer and creation between highly independent units (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991). Highly structures job descriptions do not for this structure to create entrepreneurially environment and is receptive to continuous change in the nature of employees work. The need to change jobs roles commonly results as employees become successful with efforts to innovate (Ireland et al, 2006, p15.). This fits into the organic structure of Burs and Stalker (1961) “The organic form is appropriate to changing conditions, which give rise constantly to fresh problems and unforeseen requirements for action which cannot be broken down or distributed automatically arising from the functional roles defined within a hierarchic structure” (Burns & Stalker, 1961, p105). This is also defined by Muller (1996) which argues that the organic structure is the most appropriate for a entrepreneurial firm and by Slevin & Covin (1990) which say that organic firms stimulate employees to collaborate and think creative.

The second desing element is ‘Controls’. Decades ago, Pinchot observed that, centralized companies with highly sophisticated control systems are, in fact, out of control. Bureaucracy does not fit self-determination and coordination (Pinchot, 1985). Peters and Waterman (1982) refers to the quality of excellent companies have to combine of loos-tight properties. The combination of centralization and

(27)

also refer to control systems that are loose and informal to create high level of entrepreneurial behaviour. Cornwall and Perlman (1990) also refer to control systems balance loos-tight properties and stimulate downwards autonomy. Likewise Morris and Kuratko (2002) refer to control systems that are decentralized and focus on feed-forward systems. This approach has also been defined by Ireland et al., (2006) controls must be designed to encourage individual action ensuring coordination through tight control.

According to Hitt, Hoskissonand Ireland (1990) there are two important forms of control which entrepreneurial firms should encounter with These controls types are, financial controls and strategic controls (Hoskisson and Hitt, 1988). Financial controls are controls that are based on financial objectives, such as as net income, return on equityand return on sales. In contrast, strategic controls base performance on strategically relevant criteria as opposed to objective financial information (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999, p.426). Examples of strategic control measures include customer satisfaction criteria (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999, p.426). A well-designed strategic control system is capable of rewarding firm employees for incremental but substantive progress on product or process innovations that take a long time to reach market (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999, p.427).

Consequently, control systems that allow budgetary flexibility and slack resources provide room for experimentation and unsanctioned initiatives. Cyert and March defined slack resources as: “the disparity between the resources available to the organization and the payments required to maintain the coalition” (1963: 36). Geiger & Cashen (2002) explains that innovation, new projects and experimentation increases when slack increases.

While slack is important for the entrepreneurial process, it is not enough. Operation needs must not be undermined, because slack applies to operational budget. Financial support for entrepreneurial experimentation and behaviour is very important. According to Morris et al., (2010), internal venture capital funds are important to support innovativeness and projects. Internal corporate venturing involves entrepreneurial efforts in which established business organizations invest in and/or

(28)

refer to internal corporate venturing as a platform for organizations that makes the search for new and relevant business ideas a part of the company’s day-to-day strategy.” Decreasing the level of managerial discretion will increase product innovation which involve in the unknown. This was resistance to change will be overwon and employees are empowered for discretion and autonomy (Ireland et al., 2006, Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Marginson, 2002). This entrepreneurial culture will encourage information sharing (Elfring, 2006).

The paradox of control systems in entrepreneurial firms is that control systems produce availability for resources and control strategic fit for innovation (Marginson, 2002). On the contrary, tight control systems can have a negative impact on entrepreneurial behaviour (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). According to Ireland et al., (2006) organisational control systems only create value when simultaneously is provided the stability to exploit entrepreneurial actions that will lead to competitive advantages and the flexibility for employees to behave entrepreneurially.

The third design element is ‘Human resource management systems’. HRM is an important driver for success and entrepreneurial behaviour, because entrepreneurial behaviour is created by organizational learning, creativity and individual commitment (Hayton, 2005). The learning process of a firm is based on intellectual capital and human capital (Hayton, 2005). The ability to lean across the firm is to act ambidextrous, lean through the creation of new knowledge (exploration) and through existing knowledge (exploitation) (Hayton, 2005). Morris and Jones (1993) identified five sets of HRM practices associated with CE: performance appraisals, compensation, orientation and training, recruitment and career development and job design (Hayton, 2005, p.30). Hereafter, Hornsby, Kuratko, and Montagno (1999) identified five success factors linking HR practices to CE. These include the appropriate use of rewards, the provision of management support for innovation, the availability of resources for innovation, an organizational structure conducive to learning and cooperation, and individual risk taking (Hayton, 2005, p.30). Furthermore, Twomey and Harris (2000) refer to several HR practices which encourage to entrepreneurial behaviour, such as (selection, training, performance management, rewards and career development practices). Ireland et al., (2006) refer to

(29)

career paths that are part of a firms training and development programs, should be designed around different job assignments, with continuous knowledge requirements. Hayton (2004) refers to the importance of discretionary HRM practices, such as incentive pay, employee suggestion schemes and formal employee participation programs are those which encourage employee commitment, cooperation, knowledge sharing and voluntary and extra-role behaviours. Rewards should be based on financials gain and also on recognition of the achievements (Ireland, et al., 2006). This is in contrast with traditional HRM practices which focus on specific and narrow job descriptions, matching processes and prescribed monitoring. In contrast, traditional HR practices focus upon defining jobs, staffing jobs through a matching process, and monitoring prescribed performance. Ireland et al., (2006, p. 15) refers to goals of effective HRM practices of corporate entrepreneurship, such as: the stimulation and informal cooperation with others, the toleration of ambiguity, autonomy and responsibility for change with the focus on results, long term orientation for innovation possibilities, risk taking and the commitment for change. The fourth and last element is ‘Culture’. An organisational culture reflects to its shared values and believes. Schein (1992) defines an organizational culture like: “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.” (Schein, 1992, p. 13). Ireland et al.,(1996). Ireland et al., (1996) describe organisational culture as the social energy that drives to fails to drive a firm. According to Covin & Slevin (1991) if a culture supports entrepreneurial behaviour it is in line with the firms vision, mission, and strategies. Strategic top-level mangers have an important impact on entrepreneurial culture, through their symbolic and substantive actions and their encouragement of taking risks and innovative actions (Covin & Slevin, 1991).

Prior researchers have defined how culture relates to innovations and entrepreneurship and can be synthesized into six additional important characteristics of entrepreneurial culture. These characteristics are: 1) Focus on positive results, 2) Hands-on management, 3) Freedom to grow and to fail; 4) Personal commitment and responsibility and 5) focus on future (Brizek, 2013, p.11).

(30)

Figure 2 Dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation

2.5 Summary

In order to create a competitive advantage with EO, three aspects are important to embed into the organisation. Senior management must create an internal environment that supports entrepreneurial orientation; the stimulation of entrepreneurial behaviour depends on the dimensions of EO, and senior management attributes. EO refers to the process, practices, and entrepreneurial decision making activities that lead to new entry (Lumpkin & Dess, 2006, p.136).

First, for a firm to gain competitive advantage, entrepreneurial behaviour is important (Ireland et al, 2006). However, senior management must first create a work environment that supports entrepreneurial behaviour (Ireland et al, 2006). The design elements to create such an internal work environment are: structure, controls, HRM and culture. However, in this research project the context should be taken into consideration. This is because the Telecommunication sector is mature and hyper competitive.

Horizontal over vertical Jobs that are broad in scope

Few layers Multiple career paths

Broader span of control Individual and group awards Decentralization Appraisal and reward criteria include

Innovativeness and risk-taking Cross-functional processes High employee involvement in appraisals Less formalization

Open communication flow Sense of smallness

Control based- no surprises Entrepreneurial learning Loose-tight control

properties Balanced individual-collective emphasis

Resource slack Emphasis on excellence

Internal venture capital

pools Emotional commitment

Emphasis on self control Freedom to grow and to fail Empowerment and

discretion Emphasis on results over process

Open information sharing Celebration of innovation

Mutual trust Healthy dissatisfaction and a sense of urgency

Focus on the future

Design'elements'to'develop'a'entrepreneurial'friendly''internal'enviroment'

Structure

Culture HRM

(31)

In addition to this, the literature has stated that orientation on corporate entrepreneurship is essential to have superior performance in competitive environments and to create opportunities for employees to act entrepreneurial, and to ‘step up to the plate’. However, in order to let EO be established into the firm, there are five dimensions to incorporate. These dimensions are: innovativeness, risk taking, pro-activeness, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy.

Furthermore, the senior managers are very important. According to the theory senior management are the key decision makers in relationship with EO and firm performance. Van Doorn et al. (2013) analysed three important aspects entrepreneurial senior management should have. These are: commitment, task related heterogeneity and shared vision.

Chapter 3 Methodology

The objective of this chapter is to outline a brief overview of the research design and methods in order to identify how senior management can stimulate entrepreneurial orientation on the work floor. Most important is what decisions they have to take and what their best practises are. Moreover, solving the paradox of working within a large grown-up firm and the pressure to innovate and being flexible.

(32)

3.1 Research strategy

According to Creswell (2009) there are three methods for exploiting research. These three methods are: qualitative, quantitative and mixed designs.

Qualitative research is a method, which will bring about the understanding and meaning of individuals or group ascribe to a social or human problem (Creswell, 2009, p. 4). Moreover, research method with an inductive style, with the focus on individual meaning and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation (Creswell, 2009, p. 4).

Quantitative research is a method that will test variables so the relationships among variables can be examined. Moreover, examined on instruments, so that that numbered data can be analysed. Therefore, this method will have predetermined assumptions about testing theories deductively.

Mixed methods research uses both the qualitative and quantitative methods. The mixed method is more than simply collecting and analysing both kinds of data: it also involves the use of both approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research (Creswell, 2009, p. 4).

In this research project, qualitative case study has been chosen to create an in-depth understanding linked to the theory and is based on an explanatory method. According to Yin (2014, p.16) a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the case) in depth and with its real-world context. This real-world context is important because the viewpoint, Ghauri et.al (1995) of managers and their best practices of managers are analysed. For this research project an explanatory multiple case design have been executed, because analytic generalizability can be accomplished because of the links between theory and real-life interventions (Yin, 2003). Through explanatory multiple case studies the understanding will be increased about the decision making of managers. Moreover, this multiple case study is executed to predict similar results or the prediction of contrasting results (Yin, 2014).

(33)

3.2 Sample

According to Yin (2009) the unit of analysis should refer to what the case represents. In this research project the unit of analysis represents senior management team managers within a Dutch Telecom firm. The senior managers must have over five years of working experience in the Dutch Telecom sector. The cases studied are four world leading premium A Telecommunication brands and one premium A brand in customer relations management.

Table 1 Research project sample overview

Firm Alfa

For this research project three interviews were held at Firm Alfa.

Respondent Function Working years at Firm A A1 Senior manager >10

A2 Senior manager >10 A3 Senior Line manager >5

Table 2 Resppndents Firm Alfa

For this research project three interviews were held at Firm Bravo.

Respondent Function Working years at Firm B B1 Head business unit >10

B2 Senior manager >10 B3 Line manager >5

Table 3 respondents Firm Bravo

Firm A Firm B Firm C Firm D Firm E

Business

Telecommunications/ ICT

Telecommunications Customar relationship management Telecommunications /network Telecommunications/ infrastructure Operates in countries <10 >25 >100 >10 >30 Employees 20,000 91,000 40,000 35,000 35,000 Number of senior managers interviewd 3 2 2 1 2 Number of line managers interviewd 1

(34)

For this research project two interviews were held at Firm Charlie.

Respondent Function Working years at Firm C C1 CEO- founder >10

C2 Senior manager >10

Table 4 Respondents Firm Charlie

For this research project one interview was held at Firm Delta.

Respondent Function Working years at Firm D D1 Director >5

Table 5 Respondents Firm Delta

For this research project two interviews were held at Firm Echo

Respondent Function Working years at Firm Echo E1 Senior-manager >10

E2 Senior-project manager >10

Table 6 Respondents Firm Echo

The sample chosen is relevant for this research project. These firms are originally mature and traditional. However, efficiency, top down structures and a transformation in consumer behaviour is changing this sector. This is why the traditional firms have to be flexible and innovative. Moreover, in order to be innovative, entrepreneurial behaviour is very important (Ireland et all, 2006).

The reason to choose these firms is because they are all world leading premium A brands and their level of competitive aggressiveness is very high. All firms mentioned have more than 1000 employees and operate with business units. This means that the firms must innovate and their biggest problem is the paradox of working in a big premium A brand firm with a lot of procedures and regulations and on the other side the pressure to innovate and to compete. According to Yin (2009) the sample must be selected carefully in order to have an appropriate contribution to the research. The

(35)

criteria for selecting the cases are 1) Premium A Telecom provider with recent creation of new business, 2) more than 5 years working experience at a premium A Telecom provider and 3) strategic senior management position. Senior management plays an important role for creating entrepreneurial orientation in the firm (van Doorn et all., 2013). Hornsby et al, (2009) emphasize the importance of senior management for the creation of new business.

In order to create in depth-analysis, qualitative interviews have been held for this research project. According to Byrne (2004, p.181) qualitative interviews refer to in depth, loosely or semi structures interviews. Interviews are used to collect data and also to generate data (King, 2004). The interviews were semi-structured and through this it was possible to achieve a level of depth and complexity. All the interviews lasted for about 45 minutes to one hour. All the interviews have been recorded, after permission. The topics discussed during these interviews were: autonomy, risk taking, competitive aggressiveness and innovativeness.

According to Saunders et al. (2003) the investigator is not requested to follow a specific order of questions but can vary the order depending on the flow of the conversation. First, the interviews started with general questions about the case study, which included the research questions and the theoretical framework. Secondly, the concepts were discussed. Based on the results, questions were added or deleted. For this research project the snowball-method has been used, because it is hard to get in touch with senior managers. This is a fairly, simple and inexpensive sampling method to reach hard-to-reach populations (Johnston & Sabin, 2010). It was very useful and managers gave priority because of the snowball-method.

According to Yin (2014) 6 - 10 cases can pursue different patterns of theoretical replications. Hereby, I have studied 6 cases and executed 12 interviews.

The final sample consists of 12 senior/ top managers. A general overview is listed in table 1. All the companies are active in the Telecom sector and focused on innovations and competitive strategies. Several respondents were selected through the snowball-approach (Goodman, 1961). All the interviews were held in person and

(36)

recorded on the iPhone with the programme Dictaphone. Before recording I first asked permission for recording the interviews. The duration of the interviews varied between 45 minutes and 60 minutes. First, the interviews started with a brief introduction and the purpose of the interview and that all results are reported on anonymous based. Subsequently, the research questions and the key topics were explained. Following, some general questions about the manager’s function and company were asked. Secondly, questions about the key topics of corporate entrepreneurship were asked. Thirdly, questions about the key topics of entrepreneurial orientation were asked. At the end, some concluding questions about what the most difficult topic was from this interview. Finally the respondents were thanked for their participation and were requested if they they could link me to following respondents.

3.3 Analysis

In a grounded theory approach, the areas of reducing the data into manageable units and coding information are integral parts of the analysis process (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Theoretical sampling has been used in order to create a deeper understanding of the managerial issues which arise by stimulating entrepreneurial orientation. The interviews have been guided on the basis of theoretical sampling. This means that the semi structured interviews were based on the theoretical ideas (Boeije, 2002). The use of theoretical reasons in order for sampling cases will help to find replication, alterative explanations and elaboration of emerging theory (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The research strategy is appropriate if the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context (Yin, 2009). In order to find differences, approval and similarities, back and forward has been sifted to the theory and existing models. This method is suitable because data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another (Bryman & Bell, 2003, p.428). According to Bryman & Bell (2003), theoretical sampling is a good process to collect and analyse data in order to decide what data to collect next and to develop the analysis or concept. According to this method the issues in the Telecom sector could be analysed better.

Creating an internal environment that effectively supports entrepreneurial orientation : a multiple case study in the Dutch Telecommunications sector

Master thesis