Master Thesis
“Corporate Entrepreneurial Mindset”
Kea Alten
Student Number: S3215857
MSc BA Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Abstract
Entrepreneurship has quite often been tried to implement into organizations, in order to profit from its positive influence. The Entrepreneurial Mindset (EMS) has received quite some attention as to explain why somebody becomes an entrepreneur. However, in the literature definitions used and
characteristics assigned differ. The aim of this thesis is to assess which dimensions have been
Table of contents 1. Introduction ... 1 1.1. Research question ... 2 2. Literature review ... 2 2.1. Entrepreneurial mindset ... 2 2.2. Corporate entrepreneurship ... 3
2.3. Corporate entrepreneurial mindset ... 5
3. Methodology ... 5
3.1. Identification of attributes ... 5
3.2. Categorization of potential key attributes ... 6
3.3. Application to the corporate context ... 7
4. Results of literature review ... 7
4.1 Attributes... 8
4.2 Categories ... 8
4.1. Evaluation of categories ... 13
5. Application to the corporate setting ... 14
5.1. Corporate Entrepreneurial mindset ... 14
6. Discussion ... 20
7. Conclusion ... 21
7.1. Theoretical and practical implications ... 22
7.2. Limitations ... 22
1
1. Introduction
2
1.1. Research question
In order to refine the understanding of the EMS, this paper aims at answering the following research question:
How does a corporate context influence the Entrepreneurial Mindset?
Which is accompanied by two sub-questions:
1. What are the key dimensions of an Entrepreneurial Mindset?
2. What kind of differences does a corporate context imply for the Entrepreneurial Mindset dimensions?
2. Literature review
To set the background for this study the following section provides an overview over the research already done regarding EMS, corporate entrepreneurship and the EMS in the corporate setting.
2.1. Entrepreneurial mindset
In the attempt to understand on the individual level how entrepreneurial activities come to be researchers have identified the EMS. The basis for the EMS discussion has been laid by McGrath and MacMillan (2000), who state in their book that EMS is a way of thinking about a business that enables to capture profit from uncertainty. They describe the habitual entrepreneur as the ultimate entrepreneur, emphasizing his ability to combine creativity with discipline and leadership capabilities. From these habitual entrepreneurs they derive five characteristics of an EMS, consisting of being alert and seeking opportunities, pursuing the discovered opportunities, economically weighing the options, focussing on an adaptive execution, and the engagement of others. McGrath and MacMillan wrote their book as a guideline for entrepreneurial leader, hence the social notion of engaging others here is emphasized. Once adopted, the EMS here is said to enable a person to see uncertainty as an opportunity, rather than a threat.
3
EMS has also been deemed as a part of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic entrepreneurship is a combination of entrepreneurship and strategic management, which allows firms to exploit opportunities while simultaneously managing their resources efficiently with the aim to increase profit (Ireland et al. (2003); Hitt, et al. (2011)). In this stream Ireland, Hitt and Sirmon (2003) describe EMS as a way of thinking which includes the ability to sense and exploit opportunities and which helps to deal with uncertainty. They also emphasize growth-orientation as an important part of EMS, which however might be explained as the overall goal of strategic entrepreneurship is to create wealth. As components of EMS Ireland et al. (2003) identify the ability to recognize opportunities, alertness, real options logic and entrepreneurial framework.
Next to McGrath and MacMillan (2000), Ireland et al. (2003) forms the basis for the majority of papers dealing with EMS (for McGrath & MacMillan (2000) see for example Mitchell (2007); Smith et al. (2009); Shepherd et al. (2010), for Ireland et. al (2003) see for example Haynie et al. (2012); McMullen & Kier (2016)). Both include attributes that regard to the ability to recognize and exploit opportunities, as well as the toleration of uncertainty. For this thesis the definition of Ireland et al. will be adopted, as it emphasized the same aspects as McGrath and MacMillan (2000), without focusing on leader- or ownership and hence should be more generally applicable. The definition also goes hand in hand with the here adopted definition of entrepreneurship from Shane and Venkataraman (2000).
In conclusion of the literature review on EMS, it can be said that EMS has often been discussed in the literature, however it still lacks a precise assessment of its dimensions. The review has shown that two approaches form the basis for the EMS discussion, which is why they all assess a certain degree of tolerance for uncertainty, as well as the ability to sense and exploit opportunities. However apart from that the identified attributes vary with the respective context.
2.2. Corporate entrepreneurship
4
entrepreneur collide with a traditional corporate context. According to him entrepreneurship requires creativity, flexibility, independence and risk taking, qualities which can be stifled by characteristics of the organization such as risk aversion and strict hierarchies.
Entrepreneurial activities within a firm are influenced by the organizations characteristics (Antoncic & Hisrich 2001). For example a firm’s strategy has been found to influence corporate entrepreneurship. Zahra (1991) found that a strategy which emphasized growth positively impacts corporate entrepreneurship activities in the firm. It seems that a firm has to promote corporate entrepreneurship in their strategy, so that employees will not see it as a risky, out of boundary endeavour, but rather as part of the company’s mission and thus are more likely to pursue intrapreneurial activities (McMillan et al., 1986). Also the way a firm is structured has an impact. Hisrich (1990) describes corporations, especially in a more traditional setting, as hierarchical and characterized by formal processes, lines of authority and control mechanisms. Even though the degree of these characteristics might vary between firms, they will be identified in some form in most organizations (Halevy et al., 2011). Hisrich (1990) contrasts these characteristics to a flat organizational structure that emphasizes teamwork and networking, which he argues to be more advantageous for intrapreneurship. Furthermore the organizational culture effects corporate entrepreneurship. For example in a more traditional corporate culture, conservative decision making and a short-term orientation are important pillars (ibid), values that are diametrical to the entrepreneurial characteristics mentioned above. The way and intensity of communication and support within the organization, especially from the senior management have been found to influence the level of intrapreneurship within a firm (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). It can be concluded that different aspects of organizational design such as strategy, structure and culture have been found to impact intrapreneurial activities.
Regardless of their design firms tend to develop a certain degree of inertia over time (Lumpkin, 2007). Inertia refers to the inability of an organization to adapt to changes (Christensen, 1997). One explanation might be that firms tend to focus on satisfying their current costumers and react to their needs, rather than focusing on new ones and reacting to the market (ibid). Inertia and internal barriers to innovation can also be found in companies that actively try to foster entrepreneurial activities within their organization (Lumpkin, 2007) and hence are an obstacle that most corporate entrepreneurs are going to be faced with. Thus even when a firm is willing and able to fit its design to promote intrapreneurship, over time it develop rigidities that stand against change and innovation.
5
2.3. Corporate entrepreneurial mindset
As there is still no clear conceptualization of EMS, it can only be said that as a mindset changes and adapts to its environment (Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2002) a corporate setting can be expected to have an influence on EMS. Even though there is no literature that explicitly deals with the corporate entrepreneurial mindset (CEMS), Shepherd et al. (2010) for example investigated entrepreneurial spirals, which describe the relation between a manager’s mindset and firm culture. These spirals are initiated and ended when structural or strategic changes occur in the organization that either promote or obstruct entrepreneurial behaviour. It seems that even though the mindset of a person can have a positive influence on a firm’s culture and vice versa, the structure and strategy implemented need to allow for it first. Further Mitchell (2007) discusses how disposing of EMS can help corporate researcher to challenge the current business strategy. However he includes that these researchers most likely will face opposition and states that recognizing the preferred investment strategy of the management as part of the EMS. It can thus be expected that the corporate context has an impact on EMS and similarly to the influence of the corporate setting on entrepreneurship, it can be expected to be negative.
3. Methodology
As there exist already numerous definitions of EMS in the literature, the aim is to consolidate these in order to allow for a better understanding of the concept, especially with regard to the corporate context. In their guide for conceptualization Podsakoff et al. (2016) suggest that when several definitions already exists, it is sufficient to collect these, identify the key attributes and organize them into meaningful categories. Following this suggestion, the thesis consists of a survey of the literature in order to identify EMS attributes, which are then categorized and finally discussed in the corporate context.
3.1. Identification of attributes
6
After the identification of the articles, as a first step the definitions of EMS used were extracted and the explicitly mentioned key attributes were singled out. In a next step the articles were compared and attributes implicitly mentioned were added to the list. The derived attributes were then compared and discussed with an expert who is researching in the same field and familiar with the articles, see section II in the Appendix for a short description, until an agreement was reached. Using an additional coder allows for observer triangulation and hence improves the reliability of the identified attributes (Robson, 2002). To keep track of the collected definitions as well as provide for accountability and controllability, the articles and the respective attributes of EMS are presented in Table III in the Appendix.
3.2. Categorization of potential key attributes
The first step has resulted in the identification large number of attributes assigned to EMS. As a next step, these attributes are further analyzed and, whenever possible, organized into broader categories with the objective to avoid overlapping and to provide concise findings (Podsakoff et al., 2016). As a first step all key attributes that were synonyms were sorted into the first bigger groups, an example would be opportunity recognition and opportunity identification, which were merged into sensing opportunities. The remaining list of attributes was put into categories by going back and forth in between the articles, the identified attributes and the already established groups. Table IV in the Appendix displays which attributes have been assorted into which category.
7
Innovative value creation, 4. Temporality of opportunities, 5. Action or the commitment to action, and 6. Awareness of the context, such as the community. Finally the names of the categories will be either directly derived from the articles or from other entrepreneurship literature, so that (d) can be ensured. As already mentioned the categorization process was also repeated by an expert. Co-coding is a valid measure to ensure reliability (Aken et al., 2012). The same expert as in step one (section II Appendix) will also co-code. The entire set of attributes was assigned by both, researcher and expert, to the previously established categories. This allows to estimate the reliability of individual coders’ ratings and at the same time to validate the categories chosen. The inter-rater reliability then is calculated using Cohens Kappa in order to test beyond chance, given that the data set is nominal, the dimensions are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, as well as the coder worked independently (Cohen, 1960).
The so derived categories are accepted as EMS dimensions and applied to the corporate context.
3.3. Application to the corporate context
As a final step the previously identified dimensions of EMS will be applied to the corporate setting, to discuss how the corporate context influences EMS. This step will be largely based on the in the literature review identified issues of corporate entrepreneurship, as well as on research dealing with each dimension. This step follows the suggestion of Zahra to contextualize findings in entrepreneurship research, in order to avoid that results are getting easily overgeneralized, not considering their boundaries and limitations (Zahra, 2007).
It was suggested that the frequency with which the attributes were used in the articles is reported, to on the one hand control for when the survey can be seen to suffice and on the other hand to indicate the acceptance of the attributes between scholars (Podsakoff et al. 2016). However as more than 100 attributes were identified and these sometimes differed in terms, but not in meaning, the frequency of the categories mentioned will instead be displayed in Table VI in the Appendix.
Regarding to the quality of this research, in order to provide for controllability the steps taken are documented as detailed as the setting of this thesis allows. The findings should further be reliable, as observer triangulation decreases their subjectivity.
4. Results of literature review
8
4.1 Attributes
The first step resulted in a rather extensive set of attributes, which are presented in a detailed manner in Table III in the Appendix.
4.2 Categories
The next step in order to derive the main dimensions of the EMS the attributes identified in the paper were sorted into broader categories. Table IV in the Appendix shows which attribute has been assorted into the categories. Fifteen categories have been identified, Table 1 contains a short description of the categories identified.
Categories Description
Acting on opportunities Opportunity exploitation
Adaptability Being able to analyze and comprehend the environment and
introduce change when necessary
Decisiveness Being able to make up one’s mind
Economic reasoning Following a rational and economic reasoning
Engaging others Ability to incorporate others
Entrepreneurial role identity Self-identification as an entrepreneur
Innovativeness Innovation orientation, finding innovative solutions
Learning Processing newly encountered information and experiences
Persistence Pursuing an objective, regardless of difficulties
Proactiveness Action Orientation; Introducing change, rather than feeling constrained by external circumstances
Risk taking Ability and willingness to take risks
Self-Reflectiveness Self-awareness; Taking a step back and analyzing one’s self Sensing opportunities Opportunity recognition
Success orientation Aiming high; Setting goals high; Orientation towards growth Tolerance for uncertainty Being able to tolerate uncertainty
Table 1: Definitions of the categories identified
In the following the categories are going to be presented in alphabetical order. As the attributes identified were sometimes merely implicitly in the text and as the process of assigning them into categories has been rather deductive, the reasoning for why the attributes were assigned to a certain category will be given.
Acting on Opportunities.
9
such as its expected value, and the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur, which influence the costs of exploiting the opportunity. An opportunity will be exploited, when the costs of doing so are lower, than the expected value of the opportunity. The individual characteristics that influence the cost of exploitation also include the entrepreneur’s individual costs of obtaining the resources necessary in order to take advantage of the identified opportunity (ibid). The in the first step identified key attributes ability to organize and ability to mobilize resources thus can clearly be sorted into the category of acting on opportunities, as they influence the individual cost of exploiting opportunities. In some articles it was added that these acting on opportunities and mobilizing resources would have to be rapid (see for example McMullen, Kier 2016; Shepherd et al. 2010), which is given to the fact that opportunities are not permanent but usually temporarily restricted (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
Adaptability.
Adaptability can be defined as the ability to analyse and comprehend circumstances and to introduce change if necessary (McKeown, 2012). Being able to adapt helps entrepreneurs to perform effectively in an environment of uncertainty and change, which they often face, and thus is crucial to entrepreneurial success (Haynie et al., 2010). The EMS has also been connected to cognitive adaptability. Cognitive adaptability is “the ability to be dynamic, flexible, and self-regulating in one's cognitions” (Haynie et. al, 2010, p. 281) and thus has also been added to this category.
Decisiveness.
Decisiveness is another characteristic of EMS identified in the papers. In the articles EMS was associated with disposing of cognitive strategies (Haynie et al. 2010) and decision heuristics, such as the use of rule of thumb (Wright et al. 2001), all of which help facilitate decision making. It was also suggested that people disposing of EMS will rely more on individual beliefs in order to make decisions (ibid). This category is closely related to proactiveness and engaging others, however proactiveness focuses more strongly on an action orientation, whereas decisiveness can be an antecedent of proactiveness.
Economical reasoning.
10
Engaging others.
In the entrepreneurial context being able to include others can be an important and facilitating step. Being able to collaborate can be favourable as especially young firms suffer from resource limitations, which can be overcome by working together with others (Watson, 2007). Collaborating with others can also positively impact the entrepreneurial process, as for example the concept of entrepreneurial teams shows (Cooney, 2005). Even though an entrepreneur is sometimes seen as the single-minded genius, usually there are teams involved for the entire entrepreneurial process (ibid). Sheperd et al. (2010) and Hitt et al (2010) both describe entrepreneurship as a social process that is defined by multiple actors, implicating that EMS also is also characterized by the ability to work in close relation to others. Even though neither states such abilities explicitly as part of the EMS, it becomes apparent in their argumentation. Other attributes identified that regard to this category are the ability to communicate (Culkin & Mallick ,2011), which can argued to be a facilitator of engaging others, collaborate (Shams & Kaufmann, 2016) and finally the ability to engage others (e.g. McGrath & McMillan, 2000).
Entrepreneurial role identity.
Does having an EMS includes seeing oneself as an entrepreneur? Many articles suggest that incorporated in the EMS is also an entrepreneurial identity, which can be described as seeing or calling oneself an entrepreneur (Down & Revely, 2004). Costa et al. (2016) find that in order to see entrepreneurship as an opportunity, one first has to perceive oneself as capable of becoming an entrepreneur. Self-perception thus seems to play an important role. Culkin and Mallick (2011) suggested that an EMS includes creating empathy with entrepreneurial ways of doing, thinking and feeling. Also an orientation towards entrepreneurial activities has been identified as an attribute of EMS (Shams & Kaufmann, 2016). It is not specified what these activities are exactly composed of, however it can be deduced that behaving like an entrepreneur results in being able to identify as one. Sheperd et al. (2010) see identifying with the entrepreneurial role as reinforcing the EMS. In contrast to that Robinson et al. (2016) see EMS as being different from becoming an entrepreneur and rather as a set of skills and motives that might very well be applicable in a different context. It thus seems not to be clear whether or not EMS necessarily leads to identifying one’s self as an entrepreneur, however many articles are suggesting it.
Innovativeness.
11
creativity (Baron & Tang, 2011), which can be described as the connection or rearrangement of knowledge with the objective to generate new and original ideas of value (see Plesk, 1997; Robinson & Aronica, 2015 for example). The innovativeness category can be argued to be rather closely related to the proactiveness category, as being innovative can also include foreseeing and fulfilling future costumer needs, however as innovativeness has been explicitly mentioned in the papers, it will be accepted as its own category.
Learning.
Learning plays an important role in entrepreneurship, as it helps to develop better mental models and can aid at dealing with change by linking knowledge in order to overcome obstacles that have not been encountered before (Krauss et al. 2005). According to Mitchell (2007) learning occurs in the entrepreneurial context usually via a learning by doing processes, which can also be described as experiences. Politis (2005) presents entrepreneurial learning as an experiential process, which allows the entrepreneur to improve his abilities in opportunity recognition and exploitation, as well as the ability to cope with liability of newness. Cognitions are defined as all processes by which sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used (Neisser, 1967) and are an attribute which is thus are also added to this category.
Persistence.
An entrepreneur is often faced with difficulties such as obtaining financing when setting up a new venture or installing sales channels for a product (Terpstra & Olson 1993), thus the ability to achieve objectives against odds, which persistence can be described as (McMullen & Kier, 2016), can be considered an essential quality for an entrepreneur. EMS has also been found to be associated with persistence (see for example McMullen & Kier, 2016). The category also includes the attributes “no regard to resources currently under control” (e.g. Mitchell 2007) and coherently “gaining access to resources” (Hitt et al., 2011), as it clearly describe abilities that form part of persistently pursuing a goal. It can be argued that being persistent requires a certain motivation or drive. Thus commitment (e.g. McMullen & Kier, 2016) is another key attribute that has been assigned to this category, as it can be defined as psychological attachment (Keogh & Polonsky, 1998) and can be seen as the driving factor or motivation behind persistence. On a similar note optimism (McMullen & Kier, 2016) and imagination (Costa et al. 2016) form part of the persistence category, as both can be argued to be the reason behind persistent behaviour. Imagination here refers to being able to picture a future event, which functions as motivation (Costa et al., 2016).
Proactiveness.
12
goes on stating that proactive personalities tend to identify opportunities and act on them, exhibiting initiative and action–taking. Next to proactiveness problem solving (Hitt et al., 2011) and action orientation (e.g. Smith et al., 2009) have been identified, which share in common the focus on moving things forward. This category stands in rather close relation to the category acting on Opportunities, however acting on opportunities is one of the steps of the entrepreneurial process described by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), while proactiveness is more a characteristic. The proactiveness category also can be seen as rather closely related to Innovativeness, however following Lumpkin (2007) argumentation on the firm level, these two have been found to be separate. Thus they will be accepted as two categories.
Risk taking.
EMS was associated with the ability to take (calculated) risks (e.g. Culkin & Mallick 2011; Hitt et al. , 2011; Shams & Kaufmann, 2016). This is rather intuitive as entrepreneurship is usually associated with risk-taking (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). People are willing to take risks when their preference for achievement is stronger in some individuals than the desire to avoid failure (McClelland, 1961), hence it can be argued that the willingness to take risks stands in relation to the success orientation that has also been associated with EMS, however success orientation can rather be seen as the motivation behind risk-taking behaviour.
Self-Reflectiveness.
In an educational setting, Robinson et al. (2016) describe that in order to develop an EMS, which involves changing deeply rooted beliefs, students have to be enabled to be self-aware and to reflect on their unquestioned attitudes. Haynie et al. (2010) develop a conceptual model, which sees the foundation of EMS in metacognitive processes. Metacognitive ability can be described the capacity of developing and selecting cognitive strategies, via a higher-order cognitive processes (ibid). It describes the process as choosing cognitive strategies aiming for entrepreneurial outcomes based on reflection of motivation and environment. What becomes apparent is that an EMS includes the ability of the entrepreneur to be aware and reflective of the self, for example ones ambition, as well as external factors, such as environmental changes.
Sensing opportunities.
13
identify opportunities and has been added to the category. Ireland et al. (2003) mention alertness, which has also been described as a passive search and regards to being aware, but not actively seeking opportunities (Baron & Tang 2011). One way to identify opportunities is by solving of problems, an attribute identified in the articles. The attribute interpretation of uncertainty has been added to this dimension, as entrepreneurial opportunities arise from combining new mean-to-end relationships, following one’s own believes, a process that cannot be accomplished by mechanical calculation (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Opportunity identification thus is always connected with a certain degree of uncertainty, which however has to be perceived as a chance. Interpretation of uncertainty (Ireland et al., 2003) has not been assigned to tolerance for uncertainty, as identifying opportunities is more than accepting it, it’s seeing the merit of it. Some authors included that the sensing process would have to be rapid (see for example McMullen, Kier 2016; Shepherd et al. 2010), which again is due to the fact that opportunities are not permanent but usually temporarily restricted (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
Success orientation.
In the articles it became apparent that EMS is associated with ambition to achieve and the willingness to set high goals, which is summarized into the success orientation category. Success orientation can be explained with achievement motivation, which describes the need to achieve high (Davis et al., 2016). Achievement motivation has been found to be positively correlated with entrepreneurial occupation and as well as entrepreneurial success (Collins et al. 2004). Achievement motivation is also what the attribute motivation identified in Smith et al. (2009) refers to and thus it is also added to this category. McMullen and Kier (2016) see promotion focus as the main driver behind the EMS, which they define as an orientation toward a successful outcome. Growth and success are often used interchangeably (Gundry & Welsch, 2001), so this category contains the attribute growth orientation as well as success orientation. Growth orientation is described as one of the core elements of entrepreneurship, next to innovativeness (see for example Carland et al. 1984; Sexton & Bowman 1985). Shams & Kaufmann (2016) mention an orientation toward entrepreneurial outcome, which also lays emphasize on achieving a certain result.
Tolerance for uncertainty.
As discussed previously entrepreneurs are usually faced with a high level of uncertainty (Busenitz & Barney 1997). Being able to accept uncertainty as part of EMS is a reoccurring topic in the articles identified (see for example Hitt et. al, 2011 or Shams & Kaufmann, 2016). Tolerance of uncertainty is also often mentioned in combination with change (see for example Täks et al., 2014), as change can be a source of uncertainty.
4.1. Evaluation of categories
14
agreement (Cohen, 1960). It seems that when assessing the categories independently, both coder almost always assigned the same attributes into the same group. This allows to argue that the coding was reliable and that the categories are (a) mutually exclusive, as otherwise the coder wouldn´t have agreed. As the number of categories is rather high and they were mainly build upon synonyms, (b) homogeneity within the groups should also be given. Coming to criteria (c) collectively exhaustive, the six characteristics of the entrepreneurial process are 1. Processing opportunities, 2. Emphasizing the value of knowledge, 3. Innovative value creation, 4. Temporality of opportunities, 5. Action or the commitment to action, and 6. awareness of the context, such as the community. These aspects can be reflected in the identified dimensions, namely group 1 and 4 in sensing and acting on opportunities, 2. in learning, 3. innovativeness and success orientation, 5. in persistence and proactiveness and 6. in engaging others. Building up on the fact that the dimensions have been derived by synthesizing existing literature and the key steps of the entrepreneurial process are represented the list will be accepted as exhaustive. However it has to be acknowledged that the literature on EMS as well as the entrepreneurial process are still both work in progress, hence this criterion is accepted under reservation. Finally almost all names are derived directly from the attributes and capture rather intuitively its content, as Table 1, shows. Hence (d) based on relevant language or names can also be ensured.
The categories thus will be accepted as EMS dimensions and set into the corporate context.
5. Application to the corporate setting
Fifteen dimensions were identified in the literature and in order to answer the second sub-research question, these dimensions will be discussed in the corporate setting, to see what impact strategy, structure or culture of the firm have on EMS. At the end of this paragraph Table 2 displays the results of this section.
5.1. Corporate Entrepreneurial mindset
Acting on opportunities.
15
has to deal with a high level of bureaucracy, in order to get access to the firms resources. Hence it cannot be clearly derived how the corporate context impacts the ability to act on opportunities.
Adaptability.
Being able to adapt has been described as the core of entrepreneurship (see for example McMullen & Kier 2016) , in order to react adequately to a volatile environment. Adaptability is however most likely stifled when the entrepreneur is set within an organization. First of all, organizations are usually characterized by some type of hierarchy, which will at least prolong the process of adapting to change (Christensen, 1997). Secondly within these hierarchies, decision-makers tend to be more avers to change (Hisrich, 1990), which also influences the culture within the organization. Organizations tend to develop a certain degree of inertia over time, even if they want to foster corporate entrepreneurship within their organizations (Christensen, 1997). It can be concluded that the adaptability dimension of the EMS is at least limited in the corporate setting.
Decisiveness.
Being able to make decisions within an organization is dependent on its design and hierarchy. One has to have the power to make decisions (Halevy, 2011). If not, the process might take longer or be completely impossible. Being able to make decisions without having to refer to someone in a higher rank, can also be described as autonomy (Brock, 2003). The level to which employees are granted the right to make autonomous decisions are dependent on ownership, size and management style (Lumpkin, 2007). Owning a firm brings with it the right to assess the autonomy level within a firm. In a smaller firm for example, the owner might be able to centralize all decision-making. However the bigger the organization gets, the less likely the owner is, to be able to control every decision. Thus autonomy also depends on the size of the organizations. Finally whether the person in charge is determined to delegate and rely on his employees is dependent on his management style (ibid). It has to be added that even when an organizations decision making process is decentralized, it is not synonymous with giving employees the right to make decisions themselves (Brock, 2003), but the organization has to actively build a culture and support system that allows for autonomous decision making(Quinn, 1979). It can be concluded that being decisive is definitely more difficult in a firms that is not owned by one’s self, and that active measures have to be taken to allow for autonomous decision-making.
Economic reasoning.
16
firms can be different persons, their goals might not be aligned (Eisenhardt, 1989) as ownership does influence the incentives of board members and executives (Zahra, 1996). Hence it might be argued that a manager will put less emphasize on economic reasoning as a novice entrepreneur, who would also be the owner of the company. This consequently could influence the culture of the firm and thus discourage employees. In conclusion being an employee economic reasoning might not be encouraged as strongly as it does owning a firm.
Engaging others.
Some may argue that a hierarchy can improve cooperation within a firm as social interactions become more structured and thus easier (Tiedens et al., 2007), it however cannot be expected that all individuals within a firm share the same goals (Halevy, 2011). Hence cooperation within the same firm might be stifled by coordination issues (ibid). The culture thus might play an important role, as when employees are unified in their goals and encouraged to cooperate, engaging others might be easier within a company. When an intrapreneur has the support of his organization, it might also be easier for him to motivate others to participate in his endeavor, as it is for an individual entrepreneur, as a firm might give legitimacy and contacts necessary. It can be concluded that a firm might give legitimacy to the outside, however it´s culture affects how people work together on the inside.
Entrepreneurial role identity.
Role identities are a social construct and form part of the self (Burke & Tully, 1977). Three characteristics are derived. Firstly role identities are described as a social product, due to the fact that the role has to be socially recognizable and the identification process occurs in interaction with others. Secondly the identity are situation dependent and formed in response to other roles. Finally identities are symbolic as well as reflexive. This means that their meaning only comes to be known to the individual, as their actions are judged by others as a performer of a certain role. An identity is adapted as a response to the social environment. (ibid) What this means is when accepting that entrepreneurial role-identity forms part of EMS, the perception of the role identity of each employee, as well as of the entire collective is important. Once the roles are established within a firm’s culture, they most likely will support intrapreneurship, as identity and performance are interconnected (Burke & Reitzes, 1981), however transforming a firm’s culture might not be an easy task (Hisrich, 1990).
Innovativeness.
17
the might not even exists yet, is something firms often struggle with (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Innovativeness is thus most likely to be stifled within the corporate context.
Learning.
Learning and especially experiential learning depend on the environment (Kolb, 2014). As in corporations repetitions and routines are often present, learning can be quite limited. Routines are usually expected to lead to inertia and thus can constrain learning (Hoeve, & Nieuwenhuis, 2006). Becker (2004), however, claims that this perception is one-sided and reasons that routines have a great potential for change. His argument is extended by Feldman (2000) who states that the participants in routines will adapt changes as new routines. It can also be argued that routines free cognitive capacities, which then can be used to learn (Hieve & Nieuwnhuis, 2006). However it can be expected that a firm would have to encourage their employees to use these freed capacities in order to learn, as a culture characterized by routine most likely does not motivate its employees to do so. A good way to gather practical knowledge for example would be via experimentation, however as firms would have to invest resources into such activities and the knowledge gain can hardly be measured, firms might not support it. To further encourage learning the employee needs to be supported by the leadership, rewarded and learning also needs to be imbedded in the firms culture (Goh, 1998). In general it seems that organizations characterized by routines are not ideal to support learning.
Persistence.
An intrapreneur will be faced with obstacles, even though they might be different from those that a novice entrepreneur faces. For once most will have to overcome inertia, others might be struggling to get access to resources or support of the senior management (Hisrich, 1990). For intrapreneurs it can thus be assumed that many obstacles will be posed by the firm itself (ibid). As the outcome of entrepreneurial activities tend to be uncertain, this might be difficult, as within an organization short-term orientation can be more important. Firms can struggle with assigning resources to explore possible new income streams, as the short-term focus on recent income and the long-term focus on sustainability can collide (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Nascent entrepreneur might encounter just as many obstacles as intrapreneurs, however one might suspect that as most issues for intrapreneurial activities will be posed by the firm itself, the intrapreneur might be expected to get frustrated and give up or leave the company.
Proactiveness.
18
behavior (Campbell, 2000). Yet when employees showcase initiative, they outcomes are hard to control (ibid), which might be taken from other firms as reason to not encourage it in the first place.
Risk taking.
First of all, risk is always present whether inside or outside an organization (Lumpkin, 2007). Risk-taking within an organization is strongly influenced by the culture, as it can encourage or discourage risky behavior through the promotion of groupthink, the creation of control mechanisms, and the behavior of leaders (Sitkin & Pablo, 1992). A lack of encouragement can create the fear of the personal consequences and thus can contribute to lessen employee risk taking, as fear of punishment can incline employees to remain inactive, even though they might be aware of better solutions. Meanwhile creating an atmosphere of trust and safety will encourage employees to question conventional wisdom and to engage in breakthrough activities (Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2000). This reasoning is also supported by Neves & Eisenberg (2014), who state that by creating an environment of trust via support and benevolence from the firms’ leader will make employees more willing to take risks on behalf of the organization. It seems that employees need to be reassured that the organization values their actions and decisions, in order to take risks on their behalf, whereas nascent entrepreneurs usually take personal risks, as they themselves are liable for their actions. It might be added that an employee also would have to dispose of position and power in order to be enabled to take risks on behalf of the organization.
Self-Reflectiveness.
In an organizational context it might be easy to just fall back into the assigned position and to just do as told. The culture can be expected to have a strong impact, as for example the senior management might focus all responsibility on itself, which might leave employees with the impression of just being executers. This can be supported by (Halevy, 2011), who reasons that certain positions within a hierarchy foster certain behaviorisms, e.g. that on the top of the ladder, people will try to focus on the bigger picture and the vision, while on the lower end a focus on details and execution will prevail. So even when firms might try to improve self-reflectiveness via their culture and the model of their leaders, it can be argued that being at the lower end will not foster to be self-awareness as there an execution focus prevails.
Sensing opportunities.
19
identify opportunities, next to active search. There has been a discussion about how effortless this alertness to opportunities really is (Gaglio & Katz, 2001), which concludes that deliberate searching is a valid way to identify opportunities and something that firms can encourage in their employees. It however can be speculated that being put in an authority line will not express their own ideas, as the aim of a hierarchy is to give guidance (Havely, 2011). Also firms might fear that encouraging employees to identify opportunities might lead them to quit and become an entrepreneur.
Success orientation.
According to McClelland (1961) a high need for achievement predisposes someone to seek out a to become an entrepreneur, as being an entrepreneur is believed to produce more achievement satisfaction as being within an organization is associated with repetition and routines. However founding a business comes with a set of new challenges and opportunities, which is for someone with high achievement motivation perceived as positive. This reasoning was later supported in a subsequent longitudinal study (McClelland, 1965). Meanwhile managers have found to be higher in need for power and lower in need for achievement (McClelland &Winter, 1969). Thus individuals high in achievement motivation will be drawn to entrepreneurship due to the nature of the inducements inherent in the entrepreneurial job (Miner, 1993). Contrarily to that Halevy (2011) argues that organizational hierarchies can serve as a good incentive system using rewards, such as promotion or status symbols. It however has to be added that as mentioned before, high achievement and the need for power are not the same, and secondly that this reward system mainly focuses on external rewards such as status symbols. It however could be assumed that the need for achievement of entrepreneurs is much more focused on internal values. A corporation thus might have difficulties to foster motivation in its employees that is not connected to external values.
Tolerance for uncertainty.
As Halevy et al. (2011) argues hierarchies serve the fulfillment of specific psychological needs, such as certainty, structure and predictability. It can thus be argued that most likely people found in hierarchies will fell less exposed to uncertainty and can be expected to be less likely to tolerate it. Hui and Lee (2000) found that when employees feel validated and their role as meaningful in an organization, it can influence their perception of uncertainty. This means that firms do have the power to influence how their employees perceive risks, however as Hisrich (1990) argues organizations in general will try to avoid uncertainty. Quinn (1979) for example mentions detailed controls and an expected orderly advance as short-comings of large corporation when dealing with intrapreneurship, both displaying how firm try to avoid uncertainty.
Categories Effect corporate context
20
Adaptability Stifled
Decisiveness Difficult due to hierarchies and limited autonomy
Economic reasoning Ownership might be the strongest incentive, hence less within companies
Engaging others Within the organization depends on its characteristics, outside might be easier due to legitimacy of the firm
Entrepreneurial role identity Role-identities would have to be formed, but changing the culture is a difficult task
Innovativeness Struggle between current and future incomes sources might stifle the process
Learning Encountering new information can be stifled by routines Persistence Most difficulties for intrapreneurs are posed by the firm itself, thus
frustration is more likely
Proactiveness Initiative cannot be controlled and thus is often not encouraged Risk taking Has to be strongly encouraged by the organization, also influenced
by the position and power of the employee
Self-Reflectiveness Focusing on executing will not lead to reflect on one’s self Sensing opportunities Firms might be afraid that employees pursue these in their own firms
and thus do not encourage it
Success orientation Achievement motivation is often connected to nascent
entrepreneurship, the reward system of organizations seems unsuited Tolerance for uncertainty Firms tend to avoid uncertainty
Table 2: Application of EMS dimensions in corporate setting
6. Discussion
Fifteen dimensions of EMS have been identified in the literature and it has been discussed that some of the identified dimensions are difficult to apply in a corporate context.
First of all it might be surprising at first that acting and sensing opportunities form two different categories, even though it is sometimes referred to as the “ability so sense, act and mobilize” (see for example Haynie et al., 2010). There are two arguments that support this choice: First of all being able to sense opportunities is somewhat different from exploiting opportunities, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) for example describe it as two different steps in the entrepreneurial process. Secondly in some papers only one of the two has been assigned to the EMS (see for example Shepherd et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2001). Hence even though often mentioned together, sensing opportunities and acting on opportunities here form two different categories.
21
the EMS as characterized by learning and learnable fits the description of the entrepreneur as a work in progress, constantly shaped by his experiences (Morris et al., 2012).
Even though the list of dimensions is rather extensive, it seems that some might be added. Dimov (2010) for example tested how opportunity confidence relates to new venture creation and found a positive and direct influence. Hence self-efficacy or confidence might be added to this representation of EMS. Additionally even though McGrath and MacMillan (2000) as well as Shepherd et al. (2008) both discuss EMS in a context of leadership, neither has connected EMS directly with it. This is rather puzzling, as EMS is associated with a number of characteristics that are closely related to leadership, such as decisiveness, proactiveness and engaging others. These two attributes could represent additions to the here presented findings.
Coming to the finding that EMS seems to be not so easily applicable to the corporate context. This finding is generally supported by Morse (1986) who found that even when managers in large firms were leaning towards change and innovation, they were skeptical about the role of an entrepreneur within the organization, as its structures are not able to serve their need for autonomy. Wright et al. (2001) follows the same line of reasoning, suggesting that managers disposing of an EMS will be frustrated. The paper discusses management buy-outs as an alternative to leaving the company. It thus seems that there is no true fit for entrepreneurs in organizations. One reason might be that entrepreneurial activities ask for a high level of motivation which a firm is not suited to foster, which is supported by Duncan et al. (1988), stating that the reward system in firms is not fit to motivate entrepreneurs. However as Carsrud & Brännback (2011) show the matter of entrepreneurial motivation is still far from being understood. Entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial activities thus might be different, for example intrapreneurs tend to develop business-to-business solutions, while costumer oriented ideas that include social ties tend to lead to the creation of new ventures Parker (2011), which might suggest that intrapreneurship is not just entrepreneurship within an organization, but rather a different activity. This is further supported by Martiarena, (2013), who showed that intrapreneurs behave much more like employees, rather than entrepreneurs, as she found intrapreneurs to be more risk averse, less tolerant to uncertainty, they failed to recognize business opportunities and as well as having lower confidence in their entrepreneurial skills.
7. Conclusion
22
7.1. Theoretical and practical implications
The theoretical contribution is twofold. First of all synthesising the attributes associated with EMS is a first step in deriving a clearer conceptualization of it. Secondly EMS has been said to be beneficial in the corporate context (see for example Mitchell, 2007). The findings here however suggest that it might be difficult to promote EMS within organizations. Being aware of the EMS dimensions here can help to fully understand the composition of EMS, and thus whether it might be just aspects of the mindset that have a positive impact in organizations. As the EMS is seen as learnable, it is diametric to the trait approach and supports the idea that entrepreneurs are not special kind of people. Thoroughly understanding the concept of an EMS can help entrepreneurs to find the right setting for their ambitions. It seems that a person disposing of an EMS will be better placed outside of organizations. Being aware of the composition of EMS is also very interesting for the entrepreneurial education, as rather than skills it might be helpful to lead students towards the “right” mindset in order to promote entrepreneurship. The findings also help managers be aware that people disposing of EMS are not well placed within an organization and might want to leave, hence they should consider, which aspects they exactly want to promote.
7.2. Limitations
Several limitations have to be acknowledged. First of all EMS is a concept that still lacks clear differentiation from similar concepts, such as entrepreneurial intent. Secondly due to the restrictions of a thesis only a synthesis of the attributes mentioned in the literature is presented, however the exact composition of an EMS would still need to be assessed. Furthermore in order to stay close to the articles, the dimensions identified were chosen rather narrowly and some are still closely related, additional research might come to the finding that the list is too extensive and can be narrowed down. With regard to the inter-rater reliability, the attributes have been derived in accordance, hence the high reliability might be partially due to this fact. Finally for the corporate context no differentiation has been made between firms of different sizes, however size does have an impact on the intrapreneurship process as Carrier (1996) suggests.
7.3. Future research
I
I. Bibliography
Aken J.E. van, Berends, H., Bij, H. van der (2012). Problem solving in organizations – A methodological handbook for business and management students.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. In Journal of business venturing, 16(5), 495-527.
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. In The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104-119.
Becker, M.C. (2004), “Organisational routines: a review of the literature”, In Industrial and Corporate
Change, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 643-77.
Brock, D. M. (2003). Autonomy of individuals and organizations: Towards a strategy research agenda. In International Journal of Business and Economics, 2(1), 57.
Burke, Peter J.; Reitzes, Donald C. (1981) The Link between Identity and Role Performance. In Social
Psychology Quarterly, 44 (2), 83-92
Busenitz, Lowell W. Busenitz; Barney, Jay B. (1997): Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. In Journal of Business
Venturing 12.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14(3), 52-66.
Carland, James W.; Hoy, Frank; Boulton, William R.; Carland, Jo Ann C. (1984): Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners. A Conceptualization. In ACAD MANAGE REV 9 (2), pp. 354–359.
Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in small businesses: an exploratory study. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 21(1), 5-21.
Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know?. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9-26
Chrisman, J. J., Hofer, C. W., & Boulton, W. B. (1988). Toward a system for classifying business strategies. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 413-428.
II
Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 37-46
Collins, Christopher J.; Hanges, Paul J.; Locke, Edwin A. (2004): The Relationship of Achievement Motivation to Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. In Human Performance 17 (1), 95– 117.
Cooney, Thomas (2005): What is an Entrepreneurial Team? In International Small Business Journal 23 (3), pp. 226–235.
Costa, Sílvia Fernandes; Caetano, António; Santos, Susana C (2016): Entrepreneurship as a Career Option: Do Temporary Workers Have the Competencies, Intention and Willingness to Become Entrepreneurs? In The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 129-154
Crant, J. Mich (1996): The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. In
Journal of Small Business Management 34 (3).
Culkin, Nigel; Mallick, Sofie (2011): Producing work-ready graduates: the role of the entrepreneurial university. In International Journal of Market Research 53 (3).
De Jong, Jeroen P.J. (2011): The Decision to Exploit Opportunities for Innovation: A Study of High-Tech Small-Business Owners. In Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37 (2), 281-301 Delmar, Frédéric; Shane, Scott (2004): Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new
ventures. In: Evolutionary approaches to entrepreneurship: Honoring Howard Aldrich (3), 385– 410
Dimov, D. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence: Opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning. In Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1123-1153
Down, S., & Reveley, J. (2004). Generational encounters and the social formation of entrepreneurial identity:‘young guns’ and ‘old farts’. In Organization, 11(2), 233-250.
Ebben, J., Johnson, A. (2006). Bootstrapping in small firms: An empirical analysis of change over time. In Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 851-865
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. In Academy of management
review, 14(1), 57-74.
Feldman, M.S. (2000), “Organisational routines as a source of continuous change”, In Organisation
III
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition. 2 nd Edition. New York, NY: Random House Gaglio CM, Katz J (2001) The psychological basis of opportunity identification: entrepreneurial
alertness. In Small Business Economics 16(2):95–111
Gerring, John (2012): Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Edited by Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 63(2), 15.
Gundry, Lisa K.; Welsch, Harold P. (2001): The ambitious entrepreneur. High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. In Journal of Business Venturing 16 (5), pp. 453–470.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2002). Cultivating a global mindset. The Academy of Management
Executive, 16(1), 116-126.
Halevy, N., Y. Chou, E., & D. Galinsky, A. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. In Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32-52.
Harrison, R., Mason, C., 1997. Entrepreneurial growth strategies and venture performance in the software industry. Paper Presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesley, MA
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, C. (2010): A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. In Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 217-229
Haynie, J. Michael ; Shepherd, Dean A. ; Patzelt, Holger (2012): Cognitive adaptability and an entrepreneurial task: the role of metacognitive ability and feedback. In Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 36(2), 237(29)
Hisrich, R. D. (1990). Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. In American Psychologist, 45(2), 209. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011): Strategic entrepreneurship: creating
value for individuals, organizations, and society. In The Academy of Management Perspectives 25 (2), pp. 57–75.
IV
Hoeve, A., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. (2006). Learning routines in innovation processes. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 18(3), 171-185.
Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. In Journal of Management, 26(2), 215-232. Ireland, R. Duane ; Hitt, Michael A. ; Sirmon, David G. (2003): A model of strategic entrepreneurship:
the construct and its dimensions. In Journal of Management, 29(6), 963(27)
Keogh, Paul Douglas; Polonsky, Michael Jay (1998): Environmental commitment. A basis for environmental entrepreneurship? In Journal of Organizational Change Management 11 (1), pp. 38–49.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Krauss, Stefanie I.; Frese, Michael; Friedrich, Christian; Unger, Jens M. (2005): Entrepreneurial orientation. A psychological model of success among southern African small business owners. In
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14 (3), pp. 315–344.
Krueger, Norris F. (2015): Entrepreneurial education in practice. Part 1 - The entrepreneurial mindset. Entrepreneurship360. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Entrepreneurial-Education-Practice-pt1.pdf, checked on 5/3/2017.
Lord, R.G. & Foti, R.J. (1986). Schema theories, information processing, and organizational behavior, in Sims, H.P. & Gioia D.A. The thinking organization: Dynamics of organizational social cognition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 20-48.
Lumpkin, G. T. (2007). Intrapreneurship and innovation. The psychology of entrepreneurship, 237-264. Martiarena, A. (2013). What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs? Small Business Economics,
40(1), 27-39.
McClelland, D. C (1965). “Need Achievement and Entrepreneurship: A Longitudinal Study,” In Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 1, 389–392.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NY: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C., and D. G. Winter (1969). Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: Free Press.
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty (Vol. 284). Harvard Business Press.
V
McMullen, J. S., & Kier, A. S. (2016). Trapped by the entrepreneurial mindset: Opportunity seeking and escalation of commitment in the Mount Everest disaster. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 663-686.
Meznar, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Carroll, A. B. (1990, August). Social responsibility and strategic management: toward an enterprise strategy classification. In Academy of Management
Proceedings (Vol. 1990, No. 1, pp. 332-336). Academy of Management.
Miner, J.B. (1993). Role Motivation Theories. New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, Graham (2007): Instill the entrepreneurial mindset. In Research Technology Management. Mitchell, Ronald K.; Busenitz, Lowell W.; Lant, Theresa; McDougall, Patricia; Morse, Eric A.; Smith,
Brock J. (2002): Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship Research. In Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27 (2), 93-14.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., Schindehutte, M., & Spivack, A. J. (2012). Framing the entrepreneurial experience. In Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 11-40.
Morse, C. W. (1986). The delusion of intrapreneurship. Long Range Planning, 19(6), 92-95
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co
Neves, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2014). Perceived organizational support and risk taking. In Journal of
managerial psychology, 29(2), 187-205.
Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship?. In Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19-34.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2000), The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Phipps, Simone T. A.; Prieto, Leon C. (2012): Knowledge is power? An inquiry into knowledge management, its effects on individual creativity, and the moderating role of an entrepreneurial mindset. In Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 43(15)
Pinchot, G., III. (1985). Intrapreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. In Organizational
Research Methods, 19(2), 159-203.
Politis, D. (2005): The Process of Entrepreneurial Learning: A Conceptual Framework. In
VI
Quinn. J. B. 1979. Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. In Sioan Management
Review. 20(3): 15-26.
Robinson, K & Aronica, L (2015): Creative Schools: New York Viking.
Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., & Krueger, N. F. (2016). New horizons in entrepreneurship education: from teacher-led to student-centered learning. In Education+ Training, 58(7/8), 661-683.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (Vol. 2).
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934): The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55): Transaction publishers.
Sexton, D. L.; Bowman, N. (1985): The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more. In Journal of
Business Venturing 1, 129–140.
Shams, S. R., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial co-creation: a research vision to be materialised. In Management Decision, 54(6), 1250-1268.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. In
Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Haynie, J. M. (2010). Entrepreneurial spirals: Deviation‐amplifying loops of an entrepreneurial mindset and organizational culture. In Entrepreneurship theory and
practice, 34(1), 59-82.
Sitkin, S.B. and Pablo, A.L. (1992), “Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior”, In
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 9-39.
Smith, J. Brock ; Mitchell, J. Robert ; Mitchell, Ronald K.: Entrepreneurial Scripts and the New Transaction Commitment Mindset: Extending the Expert Information Processing Theory Approach to Entrepreneurial Cognition Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 815-844
Snow, C. C. (2007): Moderator comments: innovation. In Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1, pp. 101–102.
Stevenson, H.H., and Jarillo, J.C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. In Strategic Management Journal 11, 17–27.
VII
Terpstra, David E.; Olson, Philip D. (1993): Entrepreneurial start-up and growth: A classification of problems. In Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 17 (3).
Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. In Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93, 402–414
Vesper, K. H. (1985) 'A new direction, or just a new label?', In J. J. Kao and H. H. Stevenson (eds), Entrepreneurship: What It Is And How To Teach It, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA Watson, John (2007): Modeling the relationship between networking and firm performance. In Journal
of Business Venturing 22 (6), pp. 852–874.
Wood, R., and Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. In Academy
of Management Review, 14, 361–384.
Wright, Mike; Hoskisson, Robert E.; Busenitz, Lowell W. (2001): Firm Rebirth: Buyouts as Facilitators of Strategic Growth and Entrepreneurship. In The Academy of Management Executive 15 (1), pp. 111–125
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. In Journal of business venturing, 6(4), 259-285
Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. In Journal of
VIII
II. Appendix
I.
Table identified literature
Nr. Author Year Journal
1. Costa et al. 2016 The Journal of Entrepreneurship 2. Culkin & Mallick 2011 International Journal of Market Research 3. Haynie et al. 2010 Journal of Business Venturing
4. Hitt et al. 2011 The Academy of Management Perspectives
5. Ireland et al. 2003 Journal of Management
6. McGrath & MacMillan 2000 -*
7. McMullen & Kier 2016 Journal of Business Venturing
8. Mitchell 2007 Research Technology Management
9. Robinson et al. 2016 Education + Training 10. Shams & Kaufmann 2016 Management Decision
11. Shepherd et al. 2008 Academy of Management Learning & Education 12. Sheperd et al. 2010 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
13. Smith et al. 2009 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14. Täks et al. 2014 Journal of Engineering Education 15. Wright et al. 2001 The Academy of Management Executive
*McGrath and MacMillan have published a book, not an article.
II.
Expert
The expert that helped coding the attributes is Dagmar Holmes, who is currently working on her PhD at the Faculty of Economics and Business at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Due to her studies dealing with corporate entrepreneurship and the Entrepreneurial Mindset she was already familiar with the identified articles, as well as with the concept of EMS.
III.
Table identifying attributes
Article Definition Key attributes
Costa et al. (2016)
[…] to promote the creation of entrepreneurial mindsets. Cognitive processes are central for entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs to perceive opportunities and to imagine the outcomes of their businesses.
Perceiving Opportunities Imagination
