The objective of the research was to discover the chief determinants of entrepreneurship, the process by which organizations renew themselves and their markets by pioneering, innovation, and risk taking. Some authors have argued that personality factors of the leader are what determine entrepreneurship, others have highlighted the role played by the structure of the organization, while a final group have pointed to the importance of strategy making. We believed that the manner and extent to which entrepreneurship would be influenced by all of these factors would in large measure depend upon the nature of the organization. Based upon the work of a number of authors we derived a crude typology of firms: Simple firms are small and their power is centralized at the top. Planning firms are bigger, their goal being smooth and efficient operation through the use of formal controls and plans. Organic firms strive to be adaptive to their environments, emphasizing expertise-based power and open communications. The predictiveness of the typology was established upon a sample of 52 firms using hypothesis-testing and analysis of variance techniques. We conjectured that in Simple firms entrepreneurship would be determined by the characteristics of the leader; in Planning firms it would be facilitated by explicit and well integrated product-market strategies, and in Organic firms it would be a function of environment and structure. These hypotheses were largely borne out by correlational and multiple regression analyses. Any programs which aim to stimulate entrepreneurship would benefit greatly from tailoring recommendations to the nature of the target firms.entrepreneurship, contingency theory, planning, organizational studies

Two very different models of product innovation are postulated and tested. The conservative model assumes that innovation is performed reluctantly, mainly in response to serious challenges. It therefore predicts that innovation will correlate positively with environmental, information processing, structural and decision making variables that represent, or help to recognize and cope with these challenges. In contrast, the entrepreneurial model supposes that innovation is always aggressively pursued and will be very high unless decision makers are warned to slow down. Thus negative correlations are predicted between innovation and the variables that can provide such warning. Correlational and curvilinear regression analyses revealed that each model was supported by conservative and entrepreneurial sub‐samples, respectively, in a diverse sample of 52 Canadian firms.

A review of recent literature on the corporate life cycle disclosed five common stages: birth, growth, maturity, revival, and decline. Theorists predicted that each stage would manifest integral complementarities among variables of environment ("situation"), strategy, structure and decision making methods; that organizational growth and increasing environmental complexity would cause each stage to exhibit certain significant differences from all other stages along these four classes of variables; and that organizations tend to move in a linear progression through the five stages, proceeding sequentially from birth to decline. These contentions were tested by this study. A sample of 161 periods of history from 36 firms were classified into the five life cycle stages using a few attributes deemed central to each. Analyses of variance were performed on 54 variables of strategy, structure, environment and decision making style. The results seemed to support the prevalence of complementarities among variables within each stage and the predicted inter-stage differences. They did not, however, show that organizations went through the stages in the same sequence.organizational life cycle, corporate strategy, evolution of strategy, structure and environment

Whereas much is known about the relationships between strategy and structure, and between environment and structure, too little is known about a third link—the relationship between strategy‐making and environment. An empirical study was conducted upon two distinct samples of firms. We hypothesized that increases in environmental dynamism, hostility and heterogeneity should be related to specific changes in the amount of analysis and innovation which characterizes strategy‐making activity. Most of these relationships tended to be much stronger in successful than in unsuccessful samples of firms.