1999
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199905)20:5<421::aid-smj30>3.0.co;2-o
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management

Abstract: This study examines the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship intensity and five specific strategic management practices in a sample of 169 U.S. manufacturing firms. The five strategic management practices include: scanning intensity, planning flexibility, planning horizon, locus of planning, and control attributes. The results of the study indicated a positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship intensity and scanning intensity, planning flexibility, locus of planning, and strategic cont… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

22
575
2
24

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 800 publications
(623 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(114 reference statements)
22
575
2
24
Order By: Relevance
“…Miller (1983) defined an entrepreneurial firm as one that "engages in product market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with 'proactive' innovations, beating competitors to the punch" (p. 771). From this definition, scholars have repeatedly pinpointed and studied three core dimensions said to classify an EO these being risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness (e.g., Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999;Covin and Slevin, 1989;Naman and Slevin, 1993;Wiklund, 1999;Wiklund andShepherd, 2003, 2005;Zahra and Covin, 1995). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) on the other hand argue that a coherent classification of an EO consists of five dimensions not three.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Miller (1983) defined an entrepreneurial firm as one that "engages in product market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with 'proactive' innovations, beating competitors to the punch" (p. 771). From this definition, scholars have repeatedly pinpointed and studied three core dimensions said to classify an EO these being risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness (e.g., Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999;Covin and Slevin, 1989;Naman and Slevin, 1993;Wiklund, 1999;Wiklund andShepherd, 2003, 2005;Zahra and Covin, 1995). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) on the other hand argue that a coherent classification of an EO consists of five dimensions not three.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The more that an entrepreneurial orientation is encouraged; the more information businesses tend to gain regarding customer needs and competitor information (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999). Moreover, there firms have an organizational culture that allows employees to share and use basic information regarding market orientation (Menon & Varadara-jan, 1992).…”
Section: The Relationship Between Entrepreneurial and Market Orientatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous literature has already studied the necessity of creating an inner environment that is conducive to internal entrepreneurship and individual commitment to sustainable corporate entrepreneurship (Alpkan et al, 2010). A successful intrapreneurial spirit can only be possible if a suitable internal support climate is established where intrapreneurs engage in opportunity-seeking entrepreneurial behaviours, as in the case of independent entrepreneurs discovering important challenges and opportunities (Zahra, 1991;Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999;Jeong et al, 2006). When these efforts are supported and coordinated by managers, these endeavours will result in sustainable competitive advantages through innovation in the form of new products, services, and processes (Quinn, 1985;Hornsby et al, 2002;Rhee et al, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%