Deborah V. Brazeal

Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs

Before there can be entrepreneurship there must be the potential for entrepreneurship, whether in a community seeking to develop or in a large organization seeking to innovate. Entrepreneurial potential, however, requires potential entrepreneurs. This paper discusses antecedents of such potential and proposes a model based on Shaperos (1982) model of the entrepreneurial event. We then discuss this model in light of supporting evidence from two different perspectives, corporate venturing and enterprise development.

The Genesis of Entrepreneurship

The study of entrepreneurship is still in its infancy. Kuhn (1962) points out that fields of knowledge evolve through paradigm competition and the search for better answers to new sets of inquiries, in which the maturing field of entrepreneurship, too, should be engaged. Barriers to evolutionary advances in entrepreneurship include the fields uneven development, its lack of consistency of terminology or method, and its relative isolation from developments in key informing fields. To avoid fragmentation and to enhance the opportunity for the systematic development of the entrepreneurship paradigm, an exploration of its parameters is proposed. Considered are three concepts central to entrepreneurship but heretofore unexamined in an integrated fashion by entrepreneurship researchers. The intent is to explicate their separate and joint conceptual relationships to and means by which they inform or add to the field. A rudimentary process model addressing the factions of change, innovation, and creativity in association with the entrepreneurial event is presented as a fundamental basis for providing continuity and structural consistency to the evolving field of entrepreneurship. Finally, a call is made for careful definitions and explorations of differentiated (but oft-equated) central entrepreneurial terms, processes, and perspectives.

Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures

Abstract If innovation is to be pursued as a long-term strategic move for prosperity rather than a survival tactic in troublesome times, an alternative focus is needed. Energies should be redirected toward maintenance responsibilities involving the overall corporate system rather than limiting efforts to venture initiation activities. While previous studies have investigated correlates of corporate entrepreneurship and its subsequent effect on organizational performance, few researchers have demonstrated any viable means of maintaining internally developed ventures (Biggadike 1979; Jennings et al. 1990; Jennings and Young 1990; Zahra 1991). This research piece posits long-term maintenance of an innovative organization as a joint function of identifying and securing the loyalty of innovative-minded individuals and building appropriate organizational factors (e.g., structural and reward system) to retain them. In order to address this objective, this study examines the relationship between a set of key individual and organizational factors and a set of outcome variables consisting of specific job attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and propensity to leave the organization for two types of managers, autonomous venture managers (AVMs) and departmental managers (DMs). This study surveyed upper middle level managers in Fortune 500 companies in organizational positions where the scope of their positions appeared to include the potential for innovation or autonomous action. Managers were classified as autonomous venture managers (AVMs) or departmental managers (DMs) based on autonomy and independence in decision-making. Managers who were heads of autonomous business units (e.g., venture groups) were classified as AVMs while those who were not heads of such units were classified as DMs. Separate regression equations were constructed relating the set of individual and organizational factors to each of the aforementioned outcome variables for AVMs and DMs. It was hypothesized that significantly different individual and organizational factors would emerge across the outcome variables such that a distinctive response pattern would be present for both types of managers. Regression analysis and Chow tests indicated that only the organizational commitment model was significantly different for AVMs and DMs. The job satisfaction and propensity to leave models were not significantly different for the AVMs and DMs. Consequently, the overriding finding suggests that separate reward and structural alternatives are not necessary or even desirable for the two groups of managers. Further, the individual characteristics for the AVMs and DMs were descriptive of both groups. The challenge for organizational management practices appears to be the careful construction and nurturing of an innovative organizational environment to create potential for creative activities. Explicit actions that management in large, established organizations may take to build effectively an innovative organizational environment include the following: 1. Making available both formal and informal structural outlets for creative activities to all managers. This means actively building venture groups as well as allowing free time to pursue projects of ones own undertaking. 2. Reinforcing the opportunity to engage in innovative activities for all managers via financial and non-financial rewards. 3. Recruiting for corporate entrepreneuring positions within the organization. Collectively, the managers were found to be potentially creative, resourceful individuals interested in innovation.

Managing an entrepreneurial organizational environment: A discriminant analysis of organizational and individual differences between autonomous unit managers and department managers

Abstract Managing an entrepreneurial focus in large, established organizational environments requires innovative finesse in concert with traditional activities. Evidence was generated to determine: (1) what kinds of reward and structural arrangements might differentially influence the performance of different kinds of managers, and (2) what kinds of role requirements, values, and behavioral orientations might differentiate different kinds of managers for training and selection purposes. Upper middle managers in Fortune 500 manufacturing firms were surveyed where the scope of their positions appeared to include the potential for innovation or autonomous action. Manages who were heads of autonomous business units specifically geared towards innovative purposes were classified as autonomous unit managers (AUMs), whereas those who were not heads of such units were classified as departmental managers (DMs). It was hypothesized that specific kinds of formal structural options (venture groups, task forces) and informal structural options (freedom to pursue unofficial projects) as well as financial and recognition awards would more strongly influence the perceived performance of the AUM than the DM. Further, AUMs would exhibit entrepreneurial roles, values, and behavioral orientations to a greater degree than the DMs. A discriminant analysis procedure demonstrated that AUMs prefer formal structural options as outlets for innovative pursuits and financially oriented rewards. Individuals pursuing traditional roles or DMs favored recognition rewards. Goal-setting technques and the ability to conditionally commit resources are advanced as important training areas for AUMs or potential entrepreneurs.

Awakening the Entrepreneurial Spirit: Exploring the Relationship Between Organizational Factors and Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Desirability in a Corporate Setting

While efforts at understanding how the entrepreneurial spirit is awakened (e.g., unwrapping the cognitive “black box”) have been productive in the new venture context, it remains largely unexplored in a corporate setting.This study extends previous research by investigating the relationship between organizational antecedents and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and desirability of entrepreneurial activity. In a field study of organizations consistent with a corporate entrepreneurial archetype typology, we found that (1) individual work discretion and time availability impacted entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and (2) individual interest in work innovation influenced perceived desirability of innovative behaviors.