G. T. Lumpkin

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has received substantial conceptual and empirical attention, representing one of the few areas in entrepreneurship research where a cumulative body of knowledge is developing. The time is therefore ripe to document, to review, and to evaluate the cumulative knowledge on the relationship between EO and business performance. Extending beyond qualitative assessment, we undertook a meta–analysis exploring the magnitude of the EO–performance relationship and assessed potential moderators affecting this relationship. Analyses of 53 samples from 51 studies with an N of 14,259 companies indicated that the correlation of EO with performance is moderately large (r = .242) and that this relationship is robust to different operationalizations of key constructs as well as cultural contexts. Internal and environmental moderators were identified, and results suggest that additional moderators should be assessed. Recommendations for future research are developed.

Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: tests of contingency and configurational models

This field study explores the nature of entrepreneurial strategy making (ESM) and its relationship with strategy, environment and performance. In the first phase, we assess the independence of entrepreneurially oriented strategy-making processes through factor analysis. The second phase, using moderated hierarchical regression anlaysis, investigates the relative predictive power of two approaches for exploring the ESM–performance relationship: contingency and configuration. Findings from a sample of 32 firms competing in a wide variety of industries indicate that configurational approaches that align ESM, strategy, and environment have greater predictive power than contingency approaches. However, not all high performing configurations are consistent with normative theory. Thus, alternate theories linking entrepreneurial strategy making to competitive advantage should be developed and tested.

Enhancing Entrepreneurial Orientation Research: Operationalizing and Measuring a Key Strategic Decision Making Process

As a means to enhance prescriptive theory on a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation, this paper addresses the strengths and weaknesses of three approaches to measurement: managerial perceptions, firm behaviors, and resource allocations. We examine a set of recent studies employing these approaches, propose important contingencies regarding their use, and suggest that measurement accuracy can be improved by using a triangulation of methods. The paper concludes with a discussion of theoretical, resource availability, and interpretability considerations in measurement selection.

Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom?

Innovation implies newness. To define and measure innovation better, we investigated three dimensions of newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom? Drawing on prior research by Schumpeter and Kirzner, we developed a scale that addresses six areas of innovative activity: new products, new services, new methods of production, opening new markets, new sources of supply, and new ways of organizing. Using factor analysis on data from two separate field studies – 684 firms from eight industries and 200 information technology firms – we found that innovation as newness represents a unidimensional construct, distinguished only by the degree of radicalness.

The Role of Organizational Learning in the Opportunity- Recognition Process

Firms engage in entrepreneurship to increase performance through both strategic renewal and the creation of new venture opportunities. Organizational learning (OL) has become an effective avenue for strategic renewal. But what of creating venture opportunities—can OL enhance the process of recognizing and pursuing new ventures? This article argues that OL can strengthen a firms ability to recognize opportunities and help equip them to effectively pursue new ventures. First, we identify three approaches to OL—behavioral, cognitive, and action. Then, we introduce a creativity–based model of opportunity recognition (OpR) that includes two phases—discovery and formation. Next, we show how each of the three types of learning is linked to the two phases of OpR. We suggest propositions that support our claim that OL enhances OpR and offer examples of firms that have used these organizational–learning approaches to more effectively recognize and pursue venture opportunities. These insights have important implications for entrepreneurial firms seeking to advance the venture–creation process.

Linking Corporate Entrepreneurship to Strategy, Structure, and Process: Suggested Research Directions

We endeavor to propose counterintuitive ideas or, alternatively, deny the “assumption bases” (Davis, 1971) of ETPs readers. Major sections of the paper suggest research questions concerning strategies, structures, and processes in the context of corporate entrepreneurship (CE). The issues we propose include: Are cost leadership strategies and corporate entrepreneurship inherently at odds? Are contemporary organizational forms always more compatible with CE than traditional structures? and; How can the normative guidance that permeates the popular press on entrepreneurial processes lead managers astray? Corporate entrepreneurships unique relationship to strategy, structure, and process issues and future research questions are discussed.

Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory and Research: Reflections on a Needed Construct

This article introduces the Special Issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice on the topic of Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO). In addition to overviewing the preparation and structure of the Special Issue, this article addresses various substantive matters pertinent to the continuing development of EO theory and research including (1) the issue of whether EO is more defensibly conceived of as a dispositional or behavioral construct; (2) the reasons why EO is regarded by some as an “annoying construct,” and what might be done about it; (3) the reasons why the concept of EO fills an important gap in the literature on firm–level entrepreneurship; (4) a proposal that EO theory and research proceed along two concurrent paths corresponding the unidimensional and multidimensional conceptualizations of the construct; (5) a review of EO measurement issues focused on why, in particular, it is problematic to conceive of and measure EO as a formative construct; and (6) a brief consideration of both marginal–value and high–potential topic areas for future EO theory and research.

Technology Entrepreneurs' Human Capital and its Effects on Innovation Radicalness

Radical innovations transform existing markets, create new markets, and stimulate economic growth. This study investigates how the experience, education, and prior knowledge of technology entrepreneurs relate to innovation radicalness. Findings from a sample of 145 technology entrepreneurs operating within university–affiliated incubators suggest that general and specific human capital are both vital to innovation outcomes. Innovation radicalness was positively associated with formal education and prior knowledge of technology, but negatively associated with prior knowledge of ways to serve markets. This suggests a counterintuitive conclusion—the less technology entrepreneurs know about ways to serve a market, the greater their chances of using technology knowledge to create breakthrough innovations within it. Finally, we discuss configurations of human capital that are likely to bestow unique advantages in the construction of radical innovations.

Understanding and Measuring Autonomy: An Entrepreneurial Orientation Perspective

Autonomy is an important component of an entrepreneurial orientation (EO), but most studies that assess the EO construct do not include autonomy measures. This article first addresses the theoretical relevance of autonomy as an element of firm–level entrepreneurial behavior. After a review of existing autonomy measures, it then proposes scale items to test the autonomy dimension of EO. Finally, it reports the results of two studies of the proposed autonomy scale and addresses implications for future EO–related autonomy research.

Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses

Long-term orientation (LTO), defined as the tendency to prioritize the long-range implications and impact of decisions and actions that come to fruition after an extended time period, is a common characteristic of many family businesses. Prior research is equivocal regarding whether an LTO contributes to or detracts from family firm outcomes. Of particular interest is the extent to which family business can be entrepreneurial given an LTO. Drawing on the concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO), propositions that relate long- and short-term management time horizons of family firms to five dimensions of EO (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy) are developed. Specifically, we propose that an LTO will be positively associated with innovativeness, proactiveness, and autonomy but negatively associated with risk taking and competitive aggressiveness. We also address the long- and short-term implications of EO on the performance of family firms, and identify issues to consider in future research into the EO–LTO relationship.