managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions and job ... · managers’ corporate ... a...

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1, 275–291, 2005c© 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The United States.

Managers’ Corporate Entrepreneurial Actionsand Job Satisfaction

DONALD F. KURATKO∗ [email protected] School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405

JEFFREY S. HORNSBY [email protected] College of Business, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306

JAMES W. BISHOP [email protected] of Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003

Abstract. Through the development and extension of theories and scholars’ subsequent empirical analysesof significant, theoretically grounded research questions, the knowledge about corporate entrepreneurship(CE) and its successful use continues to advance. Moreover, the literature suggests important relationshipsbetween the corporate environment, managers’ entrepreneurial behavior and successful implementation ofcorporate entrepreneurship actions. In an attempt to test some of those relationships, we describe an empiricalstudy of 523 managers that examines the relationships among the antecedents to managers’ entrepreneurialbehavior, a decision to implement entrepreneurial actions, and resulting job satisfaction and reinforcementpractices.

Through the development and extension of theories and scholars’ subsequent empiri-cal analyses of significant, theoretically grounded research questions, knowledge aboutcorporate entrepreneurship and its successful use continues to expand. However, de-spite the espoused and observed positive effects of CE, issues remain if we are to fullyunderstand this construct’s promise (Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra, 2002; Zahra, 1991;Zahra, Nielsen and Bogner, 1999). Moreover, outcome factors that influence an or-ganization’s willingness to continue implementing a CE strategy as well as managers’willingness to continue engaging in entrepreneurial behavior have not been integratedto enhance our understanding of CE practices. Also, a fundamental ambiguity existsin the literature concerning what it means, in a theoretical sense, to have CE as a firm’sstrategy (Meyer and Heppard, 2000). As such, while there is a broadly held belief inthe need for and inherent value of entrepreneurial action on the part of established or-ganizations (Hitt, Ireland, Camp and Sexton, 2001; Morris and Kuratko, 2002), muchremains to be revealed about how CE strategy is enacted in organizational settings. Inour present study, we review the existing literature and present an empirical study of

∗Corresponding author. Donald F. Kuratko, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN 47405.

276 KURATKO, HORNSBY AND BISHOP

523 managers that examines the relationships among the antecedents to managers’ en-trepreneurial behavior, a decision to implement entrepreneurial actions, and resultingjob satisfaction and reinforcement practices.

The concept of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has evolved over the last thirty years(Hanan, 1976; Hill and Hlavacek, 1972; Peterson and Berger, 1972; Quinn, 1979). CEwas defined early on as a process of organizational renewal (Sathe, 1989). Zahra (1991)observed that “corporate entrepreneurship may be formal or informal activities aimedat creating new businesses in established companies through product and process inno-vations and market developments. These activities may take place at the corporate, divi-sion (business), functional, or project levels, with the unifying objective of improving acompany’s competitive position and financial performance.” Other researchers concep-tualize CE as embodying entrepreneurial behavior requiring organizational sanctionsand resource commitments for the purpose of developing different types of value-creating innovations (Alterowitz, 1988; Borch, Huse and Senneseth, 1999; Burgelman,1984; Jennings and Young, 1990; Kanter, 1985; Schollhammer 1982). This conceptual-ization of CE is consistent with Damanpour’s (1991, p. 556) perspective that corporateinnovation is a very broad concept that includes “. . . the generation, development andimplementation of new ideas or behaviors. An innovation can be a new product or ser-vice, an administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizationalmembers.” In this context, CE centers on re-energizing and enhancing the firm’s abilityto develop the skills through which innovations can be created. CE is linked to firms’efforts to establish sustainable competitive advantages as the foundation for profitablegrowth (Ireland, Kuratko and Covin, 2003; Kuratko, 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott,1985; Zahra, 1991). More comprehensively, Sharma and Chrisman (1999, p. 18) sug-gested that CE “is the process where by an individual or a group of individuals, inassociation with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate re-newal or innovation within that organization.” Guth and Ginsberg (1990) stressed thatCE encompasses two major types of phenomena: new venture creation within exist-ing organizations and the transformation of on-going organizations through strategicrenewal. In this paper, we argue that managers’ entrepreneurial behavior is critical toeffective CE, regardless of the primary reason (either the creation of new ventures orstrategic renewal) it is being pursued.

Entrepreneurial actions

Entrepreneurial actions are any newly fashioned set of actions through which companiesseek to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities that rivals have not noticed or exploited.Entrepreneurial actions constitute a “. . . fundamental behavior of firms by which theymove into new markets, seize new customers, and/or combine (existing) resourcesin new ways” (Smith and Di Gregorio, 2002). Three key dimensions—innovativeness(the seeking of creative solutions to problems or needs), risk-taking (the willingnessto commit significant levels of resources to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities with

MANAGERS’ CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 277

a reasonable chance of failure), and proactiveness (doing what is necessary to bringpursuit of an entrepreneurial opportunity to completion)—underlie entrepreneurialactions (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Morris and Kuratko,2002).

The relationship between entrepreneurial actions and performance in large organi-zations has been assessed differently across time. During the 1980s, some (e.g., Duncan,Ginter, Rucks and Jacobs, 1988; Morse, 1986) argued that it was difficult for people toact entrepreneurially in bureaucratic organizational structures. During this same timeperiod others suggested that for companies of any size, entrepreneurial actions werepossible, should be encouraged, and could be expected to enhance firm performance(Burgelman, 1984; Kanter, 1985; Kuratko and Montagno, 1989).

A significant change in the general perception of the value of entrepreneurial actionsas a predictor of firm performance took place throughout the 1990s. This was a timeduring which companies were redefining their businesses, thinking about how to mosteffectively use human resources and learning how to compete in the global economy. Inshort, this was a time during which “some of the world’s best-known companies had toendure painful transformation to become more entrepreneurial. These companies hadto endure years of reorganization, downsizing, and restructuring. These changes alteredthe identity or culture of these firms, infusing a new entrepreneurial spirit throughouttheir operations. . . change, innovations, and entrepreneurship became highly regardedwords that describe what successful companies must do to survive” (Zahra, Kuratkoand Jennings, 1999, p. 5).

Increasingly, organizations are committing to the position that entrepreneurial ac-tions are essential if they are to first survive and then achieve competitive success in aworld that is being driven by accelerating change (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999; Ire-land, Hitt, Camp and Sexton, 2001; Lyon, Lumpkin and Dess, 2000). Entrepreneurialactions do not occur in a vacuum; rather, they take place within the context of theorganization’s full array of actions (Dess, Lumpkin and Covin, 1997). Establishing aninternal environment in large, established organizations that elicits and nurtures en-trepreneurial actions is challenging and requires appropriate decisions (Sathe, 1985).However, as we demonstrate in this study, entrepreneurial actions are a product oforganizational antecedents. Furthermore, we argue that managers’ entrepreneurial ac-tions can be a source of competitive advantage for a firm over its rivals (Floyd andWooldridge, 1994; Kuratko, Ireland, Covin and Hornsby, 2005).

Role of managers in corporate entrepreneurship

Managers at all organizational levels have critical strategic roles to fulfill for the orga-nization to be successful (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Ireland, Hitt and Vaidyanath, 2002).According to Floyd and Lane (2000), upper-, middle-, and lower-level managers havedistinct responsibilities with respect to each subprocess. Upper-level managers haveratifying, recognizing, and directing roles corresponding to the competence defini-tion, modification, and deployment subprocesses, respectively. These roles, in turn, are


associated with particular managerial behaviors. The specific managerial behaviorsthrough which upper-level managers’ ratifying, recognizing, and directing roles are ex-pressed, as described by Floyd and Lane (2000), are too numerous to fully review here.However, as examples, upper-level managers articulate strategic intent and endorseand support others’ entrepreneurial behavior as part of their ratifying role; they setstrategic direction and empower and enable others as part of their recognizing role;and they plan and deploy resources as part of their directing role. Burgelman (1984)contends that in successful corporate entrepreneurship upper-level management’s prin-cipal involvement takes place within the strategic and structural context determinationprocesses.

In summary, upper-level managers have multiple and critical roles in CE activity.These managers are responsible for the articulation of an entrepreneurial strategicvision and instigating the emergence of a pro-entrepreneurship organizational archi-tecture.

In examining the role of middle-level managers, research highlights the importanceof middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior to the firm’s attempt to create newbusinesses or reconfigure existing ones (Ginsberg and Hay, 1994; Kanter, 1985; Floydand Wooldridge, 1992; Pearce, Kramer and Robbins, 1997). This importance manifestsitself both in terms of the need for middle-level managers to behave entrepreneuriallythemselves and the requirement for them to support and nurture others’ attempts to dothe same. Middle-level managers’ work as change agents and promoters of innovationis facilitated by their organizational centrality.

According to Floyd and Lane (2000), middle-level managers have championing rolescorresponding to the competence definition subprocess, synthesizing and facilitatingroles corresponding to the competence modification subprocess, and implementingroles corresponding to the competence deployment subprocess. Middle-level managers’championing role is expressed through, for example, their nurturing and advocating ofentrepreneurial initiatives. The synthesizing and facilitating roles are expressed through,for example, middle-level managers’ categorizing and selling of issues to upper-levelmanagement and their sharing of information and guiding of adaptation processes,respectively. Finally, the implementing role is expressed through, for example, middle-level managers’ motivation, inspiration, and coaching of lower-level organizationalmembers.

In examining the role of lower-level managers, they are often the catalysts behindautonomous entrepreneurial initiatives. In Floyd and Lane’s (2000) model, lower-levelmanagers have experimenting roles corresponding to the competence definition sub-process, adjusting roles corresponding to the competence modification subprocess, andconforming roles corresponding to the competence deployment subprocess. Lower-level managers’ experimenting role is expressed through, for example, the initiating ofentrepreneurial projects. The adjusting role is expressed through, for example, lower-level managers’ responding to recognized and unplanned entrepreneurial challenges.Finally, the conforming role is expressed through, for example, lower-level managers’adaptation of operating policies and procedures to the strategic initiatives endorsed athigher organizational levels.


Thus, organizations pursuing CE strategies exhibit a cascading yet integrated setof entrepreneurial behaviors and associated processes at the upper-, middle-, andlower-levels of management. Working jointly, upper-, middle-, and lower-level man-agers are responsible for verifying that some of today’s resources and capabilities areused to form the core competencies through which future competitive success can bepursued.

Organizational antecedents

Research has examined the organizational antecedents that affect (either by promotingor impeding) the breadth and depth of entrepreneurial actions that are taken withinthe firm at a point in time to pursue CE (Zahra, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Zahraet al., 1999). This research has studied different internal organizational factors in-cluding the firm’s incentive and control systems (Sathe, 1985), culture (Brazeal, 1993;Hisrich and Peters, 1986; Kanter, 1985), organizational structure (Covin and Slevin,1991; Dess, Lumpkin and McGee, 1999; Naman and Slevin, 1993), and managerial sup-port (Kuratko, Hornsby, Naffziger and Montagno, 1993; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990).Because they affect the nature of the firm’s internal environment, these factors, bothindividually and in combination, are recognized as antecedents of the entrepreneurialactions on which CE is built. An internal environment supportive of innovation tendsto have strong antecedents of entrepreneurial actions while an environment that dis-misses innovation and its importance yields weak antecedents of entrepreneurial ac-tions (Hornsby et al., 2002).

The research literature has been developing our understanding of organizationalantecedents of entrepreneurial actions (Hornsby, Kuratko and Montagno, 1999; Ire-land et al., 2003; Kuratko, Montagno and Hornsby, 1990). An integrated review andanalysis of the literature demonstrates a grouping of five major categories or dimen-sions that are considered antecedents to entrepreneurial actions (see Table 1 for a listof the five dimensions and the research supporting each one). These dimensions are:(1) the appropriate use of rewards to elicit and then support entrepreneurial actions; (2)managerial support, which indicates the willingness of managers, especially upper-levelexecutives, to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial actions; (3) available resources,including the time required to continuously engage in entrepreneurial actions; (4) asupportive organizational culture, which is a culture that is organic rather than mech-anistic in nature; and (5) work discretion (autonomy and risk taking), the ability orwillingness on the part of managers, based upon their job descriptions, to take risks inthe pursuit of innovation and to tolerate and learn from failures.

Based on earlier exploratory theoretical (Hornsby, Naffziger, Kuratko andMontagno, 1993) and empirical (Kuratko et al., 1990) work that was completed toincrease our knowledge about the antecedents of managers’ entrepreneurial behav-ior, Hornsby et al. (2002) executed an empirical study that was designed to identifyantecedents of entrepreneurial behavior on the part of middle-level managers. In thisstudy the authors developed a Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument


Table 1. Internal organizational antecedents.

Factor Research citations

Rewards/reinforcement Scanlan, 1981; Souder, 1981; Kanter, 1985; Sathe, 1985; Block andOrnati, 1987; Fry, 1987; Sykes, 1992; Barringer and Milkovich, 1998;Covin and Miles, 1999; and Kuratko, Ireland and Hornsby, 2001.

Top management support Souder, 1981; Quinn, 1985; Hisrich and Peters, 1986; MacMillan, Blockand Narasimha, 1986; Sykes, 1986; Sathe, 1989; Sykes and Block, 1989;Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Damanpour, 1991, Kuratko et al, 1993;Pearce, Kramer and Robbins, 1997; Lyon, Lumpkin and Dess, 2000;Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Kuratko et al., 2001; and Morris andKuratko, 2002.

Resources/time availability Von Hippel, 1977; Souder, 1981; Kanter, 1985; Sathe, 1985; Burgel-man and Sayles, 1986; Hisrich and Peters, 1986; Sykes, 1986; Katz andGartner, 1988; Sykes and Block, 1989; Damanpour, 1991; Stopfordand Baden-Fuller, 1994; Das and Teng, 1997; and Slevin and Covin,1997.

Organizational culture Souder, 1981; Burgelman, 1983; Sathe, 1985; Burgelman and Sayles,1986; Hisrich and Peters, 1986; Schuler, 1986; Sykes, 1986; Bird, 1988;Sykes and Block,1989; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Covin and Slevin,1991; Damanpour, 1991; Zahra, 1991, 1993; Zahra and Covin, 1995;Brazeal, 1993; Kuratko, 1993; Hornsby et al., 1993; Hornsby et al.,1999; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Hornsby et al., 2002; and Hornsbyand Kuratko, 2003.

Work discretion (autonomy) Burgelman, 1983, 1984; Kanter, 1985; Quinn, 1985; Sathe, 1985;MacMillan, Block and Narasimha, 1986; Sykes, 1986; Bird, 1988; El-lis and Taylor, 1988; Sathe, 1989; Sykes and Block, 1989; Stopford andBaden-Fuller, 1994; Hornsby et al., 1999; Zahra, Kuratko and Jennings,1999; Morris and Kuratko, 2002; and Hornsby et al., 2002.

(CEAI) which contained 84 Likert style questions that were used to assess antecedentsof entrepreneurial behavior. Results from the factor analyses by Hornsby et al. (2002)suggested that the five dimensions developed in Table 1 were in fact stable antecedentsof middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior.

However, it should be noted that managers will engage in entrepreneurial actionsonly when the organizational antecedents to those actions exist and when managersare aware of their existence (Kuratko et al., 2005). Recognizing and interpreting theantecedents as indications of an internal environment supporting entrepreneurial ac-tions results in individuals assessing their entrepreneurial capacities in reference to whatthey perceive to be is a set of organizational resources, opportunities, and obstacles toengaging in entrepreneurial actions (Chen, Greene and Crick, 1998). Thus, our firstset of hypotheses is based upon the literature supporting the five dimensions and theimportance of their perception by managers.

H1a, b, c, d, e: The perceptions of a corporate entrepreneurial environment will bepositively related to job satisfaction.


H1a: Management support will be positively related to job satisfaction.H1b: Work discretion will be positively related to job satisfaction.H1c: Rewards/reinforcement will be positively related to job satisfaction.H1d: Time availability will be positively related to job satisfaction.H1e: Organizational boundaries will be positively related to job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction and entrepreneurial actions

An individual’s job satisfaction could have a mediating effect on the ability of a CEenvironment to spur entrepreneurial actions or performance. While the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and performance has been a persistent “chicken and egg”question, recent research suggests that job satisfaction and performance are moderatelyrelated and mutually influence each other (Judge, Thoresen, Bono and Patton, 2001a,b). Also, a recent meta-analysis by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) suggests therelationship between job satisfaction and performance is understated due to incompletemeasures of individual performance. Based on these recent findings, an important stepin the CE research would be to investigate the impact of a manager’s perceived jobsatisfaction on entrepreneurial performance.

Several recent studies examined the viability of the job satisfaction-performancerelationship. These studies support Harter et al. (2002) contention that the relationshipis more complex and that the analysis suffers from poor measures of both constructs.Furthermore, the research suggests that many variables may mediate and or moderatethe relationship.

Judge, Bono and Locke (2000) derived a model that suggested job complexity or chal-lenge was an important explanatory variable in the relationship between core self evalu-ations (a combination of self esteem, self efficacy, locus of control, and low neuroticism)and job satisfaction and that this relationship persists over time. Griffin (2001) repli-cated earlier work by Burke, Brief and George (1993) and Spector, Chen and O’Connell(2000). They found that dispositions and excessive job demands were related to workreactions including job satisfaction.

Judge et al. (2001b) derived a new model to conceptualize the satisfaction—performance relationship. Based on a meta-analytic study, they suggest a “bidirec-tional” relationship that includes a series of moderators and mediators. Mediatorssuggested to affect the satisfaction to performance relationship include behavioralintentions, low performance, withdrawal, and positive mood. Moderators suggestedinclude personality, autonomy, norms, moral obligation, cognitive accessibility, ag-gregation and level of analysis. On the other hand, mediators suggested to affect theperformance-satisfaction relationship include achievement, self efficacy, goal progress,and positive mood. Moderators include performance-reward contingency, job char-acteristics, need for achievement, work centrality, and aggregation. One other resultwas that the satisfaction—performance relationship was stronger for more complexjobs. In spite of the research completed on job satisfaction and performance there hasnot been any attempt to examine the link between job satisfaction and the corporate


entrepreneurial actions of managers. Thus, a second hypothesis was developed basedupon the mediating effect of job satisfaction on the corporate entrepreneurial environ-ment and entrepreneurial actions.

H2: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationships between perceptions of a corporateentrepreneurial environment and entrepreneurial actions.

For the purposes of this study entrepreneurial actions were measured by items de-veloped by the authors. Each action was measured by a single item in which the re-spondents were asked (1) the number of new ideas suggested, (2) the number of newideas implemented, and (3) the number of improvements implemented without officialorganizational approval. In each case the participants were asked to respond with thenumber of these actions that had occurred over the past six months. In this manner ameasure could be used of entrepreneurial actions in relation to job satisfaction. Thus,a third set of hypotheses were developed based upon these measures of entrepreneurialactions.

H3a, b, c: Job satisfaction will be positively related to entrepreneurial actions.H3a: Job satisfaction will be positively related to the number of new ideas suggested.H3b: Job satisfaction will be positively related to the number of ideas implemented.H3c: Job satisfaction will be positively related to the number of unofficial improvements

implemented.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the organiza-tional antecedents that create a corporate entrepreneurial environment, as identifiedin Hornsby et al. (1999, 2002) and Ireland, Kuratko and Covin (2003), and the en-trepreneurial actions taken by managers. Also of interest in this study is the relation-ship between the existence of a corporate entrepreneurial environment and a manager’sperception of job satisfaction. The model we will test and the hypotheses stated aboveare shown in Figure 1.

Methods

The sample for this study was taken from approximately 670 managers who participatedin continuing education and training programs for managers conducted by a largeMidwestern university. Participation in the survey was voluntary and approximately80% of those eligible (530 individuals) chose to do so. Seven surveys were incompleteand were discarded, leaving a usable sample of 523. The average age of the respondentswas 39.6 years, 75% were male, average organizational tenure was 12.2 years, and theaverage time in their current positions was 4.5 years. 30% described themselves as


Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

lower level managers; 45%, mid-level managers; and 13%, senior-level managers. (12%declined to respond to this item)

Measures

The Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI) (Hornsby, Kuratkoand Zahra, 2002) was used to measure the organizational factors that foster corpo-rate entrepreneurial activity within a company. Upper-level management support forcorporate entrepreneurship was measured by 19 items (α = .90), work discretion wasmeasured by 10 items (α = .87), rewards/reinforcement was measured by 6 items(α = .73), time availability was measured by 6 items (α = .77), and organizationalboundaries was measured by 7 items (α = .63). For each of these five scales, the par-ticipants responded to a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from “stronglydisagree” to “strongly agree.” Job satisfaction was measured by the Minnesota JobSatisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1967) (α = .88). A 5-point Likert scale was used with the responses ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “verysatisfied.” Entrepreneurial actions were measured by items developed by the authors.Each action was measured by a single item in which the respondents were asked (1)the number of new ideas suggested, (2) the number of new ideas implemented, and (3)the number of improvements implemented without official organizational approval. Ineach case the participants were asked to respond with the number of these actions thathad occurred over the past six months. Descriptive statistics and correlations amongthe variables are shown in Table 2.


Table 2. Means, standard deviation, correlations, and measures of reliability among the study variables.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Management 2.84 0.60 (.90)support

Work discretion 3.66 0.62 0.53∗∗∗ (.87)Rewards/ 3.44 0.64 0.56∗∗∗ 0.43∗∗∗ (.73)

reinforcementTime availability 2.55 0.73 0.23∗∗∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗ (.77)Organizational 3.01 0.53 0.31∗∗∗ 0.34∗∗∗ 0.43∗∗∗ 0.26∗∗∗ (.63)

boundariesJob satisfaction 3.72 0.53 0.59∗∗∗ 0.61∗∗∗ 0.66∗∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗ 0.47∗∗∗ (.88)New ideas 4.95 7.19 0.10∗ 0.11∗ 0.11∗∗ −0.08 0.07 0.10∗ n/aNew ideas 2.95 4.72 0.19∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗ 0.17∗∗∗ −0.01 0.09∗ 0.13 0.70∗∗∗ n/a

implementedUnofficial 4.14 6.49 0.15∗∗∗ 0.20∗∗∗ 0.07 0.00 0.09∗ 0.15 0.34∗∗∗ 0.32∗∗∗ n/a

improvements

∗ p < .05.∗∗ p < .01.∗∗∗ p < .001.Coefficient Alphas appear in parentheses in the diagonal.

Results

Measurement model

In order to test our hypothesized model, we formed manifest indicators as described byBishop, Scott, Goldsby and Cropanzano (2005) and subjected them to a confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA). We formed 4 manifest indicators from the management supportitems, 3 from the work discretion items, 2 each from the rewards/reinforcement, timeavailability, and organizational boundaries items, and 4 from the job satisfaction items.Using a covariance matrix derived from these indicators we estimated a measurementmodel. The results indicate that the model fit the data well: χ2

(104) = 210.57, root meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA) = .044, non-normed fit index (NNFI) =.99 and comparative fit index (CFI) = .99. The model shown in Figure 2 shows themeasurement and structural portions of the model.

Structural model

We tested our hypotheses by estimating the model shown in Figure 2. Again, the modelfit the data well: χ2

(152) = 280.78, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)= .040, non-normed fit index (NNFI) = .99, and comparative fit index (CFI) = .99.Since γ12 and γ13 were significant, hypotheses 1b and 1c, respectively, were supported,while hypotheses 1a, 1d, and 1e were not supported because γ11, γ14, and γ15 were not


Figure 2. Hypothesized model showing manifest indicators.

significant. Also established from Figure 2, Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c were supportedsince β21, β31, and β41 were all significant.

Using Figure 3, Hypothesis 2 received partial support because the indirect effectsof work discretion on the number of new ideas (γ12β21 = .039 ± .035), the num-ber of ideas implemented (γ12β31 = .056 ± .035), and the number of unofficial im-provements (γ12β41 = .056 ± .035) were significant as were the indirect effects of re-wards/reinforcement on the number of new ideas (γ13β21 = .056 ± .051), the numberof ideas implemented (γ13β31 = .080 ± .052), and the number of unofficial improve-ments (γ13β41 = .080 ± .052). The indirect effects of the other 3 exogenous variableson the entrepreneurial actions were not significant. Their values were not calculatedbecause the direct effects of the exogenous variables on job satisfaction were notsignificant.

Discussion

Corporate entrepreneurship is not always successful (Block and MacMillan, 1993;Morris and Kuratko, 2002), yet it has to start somewhere—sometimes small andcorporate controlled. But if it starts, managers become more comfortable with theidea, confidence builds, results occur, and soon the first corporate assigned projectsevolve into more autonomous ventures that reach farther out before being required


Figure 3. Structural path estimates of the hypothesized model.

to form administrative structure. The major thrust behind corporate entrepreneur-ship is a revitalization of innovation, creativity, and leadership in today’s corpora-tions. It appears that corporate entrepreneurship may possess the critical componentsneeded for the future productivity of growth-minded organizations. If so, then rec-ognizing the antecedents and outcomes of CE activity as they relate to managersmay be most important in establishing entrepreneurial strategies in contemporaryorganizations.

Our focus has been on the antecedents, actions, and outcomes related to manage-rial performance. The findings of this research effort suggest that work discretion andrewards/reinforcement lead to higher perceived job satisfaction and that this height-ened satisfaction results in increased entrepreneurial actions. Specifically, there is anincrease in the number of new ideas suggested, the number of new ideas implementedand the number of unofficial improvements made. These findings and the resultingmodel advance the research in the area of organizational antecedents and the viabilityof the CE process. The results indicate that greater emphasis on these antecedents canlead to more internal entrepreneurial behavior thus adding to the validity of such CEantecedents suggested by Hornsby et al. (2002) and others.

Furthermore, the results from this study are consistent with the job satisfaction re-search. In this case, job satisfaction has a mediating effect between environment (asmeasured by the antecedents) and performance. The findings emphasize the impor-tance of providing positive rewards and reinforcement and increased work discretionwhen attempting to influence the satisfaction of managers. One possible explanationwhy management support, organizational boundaries and time availability were not


significantly related to job satisfaction could be that the nature of the managerial roleprovides more control over these issues and therefore would not directly impact amanager’s job satisfaction.

Some suggestions for future research include continuing to develop and refine per-formance measures as they relate to entrepreneurial actions. As Harter et al. (2002)concluded the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is underestimateddue to the accuracy or inadequacy of the performance measures applied. Correspond-ingly, the measurement of entrepreneurial actions could also be improved. Also, furtherresearch should investigate how findings such as those described here sustain an overallCE strategy. While these results suggest that individual manager satisfaction plays animportant role in the CE process, corporate satisfaction with outcomes must also beresearched. The importance of this line of research is supported by Ginsberg’s (1988)strategic change model in that performance outcomes serve as feedback mechanismsfor either sustaining the current strategy or selecting an alternative one.

To conclude, many organizations are choosing to embrace innovation andentrepreneurial actions as central aspects of their corporate strategies, as well theyshould given conditions in their external environments. How such strategies differ frommore traditional corporate strategies has only recently become the subject of broad dis-cussion, and much remains to be learned about the matter. Toward this end, this paperoffers an empirical examination of a key relationship between a corporation’s environ-mental antecedents and corporate entrepreneurial actions with job satisfaction as amediator. While this study is limited in its scope, it does promote new understandingof the topic and will prompt meaningful future discussions.

References

Alterowitz, R. 1988. New corporate ventures. New York: Wiley.Antoncic, B. & Hisrich, R.D. 2002. Intrapreneurship: Constructive refinement and cross-cultural validation.

Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 495–527.Barringer, B.R. & Bluedorn, A.C. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic

Management Journal, 20: 421–444.Barringer, M.W. & Milkovich, G.T. 1998. A theoretical exploration of the adoption and design of flexible

benefit plans: A case of human resource innovation. Academy of Management Review, 23: 305–324.Bird, B. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review,

13: 442–453.Bishop, J.W., Scott, K.D., Goldsby, M.G. & Cropanzano, R.L. 2005. A construct validity study of commit-

ment and perceived support variables: A multi-foci approach across different team environments. Groupand Organization Management, 30(2): 153–180.

Block, Z. & MacMillan, I. 1993. Corporate venturing. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Block, Z. & Ornati, O.A. 1987. Compensating corporate venture managers. Journal of Business Venturing,

2: 41–51.Borch, O.J., Huse, M. & Senneseth, K. 1999. Resource configuration, competitive strategies, and corporate

entrepreneurship: An empirical examination of small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(1):49–70.

Brazeal, D.V. 1993. Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,8: 75–90.


Burgelman, R.A. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a processstudy. Management Science, 23: 1349–1363.

Burgelman, R.A. 1984. Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms. California ManagementReview, 26(3): 154–166.

Burke, M.J., Brief, A.P. & George, J.M. 1993. The role of negative affectivity in understanding relationsbetween self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78: 402–412.

Burgelman, R.A. & Sayles, L.R. 1986. Inside corporate innovation: strategy, structure, and managerial skills.New York: The Free Press.

Casson, M. 1982. The entrepreneur. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble Books.Chen, C.C., Greene, P. & Crick, A. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from

managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 295–316.Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 16(1): 7–25.Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3): 47–64.Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinant and moderators.

Academy of Management Journal, 34: 355–390.Das, T.K. & Teng, B.S. 1997. Time and entrepreneurial risk behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

22(2): 69–88.Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. & Covin, J.G. 1997. Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance:

Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 677–695.Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. & McGee, J.E. 1999. Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure,

and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3): 85–102.Duncan, W.J., Ginter, P.M., Rucks, A.C. & Jacobs, T.D. 1988. Intrapreneuring and the reinvention of the

corporation. Business Horizons, 31(3): 16–21.Ellis, R.J. & Taylor, N.T. 1988. Success and failure in internal venture strategy: An exploratory study. Frontiers

of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, Mass: Babson College, pp. 518–533.Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. 1992. Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with

strategic type. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 53–168.Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. 1994. Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s strategic

role. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4): 47–57.Floyd, S.W. & Lane, P.J. 2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic

renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25: 154–177.Fry, A. 1987. The Post-it-Note: An intrapreneurial success. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3):

4–9.Ginsberg, A. 1988. Measuring and modeling changes in strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical

directions. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 559–575.Ginsberg, A. & Hay, M. 1994. Confronting the challenges of corporate entrepreneurship: Guidelines for

venture managers. European Management Journal, 12: 382–389.Griffin, M.A. 2001. Disposition and work reactions: A multilevel approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86: 1142–1151.Guth, W.D. & Ginsberg A. 1990. Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special

Issue): 5–15.Hanan, M. 1976. Venturing: Think small to stay strong. Harvard Business Review, 54(3): 139–148.Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satis-

faction, employee engagement and business outcomes: A meta-analysis Journal of Applied Psychology,April: 268–279.

Hill, R.M. and Hlavacek, J.D. 1972. The venture team: A new concept in marketing organizations. Journalof Marketing, 36: 44–50.

Hisrich, R.D. & Peters, M.P. 1986. Establishing a new business venture unit within a firm. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 1: 307–322.


Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. & Sexton, D.L. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurialstrategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(Special Issue): 479–491.

Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. & Montagno, R.V. 1993. An interactive model of the corporateentrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2): 29–37.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. & Montagno, R.V. 1999. Perception of internal factors for corporate en-trepreneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,24(2): 9–24.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. & Zahra, S.A. 2002. Middle managers’ perception of the internal environmentfor corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 49–63.

Hornsby, J.S. & Kuratko, D.F. 2003. The influence of entrepreneurial environment on job satisfaction,reinforcement practices and behaviors. Paper presented at the United States Association for Small Businessand Entrepreneurship, Hilton Head, S.C.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. & Covin, J.G. 2003. Antecedents, elements, and consequences of corporateentrepreneurship strategy. Best Paper Proceedings: Academy of Management, Annual Meeting, SeattleWashington.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M. & Sexton, D.L. 2001. Integrating entrepreneurship actions andstrategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1): 95–106.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. & Vaidyanath, D. 2002. Strategic alliances as a pathway to competitive success.Journal of Management, 28: 413–446.

Jennings, D.F. & Young, D.M. 1990. An empirical comparison between objective and subjective measuresof the product innovation domain of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,15(1): 53–66.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. & Patton, G.K. 2001a, The job satisfaction-job performance rela-tionship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, May: 376–407.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. & Patton, G.K. 2001b, The job satisfaction—job performance rela-tionship: A qualitative quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 127: 376-407.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. & Locke, E.A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of jobcharacteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237–249.

Kanter, R.M. 1985. Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 1: 47–60.

Katz, J. & Gartner, W.B. 1988. Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13:429–441.

Kuratko, D.F. & Montagno, R.V. 1989. The intrapreneurial spirit. Training and Development Journal, 43(10):83–87.

Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V. & Hornsby, J.S. 1990. Developing an entrepreneurial assessment instrumentfor an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue):49–58.

Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W. & Montagno, R.V. 1993. Implementing entrepreneurial think-ing in established organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1): 28–33.

Kuratko, D.F. 1993. Intrapreneurship: Developing innovation in the corporation. Advances in Global HighTechnology Management: High Technology Venturing, 3: 3–14.

Kuratko, D.F, Ireland, R.D. & Hornsby, J.S. 2001. Improving firm performance through entrepreneurialactions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4): 60–71.

Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. & Hornsby, J.S. 2005. A model of middle-level managers’ en-trepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(6).

Lyon, D.W., Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. 2000. Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operational-izing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of Management, 26: 1055–1085.

Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it toperformance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 135–172.

MacMillan, I.C., Block, Z. & Narasimha, P.N. 1986. Corporate venturing: Alternatives, obstacles encoun-tered, and experience effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 177–191.

Merrifield, D.B. 1993. Intrapreneurial corporate renewal. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 383–389.


Meyer, G.D. & Heppard, K.A. 2000. Entrepreneurship as strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. 2002. Corporate entrepreneurship. Mason, OH: South-Western College

Publishers.Morse, C.W. 1986. The delusion of intrapreneurship. Long Range Planning, 19(6): 92–95.Naman, J. & Slevin, D. 1993. Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic

Management Journal, 14: 137–153.Pearce, J.A., Kramer, T.R. & Robbins, D.K. 1997. Effects of managers’ entrepreneurial behavior on subor-

dinates. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 147–160.Peterson, R. & Berger D. 1972. Entrepreneurship in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16:

97–106.Pinchott, G. 1985. Intrapreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.Quinn, J.B. 1985. Managing innovation: Controlled Chaos. Harvard Business Review, 63(3): 73–84.Quinn, J.B. 1979. Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. Sloan Management Review,

20(3): 19–30.Sathe, V. 1989. Fostering entrepreneurship in large diversified firm. Organizational Dynamics, 18(1): 20–32.Sathe, V. 1985. Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: Nurturing entrepreneurship and control in large

corporations. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 636–656.Scanlan, B.K. 1981. Creating a climate for achievement. Business Horizons, 24(2): 5–9.Schollhammer, H. 1982. Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton & K. Vesper (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Schuler, R.S. 1986. Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations: Implications for organi-

zation structure and human resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 25: 607–629.

Sharma, P. & Chrisman, J.J. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporateentrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3): 11–28.

Slevin, D.P. & Covin, J.G. 1997. Time, growth, complexity, and transitions: Entrepreneurial challenges forthe future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(2): 53–68.

Smith, K.G. & Di Gregorio, D. 2002. Bisociation, discovery and the role of entrepreneurial action. In M.A.Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset:130–150. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Souder, W. 1981. Encouraging entrepreneurship in large corporations. Research Management, 24(3):18–22.

Spector, P.E., Chen, P.Y. & O’Connell, B.J. 2000. A longitudinal study of relations between job stressors andjob strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85:211–218.

Stevenson, H.H. & Jarillo, J.C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strate-gic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue): 17–27.

Stopford, J.M. & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. 1994. Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic ManagementJournal, 15: 521–536.

Sykes, H.B. 1986. The anatomy of a corporate venturing program. Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 275–293.Sykes, H.B. & Block, Z. 1989. Corporate venturing obstacles: Sources and solutions. Journal of Business

Venturing, 4: 159–167.Sykes, H.B. 1992. Incentive compensation for corporate venture personnel. Journal of Business Venturing, 7:

253–265.Von Hippel, E. 1977. Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: An empirical analysis. Industrial

Marketing Management, 6: 163–174.Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.P. & Lofquist, L.H. 1967. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.Zahra, S.A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study.

Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 259–286.Zahra, S.A. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: A taxonomic ap-

proach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 319–340.


Zahra, S.A. & Covin, J.G. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performancerelationship: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10: 43–58.

Zahra, S.A., Kuratko, D.F. & Jennings, D.F. 1999. Entrepreneurship and the acquisition of dynamic orga-nizational capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3): 5–10.

Zahra, S.A., Neilsen, A.P. & Bogner, W.C. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competencedevelopment. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3): 169–189.

managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions and job ... · managers’ corporate ... a...

Documents