Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A system dynamics perspective of corporate entrepreneurship

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Models of corporate entrepreneurship have continued to advance in their ability to delineate the elements and relationships that comprise entrepreneurial activities within existing organizations; however, prior research has been limited in introducing the complexity present in these activities. In particular, feedback from discontinued and implemented opportunities has rarely been included and/or integrated with individual, organizational, and strategic variables in existing corporate entrepreneurship frameworks. We propose a system dynamics perspective to explain how entrepreneurship occurs within organizations. To accomplish this, we employ a framework that includes the four main activities of opportunity recognition, assessment, legitimation, and implementation. Feedback loops are used to show the connection to strategic assessment and entrepreneurial renewal that portray corporate entrepreneurship as an integration of entrepreneurial and strategic efforts. This model integrates a variety of perspectives that have been utilized in the literature and allows for activation at any point in the system dynamics process. In this paper, we provide theoretical background for our model, discuss our contributions to the literature, and suggest how scholars may implement and enhance this framework in future research efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adegbesan, J. A. (2009). On the origins of competitive advantage: Strategic factor markets and heterogeneous resource complementarity. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 463–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aharoni, Y. (1993). In search for the unique: Can firm-specific advantages be evaluated? Journal of Management Studies, 30(1), 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alterowitz, R. (1988). New corporate ventures. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arentz, J., Sautet, F., & Storr, V. (2013). Prior knowledge and opportunity identification. Small Business Economics, 41, 461–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1178–1192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, B. B., & Gresock, A. R. (2008). Formalizing the front-end of the entrepreneurial process using the stage-gate model as a guide. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J. (2007). The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 703–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhardwaj, B. R., & Momaya, K. (2011). Drivers and enablers of corporate entrepreneurship: Case of a software giant from India. Journal of Management Development, 30(2), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2007). What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blettner, D. P., He, Z., Hu, S., & Bettis, R. A. (2015). Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points. Strategic Management Journal, (forthcoming).

  • Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 299–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W., & Goodstein, J. (1991). Organizational performance and adaptation: Effects of environment and performance on changes in board composition. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 805–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borch, O. J., Huse, M., & Senneseth, K. (1999). Resource configuration, competitive strategies, and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical examination of small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, S. C. (1986). Entrepreneuring in established companies: Managing toward the year 2000. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinckmann, J., & Hoegl, M. (2011). Effects of initial teamwork capability and initial relationship capability on the development of new technology-based firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5, 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1986). Managing corporate entrepreneurship: New structures for implementing technological innovation. In M. Horwitch (Ed.), Technology in the modern corporation (pp. 1–13). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Sayles, L. R. (1986). Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure, and managerial skills. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciabuschi, F., Forsgren, M., & Martin, O. M. (2011). Rationality vs ignorance: The role of MNE headquarters in subsidiaries’ innovation processes. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 958–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2013). New products: What separates the winners from the losers and what drives success. In K. B. Kahn (Ed.), The PDMA handbook of new product development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. C. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. C., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2007). The conflicting cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, J. M., Exelby, D., & Holt, J. (1999). System dynamics in defence analysis: Some case studies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, 372–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dailey, L., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 385–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals: Different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures. Organization Science, 5(2), 148–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Carolis, D. M., Yang, Y., Deeds, D. L., & Nelling, E. (2009). Weathering the storm: The benefit of resources to high-technology ventures navigating adverse events. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, E., & Sterman, J. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, D. K., & Crossan, M. M. (2005). The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4, 425–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1958). Industrial dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Business Review, 36(4), 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Theory and Decision, 2, 109–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2008). Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganotakis, P., & Love, J. H. (2012). The innovation value chain in new technology-based firms: Evidence from the U.K. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 839–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gary, M. S. (2005). Implementation strategy and performance outcomes in related diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 26(7), 643–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (1986). Sustainable advantage. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gielnik, M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., & Kampshulte, A. (2012). Creativity in the opportunity identification process and the moderating effect of diversity information. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 559–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. (1999). The effect of core change on performance: Inertia and regression toward the mean. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 590–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W.D., & Ginsberg, A., (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15 (special issue).

  • Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Frederickson, J. W. (1993). Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanan, M. (1976). Venturing corporations—Think small to stay strong. Harvard Business Review, 54(3), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayton, J. C., & Kelley, D. J. (2006). A competency-based framework for promoting corporate entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 407–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Decision comprehensiveness and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1289–1314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. M., & Hlavacek, J. D. (1972). The venture team: A new concept in marketing organization. The Journal of Marketing, 36, 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2), 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Holt, D. T., & Wales, W. J. (2013). Assessing a measurement of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 937–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 236–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992). Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772–792.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1985). Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 7–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, J. J. (1991). The entrepreneurial organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: a family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. K. (2001). Breaking through boundaries for organizational innovation: New managerial roles and practices in e-commerce firms. Journal of Management, 27, 347–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koberg, C. S. (1987). Resource scarcity, environmental uncertainty, and adaptive organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 798–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F. (1993). Intrapreneurship: developing innovation in the corporation. Advances in Global High Technology Management: High Technology Venturing, 3, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanza, A., & Passarelli, M. (2014). Technology change and dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(3), 427–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K. (2008). Relevance of organizational capabilities and its dynamics: What to learn from entrants’ product portfolios about the determinants of entry timing. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1257–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiblein, M. J., & Madsen, T. L. (2009). Unbundling competitive heterogeneity: Incentive structures and capability influences on technological innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 711–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. In W. R. Scott & J. Blake (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (Vol. 14, pp. 319–340). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., Maggitti, P. G., Smith, K. G., Tesluk, P. E., & Katila, R. (2013). Top management attention to innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 893–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liguori, M. (2012). The supremacy of the sequence: Key elements and dimensions in the process of change. Organization Studies, 33(4), 507–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, M. (2006). A play of four areas: How complexity can serve management development. Management Learning, 37(1), 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyneis, J. M. (1999). System dynamics for business strategy: A phased approach. System Dynamics Review, 15(1), 37–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T. (1995). The management of resources and the resources of management. Journal of Business Research, 33, 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, F. H. (1998). New product diffusion models in innovation management—A system dynamics perspective. System Dynamics Review, 14(4), 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, S. K., Ward, S. J., Aiman-Smith, L., & Kingon, A. I. (2010). The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 402–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrifield, D. B. (1993). Intrapreneurial corporate renewal. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 383–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, S. J., & Glynn, M. A. (1993). The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, revolution, and evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter’s business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A. S. (1994). Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolutionary theory and managerial action. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 76–89). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson/SouthWestern Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Mason, OH: SouthWestern Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H., van Vuuren, J., Cornwall, J. R., & Scheepers, R. (2009). Properties of balance: A pendulum effect in corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 52, 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, P. (1994). Implementing a stage-gate process: A multi-company perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: Towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 142–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R., & Berger, D. (1972). Entrepreneurship in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinchot, G., & Pellman, R. (1999). Intrapreneuring in action: A handbook for business innovation. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. (1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. Sloan Management Review, 20(3), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabeh, H. A. D., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Martínez-Costa, M. (2013). Managing knowledge for a successful competence exploration. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 195–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Organization Science, 13(2), 109–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseneau, M. D., Griffin, A., Castellion, G. A., & Anschuetz, N. F. (1996). The PDMA handbook of new product development. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1986). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomo, S., Talke, K., & Strecker, N. (2008). Innovation field orientation and its effect on innovativeness and firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 560–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering entrepreneurship in the large, diversified firm. Organizational Dynamics, 18(1), 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sathe, V. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: The role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 241–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 209–223). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity recognition. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(1), 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Ketchen, D., Shook, C., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). The concept of “opportunity” in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36, 40–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., & Cao, Q. (2007). An entrepreneurial perspective on the firm-environment relationship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souitaris, V., & Maestro, B. M. M. (2010). Polychronicity in top management teams: The impact on strategic decision processes and performance of new technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 652–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. (1965). Organizational growth and development. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (Vol. 19). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmons, J. (1994). New venture creation (4th ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 304–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A., Parboteeah, K. P., Riesenhuber, F., & Hoegl, M. (2011). Championship behaviors and innovations success: An empirical investigation of university spin-offs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4), 586–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2009). Organizational diversity and shared vision: Resolving the paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 86–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisenfeld, B. M., Wurthmann, K. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2008). The stigmatization and devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 231–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M., & Farr, J. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4, 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G. (1998). Dynamic visioning for dynamic environments. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(4), 354–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 725–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship: Where are we? Where can we go from here? Management, 6, 357–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovation and organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mark Truitt Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    James M. Bloodgood

  2. Henry W. Bloch/Missouri Endowed Chair, Department of Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Henry W. Bloch School of Management, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, 64110, USA

    Jeffrey S. Hornsby

  3. Department of Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Henry W. Bloch School of Management, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, 64110, USA

    Andrew C. Burkemper & Hessam Sarooghi

Authors
  1. James M. Bloodgood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey S. Hornsby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew C. Burkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hessam Sarooghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James M. Bloodgood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bloodgood, J.M., Hornsby, J.S., Burkemper, A.C. et al. A system dynamics perspective of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 45, 383–402 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9634-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9634-4

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation