Internal corporate venture planning autonomy, strategic evolution, and venture performance

Abstract

Theory and research typically suggest that internal corporate (ICV) venture managers should be granted the freedom needed to manage their new business initiatives as they choose, with little or no interference from senior levels of corporate management. The current research investigates the relationship between venture planning autonomy and venture performance, arguing that this relationship is affected by the types (i.e., goal related or value proposition related) and levels (low-to-high) of strategic evolution occurring in the ICV. Data collected from 145 ICVs operating in 72 corporations indicate that venture planning autonomy is most positively related to venture performance when those ICVs’ goals remain stable over the course of venture operations, but the value propositions of those ICVs are evolving.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Bhide, A. (1994). How entrepreneurs craft strategies that work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 150–161.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bhide, A. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Birkinshaw, J., & Hill, S. A. (2005). Corporate venturing units: vehicles for strategic success in the new Europe. Organizational Dynamics, 34(3), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Block, Z., & MacMillan, I. (1993). Corporate venturing. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bouchard, V., & Fayolle, A. (2018). Corporate entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burgelman, R. A. (1988). Strategy making as a social learning process: the case of internal corporate venturing. Interfaces, 18(3), 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burgelman, R. A., & Valikangas, L. (2005). Managing internal corporate venturing cycles. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Jr., Kuratko, D. F., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Value proposition evolution and the performance of internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 749–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Jr., Gupta, J. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). The interdependence of planning and learning among internal corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(4), 537–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gard, J., Katzy, B., Andersen, T. J., Baltes, G. H., & Gasser, T. (2018). Corporate venture management in small-medium sized enterprise: the roles and effects of autonomy and corporate policy. In The 24th ICE/IEEE International Technology Management Conference.

  12. Garrett, R. P., Jr., & Covin, J. G. (2015). Internal corporate venture operations independence and performance: a knowledge-based perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 763–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Garrett, R. P., Jr., & Neubaum, D. O. (2013). Top management support and initial strategic assets: a dependency model for internal corporate venture performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 896–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Garud, R., & Van De Ven, A. H. (1992). An empirical evaluation of the internal corporate venturing process. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Garvin, D. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2006). Meeting the challenge of corporate entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 102–112.

    Google Scholar 

  16. George, R., & MacMillan, I. C. (1985). Corporate venturing: venture management challenges. Journal of Business Strategy, 6(2), 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ginsberg, A., & Hay, M. (1994). Confronting the challenges of corporate entrepreneurship. European Management Journal, 12(4), 382–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Glaister, K. W., Husan, R., & Buckley, P. J. (2003). Decision-making autonomy in UK international equity joint ventures. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hill, S. A., & Georgoulas, S. (2016). Internal corporate venturing: a review of (almost) five decades of literature. In S. A. Zahra, J. Hayton, & D. O. Neubaum (Eds.), Handbook of corporate entrepreneurship (pp. 13–63). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson, K. L. (2005). Predicting internal corporate venture performance: process, resource, strategic and structural considerations. Unpublished dissertation, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

  22. Johnson, K. L. (2012). The role of structural and planning autonomy in the performance of internal corporate ventures. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(3), 469–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kanter, R. M. (1989). Swimming in newstreams: mastering innovation dilemmas. California Management Review, 31(4), 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kiss, A. N., & Barr, P. S. (2015). New venture strategic adaptation: the interplay of belief structures and industry context. Strategic Management Journal, 36(8), 1245–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Garrett, R. P., Jr. (2009). Corporate venturing: insights from actual performance. Business Horizons, 52(5), 459–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leten, B., & Van Dyck, W. (2012). Corporate venturing: strategies and success factors. Review of Business and Economic Literature, 57(4), 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R., & Akgun, A. E. (2000). Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(2), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. MacMillan, I. C., & George, R. (1985). Corporate venturing: challenges for senior managers. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McGrath, R. G. (1995). Advantage from adversity: learning from disappointment in internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McGrath, R. G., Keil, T., & Tukiainen, T. (2006). Extracting value from corporate venturing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation (3rd ed.). Mason: Cengage/Southwestern Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design: how to create products and services customers want. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Payne, A., Frow, P., & Egger, A. (2017). The customer value proposition: evolution, development, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 467–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Piercy, N. F. (2016). Market-led strategic change: transforming the process of going to market. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Certo, S. T. (2014). The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1070–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Gurney, J. (1999). Succeeding at internal corporate venturing: roles needed to balance autonomy and control. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(2), 145.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regressions. In D. W. K. Andrews & J. H. Stock (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models (pp. 80–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sykes, H. B. (1986). The anatomy of a corporate venturing program: factors influencing success. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(3), 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2001). A dynamic perspective of internal fit in corporate venturing. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Weiss, L. A. (1981). Sloan Management Review 23(1), 37–53.

  47. Wiklund, J., Baker, T., & Shepherd, D. (2010). The age-effect of financial indicators as buffers against the liability of newness. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zook, C., Allen, J., Earle, N., & Keen, P. (2001). Profit from the core. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey G. Covin.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 4 Internal corporate venture identification matrix

Appendix 2

Measures

Unless otherwise indicated, the scale items were assessed using 7-point scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (= 1) to “strongly agree” (= 7).

Venture performance: Please respond to the statements below in reference to the venture in question. Because defunct ventures will have performed variously well prior to their expiration/termination, I am asking you to complete the following scale even if the venture in question is no longer operating. If the venture is defunct, please indicate how you would have evaluated the venture at the time of its expiration/termination. Indicate your level of agreement (by circling the appropriate number) with each statement based on the following scale:

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• This venture generally meets (or met) the expectations of the parent corporation.

• The parent corporation views (or viewed) this venture as being successful, overall.

• The parent corporation believes (or believed) that this venture achieved its key milestones (i.e., events crucial to the venture’s successful development) on schedule for each stage of its development.

• This venture is performing (or performed) well in terms of the criteria (e.g., financial returns, market share, learning/acquisition of new knowledge) the parent corporation considers (or considered) important to the venture’s success.

Venture planning autonomy

The sole responsibility of a higher level(s) of authority within the corporation    Equally the responsibility of a higher level(s) of authority within the corporation and venture-level management    The sole responsibility of venture-level management
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Who is (was) responsible for each of the following venture activities and decision areas?

  • Setting of the venture’s goals

  • Establishment of a timetable (if applicable) for the achievement of the venture’s goals

  • Choice of formal criteria used to measure the venture’s performance

  • Identification of event milestones (if any) used to assess the venture’s progress

  • Formulation of the venture’s business strategy

  • Decision to change (if necessary) the venture’s business strategy

Venture goal evolution: (1) The venture’s strategic objectives have (had) evolved considerably over time in accommodation of new knowledge acquired in the course of the venture’s operations. (2) The focus of the venture’s objectives has (had) changed considerably as the venture has (had) developed. (3) The venture’s objectives have (had) remained constant from the time they were initially set/established (reverse-coded item).

Venture value proposition evolution: (1) The venture’s value proposition—i.e., the intended basis on which it would appeal to the market—has (had) evolved considerably over time in accommodation of new knowledge acquired in the course of the venture’s operations. (2) The focus of the venture’s value proposition has (had) changed considerably as the venture has (had) developed. (3) The venture’s value proposition has (had) remained constant from the time it was initially set/established (reverse-coded item).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Covin, J.G., Garrett, R.P., Kuratko, D.F. et al. Internal corporate venture planning autonomy, strategic evolution, and venture performance. Small Bus Econ 56, 293–310 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00220-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurship
  • Corporate entrepreneurship
  • Performance
  • Planning autonomy

JEL classification

  • L26