Skip to main content
Log in

The moderating role of entrepreneurial management in the relationship between absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship: an attention-based view

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite a growing interest in corporate entrepreneurship, we know little of how managers can better utilise their firm’s absorptive capacity to increase levels of corporate entrepreneurship. Building on the attention-based view, we investigate entrepreneurial management as an attentional driver to channel absorptive capacity towards corporate entrepreneurship. From the analysis of a sample of 298 supplier companies providing products and services to the mining industries in Australia and Iran, we observed that absorptive capacity fosters corporate entrepreneurship. Our findings also demonstrate that the dimensions of entrepreneurial management differentially affect the relationship between absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship. The results show that a firm’s absorptive capacity in tandem with other organisational factors may generate higher levels of corporate entrepreneurship.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Item deleted after factor analysis.

References

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Small Business in Australia Cat. 1321.0. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1990). Matching compensation and organizational strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 11(2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2008). An attention-based view of real options reasoning. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 606–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biedenbach, T., & Müller, R. (2012). Absorptive, innovative and adaptive capabilities and their impact on project and project portfolio performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 621–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blunch, N. (2012). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics and AMOS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  • Bojica, A. M., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., & Fernández-Pérez, V. (2017). Corporate entrepreneurship and codification of the knowledge acquired from strategic partners in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. W., Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Swinging a double-edged sword: The effect of slack on entrepreneurial management and growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalisation of Stevenson’s conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behaviour. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 953–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruining, H., Verwaal, E., & Wright, M. (2013). Private equity and entrepreneurial management in management buy-outs. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Valikangas, L. (2005). Venturing cycles. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgers, J. H., & Covin, J. G. (2016). The contingent effects of differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgers, J. H., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 206–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Bu, M., Wu, S., & Liang, X. (2015). How does TMT attention to innovation of Chinese firms influence firm innovation activities? A study on the moderating role of corporate governance. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1127–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19(4), 915–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2016). Perceptions of adverse work conditions and innovative behavior: The buffering roles of relational resources. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40(3), 515–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. The Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (Eds.). (2000). The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M. (1995). Thought worlds colliding: The role of contradiction in corporate innovation processes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1453–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V. J., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2017). Analysis of the influence of the environment, stakeholder integration capability, absorptive capacity, and technological skills on organizational performance through corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0436-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1993). Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 401–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2013). Top management compositional effects on corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of perceived technological uncertainty. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 837–855.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? The Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, J., & Ocasio, W. (2012). Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: General Electric from 1951 to 2001. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 633–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., Bjornali, E. S., & Erikson, T. (2015). Joining forces: Top management team and board chair characteristics as antecedents of board service involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3), 420–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The re-identification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Ariza-Montes, J. A., Roldán, J. L., & Leal-Millán, A. G. (2014). Absorptive capacity, innovation and cultural barriers: A conditional mediation model. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 763–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J., Welsch, H., & Stoica, M. (2003). Organizational absorptive capacity and responsiveness: An empirical investigation of growth-oriented SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, Y. A. N., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational leadership's role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luk, C. L., Yau, O. H., Sin, L. Y., Tse, A. C., Chow, R. P., & Lee, J. S. (2008). The effects of social capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 589–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maula, M. V. J., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). Top management's attention to discontinuous technological change: Corporate venture capital as an alert mechanism. Organization Science, 24(3), 926–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzei, M. J., Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (2017). Understanding strategic entrepreneurship: A “theoretical toolbox” approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 631–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 586–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., Achtenhagen, L., & Davidsson, P. (2014). International corporate entrepreneurship among SMEs: A test of Stevenson's notion of entrepreneurial management. Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeters, C., Massini, S., & Lewin, A. Y. (2014). Sources of variation in the efficiency of adopting management innovation: The role of absorptive capacity routines, managerial attention and organizational legitimacy. Organization Studies, 35(9), 1343–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, H., & Acs, Z. J. (2013). An absorptive capacity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, C. R., & Guo, C. (2011). Middle managers’ strategic role in the corporate entrepreneurial process: Attention-based effects. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1586–1610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., Mcmullen, J. S., & Ocasio, W. (2017). Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportunity beliefs for strategic action. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3), 626–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 653–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge-based capital for corporate entrepreneurship effects on performance: A study of small- to medium-sized firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. (2007). The impact of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack’s pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1398–1424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2009). The role of an entrepreneurially alert information system in promoting corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 810–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R., Moray, N., Bruneel, J., & Clarysse, B. (2015). Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1006–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. H. (1983). A perspective on entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper #9-384-131.

  • Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multi-business firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedesco, L., & Haseltine, C. (2010). An economic survey of companies in the Australian mining technology services and equipment sector, 2006–07 to 2008–09 (ABARE-BRS research report). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences.

  • Teng, B. S. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valliere, D. (2015). Entrepreneurial sensegiving and the attention contract. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Engleman, R. (2004). Central problems in managing corporate innovation and entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 7, 47–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W., & De Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J., Parida, V., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Too much of a good thing? Absorptive capacity, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(5), 622–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, L. Q., & Ling, Y. (2015). CEO characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship in transition economies: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1157–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Research notes and commentaries: Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1713–1735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship as knowledge creation and conversion: The role of entrepreneurial hubs. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 727–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 248–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the inputs of Per Davidsson and the participants of the ACERE Paper Development Workshop on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal Sakhdari.

Appendices

Measures and items of independents and dependent variables

Corporate Entrepreneurship (Zahra 1996)

Over the last three years we have…

pioneered the development of breakthrough innovation in our industry.

been among the first to implement new processes.

been leading in the area of product and process innovations.

introduced a large number of new products and services to the market.

entered new domestic markets.

found new niches in current markets.

established or sponsored new domestic ventures.

diversified into new industries in Australia/Iran.

entered new foreign markets.

expanded our international operations.

supported start-up business activities dedicated to international operations.

changed our strategy.

initiated several programs to improve our productivity.

reorganised operations to ensure increased coordination and communication across our company.

redefined our portfolio of activities.

Absorptive capacity (Biedenbach and Müller 2012)

Acquisition

We frequently scan the environment for new technologies.

We quickly recognise trends in our industry.

We thoroughly collect industry information.

We have information on the state-of-the-art of external technologies.

Assimilation

We frequently interact with external sources to acquire knowledge.

We periodically organise meetings with external partners to acquire new knowledge.

Employees regularly approach external institutions to acquire technological knowledge.

We often gain new knowledge from interaction with our customers.Footnote 1

Maintenance

We record and store newly acquired knowledge for future reference.

We preserve relevant knowledge over time.

We communicate relevant knowledge across our company.

Reactivation

When recognising a business opportunity, we can quickly draw on our existing knowledge.

We are proficient in reactivating existing knowledge for new uses.

We quickly understand new opportunities to serve our customers with existing technologies.

Transmutation

We are proficient in transforming technological knowledge into new products or services.

We regularly match new technologies with ideas for new products or services.

We quickly recognise the usefulness of new external knowledge to our existing knowledge.

Application

Our employees readily share their expertise to develop new products or services.

We regularly apply new technologies in new products or services.

We easily implement technologies in new products or services.

It is well known who can best exploit new technologies inside our company.

Entrepreneurial management (Brown et al. 2001)

Growth strategy

 Growth is our top objective.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Long term survival is our top objective. ®

 Our intention is to grow as big and as fast as possible.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Our intention is to expand via steady and sure growth. ®

Strategic orientation

 Our resources drive our business strategies.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Opportunities drive our business strategies.

 We limit the opportunities we pursue on the basis of our current resources.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We try not to be constrained by our current resources when pursuing opportunities.

 Our major strategic concern is how to best utilise the resources we control.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Our major strategic concern is to pursue opportunities we perceive as valuable.

Resource orientation

 We typically commit resources in a step by step manner when pursuing opportunities.a

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We typically invest heavily when pursuing opportunities. ®

 All we need from resources is the ability to use them.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We prefer to control and own the resources we use. ®

 We prefer to employ resources that we borrow or rent.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We prefer to only use our own resources. ®

 In exploiting opportunities, we feel that having the idea is more important than just having the money.a

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

In exploiting opportunities, we feel that access to money is more important than just having the idea. ®

Management structure

 We prefer tight control by means of sophisticated control and information systems.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We prefer loose, informal control by means of informal relations.

 We strongly emphasise getting things done by following formal processes and procedures.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We strongly emphasise getting things done even if this means disregarding formal procedures.

 There is a strong insistence on a uniform management style throughout the firm.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Managers’ operating styles are allowed to range freely from very formal to very informal.

 There is a strong emphasis on getting line and staff personnel to adhere closely to their formal job descriptions.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

There is strong tendency to let the requirements of the situation and the personality of the individual dictate proper job behaviour.

 We strongly emphasise holding to tried and true management principles and industry norms.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We strongly emphasise adapting freely to changing circumstances without much concern for past practices.

Culture

 We have many more promising ideas than we have time and resources to pursue them.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

We have difficulty finding a sufficient number of promising ideas to utilise all of our resources. ®

 Changes in the society-at-large often give us ideas for new products or services.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Changes in the society-at-large seldom lead to commercially promising ideas for our firm. ®

 We never experience a lack of ideas that we can convert into profitable products/services.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

It is difficult for our firm to find ideas that can be converted into profitable products/services. ®

Reward philosophy (Balkin and Gomez-Mejia 1990 )

 Our employees are evaluated and compensated based on their responsibilities.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Our employees are evaluated and compensated based on their job performance.

 An employee’s seniority enters into pay decisions.a

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

An employee’s seniority does not enter into pay decisions.

 In this organisation, an employee’s job performance plays a small role in determining pay raises.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

In this organisation, pay raises are determined mainly by an employee’s job performance.

 Our pay policies emphasise short-term results.

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Our pay policies emphasise long-term results.

  1. ® Revised item
  2. aItem deleted after factor analysis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakhdari, K., Burgers, J.H. The moderating role of entrepreneurial management in the relationship between absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship: an attention-based view. Int Entrep Manag J 14, 927–950 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0477-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0477-0

Keywords

Navigation