Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental influences on corporate entrepreneurship: executive perspectives on the internet

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

Abstract

This paper focuses on the likelihood of firms adopting corporate entrepreneurship in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by a change in their business environment shaped by the growth of the Internet. We further examined if firms are willing to modify their existing systems in response to such a change. We also investigated the paths or modes of entrepreneurship that firms would adopt when they perceive being entrepreneurial to be a viable response in light of a specific change in their business environment. Finally, we identified the impediments that firms may need to overcome when adopting corporate entrepreneurship. Results based on the data from senior executives lend support to our hypotheses. Managerial implications of the results are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biggadike, R. (1979). The risky business of diversification. Harvard Business Review, 57, 103–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. (1999). The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24, 9–36.

    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, 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E., Smith, M. D., & Hu, Y. (2003). Consumer surplus in the digital economy: Estimating the value increased product variety at online booksellers: Working paper from MIT. Center for eBusiness@MIT, Working paper, 176.

  • Burgelman, R. R. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1994). The functions of the HQ unit in the multibusiness firm. In R. P. Rumelt, D. E. Schedule, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Fundamental issues in strategy (pp. 323–360). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple-item measures in service research? Journal of Service Research, 3, 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizatons. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1999). Patching: Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P., & Wurster, T. S. (2000). Blown to bits. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: The renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 123–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1967). Theory and methods of social research. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. M. A. (1997). Rational decision-making and firm performance: The moderating role of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 583–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editor’s introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Douglass, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, T. (1999). Loosely coupled systems for corporate entrepreneurship: Imagining and managing the innovation project/host organization interface. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24, 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, D., Cohen, W. M., Hounshell, D. A., & Klepper, S. (2000). The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1017–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R., & Vetter, D. E. (1996). An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 35,153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., & Baum A. C. (1997). Opportunities and Constraint: Organizations’ learning from the operating and competitive experience of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, M., & Yermish, I. (2000). The Digital Economy: A golden opportunity for entrepreneurs? New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 3, 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazanjian, R. K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Implementing strategies for corporate entrepreneurship: A knowledge-based perspective. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (173–200). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., & Carley, K. (2001). Organizational design and adaptation in response to crises: Theory and practice. Academy of management best papers proceedings, OMT Division, 1–7.

  • Lindsay, R. M., & Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1993). The design of replicated studies. American Statistician, 47, 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2005). Goal setting theory: Theory building by induction. In M. Hitt, & K. Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook of management theory: The process of theory development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchsinger, V., & Bagby, D. R. (1987). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Behaviors, comparisons and contrasts. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Summer, 10–13.

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, M. J., & Hof, R. D. (2001). Rethinking the Internet. Business Week, March 26, 116–141.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCole, P., & Ramsey, E. (2005). A profile of adopters and non-adopters of eCommerce in SME professional service firms. Australasian Marketing Journal, 13(1), 36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2002). Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H., & Jones, F. F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24, 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagarajan, A., & Mitchell, W. (1998). Evolutionary, diffusion: Internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complimentary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1063–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2):137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. W. (1981) Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: A methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, 79, 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., & Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: Selecting strategies for success. Sloan Management Review, 26, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saloner, G., Shepard, A., & Podolny, J. (2001). Strategic management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of the corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermerwe, S., & Birley, S. (1997). The corporate entrepreneur: Leading organizational transformation. Long Range Planning, 30, 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA

    Ravi Kathuria

  2. School of Management, George Mason University, Enterprise Hall, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Maheshkumar P. Joshi

Authors
  1. Ravi Kathuria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maheshkumar P. Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravi Kathuria.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey Items Used in the Study and Descriptive Statistics

Item

Mean

s.d.

1. How much impact do you expect the Internet to have on your company?

2.64

0.55

3) Huge impact

2) Moderate impact

1) Just a little impact

  

2. Is your business in danger of being “overtaken” by an Internet start-up entrepreneur (namely having someone come out of left field and disrupting the rules of the game)?

  

O Yes (7)

O No (18)

O Don’t know (6)

  

3. Do you think that entrepreneurism is the driving force behind the Internet’s success?

  

O Yes (28)

O No (2)

O Don’t know (1)

  

4. How important is entrepreneurism as viable response for your company to address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet?

3.39

0.76

(4) Very important

(3) Moderately important

  

(2) Not very important

(1) Not at all important

  

5. How would you likely embrace entrepreneurism?

  

□Completely internal start-up (Intrapreneurism?)

Yes (14)

No (17)

  

□Create your own start-up external to the bounds and constraints of your existing company

Yes (3)

No (28)

  

□Joint venture with an internet start-up

Yes (13)

No (18)

  

□Investment in an Internet start-up

Yes (4)

No (27)

  

□Other (please specify):

6. Are you prepared to embrace entrepreneurism even if it means disrupting your current business?

  

O Yes (18)

O No (2)

O Don’t know (11)

  

7. If your company were to embrace to entrepreneurism, what would you see as the major impediments?

  

(Check as many as apply)

□Finding the ideas

Yes (5)

No (26)

  

□Identifying the right people

Yes (8)

No (23)

  

□Corporate culture

Yes (23)

No (8)

  

□Compensation policies

Yes (7)

No (24)

  

□Creating an entrepreneurial setting

Yes (13)

No (18)

  

Other (please specify):

  1. *Frequencies for nominal responses in parentheses

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kathuria, R., Joshi, M.P. Environmental influences on corporate entrepreneurship: executive perspectives on the internet. Int Entrep Manag J 3, 127–144 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0029-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0029-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation