Guest Editors' Introduction: Corporate Entrepreneurship

Author(s): William D. Guth and Ari Ginsberg

Source: Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Special Issue: Corporate Entrepreneurship
(Summer, 1990), pp. 5-15
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486666
Accessed: 17-08-2017 08:10 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Strategic
Management Journal

This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 5-15 (1990)

GUEST EDITORS' INTRODUCTION: CORPORATE

ENTREPRENEURSHIP
WILLIAM D. GUTH and ARI GINSBERG
Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York, USA

When Schendel and Hofer (1979: 515) formally
proposed a new way of viewing the business
policy and planning field a little over a decade
ago, they identified a number of areas in which
research needs and opportunities existed 'to
modify, broaden, and test the strategic manage-
ment paradigm.' Among those they suggested
was the topic of 'entrepreneurship and new
ventures.' In discussing the importance of this
topic within the rubric of strategic management,
Schendel and Hofer pointed out that the 'birth
process is necessary; and survival, regardless of
size requires a renewal of key ideas on which
the organization is built' (p. 526).
Entrepreneurship involves the identification
of market opportunity and the creation of
combinations of resources to pursue it (Kirzner,
1973; Schumpeter, 1934). The de novo develop-
ment of new businesses within established firms
reflects the process of corporate entrepre-
neurship. Renewal of key ideas on which organi-
zations are built also reflects the process of
corporate entrepreneurship; renewal of key ideas
requires the ability to manage transformation and
discontinuous change. As argued by Stevenson
and Jarillo-Mossi (1986: 14), 'if a company wishes
to continue to be entrepreneurial, it must
convince everyone that change is the company's
overriding goal.'
The topic of corporate entrepreneurship
encompasses two types of phenomena and the
processes surrounding them: (1) the birth of new
businesses within existing organizations, i.e.
internal innovation or venturing; and (2) the
transformation of organizations through renewal
of the key ideas on which they are built, i.e.
strategic renewal. Studies of corporate entrepre-
neurship have tended to focus on internal
innovation or venturing. However, we believe
that studies of strategic renewal will command
increasing attention in corporate entrepre-
neurship research.
This special issue focuses on the state of
theory, methods, and findings in corporate
entrepreneurship research. We proposed a special
issue of the Strategic Management Journal on
corporate entrepreneurship to Dan Schendel for
several reasons: (1) policy analysts and business
leaders have increasingly recognized the need for
widespread revitalization of corporations and
have called for greater emphasis on entrepreneur-
ial activity within large companies; (2) scholars
and practitioners have become increasingly atten-
tive to questions that concern the management
of organizational transformation and strategic
renewal; and (3) we were convinced that a
special SMJ issue could facilitate progress in the
developient and testing of theories on corporate
entrepreneurship by clarifying and presenting a
more coherent view of current research.
THE DOMAIN OF CORPORATE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
In his introduction to last year's special issue on
strategic leadership, Donald Hambrick (1989)
observed that compared to the topic of the
previous special issue-strategy content-the
domain of strategic leadership was relatively
diffuse and unmapped. In focusing this special
issue on the topic of corporate entrepreneurship,

0143-2095/90/050005-11$05.50
? 1990 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 W.D. Guth and A. Ginsberg
we too have set sail on a relatively uncharted
sea; for despite the growing interest in corporate
entrepreneurship, there appears to be nothing
near a consensus on what it is. Some scholars,
emphasizing its analog to new business creation
by individual entrepreneurs, view corporate
entrepreneurship as a concept that is limited to
new venture creation within existing organizations
(Vesper, 1985). Others argue that the concept
of corporate entrepreneurship should encompass
the struggle of large firms to renew themselves
by carrying out new combinations of resources
that alter the relationship between them and
their environments (Baumol, 1986; Burgelman,
1983a; Kanter, 1989).
In our call for papers for this special issue we
decided to cast our net based on a broad, rather
than a narrow, view of corporate entrepre-
neurship. In constructing a list of phenomena
that fall under this broad conception, we were
heavily influenced by Schumpeter's (1934) view
of the entrepreneur as one who 'carries out new
combinations.' As applied to entrepreneurial
activities in large, complex organizations, this
definition implies that the essential ingredient in
corporate entrepreneurship is that decisions are
made and actions are taken that result in new
combinations of resources being carried out
(Ellsworth, 1985). This carrying out of new
combinations translates into changes in strategy
that alter the pattern of resource deployment in
an existing firm versus changes in strategy that
modify the magnitude of resource deployment
(Ginsberg, 1988).
Changes in the pattern of resource
deployment-new combinations of resources in
Schumpeter's terms-transform the firm into
something significantly different from what it was
before-something 'new.' This transformation of
the firm from the old to the new reflects
entrepreneurial behavior. Corporate venturing,
or new business development within an existing
firm, is only one of the possible ways to achieve
strategic renewal. Corporate venturing may or
may not be directed at, or result in, strategic
renewal.
Strategic renewal is different from financial
restructuring, though in current practice they
are sometimes linked (Lewis, 1990). Strategic
renewal involves the creation of new wealth
through new combinations of resources. This
includes actions such as refocusing a business
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
competitively, making major changes in market-
ing or distribution, redirecting product develop-
ment, and reshaping operations. In addition,
strategic renewal includes making acquisitions
resulting in new combinations of resources for
businesses within the acquiring firm. In contrast,
financial restructuring is directed at financing an
exisiting combination of resources in a way that
yields a higher return to shareholders. This
includes actions such as increasing leverage and
stock repurchase programs.
Thus far, we have argued that all changes in
firms' pattern of resource deployment stemming
from the carrying out of new combinations should
be considered in the domain of corporate
entrepreneurship. From this perspective, research
on venturing within established firms only looks
at one aspect of corporate entrepreneurship.
We turn now to an overview of research on
corporate entrepreneurship based on this broader
perspective.
A FRAMEWORK FOR MAPPING
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
RESEARCH
The guest editor of the previous special issue,
Donald Hambrick, attempted to put strategic
leaders 'back into the strategy picture.' Although
his discussion centered on top managers, middle
managers also have a role in strategic leadership.
The 'autonomous strategic behavior' of middle
managers 'provides the raw material-the requi-
site diversity-for strategic renewal' (Burgelman,
1983a). Top management actions and responses
in relation to the autonomous strategic behavior
of middle managers may significantly influence
the frequency and success of entrepreneurial
effort in the firm.
Building on earlier models of strategic manage-
ment (Guth, 1971; Schendel and Hofer, 1979;
Hambrick, 1989), Figure 1 portrays the theoretical
connections that can be drawn from corporate
entrepreneurship to the other conceptual
elements of the field of strategic management.
Researchers in strategic management generally
agree that organization form/conduct includes
strategy, structure, and management process
(Hambrick, 1989). Increasingly, organization
theorists argue for including core organization
values or beliefs among the conduct variables,
 Guest Editors' Introduction 7

STRATEGIC ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION

ENVIRONMENT LEADERS CONDUCT /FORM PERFORMANCE
* Competitive . Characteristics - * Strategy * Effectiveness
* Technological * Values / Beliefs * Structure * Efficiency
* Social * Behavior * Process * Stakeholder
* Political * Core Values/ Beliefs Satisfaction

Figure 1FiigCpreErrnra(2) t (3) M

(1) zCORPORATEA/
V ENTREPRENEURSHIP V

Innovation /Venturing Strategic Renewal

within Established )(of Established)
< Corpo~~rations Corporations

Figure 1: Fitting Corporate Etrepreneurship Into Strategic Management

pointing to the fundamental role these play in
effective and efficient implementation of strategy
structure, and process (Tushman and Romanelli,
1985). Empirical research on the relationships
between core organizational values/beliefs and
other conduct variables is in an early stage of
development in the field. There seems to be
some agreement, however, that conduct variables
must be configured in relation to each other,
such that significant change in one variable-
such as strategy-must be accompanied by change
in the others, or the organization (viewed as a
system) will lose effectiveness and/or efficiency
(Miller and Friesen, 1980). Without getting
into many possible multi-way interactions and
feedback loops, we have identified five classes
of inquiry into corporate entrepreneurship (see
the numbered lines in Figure 1).
in strategy in a non-random way, with
organizations (in the aggregate) moving
away from one generic strategy towards
other generic strategies (Zajac and Shor-
tell, 1989).
(b) The more dynamic and hostile the environ-
ment, the more firms will be entrepreneur-
ial (Miller, 1983).
(c) Industry structure affects opportunities
for successful new product development
(Cooper, 1979).
Clearly, changes in industry competitive struc-
tures and the technologies underlying them affect
corporate entrepreneurship. Opportunities for
new products and services stem from development
of new technology and/or commercialization of
technologies developed by others. Both oppor-
tunities and problems stem from the potential of
the firm and its competitors in an industry to

1. Environment inifluences corporate find new combinations of resources that lead to

entrepreneurship competitive advantage.

Examples of previous research findings in this 2. Strategic leaders inifluence corporate

category include: enatrepreneurship

(a) The impact of major environmental shifts, Examples of previous research findings in this
such as deregulation, can influence changes category include:

This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 W.D. Guth and A. Ginsberg
(a) The management style of top managers
affects the level and performance of new
corporate ventures (Kanter, 1983).
(b) Middle manager effectiveness at building
coalitions among peers and higher-level
managers in support of their entrepreneur-
ial ideas affects the degree of success in
their implementation (Burgelman, 1983b).
(c) Banks that are more innovative are man-
aged by more highly educated teams, who
are diverse with respect to their functional
areas of expertise (Bantel and Jackson,
1989).
Many would argue that entrepreneurial behavior
in organizations is critically dependent on the
characteristics, values/beliefs, and visions of their
stategic leaders. The role of both individual
managers and management teams in corporate
entrepreneurship warrants considerable further
research.
3. Organization formlconduct influences
corporate entrepreneurship
Examples of previous research findings in this
category include:
(a) Firms pursuing strategies of acquisitive
growth have lower levels of R&D intensity
than firms pursuing strategies of internal
growth through innovation (Hitt et al.,
1989).
(b) Creating new business venture units in
larger organizations does not affect the
level of sales from new products (Hisrich
and Peters, 1984).
Bureaucratic structures and management pro-
cesses are widely regarded as anathema to
innovation and change within organizations. Yet
there have *been reports in the literature of
high levels of new product introduction in
organizations observed to have highly bureau-
cratic structures and processes (Sathe, 1985).
More rigorous empirical research is needed on
the combined effects of organization structure,
strategy, and core organizational values/beliefs
on corporate entrepreneurship.
4. Organizational performance influences
corporate entrepreneurship
Examples of previous research findings in this
category include:
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
(a) Successful firms make more radical and
more frequent product and process inno-
vations than unsuccessful firms (Mansfield,
1963).
(b) Organizations which experience perfor-
mance downturns tend to innovate new
practices and change strategic directions
only after prolonged decline leads to
changes in top management (Tushman,
Virany, and Romanelli, 1985).
Innovation and radical change may be precipi-
tated when firms have excess resources that allow
them to seize upon opportunities that arise; they
also may be induced by crises or severe external
threats. More research is needed to shed light
on questions concerning the conditions that
moderate the influence of organizational perfor-
mance on innovation and strategic renewal. For
example, in what kinds of competitive environ-
ments do successful firms make more radical and
more frequent product innovations? Under what
conditions does renewal take place without
change in top management?
5. Corporate entrepreneurship influences
performance
Examples of previous research findings in this
category include:
(a) Scale of entry in new product introductions
affects performance (Biggadike, 1979).
(b) Independent, venture-backed start-ups, on
average, reach profitability twice as fast
and end up twice as profitable as corporate
start-ups (Weiss, 1981).
(c) Early entry in new-product markets does
not affect performance (Cooper, 1979).
The short-run performance orientation of many
managements has often been cited as a deterrent
to innovation and change. It is clear that new
ventures often take several years to turn into
contributors to overall corporate profit perfor-
mance. Organizational re-creations may often
have short-run negative performance conse-
quences. Defining success and failure of corporate
entrepreneurship is a major issue not well
addressed in the literature.
From the above perspective on findings and
issues in corporate entrepreneurship research, we
turn now to a discussion of the papers in this
special issue.

THE PAPERS
The review process yielded nine papers for the
special issue out of 62 submitted. The reviewers
used two criteria in the first cut: (1) Is the paper
currently or potentially publishable on criteria
used by SMJ? (2) Does the paper meet the
additional criterion of contribution to the theme
of the special issue? The reviewers, in consultation
with the guest editors, subjected those that
remained to one additional criterion: (3) Did the
paper reach its potential in time to meet the
publication schedule for the special issue? Table
1 classifies the accepted papers on six dimensions:
1. The primary Figure 1 focus: the strategic
management relationships, as numbered in
Figure 1.
2. The research question addressed: these vary
widely from why it is difficult for corporate
venture managers to use social transaction
strategies to what factors affect major change
in stagnating companies.
3. The primary aspect of corporate entrepre-
neurship studied: five of the papers focus on
innovation/venturing within existing organi-
zations and four focus on strategic renewal of
existing organizations.
4. The unit of analysis: seven of the papers focus
on the organization and two focus on individual
new products or ventures within the organi-
zation.
5. Key concepts and theories: a wide variety of
concepts and theoretical perspectives are used
in the papers to study corporate entrepre-
neurship.
6. The theoretical intent and method: eight of
the nine papers intend to build theory; one
intends to test theory. The theory-building
papers employ a variety of methods.
The first five papers examine corporate entrepre-
neurship as entrepreneurial processes, or venture
activities, within existing firms. Howard Steven-
son and Jose-Carlos Jarillo, in their paper, 'A
Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
Management,' develop a view of corporate
entrepreneurship, which they argue facilitates the
application of previous findings in individual
entrepreneurship research. Building on earlier
work to conceptualize entrepreneurship based
on extensive case observation of individual
entrepreneurs (Steveinson and Gumpert, 1985),
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Guest Editors' Introduction 9
the authors develop propositions about character-
istics of organizations that affect the degree of
entrepreneurial behavior they will exhibit.
Michael Hitt, Robert Hoskisson, and Duane
Ireland, in their paper, 'Mergers and Acquisitions
and Managerial Commitment in M-Form Firms,'
analyze the impact of corporate acquisitive
growth strategies on managerial commitment
to innovation in acquiring firms. This theory
construction study focuses on an important issue
in the trend among large companies to pursue
growth through acquisition. Their analysis per-
suasively leads to the major proposition that such
strategies result in reduction of entrepreneurial
effort to develop new technologies and products.
While new wealth may be created by some
synergistic acquisitions, the preponderance of
evidence is that mostly neutral and sometimes
negative results are achieved by acquiring firms.
The authors' hypothesis that acquisitive growth
strategies reduce entrepreneurial efforts raises
serious questions not only about the long-run
implications of these strategies for firms that
pursue them, but also for the American economy
as a whole, given the high frequency of acquisition
efforts among large American firms. Empirical
research suggested by this study promises to
yield findings of major importance to corporate
strategists and public policy analysts.
The next paper, by Donald Kuratko, Ray
Montagno, and Jeffrey Hornsby, 'Developing an
Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument for An
Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environ-
ment,' examines the organizational context within
which new products/ventures develop. Using a
quasi-experimental design within one organi-
zation and factor-analytic techniques, this study
empirically documents a parsimonious set of
organizational context factors that may encourage
or inhibit venturing behavior among middle-level
managers. Prior to this study, much of the
research on the influence of organizational
context variables on intrapreneurship was based
on case studies or anecdotal evidence. More
rigorous empirical methods, like those used in
this study, are needed to develop theory in this
important area of corporate entrepreneurship.
As yet, there is no systematic evidence regarding
the impact on venturing behavior of effectively
managing the factors documented in this study.
The next paper, by Deborah Dougherty,
'Understanding New Markets for New Products',
10 W.D. Guth and A. Ginsberg

Table1.Csifctonpr

inovat?

transcioegf able/wingtousc

indvualetrps? resoucaqitnh

corpatenushi?

Primaycopte

Primayspectof

findgstohelar
theapliconfrvusd
mangerilcotd

Montag,veurciwhdmsq-

Author(s)fcSpeiaqndlyKm

staic

inovatrslgefm?dcp andIrelgowthsyfcizmpu Jariloentpushfcdm;

Macilnmgersoptud

marketsdifculopn,;

factornlysi
andHorsbygizt?expml;

Starnd3,5WhyewvuIoi/gNsclxT-b; Dougherty3,5WisndawIv/lEcmT-b; Kuratko,23WhfcsenwIvi/gOzlTy-bd; Hit,oskn3wdeacquvI/rgOzRpf;Thy-bl Stevnsoad2,3WhiwfI/urgOzlTy-b;

Figure1ntpshUofCbad

This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Guest Editors' Introduction 11

perfomanc?

organizts?

straegimpch

enviromtalchg?

ofirmsvetwhn
facedwithsonu

inmajorpvets

mangetbuyosrl
perfomanculti

entrpuialsofc

ofanlysimpctqud

forcestai

entrpuialschgmo

McKiernahgstozlud;
companies?lrg;tdv

andGoeschgtiurylvqbm;

Singh3,5DoestrafmcwlOzIvTy-;

LantdMezis1,5HowfrSgclOThy-bu; Grinyead4,5WhtfcosmjSgwlOzAp;T-bu Meyr,Boks1HwdicntuSaglOzPTh-b;

governacstufphil

This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 W.D. Guth and A. Ginsberg
examines why the process of understanding new
markets is difficult for innovators of new products
in large firms. In her grounded theory study of
18 new product innovation cases embedded in
five firms, the author found three distinct market
knowledge creation cycles operating at the
departmental, interdepartmental, and project-to-
firm levels.
Developing knowledge about new markets for
new products in established firms is a more
complex process than in start-up firms. The
structure and processes in place to manage
established products may inhibit or enhance
development of knowledge about new opportuni-
ties. Dougherty's study suggests that how depart-
mental, interdepartmental, and project-to-firm
knowledge cycles are managed in established
firms may be critical to new product success or
failure.
Jennifer Starr and Ian MacMillan's paper,
'Resource Cooptation via Social Transactions:
Resource Acquisition Strategies for new Ven-
tures,' analyzes resource acquisition strategies of
individual entrepreneurs, and explores why social
transaction strategies used frequently and exten-
sively by individual entrepreneurs may be more
difficult for corporate venture managers to
pursue. They argue that social transactions
strategies reduce the investment required in new
ventures and, among other virtues, increase the
amount of 'network' commitment and support
available to new ventures. Both these outcomes
serve to increase returns on investment and the
speed with which these returns are achieved,
compared to ventures developed without exten-
sive use of social transaction strategies. Starr
and MacMillan's paper provides an interesting
theoretical explanation for Weiss's (1981) empiri-
cal findings that independent start-ups dramati-
cally outperformed corporate ventures in terms
of the time it took them on average to become
profitable, and in terms of return on investment.
Their paper is indicative of the potential for
advancement of knowledge about corporate
entrepreneurship through cross-fertilization with
theory and findings from independent entrepre-
neurship.
The next four papers examine corporate
entrepreneurship as strategic renewal. In analyz-
ing the impact of industry-level change on
organizatioial responses. Alani Meyer, Geoffrey
solve the problem of providiing ince ntives to
Brooks, anid James Goes conceptualize f ur types
division managers to seek opportui-ity tlhrehg
new combintations of resouirces.
of industry-level change--adlaptation, mnetarnor-
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
phosis, evolution, and revolution-and argue that
less is known about the strategic management
implications of revolutionary industry change
than the other three. They studied the hospital
industry in the San Francisco area over the period
from the 1960s through the 1980s, noting that
the type and level of change in the industry
varied at different points in that period. Their
analysis identified corresponding patterns of
change among firms within the industry, highligh
ing the entrepreneurial responses of these firms
to the revolutionary industry level changes of
the 1980s. Their paper develops researchable
propositions that are linked to their study. The
occurrence of revolutionary change during the
past decade in a number of industries, e.g.
financial services, electric power, and airline
transportation, provides a plethora of opportuni-
ties for researchers to contribute to our under-
standing of the impact of such change on
corporate entrepreneurship.
Harbir Singh, in his paper, 'Management
Buyouts: Distinguishing Characteristics and
Operating Changes Prior to Public Offering,' also
focuses on corporate entrepreneurship as a
process of strategic renewal or rebirth. His study
centers on the controversial issue of whether or
not radical transformations in the ownership and
governance structure of management buyouts
result in radical (and positive) changes in the
firm's post-buyout operations, or whether they
simply induce a market correction in the value
of the assets involved. Put simply, do management
buyouts result in new wealth creation?
Singh's findings support those who see manage-
ment buyouts as resulting in increased entrepre-
neurial drive in the management of their assets.
Managers of the firms in his large sample
demonstrated a willingness to make drastic
changes in the operations of their respective
firms, and to maintain large holdings of their
stock when their firms went public. Although
concern remains about the high levels of debt
normally associated with management buyouts,
Singh hypothesizes that management buyouts
may be a sign of a new era of governance of
firms and divisions. From the point of view of
corporate entrepreneurship, management
buyouts of divisions of larger firms may be a
manifestation of failure of those larger firms to

In the next paper, 'Generating Major Change
in Stagnating Companies,' Peter Grinyer and
Peter McKiernan examine how the 25 firms they
studied changed to 'sharp-bend' their perform-
ance from stagnation or decline relative to their
competitors to sustained superior performance.
Drawing on earlier work, including Cyert and
March (1963), the authors develop a model that
predicts why and how organizations change
radically. They confront this model with the data
from their more general longitudinal study of the
sharp-bending companies (Grinyer, Mayes, and
McKiernan, 1988).
Their findings about the frequency, type,
and conditions surrounding the organizational
transformations observed are interesting in
relation to corporate entrepreneurship as strategic
renewal. These findings suggest that, for the
sharp-bending firms, external and internal 'trig-
gers' for organizational change provided oppor-
tunity for strategic renewal, which was seized by
old or new top managers in many of the firms.
There was no support in the data for the authors'
proposition that managers make strategic changes
only after finding functional changes inadequate.
The last of the papers examining corporate
entrepreneurship as strategic renewal is by
Theresa Lant and Stephen Mezias, 'Managing
Discontinuous Change: A Simulation Study of
Organizational Learning and Entrepreneurship.'
Using a simulation methodology, this study
develops theory about longitudinal patterns of
entrepreneurship across a population of organi-
zations, and the implications of different patterns
for organizational performance. Among the many
intriguing findings of their study is that firms
with adaptive strategies do less well over the
long run than firms with imitative strategies, under
conditions of high environmental ambiguity.
Longitudinal research on strategic renewal,
involving field study methods, tends to be rather
costly and difficult to implement. Lant and
Mezias's paper applies an innovative methodology
that makes it possible to address theoretical issues
in corporate entrepreneurship that might be
prohibitively expensive to investigate solely
through traditional methods.
CONCLUSION
In a recent article on the state of American
management, Walter Wriston, one of America's
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Guest Editors' Introduction 13
most respected managers, observes that 'today,
the spirit of the entrepreneur has entered the
mainstream of U.S. management. Entrepre-
neurship is transforming the corporate bureau-
cracy' (1990: 79). We believe that corporate
entrepreneurship will become an increasingly
important topic over the next decade, as competi-
tive, technological, social, and political change
in the environment of U.S. firms continues to
accelerate. Strategic management research that
contributes to increasing the frequency and
success of corporate entrepreneurship will, in our
view, be highly valued in the academic and
practitioner communities.
Of course, such research needs to be theory-
based and confronted with good data. Theory
development has not progressed in the area of
corporate entrepreneurship as far as it has in
some other streams of research in strategic
management. That the overwhelming majority of
papers submitted for review were theory-building
in intent, rather than theory-testing, did not
surprise us. One of our principal objectives in
proposing the special issue was to facilitate
progress in theory development on corporate
entrepreneurship.
Identifying corporate entrepreneurship topics
in need of further systematic research is easy in
the sense that there is much room for across-the-
board theoretical and methodological progress.
However, deciding on specific topics most in
need of study is rather challenging. The topics
of the previous two special issues-strategy
content and strategic leadership-and the topic
of the next special issue-global strategy-
provide some useful leads. Among the most
interesting strategy content questions identified
by Montgomery (1988) are those that relate to
the scope of the firm-the combination of markets
in which firms participate. Of particular interest
are the questions of why firms participate in
multiple and particular combinations of markets,
and what accounts for the performance differ-
ences repeatedly observed across firms. Among
these questions, we would include: What impact
does participation in particular combinations of
markets have on strategic renewal? What accounts
for performance differences between entry into
new markets through internal venturing versus
acquisition? The flourishing economics literature
on transaction cost analysis and principal-agent
relations holds much promise for explaining
the transformation of organizational governance
14 W.D. Guth and A. Ginsberg
structures, and the governance needs of internal
venturing in established firms.
Among the strategic leadership topics identified
by Hambrick (1989: 13) as most in need of study
were: 'the processes by which some executives
inspire and energize large organizations.' To
this we would add 'inspire and energize large
organizations to innovate and renew themselves.'
Another is the question of how managers learn
and develop and how they broaden and upgrade
their repertoires. The answer to this question is
part of the solution to the puzzle of what it takes
to make corporate entrepreneurship work.
Changes in the international environment have
presented researchers in the field of strategic
management with challenges and opportunities
that entail the application of methods and
concepts previously employed in domestic set-
tings. Such opportunities and challenges extend
to the study of corporate entrepreneurship in a
global context. Of particular interest are such
questions as: What specific difficulties confront
multi-national corporations engaging in strategic
renewal? How can cross-border strategic alliances
be used to facilitate corporate venturing within
established firms? How does increasing global
market opportunity and competition affect new
venture strategies within existing firms?
Although diverse, the research questions
covered by papers in this special issue address
only a very small portion of the topics in need
of further study in corporate entrepreneurship.
An important objective for the special issue was
to encourage and challenge researchers in the
field of strategic management to contribute to
this important area of inquiry.
In concluding, we want to thank the organi-
zations and many individuals who contributed to
this project. The Center for Entrepreneurial
Studies, Stern School of Business, New York
University provided administrative support for
the project. Loretta Poole managed the logistics
of the reviewing process with skill, patience, and
resolve. Mary Lou Schendel handled the final
editing process with forbearance and great charm.
Dan Schendel, from beginning to end, gave freely
of his entrepreneurial spirit, his experience, and
his wisdom.
Finally, we thank the authors who submitted
their papers and the referees who reviewed them.
The authors of the submitted papers provided
the intellectual raw materials for the special issue.
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The reviewers listed at the end, shaped the final
outcome with their constructive criticisms and
judicious evaluations of the papers.
REFERENCES
Bantel, K. A. and S. E. Jackson. 'Top management
and innovations in banking: Does the composition
of the top team make a difference?', Strategic
Management Journal, 10, 1989, pp. 107-125.
Baumol, W. J. 'Entrepreneurship and a century of
growth'. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(2), 1986,
pp. 141-145.
Biggadike, R. 'The risky business of diversification',
Harvard Business Review, May-June 1979, pp.
103-111.
Burgelman, R. A. 'Corporate entrepreneurship and
strategic management', Management Science,
29(12), 1983a, pp. 1349-1364.
Burgelman, R. A. 'A process model of internal
corporate venturing in the diversified major firm',
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 1983b, pp.
223-244.
Cooper, R. G. 'The dimensions of industrial new
product success and failure', Journal of Marketing,
43, 1979, pp. 93-103.
Cyert, R. and J. March. A Behavioral Theory of the
Firm, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963.
Ellsworth, R. R. 'Entrepreneurship in big business:
the impossible dream?' In John J. Kao and Howard
H. Stevenson (eds), Entrepreneurship: What It Is
and How to Teach It. Harvard Business School,
Boston, MA, 1985, pp. 282-308.
Ginsberg, A. 'Measuring and modelling changes in
strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical
directions', Strategic Management Journal 9, 1988,
pp. 559-575.
Grinyer, P. H., D. Mayes and P. McKiernan.
Sharpbenders: The Secrets of Unleashing Corporate
Potential, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1988.
Guth, W. 'Formulating organizational objectives and
strategy: A systematic approach', Journal of Busi-
ness Policy 2(1), 1971, pp. 24-31.
Hambrick, D. 'Guest editor's introduction: Putting
top managers back in the strategy picture', Strategic
Management Journal, 10, 1989, pp. 5-15.
Hisrich, R. D. and M. P. Peters. 'Internal venturing
in large corporations: The new business unit',
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College, Wellesley, MA, 1984, pp. 321-342.
Hitt, M. A., R. E. Hoskisson, R. D. Ireland and J.
D. Harrison. 'Acquisitive growth strategy and
relative R&D intensity: The effects of leverage,
diversification and size', Academy of Management
Best Paper Proceedings, 1989, pp. 22-26.
Kanter, R. M. The Change Masters: Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in the Amlerican Corporation,
Simon & Schuster, New York, 1983.
Kanter, R. M. When Giants Learn to Dance, Simon
& Schuster, New York, 1989.

Kirzner, I. M. Competition and Entrepreneurship,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1973.
Lewis, W. W. 'Strategic restructuring: A critical
requirement in the search for corporate potential'.
In Rock, M. and H. Rock (eds), Corporate
Restructuring, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990, pp.
43-55.
Mansfield, E. 'Size of firm, market structure, and
innovation', Jolurnal of Political Economy, 71(6),
1963, pp. 556-576.
Miller, D. 'Entrepreneurship correlates in three types
of firms', Management Science, 29, 1983, pp.
770-791.
Miller, D. and P. Friesen, 'Archetypes of organizational
transition', Addministrative Science Quarterly, 25,
1980, pp. 268-298.
Montgomery, C. 'Guest editor's introduction to the
special issue on research in the content of strategy',
Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1988, pp. 3-8.
Sathe, V. 'Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma:
Nurturing entrepreneurship and control in large
corporations', Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, 1985,
pp. 636-656.
Schendel, D. E. and C. W. Hofer, 'Research needs
and issues in strategic management'. In Schendel,
D. and C. Hofer (eds), Strategic Management,
Little, Brown, Boston, MA, 1979, pp. 515-530.
Schumpeter, J. A. The Theory of Economic Develop-
ment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1934.
This content downloaded from 220.191.168.26 on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:10:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Guest Editors' Introduction 15
Stevenson, H. H. and D. E. Gumpert. 'The heart
of entrepreneurship', Harvard Business Review,
March-April 1985, pp. 85-94.
Stevenson, H. H. and J. C. Jarillo-Mossi. 'Preserving
entrepreneurship as companies grow', Journal of
Business Strategy, 6(1), 1986, pp. 10-23.
Tushman, M. L. and E. Romanelli. 'Organizational
evolution: Metamorphosis model of convergence
and reorientation'. In Staw, B. and L. Cummings
(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 7, 1985, pp. 171-222.
Tushman, M. L., B. Virany and E. Romanelli.
'Executive succession, strategic reorientations and
organizational evolution', Technology in Society, 7,
1985, pp. 297-313.
Vesper, K. H. 'A new direction, or just a new
label?' In J. J. Kao and H. H. Stevenson (eds),
Entrepreneurship: What It Is and How to Teach It,
Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, 1985, pp.
62-76.
Weiss, L. E. 'Start-up businesses: A comparison of
performances, Sloan Management Review, Fall
1981, pp. 37-53.
Wriston, W. B. 'The state of American management',
Harvard Business Review, January-February 1990,
pp. 78-83.
Zajac, E. and S. M. Shortell. 'Changing generic
strategies: Likelihood, direction and performance
implications', Strategic Management Journal, 10,
1989, pp. 413-430.