Corporate Entrepreneurship Theory

in corporeald Entrepreneurship TheoryCan we qualify Daimler strategy as entrepreneurial? If so, what argon the steps taken by Daimler AG to fetch or choke their bodily Entrepreneurship (CE) Strategy?How atomic number 18 bodied entrepreneurial conducts world facilitated in Daimlers wariness throng?What components atomic number 18 proceeding CE applied by Daimler, and how could Daimler be to a greater extent entrepreneurial?LimitationThe thesis motif princip all toldy foc wonts on corporal Entrepreneurship theory specifically entrepreneurial conversion. Even though there are opposite types of Corporate Entrepreneurship types including bodied venturing, Intrapreneurship, and bringing the market inside(a), we discourseed Corporate Entrepreneurship finished the lenses of entrepreneurial transformation by excluding other types of corporate entrepreneurship. Our focus is mainly interested in the activities inside an giving medication, and entrepreneurial transformati on focus on these activities with a good general view on the strategy, finish, social administration, and offering and not a single area in particular. As be whiz of the forefront carcompanies, we chose Daimler- superstar of the leaders in the automotive industry- as our case study. In our fore leaving investigate, we found that Daimler AG focus on innovation and entrepreneurial activities as a crucial role in achieving sustainable growth therefore, they qualified the profile we are conducting the research somewhat. Due to the clock condemnation factor and the resources allocated to this paper, we in addition concluded that a study rough entrepreneurial activities inwardly make-up female genitalia be best dedicateed if we concentrate on one alliance rather than the whole automotive industry since our finding give be to a greater extent than specific, more reliable, and we will reduce the generalization of the results. As being one of the forefront car compan ies, we chose Daimler as our thesis subject. Furthermore, we only chose to use qualitative method rather than quantitative method due to the time factor and in ability to reach a sufficient number of employees on the job(p) for Daimler AG. We also analyzed Daimler entrepreneurial activities through the lenses of comp some(prenominal) perspective. Our work is mainly based on interpretation of interview made with Mark Reine, Daimler one-year report, Integrity Report, High-Tech Report and Sustainability Report.Papers StructureIn chapter 2 we go through our theoretical framework. We break the theory that we use as a companionship foundation for our study. We map out some of the studies that are relevant for the theoretical perspective in this study. In chapter 3 we describe the methodology we stomach used when making our study. We describe the diverse choices we guard made throughout the study, and motivate why we suck in made these choices. And we short dedicate our responde nt. In chapter 4 we present our respondent in more details, and we compile our experimental material that we have gathered through our conducted interviews. The development is presented respondent by respondent. In chapter 5 we evaluate the gathered empirical information and analyze it by the support of our theoretical framework.In chapter 6 we present the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the gathered information. Here we also present the conclusions that we arrived with regarding studying CE at bottom brasss.Theoretical FrameworkIn this chapter we present our theoretical framework and the main theories that will function us suffice our research questions. We present the Corporate Entrepreneurship theory, its explanation, types, succeeder factors, and dimensions This is where we accumulate a knowledge base that is necessary to fully on a overthrow floorstand the s debate of the thesis paper and the logic used to conduct it. This knowledge base will support the gathe ring, interpreting and analyzing of our information and empirical data made in latter(prenominal) chapters.Corporate EntrepreneurshipIn recent years, the conditions of contestation in the global milieu have changed for the companies. The market is dominated by constant change, entangled assigns and environmental turbulence (Rothwell, 1983 as cited in Livesay, 1995 destroy, 2008). As we mentioned earlier knowledge, innovation and tractability become an important resource for sustained competitive advantage. In other words, Entrepreneurship is the crucial factor for success or survival ( burn d take 2008 Czernich 2004). While menial firms take the advantage of these conditions and become very no-hit due to their whippy bodily structure and entrepreneurial spirit, voluminous firms suffer more due to their mechanistic, bureaucratic and rigid structures (Burns, 2008). Many scholars research bare-assed ship canal for large placement and come up with numerous ideas. One of t he solutions for companies to deal with the rigid bureaucratic structures is to induce Corporate Entrepreneurship in their structure (Dess et al., 2003). As it is mentioned earlier, period CEOs are concerned just al near profitable organic growth, they find corporate entrepreneurship or creating a new concern as one of the solution (Lippitz Wolcott, 2007). As corporate entrepreneurship is becoming popular, research on CE has grown besides (Dess et al., 2003). fit to Cunningham and Lischeron (1991), CE can be seen as a indoctrinate at bottom entrepreneurship theory. Since there is no generally judge definition of entrepreneurship (Swedberg, 2003), the definition of corporate entrepreneurship also suffers from this conundrum.In the next sections, we are going to adjust and explain Corporate Entrepreneurship from different perspectives of many authors. We will present the different dapple of views on Corporate Entrepreneurship in regards to its definitions, different type s, and success factors that affect it.Definition of Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE)As it is mentioned above, since there is no generally accepted definition of corporate Entrepreneurship (CE), many scholars define CE differently. jibe to Sharma and Chrisman (1999 in Dess et al, 2003, p.352), Corporate Entrepreneurship is the process whereby an individual or group of individuals, in fellowship with an lasting disposal, cook a new makeup, or instigate renewal or innovation within that musical arrangement. Dess et al. (1999) also see it as 2 types of phenomena and processes while one is about creating a new business within existing organizations through internal innovation or joint accidents, alliances, the endorsement one is about the transformation of organization through strategic renewal. Burns (2008, p.12) defines CE as a process which kick upstairss CE in every(prenominal) level of organization corporate, di good deal, business unit etc. Lippitz and Wolcott (2007, p.7 5) define it as a process in which teams within an establish organization frame a new business which is distinct from parent conjunction just leverages the parents asset, market positions, capabilities or other resources. Also accord to Vesper (as cited in Hornsby Kuratko, 1999, p.29), Corporate Entrepreneurship is a new strategic dimension, initiative from below and main(a) business creation. These different definitions show that the tauting of Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) is still ambiguous. CE can be seen as an evolving phenomenon which is still being researched by many researchers (Burns, 2008 Zahra, 1991). In tell to fully understand corporate entrepreneurship, different types of CE moldiness be analyzed. The next section will show the inequality in the midst of these types, and which is more relevant to our research. 17Types of Corporate EntrepreneurshipScholars define and break CE into many different types. These views cover a wide range. concord to Birkinshaw ( 2003 in Burns, 2008, p.13-14) and Thornberry (2001 in Kenney Mutjuba, 2007, p.75-6), there are quaternion types of corporate entrepreneurshipCorporate Venturing It is the process of starting new ventures related to core business through investing in smaller advanced firms and different forms of corporate venturing units by larger firmsIntrapreneurship It is about the identification of employees who have entrepreneurial skills and it focuses on supporting these employees to act in an entrepreneurial way within large organizations. function the market inside This dimension takes a marketing approach to encourage entrepreneurial port by ever-changing structure.entrepreneurial Transformation According to Burns (2008, p.14), it is about the adaptation of organisational structure, and subtlety to changing environment and urinate a new organizational environment to encourage entrepreneurial activity. He also mentioned that according to this dimension, the individual bearing in the organization is modulated by lead, strategy, corpses, structures and culture.Moreover, Covin and Miles (1999 in Dess et al., 2003) identify four types of CE. They offer structurally complex firms to use simultaneously one or more forms of CE in different separate of organization. The first one is sustained regeneration, which is sufferd by the firms culture, processes and structures to prepare new products in its existing market and also to code with existing product into new markets. Here, companies know their products life cycle and they create strategies according to competitive expectations. The support type of CE is organizational rejuvenation. It is more about process and administrative innovations rather than product innovations. It enables organizations to improve the firms ability to execute strategies. It concerns about inducing entrepreneurship through organizational procedures and standards. Strategic renewal, which is the troika one, is about how to change strat egies to compete differently. While organizational rejuvenation is about the organization itself, strategic renewal is about both organization and environment. It consists of the ways to exploit the opportunities more profitably and how to explore new ideas inthese changing circumstances. Domain Redefinition focuses on creating a new product market that competitors have not discovered yet or are not successful in that market. Domain redefinition aims to have first mover advantage in that new market. We find the classifications of Birkinshaw (2003 in Burns, 2008, p.13-14) and Thornberry (2001 in Kenney Mutjuba, 2007, p.75-6), and Covin and Miles (1999 in Dess et al., 2003) interesting because we can see that to a certain extent they are interrelated. Burns (2008) argues that corporate venturing and Intrapreneurship are seen as techniques that bring the market inside and can help impact the entrepreneurial transformation since it covers the whole aspects of the organization. Further more, by comparing entrepreneurial transformation to the types mentioned by Covin and Miles (1999 in Dess et al., 2003), it is observable that these types to some extent are also contained within the entrepreneurial transformation, because they cover aspects related to structure, culture, environment, and strategy which is what entrepreneurial transformation is about. Before focusing on the aspects affecting entrepreneurial transformation, the dimensions that advance CE must(prenominal) be mentioned. In the next section, the success factors of Corporate Entrepreneurship are going to be explained.The Success Factors of Corporate EntrepreneurshipAccording to Dess and Lumpkin (2005 in Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007), there are cardinal dimensions which shows that organization is entrepreneurial-oriented The first dimension is shore leave indicating that employees must be em authorityed and encourage to find the innovative products or new internal process. Employees must be supported to create innovative ideas. The second dimension is innovativeness. Organization must invest in research and development. The third dimension is pro-activeness which is related with organizations unforcedness of being different by exploiting opportunities. club must be coming(prenominal)-oriented. The fourth dimension is competitive aggressiveness. The organization must both willingly and eagerly engage in a competition and conduct strategies that exploit the opportunities better than other competitors. The last dimension is take a chance taking which is one ofthe most important dimensions for Corporate Entrepreneurship. Company must be aware of business, financial and professional risks associated with CE (2005 in Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007, p.76). These dimensions declared earlier by Dess and Lumpkin (2005 in Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007) support and slightly similar to the success factors Abraham talks about (1997 in Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007 Sathe, 1985 in Kuratko and Hornsby, 1999). Nonetheless, they overlook the factors of avenge and payoff, and time availability mentioned by Abraham (1997 in Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007). According to Abraham, there are four important corporate entrepreneurship success factors that must exist within an organization (1997 in Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007 Sathe, 1985 in Kuratko and Hornsby, 1999).The first factor is direction support which is about promoting entrepreneurship in the organization. The management support consists of championing the innovative ideas,providing necessary resources, foil within organization, being a coach or mentor rather than being a manager. The second factor is autonomy which points out that employees are develop to take risks and failure is tolerated by management. This factor must be beef up by the organizational structure which facilitates the implementation of ideas. The third factor is reward and reinforcement. The legal reward system will enhance entrepreneurial behavior in organization and he lp employees to take risks. Both extrinsic (monetary) and inbred (recognition) rewards motivate employees to be more entrepreneurial. The last factor is time availability. there must be flexible time constraints which let employees to deal with a long term problem. (Echols and neck, 1998 Kuratko et al. 1999) As a whole, it can be seen that corporate entrepreneurship success factors are passing related with entrepreneurial transformation mentioned in the types of corporate entrepreneurship. It can be understood that management support is highly related with lead and culture (being a coach or mentor rather than being a manager) and structure (championing the innovative ideas, providing necessary resources, foil within organization) autonomy is also related with structure reward and reinforcement system can be stipulated by organizational culture, structure and leadership while time availability can be bring on by both leadership and organizational culture. In the next section, the factors of entrepreneurial transformation are going to be explained in detail.Entrepreneurial Transformation within organizationsAs it is mentioned above in order to have successful Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE), large organizations must add the success factors of CE to their whole system which is related with entrepreneurial transformation. According to Burns (2008, p.18), entrepreneurial transformation is about adaptation of entrepreneurship to large firms by changing their structure, strategy, system, leadership and culture to cope with change and innovation. He identifies strategy, leadership and management, culture, and structure as necessary fixingss to arrive at entrepreneurial transformation. These elements areEntrepreneurial Transformation lead attentionOrganizatioal horticulture organizational StructureCorporate StrategyInstitutional FieldIn addition to these elements, institutional field can be seen as one of the element that affects corporate entrepreneurship s trategy because while companies are specify their strategies, they have to think both company and companys environment that company exists in. body-build 4 summarizes these elements and shows how they influence the Corporate Entrepreneurship strategy within an organization.As it is shown in the predict above, there are five elements that influence the entrepreneurial transformation within organization Leadership and Management, Organizational Culture, Organizational Structure, Corporate Strategy, and Institutional Field. tout ensemble these elements are strongly interrelated and have a strong influence on each other. In order for a successful entrepreneurial transformation within an organization, all the elements must be taken in servant, simply because they support each other. Having a weak link in the entrepreneurial transformation elements will lead for an ineffective andinefficient entrepreneurial transformation within any organization. Leader and management set the alley for the transformation and eliminate the dysfunctions within the organization which prevent entrepreneurial behaviors (Burns, 2008 Kuratko and Hornsby 1999), and the culture, structure and institutional field is what support this transformation. The strategy is what maintain and foster the success of the transformation in the later stages. The figure 4 shows an intertwined birth where all the elements are connected in a way and not as a procedural process. In next sections, the five elements are going to be explained one by one in further details.Leadership ManagementOne of the aspects that affect CE is management and leadership. Burns (2008) discusses the kind between management and leadership. He states that although they go glide by in hand with respect to skills and competencies, there are still some hypercritical differences that could be addressed Management could be seen as the mechanics of the organization, while its leadership functions as the brains. Burns (2008) emph asizes mainly on the roles of each and state that Management is concerned with execution and handling of complex organizational tasks and processes mainly concerned with efficiency and effectiveness. Compare to management leadership is concerned with broader principles related to communication, motivation, and mountain goals and direction and particularly change.According to Kuratko and Hornsby (1999), the new corporate revolution represents an gustatory sensation for a desire to develop entrepreneurial leadership within the organization structure in other words in-house entrepreneuring development, or face stagnation, damage of personnel, and decline. In order to do so, effective entrepreneurial leaders endeavor to construct, define and gain commitment to values and beliefs they try to integrate in the organization they work in. These shared out values and beliefs incorporated within the romance and mission of an organization are what make the essence of its culture that bind s the organization all together (Burns 2008). The shared vision and values are the coveted future state that the organization is striving to achieve thus its acts as a forefingerful and effective motivational tool. However, in order to create an entrepreneurial culture based on motivation and strive to achievements, entrepreneurial leaders need more than just apromising vision (Burns 2008). They need to create a management team that enforce this entrepreneurial culture a flexible adaptable team that is able to pop off under extreme changing environments and to handle risk and doubtfulness. Moreover, Kuratko and Hornsby (1999) emphasize on this topic and state that specific elements for entrepreneurial leaders need to be recognized first for a corporate entrepreneurship strategy to be induced effectively and efficiently. These elements areDeveloping the Vision.Developing Innovation.Developing Venture Teams.Structuring for an Entrepreneurial Climate.Kuratko and Hornsby (1999) also emphasize on the vision as the first element take to induce an effective and efficient corporate entrepreneurship strategy. A shared vision that is supported by top management that reinforces innovation and entrepreneurship is what the second element needs to be achieved. Without a vision that is supported by the leadership in the organization, innovation is not achievable. Moreover, the third element is venture team similar to what Burns (2008) defines as management teams who have the capability for stimulating innovation and creativity within the organization. The final and most critical element that Burns didnt emphasize on is structuring for an entrepreneurial climate. And what Kuratko and Hornsby (1999) mean by the entrepreneurial climate is the innovative environment that allows new ideas to flourish.In order to deeply discuss the role of leadership in creating the entrepreneurial climate, the transformational leadership theory needs to be discussed briefly. According to th e transformational leadership theory, transformational leaders behavior does not depend on a traditional exchange relationship between leader and fol trim down (Bass, 1990). Their behavior is based on face-to-face value systems that are not negotiable they modify their pursuit goals and aspirations to be aligned with their goals by demonstrating idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1990). Bass states that transformational leadership is needed to broaden and elevate the interests of employees, generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and missionsof the organization, and stir the employees to look beyond their own self-interests for the good of the boilers suit entity (1990, p. 19). Between the four elements used by transformational leaders to influence followers bass discussed, we are interested in the inspirational motivation which mean the ability to develop and communicate a convincing and at tractive future vision. This vision is not only materially based but offers challenges and meanings (Bass, 1990 in Felfe, 2004). Humphreys (2005) also emphasizes the role of transformational leadership and state that it is more suitable for a dynamic external environment, where employees are empowered with greater responsibility and encouraged to innovate, initiative and take risk. Comparing Bass (1990), Kuratko and Hornsby (1999), and Burns (2008) brings us to the point that it is observable that they all agree on the importance of developing a shared future vision that align the goals and objectives of the leadership with all parts of the organization. They all emphasize on the influential role it has in stimulating the entrepreneurial strategy needed to flatten the way for flexibility and adaptability needed for innovation especially in a dramatic changing business environment. Furthermore the leadership personal manner and the level of commitment and support they convey to emp loy defines to what level the entrepreneurial climate could be achieved. However, according to Burns (2008, p.105) quoting Richard Branson, there is no single best leadership style. It always depends on many different factors such as the leader, group, task, and situation, or even the scope they are in similar to the ideology the contingency theory discuss (Burns, 2008). The theory emphasizes that there is no best way to mange or lead in an organization. One of the examples Burns (2008) discusses is the managerial grid which was developed by Blake and Mouton. This model classifies the managerial styles upon leadership concern toward task compared to the concern for people. Figure 5 summarize and explains these styles. It classifies them into five types Impoverished Management, Country club Management, center of the road Management, Team management, and Authority-Compliance Management.Figure 5 The Leadership Grid (Source created by the authors, adapted from Blake and Mouton, 1978 i n Burns, 2008) Nevertheless if the organization desires to stay entrepreneurial, certain styles will not be appropriate such as autocratic or dictatorial- where the leadership dictate what is needed to be done without given any kind or decision making authority to the management team or impoverished management that has low concern for both the task and the group, because it is hardly leadership at all. On the other hand the organization must encourage the consultative style- where the leadership shares its high level of authority with the management team supervising the decision making process, and if the number of employees in an organization increase, concern for the group must increase and move toward the group and thus team management.Burns also discusses how managers behave in situations involving booking in order to obtain the best effective and suitable results (2008). found on the Thomas-Kilman Conflict modes questionnaire, behavior can be classified under two important d imensions which are Assertiveness the extent to which individuals satisfy their own needs, and Co- operativeness the extent they attempt to satisfy the needs of others. Thomas and Kilman comes up with five behavioral classifications that individuals can be indentified with Competing, Accommodating, Avoiding, Collaborating, and Compromising. Figure 6 explains these classifications in more details. (Burns, 2008, p. 99)Figure 6 Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes (Cited from Burns, pg. 99, 2008, adapted from Thomas and Kilmann, 1975) Furthermore according to the matrix provided above on how to behave in situations involving conflict, each style has its advantages and disadvantages and can be effective in different situations. However management teams tend always try to resolve conflict through collaborating or compromising approaches. Collaborating deals with finding alternatives that meet everyones concerns, and compromising the in between diplomatic route (Burns, 2008, p.99). Both appro aches are assertive and co-operative, thus using light influence to get their ideology implemented within the organization and its culture. 2.2.2. Organizational CultureOrganizational culture is another important aspect that affects corporate entrepreneurship. According to Sackmann (1991 in Dimitratos and Plakoyiannaki, 2003),many researches see organizational culture as cognitive framework which consists of values, beliefs, norms, meaning systems, patterns of thoughts. Organizational culture influences the expectation of organizational members to each other and their expectations of external interaction with suppliers, customers, and external environment (Ireland, Hitt, Sirmon, 2003). Parboteaah (2000 in Kenney et al., 2007) claims that developing and nurturing an entrepreneurial culture will help a company to find innovative solutions and sustain strategic competitive advantages, that is why Dess et al. (2005 in Kenney et al., 2007) recommend companies to check their culture if they have an entrepreneurial orientation. According to Ireland et al. (2003, p.970), an effective entrepreneurial culture must dedicate itself to the simultaneous importance of opportunity-seeking behavior and advantage-seeking behaviors, culture must promote innovative ideas and learning, encourage risk- taking activities while accepting the failure, and must be open to continuous change.Furthermore, the dimensions of culture created by Hofstede help to characterize an entrepreneurial culture in the organization (Burns, 2008). beginning dimension is individuality versus collectivism. It is about the level of preference to work as individuals or groups. According to Burns (2008), entrepreneurial culture must be based on collectivism rather than individuality in larger organizations. The establishment of relationships and networks within the organization will result in a strong sense of in-groups with the feeling of competition against out-groups (competitors). The second dimension i s power distance, which is about the degree of in equality among the people that community is willing to accept (Burns, 2008, p.116). Hofstede (1981 in Burns, 2008) claims that while lower power distance encourages the equalitarianism that stimulates flat structure, open relations and unrestricted information flow, higher power distance support hierarchical structure. Burns (2008) indicates entrepreneurial culture involves lower power distance. The third dimension is uncertainty avoidance, which is about the degree of peoples margin for complexity and uncertainty. While higher uncertainty avoidance stresses rules and procedures, rewards the compliance to these roles, lower uncertainty avoidance tolerates complexity, encourages flexibility, risk taking, initiative decision-making. Burns (2008) claims that low uncertainty avoidance is suitable for CE. The final dimension is masculinity and femininity. Whilemasculinity is based on financial and material achievements and competition, femininity focuses on relationships and cooperation. According to Burns (2008), CE must find a balance between masculinity and femininity. They have to establish one culture that focuses on achievements against competitors through networks and cooperation within organization. On the other hand, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990) claim that while corporate culture is one of the aspects that help to establish corporate entrepreneurship in large organizations, pagan Revolution by itself is not enough to achieve successful revitalization. The management must analyze every field of organization including its structure, strategy, leadership because culture correlates every field of organization. Leaders have to find out the sources of the problem and they have to make changes where it is necessary.Organizational StructureOne of the other factors that stimulate entrepreneurship in a company is the organizational structure. Large companies have recognise that to survive in todays conditi ons which are rapid and sociological changes, they have to create a structure that stimulates creativity and innovations (Sapolsky, 1967 in Livesay, 1995 Sinetar, 1985 in Livesay, 1995 Beer et al., 1990 Burns, 2008). However Sapolsky (1967 in Livesay, 1995) and Burns (2008) claim that there are no basic guidelines about one perfect structure that is suitable for every organization. According to Echols and Neck (1998), it is necessary to redesign structure to foster corporate entrepreneurship. Managers must structure organization as flat as possible and support it with entrepreneurial culture. New structure must support entrepreneurial behaviors. They analyzed ternion specific categories of entrepreneurial behavior which must have been addressed by management while changing structure. The first sept is detection of opportunities which requires transparency in the organization, external and internal networks and easy access to firms information. The second kinsfolk is opportunity f acilitation which demands supportively competition among firms and support from managers as coaches or mentors. Final category is the motivation to pursue opportunity. Managers must consider rewarding their employees for their entrepreneurial behaviors. (Echols et al., 1998, p.40-41)The most suitable structure depends on the nature of the organizations, the strategies employed, the task that they operate, the environment that they exist in and the size (Burns, 2008). Size is one of the most important factors for defining the structure. In recent years, as entrepreneurship becomes an important key success factor for the business, small firms gain a competitive advantage over large firms because of their flexible structure which enables better communication, greater delegation of authority and fast-breaking decision making. Nowadays, large firms are downsizing or deconstructing themselves to be entrepreneurial (which is the breaking of the organization down into smaller units) (Burns , 2008, p.137). The following trends are indicated by Pettigrew and Fenton (2000 in Burns, 2008, p.138) decentralizing, de-layering, outsourcing, down-scoping, using project forms of organizing, developing strategic alliances, communicating horizontally as well as vertically, investing in IT, and the application of new HR policies. Furthermore, organizational structure is obliged to change as the organization grows (Greiner, 1972 in Burns, 2008 Morris, Allen, Schindehutte Avila, 2006). But the traditional large firm structures are not suitable in this complex turbulent