Search

Purpose – This study presents and validates a theoretical model linking individual characteristics of the founding or lead innovative entrepreneur of a start-up venture – the entrepreneur’s values, entrepreneurial attitudes and entrepreneurial self-efficacy – to the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation (MO) and, ultimately, to firm performance. Design/methodology/approach – We conducted a survey on a stratified random sample of founders of early-stage South Australian micro- and small enterprises with a response rate of 24% (N 5 204). Structural equation modelling was used to evaluate the model. Findings – The study found that there is a significant relationship between the individual lead entrepreneur and firm strategies developed in early-stage firms in explaining firm performance. It also found that internal values are positively related to entrepreneurial attitude. Entrepreneurial attitude is positively related to entrepreneurial self-efficacy and EO innovativeness. In turn, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is related to innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. The proactiveness dimension of EO and entrepreneurial attitude is related to MO. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, innovativeness andMOare related to firm performance. Research limitations/implications – This research was limited to entrepreneurial ventures in South Australia and may lack generalisability in other states and countries. Originality/value – The research contributes to the understanding of the heterogeneity within self-employed individuals, in particular among innovative entrepreneurs, by expanding insights regarding antecedents and consequences of the entrepreneurial process. It develops insights into the links of individual-level constructs with firm-level constructs to develop a more meaningful understanding of new venture creation and performance. It enhances our knowledge of the heterogeneity within the group of self-employed by exploring the individual entrepr

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the speci

New product development projects are experiencing increasing internal and external project complexity. Complexity leadership theory proposes that external complexity requires adaptive and enabling leadership, which facilitates opportunity recognition (OR). We ask whether internal complexity also requires OR for increased adaptability. We extend a model of EO and OR to conclude that internal complexity may require more careful OR. This means that leaders of technically or structurally complex projects need to evaluate opportunities more carefully than those in projects with external or technological complexity.

Changes in the environment, including increased environmental complexity, require military supply units to employ a more adaptive strategy in order to enhance military agility. We extend the Lumpkin and Dess (1996) model and develop propositions that explore the interrelationships between/amongst entrepreneurial orientation (EO); opportunity recognition, evaluation and exploitation; environmental and organizational factors; and organizational performance. We propose that the innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking dimensions of EO are of primary importance in identifying adaptive solutions and that these relationships are moderated by environmental factors. The autonomy and competitive aggressiveness dimensions of EO are important in implementing solutions as adaptive strategies, especially in a military context, and these relationships are moderated by organizational factors. This chapter extends existing theory developed primarily for the civilian sector to the military. Military organizations are more rigid hierarchical structures, and have different measures of performance. At an applied level, this research provides insights for military commanders that can potentially enhance agility and adaptability.

High-tech start-ups and technology development firms, also known as technological entrepreneurs, play an important role in the American economy, enhancing global competitiveness through innovation. These firms are integral to a number of industries in-cluding, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, software, and the telecommunications industry (Zahra 1996a). As technology adopters, they use new technologies for product and process innovation; as technology developers, they initiate the commerciali-zation of new technologies (Clarysse and Moray 2004). Though they may be idea rich, technological entrepreneur typically are resource poor, often lacking the operating capital to intensively research an interesting idea, to develop the idea into a prototype, and/or to commercialize the product. Government involvement in early stages of technological entrepreneurship, especially through technological research and devel-opment programs, such as the Small Business and Innovation Research (SBIR) program, can assist in the technological entrepre-neurial process. These programs provide seed money to research an interesting new technology and to develop a working prototype. A better understanding of its role in the process of assisting technology entrepreneurs in developing and commercializ-ing technology could help government programs, like SBIR, facilitate the process. The SBIR program operates in ten Federal gov-ernment departments and agencies and typically funds over $1 billion in technology development programs annually. Using a model developed by Lumpkin and Dess (1996), this paper explores the conceptual role that government technology pro-grams can play in facilitating the process of technological entrepreneurship. It examines the relationships between the components of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation and the firm’s willingness to participate in the SBIR program. It also explores some of the ways SBIR funding can impact the environmental factors in which the firm o

When a new enterprise is born, how can an entrepreneur or intrapreneur decide how public or private the new enterprise should be? Should the publicness or privateness of a new enterprise be based upon genetics, i.e. replicate the publicness of the parent organization, or decided by design? As differences between public and private firms are blurred, entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs need to consider how public or private their new enterprise will be. This case study illustrates the tendency to replicate the publicness of the parent firm, which may not provide the right source of funding, ownership, control or other structures, such as board membership. This article provides propositions and a methodology to guide four major public versus private organizational decisions and establishes a future research agenda.

Purpose - To guide the formation and to determine the structure of new governmental entrepreneurial ventures based on the nature of the public goods and the need for an entrepreneurial orientation. Design/methodology/research - This paper is conceptual and is based on reviews of appropriate organizational structure and entrepreneurship, cases studies, and the authors’ experiences. Findings - Public or quasi-public entities may need to change their organizational structure in order to act more entrepreneurially and to be more effective in accomplishing their missions. Propositions are raised to guide the development of new public or private enterprises and provide the basis for future research. Research Limitations/Implications - This paper is conceptual and needs to be tested empirically. Though other levels of government and countries were included, a major focus is on the U.S. federal government. Originality/value –This is the first published research on the topic of new enterprise government structures based on the nature of the goods and the requisite entrepreneurial orientation. It will help governmental and quasi-governmental organizations in developing efficient and effective organizational structures.