Thus far in my review of the 11 CE models, I have covered the conditions that engender CE, Table 4 and Section 2.3.1 and the various processes that are active in CE, Table 5 and Section 2.3.2. These pro-CE conditions and processes are usually adopted by organisations with the expectation that they will improve organisational performance (Zahra & Covin, 1995). As such CE outcomes, Table 6, have been included in all of the 11 CE models under review and represent the final CE concept for consideration in this literature review.
Comparable to the CE conditions and processes researchers have also sought to investigate CE outcomes over two levels of analysis: the individual (Kuratko et al., 2005; Horsnby et al., 1993) and organisational (Ireland et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2005; Dess et al., 2003; Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Floyd & Lane, 2000; Zahra et al., 1999; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Hornsby et al., 1993; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Guth & Ginsberg; 1990; Burgelman, 1983). I use these levels of analysis to structure my discussion.
Author/Year Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship I ndividual Level Organisational Level Burgelman
(1983a)
Not considered Decision regarding integration of ICV project
Guth & Ginsberg (1990)
Not considered Organisation Performance Effectiveness Efficiency Stakeholder Satisfaction Firm Performance Covin & Slevin (1991)
Not considered Firm Performance Hornsby et
al. (1993)
Decision to act intrapreneurially Decision to implement idea Lumpkin &
Dess (1996)
Not considered Performance Sales Growth Market Share Profitability Overall Performance Stakeholder Satisfaction Zahra et al. (1999)
Not considered New Knowledge
Competence Development
Performance: Financial Non-financial Floyd &
Lane (2000)
Not considered Inertial forces in the established strategy of company are overcome
Antoncic & Hisrich (2001)
Not considered Performance Growth Profitability Dess et al.
(2003)
Not considered Knowledge
Technical: Specialised Integrative: Combinative Exploitative: Use
Kuratko et al. (2005)
Possible Outcomes: Negative, Positive, Neutral
Possible Outcomes: Negative, Positive, Neutral
Promotion Emergence of a pro-entrepreneurial organisational culture
Career derailment Re-establishment of competitive advantage
Reassignment within the corporation Diversification into new product-market arenas
Development of political skills Economic losses
Establishment of a new social network Enhancement of innovation capability Enhanced self-image Strategic drifting away from core business Financial rewards Broadening of Corporate Technology
Portfolio Scorn of more conservative
organisational members
Enhanced reputation among shareholders Ireland et al.
(2009)
Not specified Competitive Capability Strategic Repositioning
2.3.3.1 Corporate Entrepreneurship Outcomes: Organisational Level
Similar to its parent construct entrepreneurship, CE research has adopted the well- established performance indicators usually used in strategic management (Venkataraman, 1997). Consequently, organisational level CE outcomes have been conceptualised as improved organisational performance represented by the lucrative financial gains made possible through the pursuit of opportunity and developing new bases for competitive advantage in 6 of the 11 models under review. Multiple studies have established that CE activities have a positive impact on the financial performance index of organisations, specifically the growth and profitability indicators. For instance, Zahra & Covin (1995) collected data from three different samples over a seven-year period and their results indicate that CE had a positive impact on financial measures of company performance over time. This suggests CE is an effective means for improving financial performance in the long-term. Similarly, in their cross-cultural study Antoncic & Hisrich (2001) found CE to be positively and significantly related to both growth and profitability.
While improved financial performance is a useful and desirable CE outcome, the other 5 models included in this literature review recognise it is not the only meaningful effect of CE activities. Table 6 indicates that the traditional financial performance outcomes of CE activities co-exist with more contemporary, non- financial outcomes specific to the CE field. The Dess et al., (2003) and Zahra et al., (1999) models acknowledge an increasing number of organisations rely on additional forms of capital such as human, social and intellectual to create knowledge-based resources and competencies. Leveraging these varied categories of capital generates opportunities for knowledge creation and exploitation within CE activities. Alternatively, the process perspective taken by Floyd & Lane, (2000), Hornsby et al., (1993) and Burgleman, (1983) prioritises the importance RIWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQ¶VGHFLVLRQWRDFWHQWUHSUHQHXULDOO\DVD key CE outcome.
Last, Kuratko et al. (2005) and Ireland et al. (2009) also offer CE outcomes that are not necessarily related to performance. However, how the authors conceptualise their respective CE outcomes is of particular interest. Specifically, while both models acknowledge the widely accepted positive relationship between CE and performance, they do not assume these outcomes are necessarily positive. For instance, Ireland et al., (2009) recognise that strategic repositioning and competitive capability only disrupt the industry status quo. As such, they offer the caveat that with such disruptions there will inevitably be industry winners and losers that include the organisation that has been involved in CE. Following this notion that CE outcomes can exist on a spectrum, the Kurakto et al. (2005) model proposes a myriad of possible negative, neutral or positive organisational level CE outcomes.
2.3.3.2 Corporate Entrepreneurship Outcomes: Individual Level
Krueger (2000) states that organisations do not innovate; rather, it is the individuals within those organisations that innovate. Despite the importance of the individual in effecting CE, it can be seen throughout Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 that the amount of conceptual and empirical papers available on this level of analysis is limited. The treatment of the individual where CE outcomes are concerned is no exception, Table 6. As such, individual level CE outcomes have only been included in 2 of the 11 CE models under review (Kuratko et al., 2005; Hornsby et al., 1993).
+RUQVE\HWDO¶V PRGHODOVRSURSRVHVWKDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VFKRLFHWRDFWDV a corporate entrepreneur is the step in the CE process before the organisation as a whole becomes involved and renders its decision to implement an individXDO¶V LGHD $V SUHYLRXVO\ VWDWHG .XUDWNR HW DO¶V PRGHO LV D GHULYDWLYH RI +RUQVE\ HW DO¶V 7KLV PRGHO DOVR SURSRVHV WKDW LQGLYLGXDO OHYHO &( outcomes also exist on a continuum where they can be evaluated as negative, neutral or positive. Thus, organisational members do not only focus on what is good for the organisation but also how the choice to act entrepreneurially may affect their status and position in the organisation.