1Strategic entrepreneurship_ entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation

1Strategic entrepreneurship_ entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation
1Strategic entrepreneurship_ entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation

Strategic Management Journal

Strat.Mgmt.J.,22:479–491(2001)

DOI:10.1002/smj.196 GUEST EDITORS’INTRODUCTION TO

THE SPECIAL ISSUE

STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP: ENTREPRENEURIAL STRATEGIES FOR WEALTH CREATION

MICHAEL A.HITT1*,R.DUANE IRELAND2,S.MICHAEL CAMP3and DONALD L.SEXTON4

1College of Business,Arizona State University,Tempe,Arizona,U.S.A.

2E.Clairborne Robins School of Business,University of Richmond,Richmond, Virginia,U.S.A.

3Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership,Kansas City,Missouri,U.S.A.

4Sexton and Associates,Inc.,Summerville,South Carolina,U.S.A. Entrepreneurship involves identifying and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities.However,to create the most value entrepreneurial?rms also need to act strategically.This calls for an integration of entrepreneurial and strategic thinking.We explore this strategic entrepreneurship in several important organizational domains to include external networks and alliances, resources and organizational learning,innovation and internationalization.The research in this special issue examines both traditional(e.g.,contingency theory,strategic?t)and new theory (e.g.,cultural entrepreneurship,business model drivers).The research also integrates,extends, and tests theory and research from entrepreneurship and strategic management in new ways such as creative destruction(discontinuities),resource-based view,organizational learning, network theory,transaction costs and institutional theory.The research presented herein provides a basis for future research on strategic entrepreneurship for wealth creation.Copyright?2001John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

The age of progress is over.It was born in the Renaissance,achieved its exuberant adolescence during the Enlightenment,reached a robust maturity in the industrial age,and died with the dawn of the twenty-?rst century…We now stand on the threshold of a new age—the age of revolution…it is going to be an age of upheaval, of tumult,of fortunes made and unmade at head-snapping speed.For change has changed.No longer is it additive.No longer does it move in a straight line.In the twenty-?rst century,change Key words:strategic entrepreneurship;wealth creation;

networks;resources;innovation and internationalization *Correspondence to:Michael A.Hitt,College of Business, Arizona State University,PO Box874006,Tempe,AZ85287-4006,U.S.A.

Copyright?2001John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.is discontinuous,abrupt,seditious.(Hamel,2000: 4–5).

Uncertainty can be used to your bene?t if you create and employ an entrepreneurial mindset—a way of thinking about your business that captures the bene?ts of uncertainty.(McGrath and Mac-Millan,2000:1).

Change is constant in the new economy land-scape(Brown and Eisenhardt,1998).For example,the digital revolution is altering the fundamental ways companies conduct business to create wealth(Stopford,2001).Such signi?cant changes challenge the essence of the business model?rms use to achieve various goals and as such,they are curvilinear and complex(Hitt, 2000).As implied in the quotes above,this change,largely driven by new technology and

480M.A.Hitt et al.

globalization,has created a competitive landscape with substantial uncertainty(Bettis and Hitt, 1995;Ireland and Hitt,1999).However,there are opportunities in uncertainty.The?rm’s focus must be on identifying and exploiting these opportunities(Shane and Venkataraman,2000). Entrepreneurship involves identifying and exploiting opportunities in the external environ-ment(Ireland and Kuratko,2001;Smith and DeGregorio,2001;Zahra and Dess,2001);an entrepreneurial mindset is useful in capturing the bene?ts of uncertainty(McGrath and MacMil-lan,2000).

While the?elds of strategic management and entrepreneurship have developed largely indepen-dently of each other,they both are focused on how?rms adapt to environmental change and exploit opportunities created by uncertainties and discontinuities in the creation of wealth(Hitt and Ireland,2000;Venkataraman and Sarasvathy, 2001).As such,several scholars have recently called for the integration of strategic and entrepre-neurial thinking(e.g.,McGrath and MacMillan, 2000).In fact,Meyer and Heppard(2000)argue that the two are really inseparable.McGrath and MacMillan(2000)argue that strategists must exploit an entrepreneurial mindset and,thus,have no choice but to embrace it to sense opportunities, mobilize resources,and act to exploit opportuni-ties,especially under highly uncertain conditions. Venkataraman and Sarasvathy(2001)use a meta-phor based on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. They suggest that strategic management research that does not integrate an entrepreneurial perspec-tive is like the balcony without Romeo.Alterna-tively,they argue that entrepreneurship research without integration of a strategic perspective is like Romeo without a balcony.

These arguments provide the foundation for this special issue of Strategic Management Jour-nal.The speci?c purpose of this special issue is to encourage,nurture,and publish excellent research that integrates both entrepreneurship and strategic management perspectives.Furthermore, we focus on research that addresses entrepre-neurial strategies for wealth creation because of the critical importance to management research and practice for the twenty-?rst century.The importance of the topic is exempli?ed by the fact that we received83manuscripts in response to our call for papers for this special issue.The manuscripts published in this special issue emerged from a rigorous review and development process.This issue presents articles that make important theoretical and empirical contributions to our knowledge of entrepreneurial strategies that create wealth.Some of these works develop new theoretical perspectives,while others test pre-viously unexamined theoretical explanations for successful entrepreneurial strategies.

For the purposes of the research included in this special issue,we de?ne entrepreneurship as the identi?cation and exploitation of previously unexploited opportunities.As such,entrepre-neurial actions entail creating new resources or combining existing resources in new ways to develop and commercialize new products,move into new markets,and/or service new customers (Ireland et al.,2001;Ireland and Kuratko,2001; Kuratko,Ireland,and Hornsby,2001;Sexton and Smilor,1997;Smith and DeGregorio,2001).On the other hand,strategic management entails the set of commitments,decisions,and actions designed and executed to produce a competitive advantage and earn above-average returns(Hitt, Ireland,and Hoskisson,2001).Strategic man-agement calls for choices to be made among competing alternatives(Stopford,2001).Alterna-tive entrepreneurial opportunities constitute one of the primary arenas of choices to be made. Strategic management provides the context for entrepreneurial actions(Ireland et al.,2001). Entrepreneurship is about creation;strategic man-agement is about how advantage is established and maintained from what is created (Venkataraman and Sarasvathy,2001).Wealth creation is at the heart of both entrepreneurship and strategic management.Outcomes from cre-ation(i.e.,entrepreneurship)and exploiting cur-rent advantages while simultaneously exploring new ones(i.e.,strategic management)can be tangible,such as enhancements to?rm wealth, and intangible,such as enhancements in the?rm’s intellectual and social capital.Thus,entrepre-neurial and strategic perspectives should be inte-grated to examine entrepreneurial strategies that create wealth.We call this approach strategic entrepreneurship.

STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP Strategic entrepreneurship is entrepreneurial action with a strategic perspective.In the words

Strategic Entrepreneurship481

of Venkataraman and Sarasvathy(2001),entrepre-neurial action is the‘Romeo on the balcony.’One could also consider entrepreneurial action to be strategic action with an entrepreneurial mind-set.In short,strategic entrepreneurship is the integration of entrepreneurial(i.e.,opportunity-seeking behavior)and strategic(i.e.,advantage-seeking)perspectives in developing and taking actions designed to create wealth.

There are several domains in which the inte-gration between entrepreneurship and strategic management occurs naturally.With theoretical roots in economics,international business and management,organization theory,sociology,and strategic management,Hitt and Ireland(2000) and Ireland et al.(2001)identi?ed six such domains.Of these six,we examine the domains most important and relevant to the research pub-lished in this special issue.The review of the domains explores their theoretical bases,linkages to wealth creation,and the contributions of the speci?c research highlighted in this issue.The domains include external networks,resources and organizational learning,innovation,and inter-nationalization.

External networks

External networks have become increasingly important to all types of?rms as the economic environment continues to grow more competitive (Gulati,Nohria,and Zaheer,2000).Such net-works involve relationships with customers,sup-pliers,and competitors among others and often extend across industry,geographic,political,and cultural https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,works have grown in importance because they can provide?rms with access to information,resources,markets and even,at times,technologies(Gulati et al.,2000). Networks can also play an important role in providing participants with credibility or legit-imacy(Cooper,2001).This is particularly true for new ventures that participate in networks with older,more established?rms.

External networks can serve as sources of information that help entrepreneurial?rms iden-tify potential opportunities.(Cooper,2001).How-ever,the greatest value of networks for entrepre-neurial?rms is the provision of resources and capabilities needed to compete effectively in the marketplace(McEvily and Zaheer,1999).These resources and capabilities are of most bene?t in networks when they are complementary to those of partners in the network(Chung,Singh and Lee,2000;Hitt et al.,2000).The study reported by Rothaermel in this issue clearly shows the value of exploiting complementary resources in alliances and networks.The results of his research suggest that both smaller biotechnology?rms and the larger pharmaceutical?rms bene?t from their alliances.The biotechnology?rms provide new technology and new products(innovation),while the pharmaceutical?rms provide the distribution networks and marketing capabilities to success-fully commercialize the new products.The larger established pharmaceutical?rms also gain value through access to their partners’new technology. As a result of applying of the partners’comple-mentary assets,alliances help the larger,estab-lished companies adapt to the technological dis-continuity created by the introduction of the radical new technology.Indeed,radically new, disruptive technologies often upset an industry’s value chain,challenging?rms to quickly learn either how to create more of the value using traditional practices or more likely how to create value in ways different from historically practices (Albrinck et al.,2001).

In particular,external networks can be valuable because they provide the opportunity to learn new capabilities(Anand and Khanna,2000;Dussauge, Garrette and Mitchell,2000;Hitt et al.,2000). Networks,then,allow?rms to compete in mar-kets without?rst owning all of the resources necessary to do so.This is particularly important to new venture?rms because they often have limited resources(Starr and MacMillan,1990; Dubini and Aldrich,1991;Cooper,2001).In fact, research suggests that new start-up?rms can enhance their chances of survival and eventual success by establishing alliances and developing them into an effective network(Baum,Calabrese and Silverman,2000).The work by Amit and Zott in this special issue provides an excellent example.Based on a sample from the United States and Europe,they identify the drivers of value creation in e-business?rms..Two of the drivers are complementarities and new transaction structures with constituents in a network. E-businesses use networks extensively to outsource functions(e.g.,distribution assets,warehouses), particularly those usually performed by old-economy?rms that cannot be replaced using the new technology.

482M.A.Hitt et al.

Thus,?rms usually search for partners with complementary capabilities in forming an alliance or network.However,research has shown that equally important is the existence of social capital (Tsai,2000).Social capital is developed through experience operating in networks.Over time?rms learn how to work effectively with partners and build trusting relationships(Kale,Singh and Perlmutter,2000).While partners may use alliances for learning races(Hamel,1991),the building of mutual trust among partners often prevents the opportunistic outcomes of such learn-ing(Kale et al.,2000).Yli-Renko,Autio,and Sapienza in this special issue report results show-ing that social capital in critical customer relation-ships promotes both knowledge acquisition and knowledge exploitation by high-technology ven-tures.Their?ndings support the arguments that social capital facilitates learning.Interestingly, they also?nd that high-quality relationships between alliance partners promote trust and less emphasis on knowledge acquisition.In other words,high trust produces a willingness to depend on the partner rather than to learn and perhaps exploit the partner’s capabilities.An idio-syncratic trust-based relationship can be a source of competitive advantage for the partner?rms (Davis et al.,2000).

Kogut(2000)argued that the most important resource of networks may not be in the direct bilateral ties.Rather,participation in a network provides access to resources and knowledge of all of the?rm’s partners’network ties.Thus, both direct(i.e.,relatively formal)and indirect (i.e.,relatively informal)network ties can be valuable.One valuable outcome from direct and indirect network ties,especially for newer entre-preneurial?rms,is the status or recognition that can come from linkages to respected and pres-tigious partners(Stuart,2000).The research reported by Lee,Lee,and Pennings in this issue shows the importance of new venture?rms’link-ages to venture capitalists.These linkages are vital both for the?nancial support they generate as well as the legitimacy their investments pro-vide to other important external parties(e.g.,?nancial institutions,suppliers,customers, investors).Their research?ndings show a strong positive relationship between venture capitalist participation in a new venture and its?nancial growth rate.Lee,Lee,and Pennings conclude that internal capabilities are of critical importance for creating value in new ventures.

Resources and organizational learning

In1959,a British economist,Edith Penrose,sug-gested that the returns earned by?rms could largely be attributed to the resources they held. Novel in its nature and scope,this perspective was not shared by most of Penrose’s contempo-raries.In subsequent years,others,particularly strategic management scholars(e.g.,Wernerfelt, 1984;Hitt and Ireland,1985;Barney,1986,1991; Rumelt,1991;Amit and Schoemaker,1993), picked up the gauntlet arguing that?rms’resources,capabilities,and competencies facilitate the development of sustainable competitive advantages.The primary argument is that?rms hold heterogeneous and idiosyncratic resources (de?ned broadly here to include capabilities)on which their strategies are https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,petitive advantages are achieved when the strategies are successful in leveraging these resources.For example,special resources held by Southwest Airlines and not by its competitors allowed it to implement an integrated low cost-differentiation strategy such that it was successful in poor eco-nomic times when all of its competitors were https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,petitors have tried but largely failed to imitate Southwest Airlines.They employ a similar strategy but do not achieve the same results because they cannot imitate Southwest’s https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,anizational culture,leadership,and human capital are the unique resources Southwest Airlines leverages to compete successfully(Hitt et al.,1999).

Similarly,Lee,Lee,and Pennings in this spe-cial issue found that the technology-based ven-tures they studied created value largely based on their internal capabilities.Speci?cally,they found that entrepreneurial orientation,technological capabilities,and?nancial resources were primary predictors of a venture’s growth.Yeoh and Roth’s (1999)results show that a?rm’s resources and capabilities contributed to sustained competitive advantages in the pharmaceutical industry.Fur-thermore,Baum,Locke,and Smith(2001)report that a new venture’s internal capabilities are the primary determinants of the venture’s perfor-mance.These research results support the Lee et al.arguments and?ndings.

There are different forms of resources and capabilities.For example,managers represent a

Strategic Entrepreneurship483

unique organizational resource(Daily,Certo,and Dalton,2000).Certo,Covin,Daily,and Dalton in this special issue?nd that investment banking ?rms are less likely to underprice a?rm’s stock in an initial public offering(IPO)when it employs professional managers(vs.founder managers).Thus,founders may be perceived a less positive resource than professional managers as new ventures attempt to take their stock public. These?ndings resonate with agency theory argu-ments,in that at certain size and scale of enterprise(in terms of sales,number of employees,etc.),the separation of ownership(in the hands of principals)and decision-making authority(by individuals hired because of their decision-making skills)is an ef?cient form of organization.Likewise,Sarkar,Echambadi,and Harrison report in this special issue that knowl-edge of and proactiveness in the establishment of alliances are resources.They?nd that?rms with higher alliance proactiveness achieve better?-nancial performance.This relationship is especially strong in smaller companies and in ?rms operating in dynamic markets.

Because they are socially complex and more dif?cult to understand and imitate,intangible resources are more likely to lead to a competitive advantage than are tangible resources(Barney, 1991;Hitt et al.,2001b).One important intan-gible resource is a?rm’s reputation(Deephouse, 2000).Reputation can be an important strategic resource for many reasons,such as access to resources(e.g.,?nancial capital)and to help a ?rm take advantage of information asymmetries (Hitt et al.,2001b).Because it is almost impos-sible to determine the quality of services ex ante, customers may rely on a?rm’s positive reputation as a selection criterion for a provider of desired services.Moreover,a positive reputation creates switching costs for customers that they may not be willing to incur.

However,often new ventures have not been in existence long enough and their product or service may be novel,making it necessary for them to search for surrogate means to establish a positive reputation.Thus,they may negotiate an alliance with a reputable?rm to gain legitimacy. Lounsbury and Glynn in this special issue describe another way new venture?rms may gain legitimacy.They can do so with stories as legitimating accounts of entrepreneurial actions. These narratives can be used to show others that their ventures are compatible with more widely accepted marketplace activities.Stories provide symbols and create meaning for others.As such, they facilitate and support entrepreneurs’efforts to obtain access to needed resources such as ?nancial capital(e.g.,venture capital). Knowledge is another critical?rm-speci?c intangible resource.Grant(1996)suggests that knowledge is a?rm’s most critical competitive asset.Spender(1996)argues that knowledge and the?rm’s ability to generate it are at the core of the theory of the?rm.Much of a?rm’s knowl-edge resides in its human capital.Therefore,the selection,development,and use of human capital can be used to create?rm value(Hitt et al., 2001b).These arguments are supported by the research reported by Yli-Renko,Autio,and Sapi-enza in this special issue.They?nd that knowl-edge acquisition and exploitation in young tech-nology-based?rms contribute to their ability to build competitive advantages through new prod-uct development,creating technological distinc-tiveness,and implementing more ef?cient proc-esses.

Knowledge is generated through organizational learning(Hitt and Ireland,2000;Hitt,Ireland and Lee,2000).Learning new capabilities helps?rms to compete effectively,survive,and grow(Autio, Sapienza and Almeida,2000).Changes that occur in a?rm’s context can reduce the value of its current resources and knowledge.Thus,learning new knowledge may be necessary to help a?rm adapt to its environment.Newman(2000)argues that learning can help organizations to change. As explained in earlier sections,learning is a common reason for establishing alliances and par-ticipating in strategic networks(i.e.,Gulati,1999; Inkpen,2000;Steensma and Lyles,2000).For example,Rothaermel in this special issue?nds that incumbent?rms are able to learn through alliances with new entrant?rms and thereby enhance their own new product development. Hitt et al.(2001b)found that the transfer of knowledge within a?rm builds human capital (employees’capabilities)and contributes to higher ?rm performance.Furthermore,the?rm’s human capital is used to implement strategies that in turn enhance performance as well.Thus,human capital has direct and indirect effects on?rm performance.Diffusing this knowledge throughout the?rm can be a substantial challenge.Sorenson and S?rensen in this special issue explore diffus-

484M.A.Hitt et al.

ing knowledge in restaurant chains.They argue that exploitation learning is the most effective for chain-managed restaurants but that entrepreneurs in franchised units are more likely to engage in exploration learning.Firms operating in homo-geneous markets will perform better by expanding the company-managed units,thereby taking advantage of learning how to operate in these environments and diffusing it through standardization.However,?rms operating in het-erogeneous environments will perform better through franchising in order to learn through exploration and adapt to the local environments. Sorenson and S?rensen’s empirical results largely support these arguments.To the extent that new knowledge is exploited,learning can have a major effect on a new venture’s performance(Zahra, Ireland,and Hitt,2000b).Of course,no?rm can remain static.As such,established?rms and new ventures alike must continuously learn to build dynamic capabilities and competencies(Lei,Hitt and Bettis,1996;Teece,Pisano and Shuen,1997). Innovation

Innovation is considered by many scholars and managers to be critical for?rms to compete effectively in domestic and global markets(Hitt et al.,1998;Ireland and Hitt,1999).Hamel (2000)argues that innovation is the most important component of a?rm’s strategy.Others (i.e.,Germany and Muralidharan,2001)believe that successful innovation allows a?rm to provide directions for the evolution of an industry.Hamel suggests that because the competitive landscape is nonlinear,it requires managers to think in nonlinear ways.Hamel(2000)reports the results of as survey of approximately500CEOs who largely agreed that their industry had been changed in the last10years by newcomers,not incumbents,and that they had done so by chang-ing the rules.He concludes that the real story of Silicon Valley is not e-commerce,but innovation. Hamel refers to it as the power of‘i.’This is supported by the reported?ndings of Amit and Zott in this issue.They found one of the drivers of value creation in e-business is novelty(e.g., introducing new goods and services to the marketplace).

The research supports Hamel’s contentions.For example,Roberts’(1999)results show a relation-ship between high innovation and superior prof-itability.Additionally,the results provide no sup-port for the argument that?rms can also maintain high profitability by avoiding the competition (while not being innovative).Furthermore,Lee et al.,(2000)report that early and fast movers achieve the highest returns.First movers are the ?rst to introduce new goods or services(Grimm and Smith,1997).In doing so,?rst movers earn ‘monopoly profits’until a competitor imitates their new product or?nds a substitute.Finally, based on their empirical research,Subramaniam and Venkatraman(1999)conclude that the capa-bility to develop and introduce new products to the market is a primary driver of a successful global strategy.

There is a strong interrelationship between innovation and entrepreneurship.Drucker(1985), for example,suggests that innovation is the pri-mary activity of entrepreneurship.Lumpkin and Dess(1996)argue that a key dimension of an entrepreneurial orientation is an emphasis on innovation.Thus,an entrepreneurial mindset is required for the founding of new businesses as well as the rejuvenation of existing ones (McGrath and MacMillan,2000).Therefore,we may conclude that an important value-creating entrepreneurial strategy is to invent new goods and services and commercialize them(innovation) (Ireland et al.,2001).

Barringer and Bluedorn(1999)argue that corporate entrepreneurship is important for?rm survival and performance.The results of their study suggest that intensity in managerial prac-tices is required for successful corporate entrepreneurship.Their?ndings also show that ?exibility in planning,use of strategic controls, and involving many people in the process produce more entrepreneurial behavior.Increasingly,suc-cessful implementation of strategies is a product of involving people throughout the organization (Stopford,2001).Likewise,Leifer and Rice (1999)show that managerial practices differ for ?rms that produce breakthrough innovations from those in?rms that produce incremental inno-vations.

Ahuja and Lampert in this special issue con-ducted research that adds considerable richness to the conclusions regarding the development of breakthrough inventions.Ahuja and Lampert argue that many established?rms encounter learn-ing traps that serve as barriers to the development of breakthrough inventions.Learning traps are

Strategic Entrepreneurship485

tendencies to favor certain forms of learning and thereby disallow other forms.Ahuja and Lam-pert’s results show that experimenting with novel, emerging,and pioneering technologies can help ?rms overcome these learning traps to produce breakthrough inventions.Ahuja and Lambert argue that breakthrough(or radical)inventions are at the heart of entrepreneurship and wealth creation,calling on the work of Schumpeter (gales of creative destruction)to support these conclusions.

Hoopes and Postrel(1999)suggest that inte-gration leading to shared knowledge among?rms is a resource that enhances a?rm’s product devel-opment capabilities.Similarly,Verona’s(1999)?ndings suggest that integrative capabilities serve as a basis for new product development.These conclusions are supported by the research reported by Rothaermel in this special issue.He found that an incumbent?rm is able to enhance its own technological capabilities(e.g.,new prod-uct development)by learning from a partner that had produced a major new technology creating a discontinuity in the market.Similarly,Yli-Renko, Autio,and Sapienza report in this special issue that?rms are able to use knowledge acquired from partners to enhance their technological dis-tinctiveness.Zahra et al.(2000b)found that?rms with greater breadth,depth,and speed of techno-logical learning had higher levels of performance. These results suggest that?rms can employ strong innovative capabilities to implement entrepre-neurial strategies and thereby create wealth. Internationalization

Internationalization has become a primary driver of the competitive landscape in the twenty-?rst century(Hitt and Ireland,2000).And,the rate of globalization continues to increase(O’Donnell, 2000),exempli?ed by the growing number of economic transactions across country borders (Rondinelli and Behrman,2000).While the increasing globalization of markets heightens the complexity of doing business,it also enhances entrepreneurial opportunities(Ireland et al., 2001).Globalization requires that entrepreneurs and managers develop a global mindset in order to manage the complex interactions and trans-actions required in global markets(Hitt,Ricart i Costa and Nixon,1998;Murtha,Lenway and Bagozzi,1998).

The opportunities available,the facilitation of international transactions by new technologies, and the opening of international markets have led to an increasing number of smaller,entrepre-neurial businesses entering international markets (Hitt et al.,1998;Ireland and Hitt,1999).McDou-gall and Oviatt(2000)de?ne international entrepreneurship as innovative,proactive,and risk-seeking behavior that crosses national borders and is intended to create value in organizations. Therefore,international entrepreneurship can occur in large and small organizations as well as in new or established companies.Several researchers have found that moving into new international markets has a positive effect on a ?rm’s performance and creates value for the ?rm’s owners(Hitt,Hoskisson,and Kim,1997; Geringer,Tallman and Olsen,2000).Essentially,?rms learn new capabilities from each of the new markets they enter and diffuse this knowledge throughout the organization so that it can be successfully used in other markets(Barkema and Vermeulen,1998).Of course,companies that have internationalized experience economies of scale and have a larger market from which to obtain returns on their innovations.As such,inter-nationalization is positively related to a?rm’s innovation(Hitt et al.,1997).

Lu and Beamish in this special issue present an intriguing argument that moving into international markets by small and medium-sized organizations is a form of entrepreneurship.Speci?cally,they explore the effects of internationalization on the creation of value in small and medium-sized ?rms.In a sample of164Japanese?rms,they ?nd that these?rms initially experience a reduction in returns and thus face what some have called a liability of foreignness.However, after the?rms gain some experience with oper-ations in foreign markets,further foreign direct investment(FDI)leads to increased profits.Sup-porting the earlier arguments of the positive effects of networks,Lu and Beamish?nd that these small?rms experience greater profits when they engage in alliances with local partners in the new markets.In particular,their?ndings sug-gest that investing directly in new international markets has a positive effect but that exporting has a negative moderating effect.Thus,they con-clude that investing directly in the new markets to take advantage of unique opportunities is a form of entrepreneurship.Their results receive

486M.A.Hitt et al.

support from a study by Song,Di Benedetto and Yuzhen(1999).Their research suggests that managers from nine different countries—the United States,United Kingdom,Germany,Japan, China,Taiwan,Hong Kong,South Korea,and Singapore—all perceive pioneering in new mar-kets to be positively related to higher returns for the?rm.

One reason for increased entrepreneurial activity in many parts of the globe is the increased privatization worldwide.Privatization has become a popular strategy to promote eco-nomic development in developing,emerging,and developed market economies.The intent of priva-tization is to unleash?rms’entrepreneurial capa-bilities,thereby producing more innovation(Zahra et al.,2000a).Thus,privatization provides entre-preneurial opportunities.However,many privat-ized?rms need resources and entrepreneurial capabilities to take advantage of these opportuni-ties.As a result,many attempt to form alliances with?rms from other countries that have greater resources and capabilities on which they can draw (Hitt et al.,2000;Hitt et al.,2001a).Certainly, prior research has shown that entrepreneurial ?rms can learn from their entries into inter-national markets and this knowledge can be applied to create greater value for the owners (Autio et al.,2000;Zahra et al.,2000b).Gupta and Govindarajan(2000)argue that multinational corporations exist because of their ability to trans-fer and exploit knowledge more ef?ciently within and throughout the corporation than can be accomplished through the external market mecha-nisms.The current research on entrepreneurial strategies suggests that the same is true for smaller entrepreneurial?rms.

WEALTH-CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL STRATEGIES

Drawing from contingency theory and other theo-retical bases,Zajac,Kraatz,and Bresser(2000) developed and tested a model of strategic?t. They used environmental and organizational con-tingencies to predict changes in a?rm’s strategy and the performance implications of the change. Their sample involved savings and loan?nancial institutions.Robinson and McDougall in this spe-cial issue show that the concepts of contingency and strategic?t also are highly relevant to new venture?rms as well.Integrating arguments from industrial organization economics,strategic man-agement,and entrepreneurship,they argue and ?nd that environmental factors(e.g.,market entry barriers)affect the performance of new ventures after accounting for the moderating effects of industry growth stage and new venture?rm strat-egy.While their research shows that traditional approaches and strategies apply to new venture ?rms,several of the articles published in this special issue focus on new or unique (entrepreneurial)approaches or strategies.

For example,Amit and Zott examine the driv-ers of value creation for e-business strategies. They found four drivers of value creation for e-business?rms:ef?ciency,complementarities, lock-in,and novelty.Thus,e-business?rms have strategies that create value when:(1)they make the purchase more ef?cient for the customer(e.g., provide information to customers so they can make an informed decision);(2)their services are complementary to other important services so that customers can purchase a bundle of services (range of services broad because there are no physical limitations);(3)strong incentives are used to obtain repeat business(create high switch-ing costs);and(4)the service they provide is unique(novel—that is,the service is recognized to be pioneering and thus creates previously unrecognized value).These?ndings are valuable not only for e-business?rms.Gulati and Garino (2000)argue that many of the most innovative Internet-related businesses are integrating their virtual and physical operations.Furthermore,a number of old economy?rms have developed electronic operations and the most effective ones have integrated them into their overall operations (as opposed to maintaining them as separate entities).The concepts of ef?ciency,complemen-tarities,lock-in,and novelty are important for value creation in all business operations. Lounsbury and Glynn in this special issue develop a concept which they refer to as cultural entrepreneurship.Cultural entrepreneurship involves telling stories to enhance the entrepre-neurial?rm’s(entrepreneur’s)reputation(building legitimacy).The primary purpose is to leverage the entrepreneurial?rm’s resources to obtain capi-tal resources.The entrepreneur,in turn,uses the capital resources to leverage the?rm’s other resources(e.g.,new technology)to create wealth. Essentially,the stories are used to craft the iden-

Strategic Entrepreneurship487

tity of the?rm.This identity serves as the basis for legitimacy with potential investors,customers, and even competitors.

Ahuja and Lampert in this special issue explain that radical breakthrough inventions are at the core of entrepreneurial activity.Such inventions best relate to Schumpeter’s gales of creative destruction.They theoretically explain and test entrepreneurial strategies that are most likely to lead to breakthrough inventions.They?nd that exploring novel,emerging,and pioneering technologies are all related to the development of breakthrough inventions.However,they also suggest that to search for pioneering technologies or experiment with novel technologies requires slack resources.Without slack resources,?rms are unlikely to create breakthrough technologies. Their work is highly important because smaller entrepreneurial?rms develop many of the break-through technologies.These smaller?rms are less likely to experience the barriers created by the learning traps explained by Ahuja and Lampert. Calori et al.,(2000)argue that innovative strat-egies change the structure of the?rm’s industry. Further,they suggest that Schumpeter’s argu-ments encompass international development.Lu and Beamish build on this notion to argue that entry into international markets by smaller and medium-sized?rms is an entrepreneurial strategy. Essentially,these?rms expand into international markets to pursue new opportunities by leverag-ing their current resources,capabilities,and com-petencies.Therefore,Lu and Beamish’s research adds another dimension to the developing?eld of international entrepreneurship.Their?ndings support the arguments that exporting does little to create value.Rather,the more entrepreneurial actions accompanying direct investments in the markets entered created value in the small and medium-sized companies.As argued earlier,entry into new international markets allows the?rm to learn and the development and diffusion of this knowledge creates dynamic capabilities and com-petencies(Lei et al.,1996;Teece et al.,1997; Luo,2000).

Robinson and McDougall in this special issue explain the importance of IPOs.During1989–999,$350.81billion were invested in IPOs.There were$69.2billion invested in IPOs in1999alone. Robinson and McDougall’s sample was composed of IPO new venture?rms.Similarly,Certo, Covin,Daily,and Dalton in this special issue examine the process of wealth creation and reten-tion in IPOs through the practice of underpricing. Given their results,entrepreneurial?rms may wish to consider using a smaller investment bank-ing?rm and to include more insiders on the board,as both reduced the amount of IPO under-pricing.

The other articles in this special issue examine exploitation of complementary assets(Rothaermel), different types of learning with company-owned and franchised operations(Sorenson and S?rensen),the effects of internal capabilities, social capital(external networks)and knowledge acquisition(Lee,Lee and Pennings;Yli-Renko, Autio and Sapienza),and the proactive develop-ment of alliances(Sarkar,Echambadi,and Harrison),all with a focus on value creation. CONCLUSIONS

The research published in this special issue draws on theory from multiple?elds,including entrepreneurship,strategic management,organi-zation theory,and economics.Some of the most common theories invoked by the authors herein are the resource-based view,organizational learn-ing,Schumpeter’s arguments on entrepreneurial activity,network theory,and to a lesser extent transaction cost economics,ef?cient markets,and contingency theory.New theory(cultural entrepreneurship,as argued by Lounsbury and Glynn)was developed and existing theories were integrated in unique,value-adding ways(see Amit and Zott,and Lu and Beamish).Both the new theory and the unique extensions of existing theories provide foundations for important future research.

The empirical research presented herein was largely centered in North America(mostly the United States)but also included?rms from Eu-rope(United Kingdom and several European countries)and Asia(Japan,Korea).As noted above,managers from multiple countries largely perceive entrepreneurial activity in similar ways (Song et al.,1999).That said,Lee and Peterson (2000)effectively argue that there are cultural and institutional differences in the entrepreneurial orientation across countries.In fact,research shows that some of the most prominent entrepre-neurial activity in the world is occurring in the United States,Brazil,and Korea(two of which

488M.A.Hitt et al.

are highlighted by the research in this special issue)(Reynolds et al.,2000).Nonetheless,with increasing globalization and the liberalization of markets,entrepreneurial activity is being pro-moted throughout the world(e.g.,South America, Eastern Europe,China,and Russia,among others).Entrepreneurship is popular partly because it is perceived as an engine of socioeco-nomic growth and development,providing new job opportunities and diverse goods and services to the population(Reynolds et al.,2000).Thus, enhanced entrepreneurship in a country leads to greater national prosperity and competitiveness (Zahra,1999).

Although entrepreneurship has existed as a practice and?eld of study for quite some time, there is no commonly accepted and well-developed paradigm for research in the?eld (Aldrich,2000;Aldrich and Baker,1997).We believe that the integration of theory and research in strategic management and entrepreneurship,as suggested by the research highlighted in this spe-cial issue,will help to develop such a paradigm. McGrath and MacMillan(2000)integrated the thinking from both?elds in developing their entrepreneurial mindset concept.They argued that those with an entrepreneurial mindset passionately seek new opportunities(entrepreneurship).How-ever,they also pursue only the best opportunities and then pursue those with discipline(strategic management).Evans and Wurster(1999)argue that e-business?rms need effective strategies to survive,thereby con?rming the importance of integrating entrepreneurial and strategic man-agement activities for wealth creation.

The integration of entrepreneurial thinking is important for strategic management as well.In fact,Hamel(2000)eloquently argues that man-agers can enhance the probability that new wealth-creating strategies will emerge inside their ?rms by dreaming,exploring,creating,pio-neering,and inventing.Furthermore,Hamel argues that if?rms do not engage in these activi-ties,other?rms will do so and will take their markets,customers,best employees,and?nally their assets.Therefore,we believe that the inte-gration of theory and research in these two?elds has the potential to enrich the research and prac-tice of both entrepreneurship and strategic man-agement.

Thus,we present the concept of strategic entrepreneurship and the research in this special issue to both?elds.Strategic entrepreneurship is an important concept suggesting that new ven-tures and established?rms need to be si-multaneously entrepreneurial and strategic.The research published in this special issue suggests that these?rms require certain types of critical resources and capabilities to achieve this inte-gration and to create wealth.The theoretical and empirical contributions reported in this special issue and the research questions they suggest we hope will serve as a catalyst to further integrative research that increases our understanding of stra-tegic entrepreneurship as a path to wealth cre-ation.

REFERENCES

Albrinck J,Hornery J,Kletter D,Neilson G.2001.

Adventures in corporate venturing.Strategy&Busi-ness22(1):119–129.

Aldrich H.2000.Learning together:national differences in entrepreneurship research.In Handbook of Entrepreneurship.Sexton DL,Landstrom H(eds).

Blackwell Publishers:Oxford;5–25.

Aldrich HE,Baker T.1997.Blinded by the cites?Has there been progress in entrepreneurship research?In Entrepreneurship2000.Sexton DL,Smilor RW (eds).Upstart Publishing:Chicago,IL;377–400. Amit R,Schoemaker PJH.1993.Strategic assets and organizational rent.Strategic Management Journal 14(1):33–46.

Anand BN,Khanna T.2000.Do?rms learn to create value?The case of alliances?Strategic Management Journal Special Issue21(3):295–315.

Autio E,Sapienza HJ,Almeida JG.2000.Effects of age at entry,knowledge intensity,and imitability on international growth.Academy of Management Journal43:909–924.

Barkema HG,Vermeulen F.1998.International expan-sion through start-up or acquisition:a learning per-spective.Academy of Management Journal41:7–26. Barney JB.1986.Strategic factor markets:expectations, luck,and business strategy.Management Science 31:1231–1241.

Barney JB.1991.Firm resources and sustained competi-tive advantage.Journal of Management17:99–120. Barringer BR,Bluedorn AC.1999.The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management.Strategic Management Journal20(5): 421–444.

Baum JAC,Calabrese T,Silverman BS.2000.Don’t go it alone:alliance network composition and startups’performance in Canadian biotechnology.Strategic Management Journal,Summer Special Issue21(3): 267–294.

Baum JR,Locke EA,Smith KG.2001.A multi-dimen-sional model of venture growth.Academy of Man-agement Journal44:292–303.

Strategic Entrepreneurship489

Bettis RA,Hitt MA.1995.The new competitive land-scape.Strategic Management Journal Summer Spe-cial Issue16:7–20.

Brown SL,Eisenhardt https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,peting on the Edge.Harvard Business School Press:Boston,MA. Calori R,Melin L,Atamer T,Gustavsson P.2000.

Innovative international strategies.Journal of World Business35:333–354.

Chung S,Singh H,Lee https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,plementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation.Strategic Management Journal 21(1):1–22.

Cooper https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,works,alliances and entrepreneurship.In Strategic entrepreneurship:Cre-ating a new integrated mindset.Hitt MA,Ireland RD,Camp SM,Sexton DL(eds.).Blackwell: Oxford,UK(in press).

Daily CM,Certo ST,Dalton DR.2000.International experience in the executive suite:the path to pros-perity.Strategic Management Journal21(4):515–523.

Davis JH,Schoorman FD,Mayer RC,Tan HH.2000.

The trusted general manager and business unit per-formance:empirical evidence of a competitive advantage.Strategic Management Journal21(5): 563–576.

Deephouse DL.2000.Media reputation as a strategic resource:an integration of mass communication and resource-based theories.Journal of Management26: 1091–1112.

Drucker P.1985.Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Practice and Principles.HarperBusiness:New York. Dubini P,Aldrich HE.1991.Personal and extended networks are central to entrepreneurial process.Jour-nal of Business Venturing6:305–313. Dussauge P,Garrette B,Mitchell W.2000.Learning from competing partners:outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe,North America, and Asia.Strategic Management Journal21(2): 99–126.

Evans P,Wurster TS.1999.Getting real about virtual commerce.Harvard Business Review77(6):83–94. Geringer JM,Tallman S,Olsen DM.2000.Product and international diversi?cation among Japanese multinational?rms.Strategic Management Journal 21(1):51–80.

Germany R,Muralidharan R.2001.The three phases of value capture.Strategy&Business22(1):82–91. Grant RM.1996.Toward a knowledge-based theory of the?rm.Strategic Management Journal Winter Spe-cial Issue17:109–122.

Grimm CM,Smith KG.1997.Strategy as Action: Industry Rivalry and Coordination.SouthWestern: Cincinnati,OH.

Gulati https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,work location and learning:the in?uence of network resources and?rm capabilities on alliance formation.Strategic Management Jour-nal20(5):397–420.

Gulati R,Garino J.2000.Get the right mix of bricks and clicks.Harvard Business Review78(3):107–114. Gulati R,Nohria N,Zaheer A.2000.Strategic net-works.Strategic Management Journal Special Issue 21(3):203–215.Gupta AK,Govindarajan V.2000.Knowledge?ows within multinational corporations.Strategic Manage-ment Journal21(4):473–496.

Hamel https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,petition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances.Strategic Management Journal Summer Special Issue12:83–103.

Hamel G.2000.Leading the Revolution.Harvard Busi-ness School Press:Boston,MA.

Hitt MA.2000.The new frontier:transformation of management for the new https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,anizational Dynamics28:6–17.

Hitt MA,Ahlstrom D,Dacin MT,Levitas E.2001a.

The economic and institutional contexts of inter-national strategic alliance partner selection:China vs.Russia.Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference,Washington,DC.

Hitt MA,Bierman L,Shimizu K,Kochhar R.2001b.

Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service ?rms:a resource-based perspective.Academy of Management Journal44:13–28.

Hitt MA,Dacin MT,Levitas E,Arregle JL,Borza A.

2000.Partner selection in merging and developed market contexts:resource-based and organizational learning perspectives.Academy of Management Journal43:449–467.

Hitt MA,Hoskisson RE,Kim H.1997.International diversi?cation:effects on innovation and?rm per-formance in product diversi?ed?rms.Academy of Management Journal40:767–798.

Hitt MA,Ireland RD.1985.Corporate distinctive com-petence,strategy,industry,and performance.Stra-tegic Management Journal6(3):273–293.

Hitt MA,Ireland RD.2000.The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research.

In Handbook of Entrepreneurship.Sexton DL,Land-strom HA(eds.).Blackwell:Oxford;45–63.

Hitt MA,Ireland RD,Hoskisson RE.2001.Strategic Management:Competitiveness and Globalization.

Southwestern:Cincinnati,OH.

Hitt MA,Ireland RD,Lee H.2000.Technological learning,knowledge management,?rm growth and performance.Journal of Engineering and Tech-nology Management17:231–246.

Hitt MA,Nixon RD,Clifford PG,Coyne KP.1999.

The development and use of strategic resources.In Dynamic Strategic Resources.Hitt MA,Clifford PG, Nixon RD,Coyne KP(eds.).Wiley:Chichester;1–14. Hitt MA,Ricart i Costa JE,Nixon RD.1998.The new frontier.In Managing Strategically in an Intercon-nected World.Hitt MA,Ricart i Costa JE,Nixon RD(eds).Wiley:Chichester;1–12.

Hoopes DG,Postrel S.1999.Shared knowledge,‘glit-ches’and product development performance.Stra-tegic Management Journal20(9):837–865. Inkpen AC.2000.A note on the dynamics of learning alliances:competition,cooperation,and relative scope.

Strategic Management Journal21(7):775–779. Ireland RD,Hitt MA.1999.Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the21st century:the role of strategic leadership.Academy of Management Executive13(1):43–57.

490M.A.Hitt et al.

Ireland RD,Hitt MA,Camp SM,Sexton DL.2001.

Integrating entrepreneurship actions and strategic management actions to create?rm wealth.Academy of Management Executive15(1):49–63

Ireland RD,Kuratko DF.2001.Corporate entrepreneurship and middle-level managers’entre-preneurial behavior:relationships,outcomes,and consequences.Working paper,University of Rich-mond.

Kale P,Singh H,Perlmutter H.2000.Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital.Strategic Management Journal,Special Issue21(3):217–237.

Kogut B.2000.The network as knowledge;generative rules and the emergence of structure.Strategic Man-agement Journal Special Issue21(3):405–425. Kuratko DF,Ireland RD,Hornsby JS.2001.The power of entrepreneurial actions:insights from Acordia, Inc.Academy of Management Executive(in press): Lee H,Smith KG,Grimm CM,Schomburg A.2000.

Timing,order and durability of new product advan-tages with imitation.Strategic Management Journal 21(1):23–30.

Lee SM,Peterson SJ.2000.Culture,entrepreneurial orientation,and global competitiveness.Journal of World Business35:401–416.

Lei D,Hitt MA,Bettis R.1996.Dynamic core com-petencies through meta-learning and strategic con-text.Journal of Management22:549–569.

Leifer R,Rice M.1999.Unnatural acts:building the mature?rm’s capability for breakthrough innovation.

In Dynamic Strategic Resources.Hitt MA,Clifford PG,Nixon RD,Coyne KP(eds.).Wiley:Chichester;

433–454.

Lumpkin GT,Dess GG.1996.Clarifying the entrepre-neurial orientation construct and linking it to per-formance.Academy of Management Review21: 135–172.

Luo Y.2000.Dynamic capabilities in international expansion.Journal of World Business35:355–378. McDougall PP,Oviatt BM.2000.International entrepreneurship:the intersection of two research paths.Academy of Management Journal43:902–906.

McEvily B,Zaheer A.1999.Bridging ties:a source of?rm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities.

Strategic Management Journal20(12):1133–1156. McGrath RG,MacMillan I.2000.The Entrepreneurial Mindset.Harvard Business School Press:Boston, MA.

Meyer GD,Heppard KA.2000.Entrepreneurship as Strategy:Competing on the Entrepreneurial Edge.

Sage:Thousand Oaks,CA.

Murtha TP,Lenway SA,Bagozzi RP.1998.Global mindsets and cognitive shifts in a complex multi-national corporation.Strategic Management Journal 19(2):97–114.

Newman https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,anizational transformation dur-ing institutional upheaval.Academy of Management Review25:602–619.

O’Donnell SW.2000.Managing foreign subsidiaries: agents of headquarters,or an interdependent network?

Strategic Management Journal21(5):525–548.Penrose ET.1959.The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.Wiley:New York.

Reynolds PD,Hay M,Bygrave WD,Camp SM,Autio

E.2000.Global Entrepreneurship Monitor2000

Executive Report.Kauffman Center for Entrepre-neurial Leadership:Kansas City,MO.

Roberts PW.1999.Product innovation,product-market competition and persistent profitability in the U.S.

pharmaceutical industry.Strategic Management Journal20(7):655–670.

Rondinelli DA,Behrman JN.2000.The promises and pains of globalization.Global Focus12:3–15. Rumelt R.1991.How much does industry matter?

Strategic Management Journal12(3):167–185. Sexton DL,Smilor RW.(eds.).1997.Entrepreneurship 2000.Upstart:Chicago,IL.

Shane S,Venkataraman S.2000.The promise of entrepreneurship as a?eld of research.Academy of Management Review25:217–226.

Smith KG,DeGregorio D.2001.Bisociation,discovery and the role of entrepreneurial action.In Strategic Entrepreneurship:Creating a New Integrated Mind-set.Hitt MA,Ireland RD,Camp SM,Sexton DL (eds.).Blackwell:Oxford(in press).

Song XM,Di Benedetto CA,Yuzhen L.1999.Pioneering advantages in manufacturing and service industries: empirical evidence from nine countries.Strategic Management Journal20(9):811–836.

Spender J-C.1996.Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the?rm.Strategic Management Journal Winter Special Issue17:45–62.

Starr JA,MacMillan IC.1990.Resource co-optation via social contracting:resource acquisition strategies for new ventures.Strategic Management Journal Summer Special Issue11:79–92.

Steensma HK,Lyles MA.2000.Explaining IJV sur-vival in a transitional economy through social exchange and knowledge-based perspectives.Stra-tegic Management Journal21(8):831–851. Stopford J.2001.Should strategy makers become dream weavers?Harvard Business Review79(1):165–169. Stuart TE.2000.Interorganizational alliances and the performance of?rms:a study of growth and inno-vation rates in a high-technology industry.Strategic Management Journal21(8):791–811. Subramaniam M,Venkatraman N.1999.The in?uence of leveraging tacit overseas knowledge for global new product development capability:an empirical examination.In Dynamic Strategic Resources.Hitt MA,Clifford PG,Nixon RD,Coyne KP(eds.).

Wiley:Chichester;373–401.

Teece DJ,Pisano G,Shuen A.1997.Dynamic capabili-ties and strategic management.Strategic Manage-ment Journal18(7):509–534.

Tsai W.2000.Social capital,strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages.Stra-tegic Management Journal21(9):925–939. Venkataraman S,Sarasvathy SD.2001.Strategy and entrepreneurship:outlines of an untold story.In Handbook of Strategic Management.Hitt MA,Free-man E,Harrison JS(eds.).Blackwell:Oxford(in press).

Verona G.1999.A resource-based view of product

Strategic Entrepreneurship491

development.Academy of Management Review24: 132–142.

Wernerfelt B.1984.A resource-based view of the?rm.

Strategic Management Journal5(2):171–180. Yeoh P-L,Roth K.1999.An empirical analysis of sustained advantage in the U.S.pharmaceutical industry:impact of?rm resources and capabilities.

Strategic Management Journal20(7):637–653. Zahra SA.1999.The changing rules of global competi-tiveness in the21st century.Academy of Manage-ment Executive13(4):36–42.

Zahra SA,Dess GG.2001.Entrepreneurship as a?eld of research:encouraging dialogue and debate.Acad-emy of Management Review26:8–10.Zahra SA,Ireland RD,Gutierrez I,Hitt MA.2000a.

Privatization and entrepreneurial transformation: emerging issues and a future research agenda.Acad-emy of Management Review25:509–524.

Zahra SA,Ireland RD,Hitt MA.2000b.International expansion by new venture?rms:international diver-sity,mode of market entry,technological learning, and performance.Academy of Management Journal 43:925–950.

Zajac EJ,Kraatz MS,Bresser RKF.2000.Modeling the dynamics of strategic?t:a normative approach to strategic change.Strategic Management Journal 21(4):429–453.

机会与企业家精神Opportunities and Entrepreneurship

Opportunities and Entrepreneurship 这篇文章通过更加详细的阐述机会再创业过程中的角色来扩展了企业家精神的视角,尤其是通过一个关注特征和存在的创业机会的不平衡框架,来解释研究企业家精神的重要性。另外本文还解释了一些机会的种类和应用。 研究者对创业的研究从关注什么样的个体或者企业更加的具备创业导向到关注创业精神与存在的机会之间的关系,已经有很多的研究关注在这样的点,但是这些研究都非常的混乱,作者希望通过本文能够区分定义出机会在创业精神框架中的地位。为了达到这个目标,本文首先是对之前的文献研究进行了回顾与探讨,比如提出一些探讨性的问题,以及为什么均衡性的假设在创业情景下是存在问题的;第二部分就是为什么创业精神要基于已经存在的机会以及客户的行为而不是简单的基于客户的特征,阐述这些机会到底是什么以及为什么价格不能反映他们的存在,如何发现机会以及机会是如何丢失掉的;第三部分对机会的类型划分了三个维度;第四部分阐述了对本理论进行理论与实证研究的分支,最后总结。 一、已经存在的创业精神相关的理论 过去三十年的研究很多都忽视了机会再创业精神中扮演的角色,首先研究者大多认为企业家精神取决于个人之间稳定的确定的差异而不是他们所感受到机会存在的信息,而我们的研究认为人们对机会的感知信息也会很大程度影响到企业家精神;第二是大多数研究都认为企业家精神是一种稳定均衡的现象,但是我们认为为了合理的解释企业家精神,研究者必须假设或者允许它是一种不均衡的现象。 在均衡的经济下,研究者假设参与者不会有任何的动机去做出改变,他们对现在的产品质量等都是很满意的,用经济学术语说就是达到了帕累托最优,但是这个与创业的过程相矛盾,并且会阻碍他的发展,从以下四个方面来看: 首先均衡理论任务目前的价格机制考虑了所有可能影响的因素来指导资源的分配,从而能够科学合理的最优化的分配资源,但是实际上价格机制没有办法包含所有分配资源所需要的信息;第二个是均衡理论认为所有市场参与者对未来的信息和期望都可以简化为价格数据库里的资源,因此制定基于价格机制的长期合同,但是未来的信息被简化为现在的价格信息的前提是目前市场上必须包含所有的商品与服务,未来市场不存在创新性活动因为他们都被信息所困扰,这样未来市场的创新行为会被道德折磨以及不利的选择问题所损害;第三是均衡理论认为所有的决策都是最优的,当所有的信息都被合并入价格机制之后,决策就变成一种数学化的有机机制,但是很多的决策在一些阻碍之下并不是最优化的;第四是通过假设价

Entrepreneurship

07-007 Copyright ? 2006 by Geoffrey Jones and R. Daniel Wadhwani Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Entrepreneurship and Business History: Renewing the Research Agenda Geoffrey Jones R. Daniel Wadhwani

Entrepreneurship and Business History: Renewing the Research Agenda Geoffrey Jones Joseph C. Wilson Professor of Business Administration Harvard Business School gjones@https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, R. Daniel Wadhwani Assistant Professor of Management and Fletcher Jones Professor of Entrepreneurship University of the Pacific

Entrepreneurship in value chains of non-timber forest products

Entrepreneurship in value chains of non-timber forest products Dirk Willem te Velde a,*,Jonathan Rushton b ,Kathrin Schreckenberg c ,Elaine Marshall d ,Fabrice Edouard e ,Adrian Newton f ,Erik Arancibia g a Overseas Development Institute,111Westminster Bridge Road,London SE17JD,UK b CEVEP ,Bolivia c Overseas Development Institute,UK d UNEP-WCMC,UK e Methodus,Mexico f University of Bournemouth,UK g Independent,Bolivia Abstract Entrepreneurship and innovation by actors in the market for non-timber forest products (NTFPs)cannot be fully understood without a proper understanding of the position and behaviour of actors in the value chain of NTFPs.This paper places the market for NTFPs in the emerging literature on value chains which has,so far,lacked a detailed analysis of NTFPs.Our analysis reveals that certain key entrepreneurs are a driving force of success throughout several NTFP value chains in both Bolivia and Mexico.Where market information is scarce,e.g.where producers are distant from consumers,key entrepreneurs often govern entire value chains. We argue that certain entrepreneurs are key to spreading success throughout the value chains of selected NTFPs offsetting potential negative consequences such as exploitation of more upstream actors (e.g.collectors and processors)in the value chains.Typical examples include the shopkeeper/organisation in Santa Cruz,Bolivia,who sources woven palm products from and supports several producers,and the entrepreneur in Mexico who established links between mushroom pickers in rural communities and brokers and consumers in Japan.Rather than criticising the monopolistic position of individuals,it is important to understand how the activity of key entrepreneurs can be supported in spreading successful commercialisation further and where necessary control negative impacts of their role.Our analysis indicates that policies to support commercialisation of the case study NTFPs would also need to be tailored to each value chain. D 2005Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved. Keywords:Entrepreneurship;Value chains;Governance;Innovation;Market information;Bolivia;Mexico;Camedora palm;Matsutake mushrooms;Jipi Japa fibre 1389-9341/$-see front matter D 2005Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.06.010 *Corresponding author. E-mail address:dw.tevelde@https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, (D.W.te Velde). Forest Policy and Economics 8(2006)725– 741 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,/locate/forpol

《Innovation and entrepreneurship 》读书报告

浙江人才找工作,就上一览浙江英才网读书报告: 书名:Innovation and entrepreneurship Practice and Principles 作者:Peter F. Drucker 文章概要: 本文通过例举了盘尼西林、集装箱、日本明治维新等一系列或实物创新或社会创新的实例来说明创新本身对于社会进步和经济发展的促进作用,并概括出了7点有利于促进创新的来源。另外,作者也强调了相对于实物创新,基于一定现状的社会创新变革也是推动社会、经济进步的有效力量。 1.有无价值的资源吗? 有人常说,世界上其实没有垃圾,垃圾只是用错了地方的资源。在人类未发现盘尼西林有杀菌作用之前,它一直被认定为是有害的。然而,当科学家证明了盘尼西林具有杀菌作用,防止伤口或病菌感染有非常好的效果的时候,一个曾经被认为有害的霉菌忽然变得价值连城,甚至在战时千金难求。 在经济社会领域也是如此的,譬如购买力就是企业家的创举。原本美国的农民在收获的季节无法使用收割机,其原因在于农民们无法支付购买费用。当Cyrus McCormick发明了分期付款后,农民可以使用未来的资金而非原先储蓄的资金购买收割机,一时间收割机大卖。当然,在世界的其他地方,即使一个地方再贫困,如果允许它分期付款,这个市场经济都会变为从供给驱动转化为需求驱动型,这样通过广泛的交易,卖家和买家的状况都变好了。2.现有资源生产的潜力如果能改变事物的发展都可以构成创新 将卡车上的轮子卸下来,放置在货运轮船上并没有多少新意,但这确实的集装箱这种装备得以呈现,这并非是技术创新,充其量是一种实物改造,然而这种改造式创新也使得世界贸易近40年来产生了巨幅增长。 同样,在没有教科书的时候,一个优秀的老师也不过只能教授一两个学生;而教科书的出现使得即使很平庸的老师也可以教授几十个学生,它大大提升了教学的质量和教育的普及率。 这说明,创新不一定与技术有关,甚至不需要是实物的创新。几乎没有技术性创新的报纸或保险也给社会的进步产生了深渊的影响。类似的还有马基雅维利,他提出的“现代政府”的观念到今天仍有重要影响。此外,日本的明治维新之后的“模仿性创新”也从侧面说明了这个问题。日本在19世纪被迫打开国门,在传承日本本民族文化的同时要吸收接纳西方先进的科学技术,并使得本国的传统文化能与西方先进的科学技术以及政治制度相匹配。即使西方人和日本人自己都不认为日本是从创新中走出的成功强国,可现实是日本的这种“模仿性创新”已经从社会经济的各个层面使得日本有个一定程度的改变。因此,“创新”是一个经济或社会术语,而非仅仅是科学术语。用萨伊定义企业家精神的方式来对创新下一个定义:创新就是改变资源的产出。如果用需求的术语而非供给的术语定义就是:创新就是通过改变产品和服务,为客户提供价值和满意度。 3.企业家如何实现系统化创新? 一个成功的企业家是不会等着机会自己找上门的,他们会实干,即使会走错路、干错事。一个看似伟大的创新,结果可能出了技术精湛以外什么也不是‘而一个普通智慧的创新,例

Innovation and entrepreneurship(最新)

Innovation and entrepreneurship This column over the last couple of years has been with regard to techniques and ideasthat impact ?nancial decision making within our libraries. And also in recent years,many aspects of librarianship have changed and this includes ?nancial and economicconsiderations in the operations of our facilities and the managing of our budgets. Thishas led a drive to look for more innovative methods and techniques to offset budgetwoes, as well as infusing some people with an entrepreneurial spirit to create, promoteand utilize products, processes and services in different ways. It is thereforeappropriate to discuss innovation and entrepreneurship as it relates to leading results.So what exactly is innovation or the concept of being inn ovative? Innovation isde?ned as creating better or more effective or more ef?cient processes and services orgenerating the ideas or culture that will breed this creativity. This is coupled with thewillingness to implement changes to existing methods or tec hniques in order to gainthe bene?ts of greater ef?ciency. Libraries have begun to view the value that aninnovative supportive culture can bring as it relates to ideas that move traditionalapproaches for service and resources to new and riskier ways of functioning. Yes,being innovative can be risky, but only in the sense of overcoming the fear of doingsomething different. Examples of successful innovation can be read in Rush Miller’s “Damn theRecession, Full Speed Ahead” and Ronald C. Jantz’s “Innovation inA cademic Libraries: An Analysis of University Librarian’s Perspectives”, both of which have full citations listed at the end of this article. Both of these articles stress the importance of leadership in establishing the vision, promoting the cultureand supporting the efforts made on behalf of innovative initiatives. This is true to thevery foundations of innovation as de?ned by the robotics engineer JosephF. Engelberger who put innovation into the simplistic de?nition of; recognizing aneed, creating a solution with competent people and appropriate technology and?nally, the ?nancial support needed to implement. Leadership must be present at all stages. Eric von Hippel in his classic book, Sources of Innovation identi?es “end-userinnovation” as the driving fo rce for ideas and solutions that can make a change toprocesses, products and services. For libraries, serving the needs of the end-user isindicative of every library’s mission statement so it stands to reason that changes topatron needs should be re?ected in

entrepreneurship 关于企业家调查 部分翻译

A:关于企业家的调查 在1990年代早期出现的内因性增长模型,又将企业家行为的作用,以及企业家的角色再次定位为一个地区或一个国家经济增长的重要因素。(Carree与Thurik , 2003) B:关于企业的调查 另一组研究人员将对公司的研究作为研究的重点。这一研究的一条分支研究了小型公司的性质和特点。小公司在经济体中发挥着什么样的作用呢?在一个既定了产业结构,产业重点和市场机遇的国家中,小型公司是由于怎样的机遇而产生的呢?小型公司需要什么素质才能有别于大型企业而存在呢?它们又需要怎么样的知识,通过政策的制定来应付各种特殊的阻碍和挑战呢?Welsh与White(1981)引用了“资源贫困”这一概念。Churchill与Lewis(1983)总结出小型公司和它们得所有者在成长的不同阶段有不同的需求。其他人注意到了信息不对称的负面效应并指出了许多市场失败的例子。研究的另一个分支探索了小企业管理的问题,小企业管理中的什么因素是对于它们得生存和成长至关重要的呢?对于提高公司的业绩,公司的所有者如何获得相应的财务管理,销售与营销管理以及产品管理的技能的呢? 第三类以及最近的一些研究是关注于小型企业在经济发展中所产生的作用这一方面的,比如,就业创造,创新,以及生产力提高等(Birch,1979;Acs与Audretsch,1990;OECD,2001b,2001c)。对于研究小型企业部门的源动力和追踪企业的产生,生存,成长和退出率,比以前更好的统计工具帮助了我们了解经济发展中小型企业的重要性,也同时让我们了解新企业与成长中的企业在就业增长与革新中发挥的极其重要作用。相比其他人,Kirchoff(1994),Storey(1994),与Acs等人(1999)对于我们对公司成立和退出的动因的了解做出了杰出的贡献。每一年,在每个国家,都存在大量的中小企业部门变动的案例——陆续地有新企业在成立,然后不断地有现存的企业面临扩大,缩小再到消失。每年这种变动仅仅在总的公司与工作股份中反映出非常少量的净变化。在过去,这种波动被认为是有消极影响的;而现在,这个创造性的解构的过程,被认为是长期就业创造与经济增长的积极动力。以加拿大作为例子,1984年底的所有顾主公司的总股份中的77%,在1999年不再存在(Parsley与Dreessen,2004),同时,这些退出的公司也减少了大约38%的私人部门工作(以1984为基础计算)。在1985年存在但在1999年规模减小的公司,导致了更多的18%的失业率,有超过500员工的大型公司造成了71%的失业率。在1985至1999年间,这些失去的公司与工作不仅仅是被各种各样领域的新公司的加入与中小公司的成长所代替,而是很明显地显示了小企业是经济增长的重要引擎,通过失去和增加两种效果的结合所产生的净效果是130万的就业的产生。Parsley与Dreessen 得出这样的结论:(一)生意的开展和新公司的成立是就业和财富创造的重要原因;(二)如果政府期待决策有决定性的效果,理解新建公司所面对的障碍和特殊需求是很重要的;(三)政府干预将更有目标性,如果他们能认同促进公司成长的决定的话。 新公司对于创新行为与产品改进也有关键的作用。Baldwin(1999)发现新进入者在创新行为方面体现出很高的水准,他认为新公司不断地给消费者提供新产品和更高水准的服务,这些都对创新行为有贡献作用,而且,与新公司进入与退出相关的实验是一个以市场为主导的经济体有活力的关键。Acs与Armington(2002)表示在大多数情况下,新的进入者代表了市场中改变的引入。Audretsch与Thurik(2001b)指出并不是公司,而是企业家才是创新理论研究的起点。近年来的研究也显示出了新进者对于整个国家总体劳动力和多要素生产率增长的重要性,以及公司的进出行为总体生产力增长的贡献。(Scarprtta 等人,2002;Bosma与Nieuwenhuijsen,2000)。Scarprtta et al.(2002)将OECD国家大约25%的生产力增长归因于公司的变化——新公司的成立与低效公司的关门。Bartelman 等人(2003)总结

[1]Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship--Same, Different, or Both

January,2006 1Entrepreneurship has been the engine propelling much of the growth of the business sector as well as a driving force behind the rapid expansion of the social sector. This article offers a comparative analysis of commercial and social entrepreneurship using a prevailing ana-lytical model from commercial entrepreneurship. The analysis highlights key similarities and differences between these two forms of entrepreneurship and presents a framework on how to approach the social entrepreneurial process more systematically and effectively. We explore the implications of this analysis of social entrepreneurship for both practitioners and researchers. S ocial entrepreneurship, or entrepreneurial activity with an embedded social purpose, has been on the rise in recent decades. A partial indicator of this surge is revealed by the growth in the number of nonpro?t organizations, which increased 31% between 1987 and 1997 to 1.2 million, exceeding the 26% rate of new business formation (The New Nonpro?t Almanac and Desk Reference , 2002).However, the dynamic is even more robust, as other forms of social entrepreneurship, beyond that occurring within the non-pro?t sector, have also ?ourished in recent years. The recent boom in social entrepre-neurial activity makes a comparative analysis between commercial and social entrepreneurship timely. Social entrepreneurship is still emerging as an area for acade-mic inquiry. Its theoretical underpinnings have not been adequately explored, and the need for contributions to theory and practice are pressing. This article aims to open up some avenues of exploration for social entrepreneurship theory development and prac-tice by presenting an exploratory comparative analysis of the extent to which elements applicable to business entrepreneurship, which has been more extensively studied, are transferable to social entrepreneurship. To a lesser degree, we will also explore the reverse applicability or the ways in which insights from social entrepreneurship can contribute to a deeper understanding of business entrepreneurship. We offer a comparative analysis or Both? James Austin Howard Stevenson Jane Wei-Skillern Please send correspondence to: Jim Austin, tel.: 617–495–6497, e-mail: jaustin@https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,, to Howard Stevenson, tel.: 617–495–6339, e-mail: hstevenson@https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,, and to Jane Wei-Skillern, tel.: 617–495–6190,e-mail: jweiskillern@https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,, at Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02163.All of the authors contributed equally to this research; authors’names are listed alphabetically.

创业者课程 entrepreneurship 习题

1The Entrepreneurial Life ?An entrepreneurial opportunity is a desirable and timely innovation that creates value for customers. ?Successful entrepreneurs pursue opportunities by first identifying value-creating innovations with market potential. ?SLR Contracting and Service Company in Buffalo, NY, was started by a 21-year-old woman who learned the family business. Seven years later, it was ranked No. 4 among Inc. Magazine’s fastest growing inner-city companies. ?Flavor X in Bethesda, MD, was started by a pharmacy technician as a flavorful additive to make children’s medicines taste better. ?Auntie Ann’s, an ex ample of a successful franchise, grew from humble beginnings to provide business opportunities to hundreds of others. ?No matter what a person’s background may be, opportunities for successful entrepreneurial ventures must be recognized and grasped with enthusiasm. ?Entrepreneurs are individuals who discover market needs and launch new firms to meet those needs. ?The term “entrepreneur” applies not only to company founders but also to second-generation owners of family-owned firms, franchisees, and owner-managers who bought out the founders of firms. ? A small business usually is financed by a small group, is geographically localized, smaller than competitors usually employs fewer than 100 people, and is finance by a small number of individuals. ?The Small Business Administration (SBA) reports that small firms: 1) represent more than 99.7% of all employers; 2) employ more than half of all private-sector employees; 3) Pay 44.5% of total U.S. private payroll; 4) generate 60-80% of net new jobs annually; and 5) produce 13-14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Entrepreneurship

CEIBS MBA PROGRAMME 2005/2006 Term 4 Course: Overview of Entrepreneurship Instructor: Professor Dingkun Ge Term Dates: From Nov - 23 To Dec -15 General Course Description Course objective: (Please state the course objectives) This course is an introduction to and overview of entrepreneurship. The goals of this course are to give the student a broad understanding of the field of entrepreneurship and to provide an introduction to the important concepts, framework, tools and skills necessary to create and grow a successful new venture. Given time constrain, we can only afford to cover a selected, most important topics a student will have to face up in starting up a new business, with greater emphasis on how to evaluate an opportunity. Pedagogical techniques: (Please indicate the teaching methods you would use: formal lectures, case analysis and presentations, group discussion, visits, etc.) Lectures, case discussion, group presentation, guest speakers, etc Literature: Main textbook: - C ourse reader package (readings and cases) Reference book: 1 Title: New Venture Creation Author: Jeffrey Timmons & Stephen Spinelli Publisher: Irwin-McGraw-Hill Edition: 6 or 7 ISBN: 0072498404 (for 6th edition) Reference book: 2 Title: The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship Author: William Bygrave & Andrew Zacharakis Publisher: Wiley & Sons Edition: 3 ISBN: 0471271543 Cases: 8 cases, see time table below for details

entrepreneurship

entrepreneurship 词典 企业家能力/职能; 企业家[主办人等]的身份[地位、职权、能力] 网络 创业家精神; 企業家精神; 创业能力 数据来源:金山词霸 双语例句柯林斯词典百度知道新 1 Research on the University Students 'Entrepreneurship Education Based on the Theory of Technological Trajectory 基于技术轨道理论的大学生创业教育探析 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 2 Many colleges offer courses on entrepreneurship, to help you think like one. 许多高校开设了创业课程,帮助学生像企业家一样思考。 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 3 If you're risk-averse, entrepreneurship probably isn't the right path for you. 如果你不愿冒险,创业恐怕不是适合你走的路。 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 4 The appeal of gambling is the uncertain outcome; entrepreneurship is about eliminating uncertainties. 赌博的诱惑力在于结果不确定;创业就是减少不确定性。 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 5 How to Establish the Entrepreneurship Education Activity System through Extracurricular Learning in Higher Education Institutes 论高校第二课堂创业教育活动体系的建构 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 6 And innovation and entrepreneurship in particular have the potential to be the great equalizer. 创新和创业精神尤其有潜力成为巨大的平衡力量。 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 7 Research of Intention of College Graduates on Rural Entrepreneurship under the Background of Financial Crisis 金融危机背景下浙江省高校毕业生到农村创业的意向调查研究 https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html, 8 Countermeasures on Promoting Employment and Entrepreneurship of

Innovation and entrepreneurship

LEADING RESULTS Innovation and entrepreneurship Michael A.Crumpton University Libraries,University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro,North Carolina,USA Abstract Purpose –This article aims to discuss the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship in today’s economic environment and why such activities should be part of leadership. Design/methodology/approach –The article references journals and conference activity that have demonstrated successful innovation activities. Findings –References and additional reading provide case studies and examples of successful innovative ideas.It is noted that more innovation and resulting entrepreneurial activities will be needed as libraries rede?ne themselves. Practical implications –Innovation can work but needs the culture in which to operate. Social implications –Collaboration with the broader community is not only bene?cial but necessary in a global society. Originality/value –The article references both an active journal and conference cycle for persons interested in more information. Keywords Innovation,Entrepreneurship,Creativity,Leadership,Creative thinking Paper type Viewpoint This column over the last couple of years has been with regard to techniques and ideas that impact ?nancial decision making within our libraries.And also in recent years,many aspects of librarianship have changed and this includes ?nancial and economic considerations in the operations of our facilities and the managing of our budgets.This has led a drive to look for more innovative methods and techniques to offset budget woes,as well as infusing some people with an entrepreneurial spirit to create,promote and utilize products,processes and services in different ways.It is therefore appropriate to discuss innovation and entrepreneurship as it relates to leading results.So what exactly is innovation or the concept of being innovative?Innovation is de?ned as creating better or more effective or more ef?cient processes and services or generating the ideas or culture that will breed this creativity.This is coupled with the willingness to implement changes to existing methods or techniques in order to gain the bene?ts of greater ef?ciency.Libraries have begun to view the value that an innovative supportive culture can bring as it relates to ideas that move traditional approaches for service and resources to new and riskier ways of functioning.Yes,being innovative can be risky,but only in the sense of overcoming the fear of doing something different.Examples of successful innovation can be read in Rush Miller’s “Damn the Recession,Full Speed Ahead”(Miller,2012)and Ronald C.Jantz’s “Innovation in Academic Libraries:An Analysis of University Librarian’s Perspectives”,(Jantz,2012)both of which have full citations listed at the end of this article.Both of these articles The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://www.360docs.net/doc/209782052.html,/0888-045X.htm BL 25,398Received 5July 2012Accepted 5July 2012 The Bottom Line:Managing library ?nances Vol.25No.3,2012 pp.98-101 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0888-045X DOI 10.1108/08880451211276539

相关主题
相关文档
最新文档