Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303

International Conference on Leadership, Innovation and Technology Management

Re-Thinking Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, and

Innovation: A Multi-Concept Perspective

Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu

Istanbul University, Istanbul , 34452, Turkey

Abstract

This paper aims to show an understanding of the vague issues on the relations among the concepts of
entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and innovation. Some of the greatest intellectual challenges of our
time are emerging from the huge study of business management and organization. Through these issues;
creating and applying smart ideas that form the practice of business and management, namely
entrepreneurial activities, have been noticeably stepping forward for more than three decades. An updated
entrepreneurial view in business and management is crucial for reaching the aim of innovation; besides,
as it’s mentioned above, this perspective deserves to be scrutinized deeply in order to obtain a full
understanding of the key concepts of entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and innovation also to provide a
lean conclusion, which is mainly based on the dual and multi-relations of the related terms. The approach
taken in the literature, generally construes entrepreneurship as the main concept regarding entrepreneurial
thought; intrapreneurship as its sub-concept; and considers innovation as redundant to include in some of
the entrepreneurial definitions; though it’s not totally been ignored. However, the new economical
framework has proven that a fresh insight is required from now on, in order to explain how to survive in
this rapidly changing environment. From this perspective, the main questions of this paper are:
Can the concepts of entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and innovation be appraised in an integrative
approach, contemporarily? In other words, can these concepts be united under the umbrella of a valid
single term different from these?
If yes, how should the new concept be discussed and what are the attributes of the new character
emerging from this concept?

Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, Innovation, Innopreneur, Innopreneurship

©2012
© 2011Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Selection
Ltd. Selection and/or
and/or peer reviewpeer-review underofresponsibility
under responsibility of International
The First International Conference
on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management
Conference on Leadership, Innovation and Technology Management

Corresponding author. Tel. + 90-212-511-0511 fax. +90-212-522-3612
E-mail address: cagri.gundogdu@cagrisaat.com.tr

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of The First International Conference on Leadership,
Technology and Innovation Management
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.034
 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303 297

1. Introduction

No managerial system or organization can properly be understood unless it is set in its fundamental
and conceptual contexts. Any explanation and understanding of what an entrepreneurial idea is, and what
it has and has not achieved, must recognize this. There is not much doubt about the concepts of
entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and innovation in terms of being mutually inclusive. Understanding
each of these trending topics of business management and organization study in an integrative view; will
certainly make valuable contributions to the existing accumulated knowledge in this discipline and also to
the practitioners by highlighting the obscure issues throughout the related subject. Acquiring the
capability of explaining the core of the above-mentioned key concepts; will provide the essentials to the
actors of this career, which they will necessarily be using in the field. The emphasis on the collaboration
of the academy and the business world in this context, takes place in the hub. Stemming from the fact that
the traditional definition of entrepreneur and intrapreneur has become insufficient in the new economy; it
seems to be obligatory to broaden these concepts. The term new economy, as Koçel mentions; implies the
qualitative and quantitative changes in the structures and operations of enterprises which are the
significant units of the economy, beginning from the mid-80’s [1]. The traditional entrepreneur shall now
act as an innovation hunter to proactively be able to set up new smart businesses; ideally from the
beginning, till the end of any business life cycle. In addition to this, she/he shall persistently continue in
this attitude to jump-start innovation in her/his existing enterprise. In our time; finding the capital and
taking the risk self-confidently are essential but not sufficient…As Martha Beck underlines; “Any
transition serious enough to alter your definition of self will require not just small adjustments in your
way of living and thinking but a full-on metamorphosis [2].” Inspirationally, it’s seen to be inadequate to
stay as a traditional entrepreneur in order to survive on the change island. Considering the incredible
progress in information and communication technologies and the new globalized economic framework as
a natural outcome; enterprises of our time are like the inhabitants of an island on which everything
changes very rapidly. Pursuing this metaphorical manner; sustainable competitive advantage is
somewhere very deep below the ocean. In order to dig it up; some capabilities, more than
entrepreneurship and intrapreneuship can achieve, are required. In this paper, a new concept called
innopreneurship is introduced together with its performing actor, innopreneur. In addition to her/his
existing characteristics of a traditional entrepreneur, an innopreneur also has the skills of an intrapreneur
to successfully widen the business, besides; she/he is able to act as a vanguard in terms of openness to
change, orientation to innovation, proactively scanning the environment, dynamic capability of
manoeuvring with implications to adaptation, and having the vision of a transformational leader.
Moreover, prudence is certainly fundamental while conversional activities are being conducted.
Contemporarily, enterprises are getting smaller. This is the unavoidable result of the new economy in
which, customer needs and expectations are complex and shift sharply. Small and Medium Sized
Enterprises (SMEs), as mentioned in the global paradox, are the potential stars of this new economic
model. The global paradox describes SMEs, as the strengthening small actors of the growing world
economy [3]. SMEs shall take advantage of this new conjuncture stemming from the fact that they create
much convenience for the customers by their ability to adapt more quickly to dynamic internal and
external environmental changes. Because of their nature, they are able to communicate more effectively
with customers. Thus, they can fulfill customer needs before their larger competitors in the market can.
On the other hand; it’s significant for SMEs to adopt and implement proactive strategies, while being
aware of the opportunities and threats inside and outside the market. Instead of considering sustainable
competitive advantage as a dedicational goal that should be obtained at the end of the day; it’s the
innopreneurial mind-set which is primarily more critical and will naturally take us to sustainable
competitive advantage in the long-run. The innopreneurial mind-set will be discussed later in the section
298 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303

2.4 of this paper which is about innopreneuring. Now, entrepreneurship in its traditional context will be
examined first, and then, intrapreneurship will connectedly be forthcoming.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Entrepreneurship

The idea of one’s doing her/his own business in simple context, has always been perceived as
attractive not only by the academicians but also by the employees working in any job and no matter what
level or where they’re working at. More clearly, many people are concerned with either being an
entrepreneur or understanding who entrepreneurs are and what they do; in order to witness their charming
but challenging world.
The term entrepreneur, etymologically originates from the French word entreprendre meaning “to
begin something, undertake.” During the mediaeval times, this word was being used to describe an active
working person [4]. However, in the economic theory, it was Richard Cantillon (1759), -an Irish
economist of French descent- first, who used the term entrepreneur. According to Cantillon, the
entrepreneur is a specialist in taking risk [5]. Risk-taking is one of the famous attributes of entrepreneurs
which is also frequently emphasized in the literature. Spiritually, some people are observed to tend to
behave extra-ordinarily. As Jobs addresses; “You have to trust in something—your gut, destiny, life,
karma, whatever—because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the
confidence to follow your heart, even when it leads you off the well-known path, and that will make all
the difference [6].” Taking the risk phenomenon and the spiritual reflections into consideration; it can
easily be summed up that entrepreneurship has something to do with inner-journey.
Another emphasis on entrepreneurship is its presentation as a mind-set. “Entrepreneurship is first and
foremost a mind-set. To seize an entrepreneurial opportunity, one needs to have a taste for independence
and self-realization.” said Olli Rehn, a member of the European Commission [7]. Understanding the
entrepreneurial mind-set requires a certain threshold of empathy. First of all, entrepreneurship is the story
of ambiguity. An anonymous supporting quote is likely to highlight the gist of entrepreneurship. It’s as
follows: “Anyone, (can be an entrepreneur) who wants to experience the deep, dark canyons of
uncertainty and ambiguity; and who wants to walk the breathtaking highlands of success. But I caution,
do not plan to walk the latter, until you have experienced the former [8].” In this regard, as Schumpeter
also points out; entrepreneurs seem to have some heroic vision. Schumpeter focused on high-level
entrepreneurship, and larger businesses [9]. On the other hand, Marshall examined smaller businesses,
partially [10]. It was Hayek and Kirzner, who examined the entrepreneurs as middlemen hoping to profit
by buying cheap and selling expensive [11]. This preference of discussing entrepreneurship inside smaller
boundaries is closer to the intent of this paper which will be clarified in the upcoming sections. Stopford
and Baden-Fuller considered entrepreneurs as opportunists even in chaotic situations, and they also
approached to entrepreneurship in a metaphorical way. According to them, entrepreneurs are like
Olympic athletes, long-distance runners, symphony orchestra conductors, and top-gun pilots…These
metaphors underline the entrepreneurs’ being ambitious, determined, self-challenging and talent of
synchronizing [12].
When it comes to define entrepreneurship; it can easily be discovered that various people have defined
entrepreneurship differently. In spite of this fact, the most common classification follows the mainstream
of Collins and Moore; who claimed two types of entrepreneurship, differentiating due to the context of
entrepreneurial activities undertaken. These are, firstly, independent entrepreneurship and independent
entrepreneurs (similar to entrepreneurship/traditional entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs/traditional
entrepreneurs in this paper), implying the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, acting
independently of any association with an existing organization, create a new organization [13]. Secondly,
corporate entrepreneurship and administrative entrepreneurs (similar to intrapreneurship and
 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303 299

intrapreneurs in this paper), implying the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in
association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation
within that organization [14]. A brief definition of an entrepreneur, inspired by Kuratko, can be made as
the following: An entrepreneur is an undertaker who notices and seizes opportunities; converts those
opportunities into commercial ideas; adds value via processes, effort, capital, or capabilities; and
confronts the risks of the competitive market to apply those ideas; and what an entrepreneur
accomplishes, is therefore called entrepreneurship [15]. Now, entrepreneurial activities within an existing
organization, namely intrapreneurship will be discussed.

2.2. Intrapreneurship

The study of intrapreneurship, implying entrepreneurial activities conducted within existing

organizations, has expanded over the last three decades [16]. Most research in this field, has focused on
the possibility; that managers and individual employees could be inspired to behave entrepreneurially;
create innovations, and obtain profit and growth through these innovations [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].
This is about a powerful foresight that managers and their organizations can form an ambience that
fosters to create and manage new businesses within existing organizational framework [22], [23], [24].
Scholars have shown the tendency to divide entrepreneurship into two sub-titles according to its
operating context. On one hand, it’s common to use entrepreneurship or independent entrepreneurship to
describe entrepreneurial efforts of individuals operating outside the context of an existing organization.
On the other hand, different terms can be seen in the literature implying the entrepreneurial efforts within
an existing organization such as corporate entrepreneurship as Burgelman and Zahra used respectively in
their separate studies; corporate venturing which Biggadike mentioned ; Pinchot’s intrapreneuring ;
internal corporate entrepreneurship of Jones and Butler; Schollhammer and Vesper’s internal
entrepreneurship; Guth and Ginsberg’s strategic renewal and venturing of Hornsby, Naffziger, Kuratko,
and Montagno [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Here, only intrapreneurship is being used for
common purpose, referring more likely Pinchot’s view of defining intrapreneurs as the “dreamers who
do”; those who take hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind within an existing
organization [33]. Innovation is the next topic to be examined.

2.3. Innovation

Innovation, has emerged as a headline in the field of business management, recently. Kuratko
determines the magic words to describe the new innovation way of our time: Dream, create, explore,
invent, pioneer, and imagine [34]. Innovation itself is undergoing change [35].
The etymological roots of innovation stretch to the Latin word innovare, meaning to do something new
[36]. Most of the innovation definitions, have focused on similar points with different perspectives. The
key common points imply change and renewal for a better situation. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), inside the Oslo Manual—the source of information regarding
international technological developments— defines innovation by linking it to technological change.
According to OECD, innovation means “completing products and services by developing them
technologically [37]. The European Union (EU) has made a broader definition. To EU, innovation
introduces the change in workforce talent, working conditions, managerial and organizational jobs. Also,
it’s about renewal and growth in product and service range [38]. In addition to this, a well-known
expression about innovation; characterizes it as the process of converting new ideas into value-creating
outputs such as new products, methods or services. By the help of innovation; companies acquire the
300 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303

ability to develop and apply not only new products, processes or designs but also new operation and
business models [39].
After having experienced enormous financial crises all over the world in recent years; company
survival has emerged as the most crucial issue both for SMEs and even some of large companies [40]. As
mentioned in the introductory part of this paper, SMEs, as the increasing value of the new economy, are
obligatorily undertaken the mission of being innovative. It’s innovative SMEs which will lead the way to
economic recovery. Now, the innopreneurial thought will be scrutinized in the light of entrepreneurship,
intrapreneurship and innovation.

2.4. A Prototype Emerging From the New Economy: The Innopreneur— Beyond the Optimum Synthesis
of Entrepreneur, Intrapreneur and Innovation

It has been long, having dispelled the myth that “the entrepreneurs are born, not made.” Drucker
confirms this opinion regarding entrepreneurial thought: “Most of what you hear about entrepreneurship,
is all wrong. It’s not magic; it’s not mysterious; and it has nothing to do with genes. It’s a discipline and,
like any discipline, it can be learned [41].” Likely, innopreneurship, can be learned via education, training
programmes, strategy formulation and a well-comprehended strategic management view. Undoubtfully, a
certain level of enterprising
ng talent is underlying.
It’s not a desired outcome
come to be thought that he traditional
thhaat th
the tradi
tr aditi
ad ional entrepreneurs will
itio
it wi totally be eliminated
because of the new emergingging character, innop innopreneur.
pre
rene
ren ur But,
neur. Butt,, it’s
But
Bu t’s true for traditional entrepreneurs,
it’ e who take
the risk and invest the capital self-confident
pital in a self- f confident manner, that they should remedy themselves by making
the necessary adjustments; s; to become an innopreneur.
Like the organizations being ngg exposed
eing exp
xposed to entropy; traditional entrepreneurss aar are ffacing the danger of being
re fac
pushed to the outside of the system.
yysstem. The concept of entropy implies the tendency
hee sys ndency which exists in every
tteend
system; toward the exhaustion
usttion of energy, losing the balance, disorder, and finally fin
inaall lleading to demise of the
nally
al
system [42]. Besides; negative
gaativve entropy, which is possible in open systems (biological (bi
b io
ollog and social systems
which interact with the environment),
vironment), means preventing the negative effects
nvi effeectcts ofof entropy
e with the help of
knowledge, energy and mat materials
terials taken from the environment [42]. In biological systems, entropy may
cause death; and in sociall systems like enterprises, it may cause all the operations to stop, ultimately [42].
In order to make it reverse,rse, and maintain sustainable competitive advantage; traditional tr entrepreneurs
should transform themselves ves into innopreneurs.
The increasing significance
cance of SMEs as the main constituents of the nnew economy, was emphasized in
ew econo
the beginning of this paper.aper. Innopreneurs;
Innnnop pr neurs; as the steering leade
nooppre leadersrs ooff SMEs in this new economic
ers
framework, while protectingting thee traditional
traadi
dittiiona values and traits ooff entrepreneurs;
onal en
entr
ntrep
trep
tr pre
reneurs; wil will have to reach beyond.
Innopreneurs should constantly
stantly enter into intto
in o positive
ositive change aand
pos nd make
nd maakke efforts for in innovation. They should
continuously update and develop themselves themselv lves also intra-business,
intra-busi siin
neess, maintaining th the aspects of being an
intrapreneur.

Entrepreneurial factors like capital, self-confidence, motivation for the start-up, commitment to business,
optimism, managerial skills, leadership characteristics are certainly also valid for innopreneurship. It
would be acting unjustly to traditional entrepreneurs by saying that the above-mentioned attributes are
unimportant. Indeed, entrepreneurship is at the core. It’s a strong pillar of the business and management
discipline, on top of which, innopreneurship is builded. Innopreneurs can be made. Entrepreneurs can
learn to become innopreneurs with the help of education and training. An innopreneur has the ability of
leading to innovation. So, she/he has the characteristics of an innovative leader in this regard. She/he is
also an effective manager to accomplish the business. It’s not an absolute necessity for an innopreneur, to
apply hands-on-management in every step of the business. Whatever the case is; the innopreneur’s
leading role stays constant.
 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303 301

It’s noteworthy; that every innopreneur is also an entrepreneur but not every entrepreneur can be
classified as an innopreneur. Our goal is, achieving the utopia of transforming every entrepreneur into
innopreneurs. Every innopreneur is an innovation-oriented entrepreneur. Every innopreneur, has powerful
attempts toward innovative new ventures. Not every entrepreneur makes innovation but every
innopreneur does. In this sense, the intrapreneur resembles the innopreneur in terms of innovation-
orientation. In spite of this, the intrapreneur differs from the innopreneur in performing environment of
innovation. The scope of intrapreneurship is constricted to the existing organizational area. On the other
hand, the innopreneur, is not subject to such criteria. The innopreneur performs at a new stage, which is
called the new economy. The innopreneur, is a prototype, self-developed to meet the needs of the new
economy. The innopreneur is the new evolutionary model, the cumulative advanced type that emerged
from this environment. In addition, she/he is the leader who forms the suitable environment; in which the
intrapreneurs are empowered, and their ideas and attempts to make innovation are strongly encouraged.
While serving as a catalyst, the innopreneur may also take active role in these efforts. Innopreneurship,
for now, is a concept dealing with the ideal rather than what exists. It harmonizes its predecessors
entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and the popular concept of innovation through an integrative
perspective and fulfills the unique requirements of the new economy.
The innopreneur undertakes to manage, and take the risks of a business model. In our time, an
innopreneur is interested in research and development and characterized as an innovation hunter who
agressively seeks for opportunities; transforms those opportunities into concrete marketable ideas; creates
value-added; makes maximum efforts, assesses and undertakes the relevant risks to apply those ideas; and
gathers the crops at harvest time.

3. Conclusion

The catastrophic advance in the information and communication technologies in the last few decades
and the new globalized world economy as a result, caused the enterprises compulsorily get much closer to
the customers, respond more quickly to their needs, and dynamically adapt to internal and external
environmental circumstances. In such a new order, SMEs, have emerged as the significant actors of the
economy. They’re the strengthened small actors of growing world economy as mentioned in the global
paradox. Consequently, in this high-competition environment, management of the SMEs, is appraised as a
top-agenda subject. Most of the SMEs are family businesses and the most important handicap of the
family businesses is their inadequancy in qualified human resources. Despite SMEs’ turning to be the
shining stars of the new economy; they are not likely to succeed in this challenging arena with the
available traditional entrepreneurs they have, most of whom are less-qualified family members. The
solution they need is probably hidden inside the concept of innopreneurship. They need innopreneurs who
show talent in adapting to dynamically changing conditions of the environment; responding to
evolutionary expectations of customers even simultaneously, getting an inkling of innovation and
marketing it in the first place. Moreover, maintaining this position is also crucial for the sake of
innopreneurship. Sustainable competitive advantage has emerged to be able to be obtained only by this
new type of innovation hunters demonstrating powerful innopreneurial attitude. In other words, the
enterprises of our time are gradually downsizing. On the opposite, this fact brings the necessity of an
increase in the abilities of the enterprising people who will enter into smart businesses, and drag them
with intra-organizational activities. In attribution to the global paradox once again; strengthening small
actors (SMEs)’ commanders’ attributes should be updated and converted into that of innopreneurs’.
Taking the famous saying “Either change or die [43]!” into consideration; like the organizations which
manage to reverse the danger of entropy to negative entropy; existing traditional entrepreneurs also
should turn out as innopreneurs not to face the danger of being isolated outside the system.
302 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303

Up to now; capital, risk-taking, and self-confidence have been the dominant characteristics of a
business starter, called an entrepreneur. However, today, these attributes help maintaining an enterprise
only for a certain period of time which is not very long. Yes, it has been known that owning the ship has
never made the owner, the captain. But things have changed; and this mission is attributed to the Great
Innopreneur. As a concluding remark, only owning the ship doesn’t make traditional entrepreneur the
captain. The aim of this paper is to point out the obligation of traditional entrepreneurs; to evolve and
become the captains, who are capable of floating their ship on the new economical ocean. Who knows
what the tide could bring for the innopreneurs of the change island [44]?

References

[1] Koçel, T., (2007), İşletme Yöneticiliği, 11.Bası, Arıkan Basım Yayın, Istanbul.
[2] Beck, M., (2004), O Magazine, Growing Wings, January.
[3] Koçel, T., (2007), İşletme Yöneticiliği, 11.Bası, Arıkan Basım Yayın, Istanbul.
[4] TÜSİAD, (2002), Türkiye’de Girişimcilik, İstanbul: TÜSİAD Yayını.
[5] Cantillon, R., (1755), Essai sur la nature du commerce en generale (ed.Henry Higgs, 1931), London: Macmillan.
[6] Jobs, S.P., (2005), American businessman and inventor, Stanford Commencement Speech, USA.
[7] Lundström, A. and Stevenson, L.A., (2010), Entrepreneurship Policy, Theory and Practice, Springer, USA.
[8] Timmons J. A., and Spinelli S., (2007), New Venture Creation, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
[9] Schumpeter, J.A., (1934), The Theory of Economic Development (trans. Redvers Opie), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
[10] Marshall, A., (1919), Industry and Trade, London: Macmillan.
[11] Hayek, Friedrich A. von, (1937), Economics and Knowledge, Economica (New ser.).
Kirzner, Israel M., (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[12] Stopford, J.M. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F., (1994), Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, 15(7),
521-536.
[13] Collins, O. and Moore, D.G., (1970), The Organization Makers, New York Appleton.
[14] Collins, O. and Moore, D.G., (1970), The Organization Makers, New York Appleton.
[15] Kuratko, D.F., (2009), Introduction to Entrepreneurship, Eigth Edition, South-Western Cengage Learning, Canada.
[16] Sathe,V., (2003), Corporate Entrepreneurship: Top Managers and New Business Creation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
[17] Block, Z.and MacMillan, I.C., (1993), Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses Within the Firm, Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
[18] Bowman, C., (1999), “Why We Need Entrepreneurs, Not Managers?”, General Management Review, 1(1), 15-23.
[19] Brazeal, D.V., (1993), “Organizing for Internally Developed Corporate Ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 75-90.
[20] Morris, M.H., (1998), Entrepreneurial Intensity, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
[21] Sathe, V., (2003), Corporate Entrepreneurship: Top Managers and New Business Creation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
[22] Morris, M.H., (1998), Entrepreneurial Intensity, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
[23] Munk, N. (1998), “The New Organization Man”, Fortune, 16 March, 68-72.
[24] Pinchot, G. III., (1985), Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York.
[25] Burgelman, R.A., (1983), Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Insights from a Process Study Management
Science, 29, 1349-1364.
[26] Zahra, S.A., (1993), A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior, A Critique and Extension, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5-21.
[27] Biggadike, R., (1979), The Risky Business of Diversification, Harvard Business Review, 57(3), 103-111.
[28] Pinchot, G. III., (1985), Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York.
[29] Jones, G.R., and Butler, J.E., (1992), Managing Internal Corporate Intrapreneurship: An Agency Theory Perspective, Journal of
Management, 18, 733-749.
[30] Schollhammer, H., (1982), Internal Corporate Entepreneurship, In Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L., and Vesper, K.H.(Eds.),
Encylopedia of Entrepreneurship, pp.209-229, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
[31] Guth, W.D., and Ginsberg, A., (1990), Guest Editors’ Introduction, Corporate Entrepreneurship, Strategic Management
Journal, 11(Summer), 5-15.
[32] Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F., and Montagno, R.V., (1993), An Integrative Model of the Corporate
Entrepreneurship Process, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29-37.
 Mehmet Çağrı Gündoğdu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 (2012) 296 – 303 303

[33] Pinchot, G. III., (1985), Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York.
[34] Kuratko, D.F., (2009), Introduction to Entrepreneurship, Eigth Edition, South-Western Cengage Learning, Canada.
[35] Nicol, T., (2010), The Innovation Handbook, How to profit from your ideas, intellectual property, and market knowledge,
Second Edition, Kogan Page, Great Britain and the United States
[36] Clapham, M.M., (2003), “The Development of Innovative Ideas through Creativity Training”, International Handbook on
Innovation, ed.Larisa V. Shavinina, London: Pergamon.
[37] OECD and European Commission, (1997), Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data:
The Oslo Manual, Paris: OECD.
[38] European Commission, (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, COM (1995) 688, Brussels: European Commission.
[39] Webb, R., (2010), The Innovation Handbook, How to Profit from Your Ideas, Intellectual Property, and Market Knowledge,
Second Edition, Kogan Page, Great Britain and the United States.
[40] Webb, R., (2010), The Innovation Handbook, How to Profit from Your Ideas, Intellectual Property, and Market Knowledge,
Second Edition, Kogan Page, Great Britain and the United States.
[41] Drucker, P., (1985), Innovations and Entrpreneurship. New York Harper & Row
[42] Koçel, T., (2007), İşletme Yöneticiliği, 11.Bası, Arıkan Basım Yayın, Istanbul.
[43] Beer, M. and Nohria, N., (2000), “Cracking the Code of Change.”, Harvard Business Review, 78(3), pp.133-141.
[44] Hanks, T. as Noland, C., (2000), Cast Away, A drama film directed by Zemeckis, R. , and starring Hanks, T., Twentieth
Century Fox International Dreamworks, USA.