Lffi&rerui r'gG *ffiJffi{:"Ttvffis

1 To understand the entrepreneurial mind-

set in organizations

To il,lustrate the need for entrepreneurial

thinking in organizations

"3 To define the term corporate

entrepreneurshi p

4 To describe obstacles that prevent

in novation with in corporations

ffi 5 To highlight the considerations involved in

reengineering corporate thin king

6 To describe the specific elements of a

riiiffi
corporate entrepreneurial strategy

To examine the methods of developing

managers for corporate entrepreneu rship
;3 To illustrate the interactive process of
corporate entrepreneurshi p

f,r: irepr*ri*ur* J fft o*,9* t

There is nothing more difficult to take in
hand, more perilous to conduct, thah to
take a lead in the introduction of a new
order of things, because the innovation
has for enemies att those who have
done well under the old conditions and
lukewarm defenders in those who may do
well under the new.
*&1*shi*velli X** #vir.rr*
 Corporate I nnovation Ph i losoPhY 5? -e.$e-

ffi Understand The global economy is profoundly and substantively changing organizations and industries
the entrepreneurial throighout the world, making it necessary for businesses to reexamine their purposes and
m nd-set in
to ,.lJ.t and follow strategies that have high probabilities of satisfving multiple stakehold-
i

organizations
ers. In response to rapid, discontinuous, and significant changes in their external and inter-
nal environments, many companies have restructured their operatioos in fundamental and
meaningful ways. In fact, aftei years of such restructuring, some companies bear little resem-
blance to their ancestors in scope, culture, or competitive approach'1
ffi lllustrate The contemporary thrust oi ..rt..p...reurship as the maior force in global business has
the need ior led to a desireior this type of activity ituside entetprises. Although some earlier research-
ers concluded that entrepreneurship and bureaucracies were mutually exclusive and could
entrepreneuria I

thinking in
organ izations not coexist,2 today we find many .ei.arch"rs examining entrepreneurial ventures *'ithin the
enterprise framework.3 Successful corporate venturing is present in many different compa-_
a
nies, including 3M, AT&! GE, Procter & Gamble, and Abbott Laboratories. A wealth of
popular busiJess literature describes a new " corporate revolution" taking place, thanks to
5
ih. inf,rriol of entrepreneurial thinking into large bureaucratic structures. This infusion
is referred to as ,;orp*ra1e crltrripr{:ftcurshigor6 corporate innovationrT or i:rtrapr***l:rsirip'8
'Why
has corporate .rrtr.p..n.r.ship become so popular? One reason is that it allows corpo-
rations to tap the innovaiive talents of their own workers and managers. Steven Brandt puts
it this way:
The challenge is relatively straightforward. The United States must upgrade its innovative
prowess. To-do ,o, U.S. companies must tap into the creative power of their members.
id"u, .o*. from people. Innovation is a capability of the many. That capability is uti-
iized when people-give commitment to the mission and life of the enterprise and have the
power to do something with their capabilities'e
Corporate enrrepreneurship (CE) has evolved over the last forty years to become a strat-
.gy ihr, can facilitate firmsl efforts to create innovation and cope effectively with the com-
pl,irlu. realities in today's world markets. All organizations arc factng a new global reality
requiring innovation, courage, risk taking, and entrepreneurial leadership. As researcher
Donald F. Koratko pointed our, organizations must realize 'the entrepreneurial imperative
of the 21st Century" is now at hand.1o Firms that exhibit corporate entrepreneu$hip are
typically viewed as dynamic, flexible entities prepared to take advantage of new business
opportunities when they arise. An " entrepreneurial orientationo of innovation, risk taking,
urrd pror.tireness is needed for today's organizations to implement the needed strategies for
corporate entrepreneurship to developll.
eontinuous innovation (in terms of products, processes, and administrative routines and
srructures) and an ability to compete effectively in giobal markets are among the skills that
are increasingly expected to influence corporate performance in the twenty-first century.
Today's .*..,rti,r.r ag.ee that innovation is the most important pathway for companies. to
acc"le.ate their pace of change in the global environment. Corporate entrepreneurship is
a process that can facilitate efforts to innovate and can help firms cope with the competi-
tive realities of world markets. Leading strategic thinkers are moving beyond traditional
product and service innovations and are pioneering innovation in processes, value chains,
t.rsirress models, and all functions of management. Entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors,
it seems clear, are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish in competitive
environments.l2

W Describe Despite the fact that entrepreneurship and innovation are highly touted as a most viable
obstacles that sffategy for successful resulis in todayb corporations, the fact remains that successful imple-
Drevent innovation
withincorporatlon. rnarrarrion of
corporate innovation has been quite elusive for most companies.13 corpo-
rate lnnovation s-ucceeds in organizations that provide employees with the freedom and
 L-11Ar' ! riH J lne Lntrepreneurial Mind-Set in organizations: Corporate
Entrepreneurship
encouragement to develop theirideas,.but top
preneurial ideas can be nurtured, have.been
managers, if they do not believe rhat entre-
krro*, ,;t#;;. innovation. rt.y i"y rina it
difficult, for example, to implement policies rt .naorr. 1

,rriJ,ru.rur.a activity. If innovative

people are to reach their poiential, however, ", l
new types of thinking ,nrr, ou.i'.o,,.'-"nrg.-
Five important practices ror .rt"ufst irg i""o".ii.n-driven
;:11#:t'"".ns. orgrr,;rtion,
1' set explicit innouation goals. These goals need ro be mutually agreed on by
ployee and managemenrio that speciflc the em-
rr.pr c.*L r.ii.r.a.

'' !:t1.' system

lnnovators
of feedback and positiue reinforcement. This is
or creators of ideas to realize that acceptance and
necessary for potential
reward exisi.
3" Emphasize indiuidual responsibility. Confidence,
trust, and accountability are key
features in the success of any innov"riu. p.og.".n. -' "^ -"'
4' Provide reuards for innovative ideas. Reward systems should
enhance and encourage
othirs to risk and to achieve.
5" Do not punish failures. Real learning takes place
when failed projects are examined
closely for what can tre leatned by individualr.
r" ,aairi.r, individuals must feel free to
" experiment without fear of punishment.
Although each enterprise must develop its own philosophy
answers to these questions can inform the process, '
-r--t of corporate innovation, the
* Does our company encourage entrepreneurial
tbinking? 'irill individuals receive rhe cor-
poration's blessing {or their self-appointed
idea creati'ons?-Some corporations foolishly
try to appoint people to carry out an innovation when,
in fact, the ideas must surface on
rheir own,
* Does our company prouide uays
for innouators to stay with their ideas? Vhenthe inno-
vation process involves switching the people
developing business or product ft-
-orki;;;; "n ia."o rrr",-ir, ir"afi .rr
committed iniovator to whoever is next in lineD"
that person ofteri is not as committed "as ,t o.igi.rrto.oiil.
pro;..r.
* Ate people in our company permitted to d.o "
tbe lob in tbeir own way, or are they con-
stantly stopping to explain th-eir actions and ask
decisions up through a multilevel approval p.o..r,
1i, prr*lttioai Some organizations push
ro ,t r, the doers and the deciders
never even meet.
* Has our company euolued quick and informal
ways to access the resources to tr, new
ideas? rnnovators usually need discretion
Some companies give employees the freedom
ry ..rou.l., * ."pi;r;;Jffi;;; ,i.*1a.rr.
,; rr;;;;;.;age of their time on projects
of their own choosing ..t aside funds ,o .*fror. ;;; i;", when they occur. others
"nd that
control resources so tightly nothing ir ,rril"ui. ior ii. ,r.* and unexpectedD the
result is nothing new.
. our company deueloped ruTys to mcvrage many small
!o:
Today's corporate cultures favoi a few welistudiJ,;;li:J;rned
and experimental innouations?
'run. In fact, nobody bats a thousand; attempts to hit a home
it is b.tt., to *uki mor. fr.qr;;
less careful and expensive preparation
for each. ";;ip", *i,r,
u Is our system s.e! up to e-ncourage risk taking and
to tolerate mistakes? Innovation cannor
be achieved without risk and riistakes. Even
successful innovation generally begins with
blunders and false starts.
o Are people in o-ur company more concerned
uith new ideas or u)ith defending their turf?
Because new ideas. almost always cross the
boundaries or."ir,irrg patterns of organiza-
tion, a jealous tendency toward;t urf protection.
blocks innovation.
* How easy is it to form functionally cornplete, autonomous
teams in our corporate enui-
ronment? small teams with full ..rponribttity f;r
the basic problems, yet some companies resist
;;;;i";;; an innovation solve many of
their formation.la
Another way to create aninnovative corporate atmosphere is to
tion' The rules in Table 3.1 can provide hands-on griJ.ir".r-r"r apply rules for innova-
developing the necessary
innovarive philosophy.

:-
 Corporate Entrepreneurshipandlnnovation 59
i
€('+

1. Encourage action. i 'i r': ': r']i'] 'j : :'] , .

2. Use informal meetings whenever possible.

3. Tolbrate failure, and use it as a learning
experience.
4. Persist in getting an idea to market.
\
5. Reward innovation for innovation,s sake.
6' Plan the physicar rayout of the enterprise to encourage informar communication.
of ideas-secretly working on new ideas
' ?:r::L*erloot!*gging on company time as weil as on

8. Put people on small teams for future-oriented

projects.
9' Encourage personner to circumvent
rigid procedures and bureaucratic red ,E
tape.
10. Reward and promote innovative personnel.
,r,:.tjr.,i ;,:i,:ii:jirr:X:;r,,a, t+i.n:=::,!,. i.rir.:,:ii: i:, :::.. .-:,.::i:.,

O
@

when these rules are folrowed, they create

an_environmenr conducive to and support_
ililj,i:,r:ilfl1;il...r*,.uriat
thinking. ir,.*,.,,r, i. ;;;,p*;r. p;ilosophy that supports
'what
can a corporation do to reengineer its
thinking to foster the entrepreneurial pro-
cess? The organization needs to
;;;;;;;r, .""#in. ,r,a ..rir;;; philosophy. Many
enterprises have obsorete ideas about
coope."tiue currures,
values of manasers and employe.r. -;;;;;",
u"fd;;;teln doing .iJ;;;[;;;e techniques, and the
answer to new challenges; a new culture efficiently is not the
with new ualue"s hrs ,o u. J.u"toped. 15 Bureaucrats
and controllers must'it"tn ,o coexist
withD or give way toD the designer and
Unfortunately, this is easier said th"., aorr.. innovaror.
methods to help restructure corporate
Organirations ."r, ht*.u.., use the following
thinking and encourage an entrepreneurial
ment: (1) earlv identification of potentiar environ-
inntvators,.(2) ,";_;;;;_ent sponsorship
innovative proiects, (3) creation of in";;;r; of
goals'in ;r.";.il-;;:ivities, (4) promotion
of entrepreneurial thinking through .*p..irn"r,"rion,
and (s)
e'rs dzveLpment of colraboration
\J/ uLYrrwPr
between innovators and thle o.grn"irrriJ,
,i'i".r; ;;"'
Developing a corporate.entrepreneurial
philoiophy provides a number of advantages.
is that this rype of atmosphere Jrr* one
r.rJr i.ii. d.u.tp*."i.r ,.* p.odu*s
helping the organizationixpand and services,
gro* s.;;"J, ;;i;, that can help the
enterprise maintain its competitiv.""a
po-rrur.. e thirj ""*.riri..e
rr'r"rri,i, oro,,otes a climate
conducive to high achievers and rr.rjr "a""ri"g.and keep
trr. ."t*prise motivate its best people.

In recent years' the subiect.of corporate

entrepreneurship/corporate innovation
has become
]::::fl.,li: l*:'l^:::1'w peopre
'hoiffitv
agree that the term refers to enrrepreneuriar Most ,;J.;;;;;;;;;;;0,.
researchers
activities rhat receive .rrlrlir'lr?jlnff:ffiT
and resource commitments fo. th.'pr.for.
or-inrrou"tive results.lT The major thrust
porate innovation is to develop th.'.rti.p..n.urial of cor-
spiiit *-irhi;'or;izational boundaries,
thus allowing an atmosphe.. in"ourii-Jr-,'o'irorp...
"f
3-3a Defining the Concept of Corporate
Entrepreneurship and lnnovatiCIn
Fq Define the operational definitions of corporate entrepreneurship/corporate
term corporate
over the last 35 years through scholars' innovation have evolved
entrepreneursh ip *L"-r..-e"r example, one researcher noted
porate innovation is a very troad that cor-
concept th"t ircrodesihe
;;;;;", developmenr, and
*$* 60 cilAtr-i-i:R 3 The Entrepreneurial Mind-Set in organizations:
corporate Entrepreneurship
of new ideas or behaviors. An innovation
:T*[rfi:::n system, or a new plan or program that
can be a new producr or service,
bers.ls k rhl,,'ut pertains ,o o.ir.rir"iio*i .n.__
firm s abilif,{L:;xrfii:;:ffi"fl:fl:'ffJ:'];:ffliff "; reenergizing"and ..,h".'.rng th.
Researcher Shaker A. zahra observed
,tr"r."'.o.po.^r. ..rrr.pr.r.urship may be
or informal activities aimed at creating formal
new businesses ir.established companies through
product and process innovations and
mlrket d.".1";;;;;..1n..
tor"i.., activities may take place
at the corporate, division (business),
fu.r.tion.rl, or l.r.ls, with the unifying objec-
tive of improvingt company's comfetitive
posiiion le william
D' Guth and Ari Ginsbeig have stressed "rilir"r.irl performance."
encompasses
major phenomena: neY/ venture creation two
tion of organizations through strategic
":i:..d;;;;;;;.;r.r.rrship
within existing offiirrtio.rs and the transforma-
renewal.2o
Researchers Michael H' Morris, 6onald,F.
Kurarko, and Jeffrey G. covin have cited
empirical phenomena as constituting two
the domain ;'.*;;. enrrepreneurshipD namely,
corporate venturing and strategic entrepreneur.hip.
as their commonaritv the
co.p".*te u*utrr.ing
approaches have
newLusin;r;";i;;;;;*r, of ,.,, b;;il:;..-;i"
addin! of
.qrir,
investments) to the corpo,atioi. This
can u. ,..o-fri.i.Jii.ougt three impremenration
modes: internal corporate venturinp
".' ;;;. t ; :i,,*. il;:d.:,X",i1,1; *
co rp te
o ra
monality the exhibition of large-scale ilHiJ ffil J,.. ill'; 1l
or-otherwir. rrigrriy .LJiq,r.rti"t innovations
*mX]
adopted in the firm's pursuit lf .on.,p.il,iu. that are
result in new businesies for the .orioration."au"rrffi. rl..i innovations may or may nor
witr, ,?rrt.gi-."lnr..pr..r.urship approaches,
innovation can be in any of fir. ,r."srihe
firrh's ;;;;y, ;;uct offe.i.rgs, served
internal organization (i-e., structur., markets,
f-..rr.., "na ."i"t i6ir"r;, o, bu.i.r.ss model.21 Each
of these categories of corporate-..rrr.i..rr.urrt
ip i, outiirr.airi fig,r.. :.t.
After a thorough. anaiysis of th. Jnrr.pr.r.urship
research has defined corporate.rt..or"n"r.ship
.o.rrrru., and its dimensions. recenr
as pr...r, *rrereby an individual (or
group of iridividuals), in association " a
with ,o .ii"rrgtr.grrjration, creares a new organi_
zation or instigates renewal or innovation
strategic renewal (which is concerned
within rt:;;;;i;;;;:ilii.;rr,,.
airi"t,.",
with organizr*;"..;;;al involving major
and/or srructurar changes), innovarion (which"is strategic
to the marketplace),.and corporate u.nturing
..;.;;;;J;;ih irt.odu.ing something new
(corporare entrepreneurial efforts
the creation of new business-orga.rirrtions that Iead to
*ithin the .orpo-r-#'org^"rization) are all impor-
tant and legitimate parts of th.lo.porate
entrepreneurship process.22

,\s

sozrce:vichael H'Morris'DonaldF'Kuratko,andJeffrey"
south-western. a part of cengage Learning, a*,n, CorporateEnt:trepreneurship(rrnnouation,3rded.@2011
r".. n"p'roarla by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions.
 Corporate Entrepreneurship and lnnovation a
Et ++
As the field has further evolved, the concept_of-a
corporate entrepreneurship srrareg-r-
has developed' Researchers R. Duane Ireland',
define a corporate entrepreneurial strategy J.ffde covin, and Donald F. Kurarko
as'a vision-directed, organization-wide reliance
on entrepreneurial behavior that pu.poiifully
.onti.ruturiy
,."1.rr.r"r., *.-irg.rrlr"_
tion and shapes the scope of its opeiari""r;h;;;gh",ii'i...g"irion
".ra
entrepreneurial opporrunity." 2i and exploitation of

3-3b The Need for Corporate Hntrepreneurship

and lnnovation
Many companies today are recognizins,,ifre,negd
for corporate entrepreneurship. Articles in
popular business magazines (Biiness week,
Fortune,I;.s. Nr-, 6 worrd Report)reporr
the infusion of entrepreneurial thinking into
large uur."u.r"ti. structures. In fact, in
of today's populat business books, entire ,..ail.r, many
corporation'2a Quite obviouslr both business
,.. a.uor.d to innovation within the
firms and .o.r.ultrr,*iruthors are recognizing
the need for in-house entrepreneurship.
This need has arisen in response to a n rmber
of pressing problems, including rapid growth
in the number of new and sophisticated competi;.*
methods of corporate management, an
;ft of distrust in the traditional
exodus of ,o.ne .r1i. u.r, and brightest people
corporations to become small-business entrepreneurs, from
international competition, downsizing
of major corporarions, and an overall d.ri..io
rhe
i*prJ;;;;;".y and productiviry.2s
first of tfe;9 issues, the probtem
"f
However, today's high-tech ..o.,orny supports
;G;;;i;l;:;il;;ffi#;Isinesses.
gr."t., number of competitors than
ever before. In contrast to previous aa."i.r, "'r",
.tr"ng.r,'in.,oir"riorrr, and improvements are
common in the marketplace. Thus, corpJrrrior,,
ffiH::: *rr, either innovar. o, U..o*.
Another of these problems' losing the brightest
people to independent entrepreneurship,
is escalating as a result. of t*o maloi d.r.ro;;;;;J
rerms of starus, pubricits and economic
F;i;; .lrr.p...,.urship is on the rise in
developmerr. iiri;-;"i"r;;;;;,'.f ;;;;;.,r.ur_
ship has made the choice more appeali.,g
to both y;;"; ;il;asoned employees. second,
recent vears venture capital has grown.into in
a large ind*ustry capable
.f d";.j;; liii. ,.*
ventures than ever before' More significantly,
as"we will see in greater detail in chaprer g,
" angel investorso have emerged in inpr.cedenr.a
tunitv for capital funding. Healthy capital frndi"g
,*.ngii, ilffi';;;;..;;J ;';f:ro.r_
to launch their ideas' As a result, p.oit. with
;;.i;;; h;;. enabled ,.* .r,tr.pr.r,.u*
innlvatir. i;;; are more likely to leave large
corporations and strike our on thiir own.
The modern organization, then, is forced
into seeking avenues to develop in-house
preneuring' To do otherwise is to wait for entre-
stagnation,iorr-oip.rro.rnel, and decline. This
new " corporate revolution" represents
an appreciation for a.ri.. ;; d*;1., a""""-
tors within the corporate structure. "rrd "

3-Bc (}bstacles to Corporate Entrepreneurship

and lnnovatiCIn
It should be noted that many obstacles exist for._the corporate entrepreneurship
The obstacles to, corporate entrePreneurship process.
usually *n..1 ,rr.'ir.ffectiveness of traditional
' management techniques as applied to innovarion
developm.rrt. Althoogh it is unintentional,
the adverse impact of a particular *aditional
*"nrg;;:;;-r..hr,iqu. can be so destructive
that the individuals.within an enterprise will
rend to avoid
ior' Table 3'2 provides a list of traditional managemeni corporare entrepreneurial behav-
,..-ti.rlq.r.r,
their adverse effects
Iil.T::[::.hnique
is rigidly enforced),,"d il;;;;;;ffi aitions,o.r,",g;o,,a1,,,
Understanding these obstacles is critical to
fostering corporate entrepreneurship, because
thev are the foundation points for all other
excitement for innovation development,
*orr"tioi"i;];;;;. To gain support and foster
managers must remove the perceived obstacles
seek alternative management actions.25 and
*
s"@ 63 CHAtr-rl=ft 3 The Entrepreneurial Mind-Set in Organizations: Corporate Entrepreneurship

cnrorce sranoaro procedures to lnnovative solutions blocked, funds Make ground rules specific to each
avoid mistakes misspent situation
Manage resources for efficiency Competitive lead lost, low market Focus effort on critical issues
and ROI penetration (e.9., market share)
Control against plan Facts ignored that should replace Change plan to reflect new
assumptions learning
Plan for the long term Nonviable goals locked in, high Envision a goal, then set interim t
failure costs milestones, reassess after each I
Manage functionally Entrepreneurfailureand/orventure5upportentrepreneurwith

skills
Avoid moves that risk the base Missed opportunities Take small steps, build out from l,'
i

business . strengths ii ii
Protect the base business at all Venturing dumped when base .;;

costs
Make venturing mainstream, take ii ,.i
:l
business is threatened affordable risks fl ,i
Judge new steps from prior Wrong decisions about Use learning strategies, test
experience competition and markets
l
Compensate uniformly Low motivation and inefficient
operations
Promote compatible individuals Loss of innovators Accommodate "boat rockers,, and
"doers" l,:r

sozrce: Reprinted by permission of the publisher from Hollister

B. Sykes and Zenas Block,. corporate venturing obstacles:
Sources and Solutions," Journal of Bu:siness Venturing 4,no. (r07inter
3 19g9), 161. C;;;.-igll, O ffaf by Elsevier Science
Publishing Co., Inc.

irir:ii,iiliiiii]r:,iii

. After recognizing th,e obstacles, managers need to adapt to the principles of successful
innovative companies. James Brian
Quinn, an expert in the innovation field, found the fol-
lowing factors in large corporations that have exhibited successful
inrrouatiorrs,
* Atmosphere and uision. Innovative companies have a clear-cut
vision ofD and the recog-
nized support forDan innovative
"t*orfh....
w Orientation to tbe market. Innovative companies tie their visions to the realities of the
marketplace.
o Small, flat organizations. Most innovative companies keep the
total organization flat and
project teams small.
" Y^??,4::loroaches'
Innovative managers encourage several projects to proceed in parallel
Gevelopment.
* Interdctiue learning.l7ithin an innovative environment, interirctive
learning and investiga-
tion of ideas cut across traditional functional lines in the organir"rion.
" Skunk'vlorks. (" Sknnk works" is a nickname given to small groups
that work on their
ideas outside of normal organizational time ind structur..iruJry
highly i.,rrourtire
enterprise uses groups that function outside traditional lines
oi authority. This eliminates
bure.aucracy, permits rapid turnaround, and instiils a high i;;i
gr."p ia."iiif-"rJ
loyalty.27
 Corporate Entrepreneursh i p Strategv

_*
trTg"
[Ti,,J;l]:i;3::'i;fiT:1"'i#'l:l:;.']:i:::,:::
'' sumer produ* siant. rhev have 300 brands that
p,.oo*u nn-':l..''ii;;J*,;-.
;;; ;;;, ;,:
has expanded i,s s,ra,esic core
' $80 bittion in revenue'in B0 countries *itr., r:o,ooo !*pioy-
iilll#iljXffilii;H.:;:#;
^l,;
'eqs' But:even'at thar size, procter a ""* J;;;;;;;;-being,
eamire is r"r;*.;"r,
;;rid;";
;,,u,u* inJJ;;;;;;,; franchising,
informarjon_based.services. br:eak-
corporate innovation lt spends nearly
52 oillion every year ;**il;ilrm
.notrre, sqbo mirr;; ,;,;;;;'.".;,;., tecnnotogies, and emerging markets,
::11?t,!
research lt conducts over 20,000 studies
in t00
d;ffi;;,r,..,n,.,.,, to Furureworks are moders rhar
countrres. ,."*r.gJ,n;';o*er of a p&G,s brand
why this emphasis on internal innovation?
of P&G' Bob McDonald' recognizes that
eecars"lhe cro o""o iirrt ir,-i* of the po*erfrr u,..0or a stronqowned
external
promotions pac such as crest,brraceli, by
sales "#",
Tide, pampers, charm,n, Gitrette,

ilfffi::iffil;I,ffi1|;Tff;[futt*e nnovation ,;J;;;il;, ;'nanre

ltew) so*ue-;*pru, orh*sines*
,i .' .ro* rasrffi ,ux*r,,veirs.or,invesr*ent and, ,fl:ffi: i::i#J:#:?ffii:?:irj;;:jl1i9-?g:r1.i1
'*xeeutedthr'eugh decenrraiiued innov,ion uuittoroap*t-' if
. nrer*ts' tn tlii 'type:otf strutture,senior-levelm*Jguri *oo.y,' ihey.an rrinf air,uprive cosr, eapabiliry, and/orspeed
l;.o-nlyrabout.:nrajor milbstones advantaEe to aiy .,lrrent.business
thar need to be aihibved in tor. moders; retail partneis,
if.,u,,nJ,istii; finatly,.intormarioh based
ideis that,
Iffiffili,' ffiffi;ffi;Hr::*::;:f*t "uun
rhe rerai,er and provide unLque
,',",ffi**.'#;il';, ",
"'.",
t" E:t the ln-novations to market .r qu,.klv ;r' ,::#;l
,,
[ffi r"better finance innova,on prolects p&G]has
procter & Gambre
created one of rhe mosr successfu
innovation units that exists today which
is nr*ua, "i*rr*_ fiii!:ry::: ffi:jT[1ni:H:f:lJ:*::l*]l
vations and of neri, businesses (p&G s innovative
Workl',ltisaCorporatet.iewBusinessc,.u.lon,iii,i,ltr",in;;;;;;il;ouo,,,n,,manner). Crest Whit_
Procter & Gambte reporring ro tne
co,porai;;;;;;;i;; ""' "*.. o',."r,Iil, ,.0 chief rnnovation
Fund board consistino of tnl top orn.u*
or irr. .oiriuny rur,r.,rn rr,.uri, In,., ,nr, rhe ,magic,,rs in his czar at p&G,
That unit is charged
transformational new"iith
creatihg, i^.ur*,"g, ,JiJi^g ;;;i.il;"uii*r...
He points out tha*hey are char,
team and the
businest *-od.l,, nu* iuiugo;r, o,
acterized by humirity, passionare about
their work, thrive in
,!,9{vice expeilences that capitpiize on disruptivi mlrket ambiguity,
and .onrirtuntfy chailenge the sta,tus qLro.
Tfe P&6 Futureworks team ,t *rp.ri.*uJ.no The ,r

"innovations' value-in Jir

le!i..,r,,ol*, "r*i.i+rrureworks accomplishing is best
is
flfi*,ylil on' to tr'e pac
lil,T" ","n"-."0
,r* ,nuL,,*,rnr*" **Iri..n* n,uu,u, ,

Usins , t.".r,,iiqu" orbpen

nnovarion.where exrer-
nal ideas and solutions are sought out
by the iIj:.ili?ii:,l.ffi:?,,fl,1,J,,.:*ll*#fmr:.
innorations inrougi a breakthrough
"rgu",#,on,
f&G'hasestablisheda,''connect&Deveiop"diuiirooJru--
own:ruturewoiiJt"'r . . .. :. :,:.i ,. . of r,,,.,.,
their deveropmenL
itulewoiks,f-oran,effe€tiveiexteinalinterfuce.Thd.missiOnof..:..:,i:.:.,,:t:,,,1
that'unit is io seek out partners and reailze the innovatrol from rumerous sources inctuding: p&G
:o-:lt::,,A:u:*d
ht:f
werrsire for
//ful*Iewof
Betential iH those extetnal n€rwoiks.tn:novario". Jf.,ioi.'.ln
::l:l""Y"'u' Es
p:b com; accelsea.r"rr*r,,
i,io, r, .
rhe pasr coutd have raken rhere years or
teic.q.utubefccalerated*y,rri"'is*";ii-;
more ,o ,,ru ::::i:::ff;T;"j,,,*fl1"#;XT:,:::;, i:;:f:::il:
su,,o
ar-;.'"#i,", ;;i;;;#;irio,r,i*i*.,int.,u*wwithNarhan,Esrruth,ruiy2orl. ,l

ItG Describe the

specific elements
of a corporate
organization-wide "olio -^-
t.i;;;;;;;;;'il;;"'."rl,,il ;"j'::l;il::'j:il
:J,1T:::::";il'i::l*::"'j:,"^'t::t:'.ri'r ,.op.
ffiffi
entrepreneurial
strategy ;?l'"H:TJ,1:,::,'i.''^'l:':"T1-'l:0,:'..t" oi1;;:;;il;Ii,l#;:i:1::HI
::?l#,:.f:;;1Ti?;,":j"::::::r::li:i."n",'1,"1,','a' t r .. *';il.;;.:,Til;f.H::j'.".'r:
-ofi
ffi::-.:f,'X,:? H:':':,:':jl * ; ;; #'"il ;
r,
I :i l' "
o i

:*i,fl ::: j: :: o r o e . n,.. i.. n.,.. p, t, t. * #r'i f "L:i'.'ffi"T:t,

:
y, r :
p
I : l1
c 1..1'1
rar " ""
9

::'r*
entrepreneurial
intensiry. "
r,
H :1
i gi

Developed by researchers
Jeffrey G. covin, R. Duane Ireiand, and Donald F. Kurarko,
Figure 3'2 presents a model ihut iilr.tr^i;.
i;* a corporare entrepreneurship straregy is
*% $4 ,:|-+.+Pr-i-i*F 3 The Entrepreneurial Mlnd-Set in Organizaiions: Corporate Entrepreneurship

o.::6
Et
0:i:E::
=r':iti

Oi
6l
N;
itt:1
G]
d&l
(,"!l

Source: R. Duane Ireland, Jeffery G, Covin, and Donald F. Kuratko,'C onceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy,o
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, no. 1. (2009): 24.

manifested through the presence of three elements: an entrepreneurial straregic vision, a pro-
entrepreneurship organizational architecture, and entrepreneurial processes and behavior
as exhibited across the organizational hierarchy.2s This model has several linkages, which
include: (1) individual entrepreneurial cognitions of the organization's members, (2) external
environmental conditions that invite entrepreneurial activitS (3) top management's entre-
preneurial strategic vision for the firm, (4) oryanizational architectures that encourage entre-
preneurial processes and behavior, (5) the entrepreneurial processes that are reflected in
entrepreneurial behavior, and (6) organizational outcomes that result from entrepreneurial
actions.
The model suggests that individual entrepreneurial cognitions and external environmen-
tal conditions are the initial impetus for adopting a corporate entrepreneurship strategy and
outcomes are assessed to provide justification for the strategy's continuance, modification,
or rejection. The corporate entrepreneurship srategy itself is reflected in the three elements
cited previously: an entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-enffepreneurship organizational
architecture, and entrepreneurial processes and behavior as exhibited throughout the orga-
nization. A corporate entrepreneurship strategy cannot be consciously chosen and quickly
enacted the way some strategies, such as acquisition, can beD it requires more than iust a
decision, act, or event. It requires the creation of congruence between the entrepreneurial
vision of the organization's leaders and the entrepreneurial actions of those throughout the
 Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy 6F s%
organization' as facilitated through the
existence of a pro-entrepreneurship
architecture' Corporate entrepreneurship organizational
strategy is about creating self-renewing
nizations through the unreashing and foJusing orga-
oirl.,. .r;;;.;;;;;iar potentiar that exists
throughout those organizatio,s."rt i.
"toluo"rt;;:;rd,r'"i,."r.r,
behavior. Firms that engage- in corporate and regurarity in
.nr..pr..r.urrtrip ,i."r.jJs must encourage
preneurial behavior on a relatively regula, enrre_
or continuous basis. Sbriously how extensively
firms must engage in entrepreneurial Lehavior-before
the presence of a corporate enrreDre-
neurship srraregy can be craimed i,
-rii., of degree. A,'";;-.;; of the continuu,,
bilitg or the absence-of innovation; ".a,[.-orrr.r..ra i, srr_
ir .rr".., * Juerwhe]ming innovation.
Researchers charles Baden-Fu,er ,rrd
H.r,k vorb..d".igiiiriri ,J*r, ,r,",
Resolving the paradox of change and preservarion
means recognizing that continuous
renewal inside a complex firm is-misreaii"g.
Io9
cultural glue, fatigue, and organizatron"Jbi."ta"*". -r.r, .t i,u'rtt t"ua ro chaos, loss of
".,g" th.
whil;:;
tions that are chaotic .", ,uriiu., in the ,ho.,_...- , organiza_
longer term they are likeiy to colapse.2e
Eisenhardt, Shona Brown, and Heidi
_#..J?#1.#,,fX,il*" Neck perhaps best caprured
intheirou,..u"iioi,':i!'fi ffi..r::ffi ::,1?:Tir.'::,h?::x jff
porate entrepreneurship strategies remain
.lor.. to ,rr.'.ig. oiiii.,"
::::l*mmi:l:
ing the exploitation of .urr..,I ..r,r.pr..,*rrrl ludiciously balanc_
entrepreneurial opportunities. Such iir-,
opport,r.,il;.;;; the search for future
,]*"y, .i""r,'noth strategicalry and
and".. "*.recognize
structurally, but they have the wisdom
to the possibif;r, .r rrri
fiftBtsl Higrrrignt ^";il-),.li.^li,rl.r.'ih"ore referred,o.rrti..lftipline
Thus, for corporate entrepreneurship to operate as a strategy,
the considerations
organizations' Top managers are increasingly it must, run deepo within
involved in recognizing the iled to respond to
preneurial imperatives created by the entre-
redngi neering
their .oriietrtrrJ tr.,ar".rp.r. rrli.ri*rr ,.rpo.rses
,rp.ifi.irr .",n-i;;'.;;r'r"'ct srrategyD areroboundthese
corporate thinking enrrepreneurial imperativesD reflecting
to fail' Moreover, arthough ,op *r.rig.i.rr,
."n instigate tlr. ,t.rt.gy, top management
cannot dictate it' Those at the middle ,ria
to*.. ranks of an organization have a tremendous
effect on and significant roles within
*.p..n.r.ial and strategic processes.rl \ifithout sus-
tained and strong commitment f.om these'lo-wer
levels ;ir[,.;?;#)ation, enrrepreneurial
never be a defining .n"'r.iJ.rtc of
,Tlffi'will the .r;;;;;";; as is required by cE
cE strategy will be hard to create. and, perhaps,,even
tions' The presence of certain external rrarder to perpetuare in organiTa-
.nulrlr-.rr,al conditions
exprore the possibilitf;i;;;pr,.g -ry'b.
an organization's leaders sufficient to prompt
commitment of individuals 1o ,orr.rr. Flowever, the
rhioughout the orgrnirrtiorio "'61 such a strategy
,irr.-g
and the realization of personar work,
org ri.^iio.r"r .rrtr.pr*.r.i"i 3rrcomes thar reinforce
^r"a
this commitment, will L. ,,.....rry r;-;;;;;;"r enrrepreneuriar behavior becomes a defin_
ing aspect of the organi zation.Th.,r, br."kdo-.r,
ln any of the ,rrr.. .r.-..r,s of cE strategy,
or in linkages between or among these elements,
would undermine the viability of such
strategy' Moreover, alignments must
be created in .r"tu"tior, ,"i'r.*-a
congruence is achieved in the entrepreneurial systems such that
behaviors irJ;;J;;;h; individual and
nizational levels.Although .*t.rn"i .o"airro.,, .1,I b: i.,...".r.,giy-;onducive orga_
tion of cE strategies' managers should harbor to the adop_
no
-" .rq,v,r
iliusions ,h";
LrrdL ;h';:ff..tive
Lrrc etrectrve tmplementation
implementation
of these strategies will be .iity ,..o-p1iri;;.
corporations that create an entrepreneurial
strategy find that the ethos of the original
enterprise often changes dramaticalry.12
Tradirion. ,.".'.., .ri;;;;';;".r of new processes
and procedures. some peopre, ,n^..u.ro-.J'to
op.rrting in this environment, will Ieave;
others will discover a new morivational system.rr,",
taking, teamwork, and informal ,o*"ri.i"L,l[
.n Jr.rg.r".*r,i"iry, ingenuity, risk
designed to increase productiviry and
viable. son,. p.ofi.?'r,.i* i" -rn make
:[i'ili'r',1[:',,1'* "ntr.pr.n.rrili .nriron.n.r,, o,h.r,
The five critical steps of a corporare
enrrepreneurship strategy are: (1) developing
vision, (2) encouraging innovation,'1:1 rtr"ltu.i,ig.f9l the
individual managers for corporate innovation,
,l #;;;;".?*i.ri-rte, (4) preparing
and (5) developing venrure teams. Each
is now discussed in greater detail. of these
 ''.j'jr'i':-r-i::i: :: The Entrepreneuriar Mind-Set in organizations:
corporate Entrepreneurship
S"4* **veir:ping t*e Visi*r:
The first step in planning a corporate
entrepreneurship srrategy for the enterprise
the vision of innovation that the.orfor"* is to share
leaders *i.r, r"?'.rrieve.33 The vision
clearlv articurated bv rhe organirrrio'n,s must be
1."d.;; i;;;;;;"d; specific objectives are rhen
developed by the manage's and.employees
of rrr. o.gr.rirulionl. s..urr. it is suggested
corporare entrepreneuring resulrs from that
the crertirr."taleni, of p.opf . .lrt _"rt"."o"r.g;ir"_
tion, emplovees need to kro* about
and ,nd.rrruJ rii. Shared vision is a criti_
cal ele,renr to. that.seeks t.rig1 ,.ti.r";; "]ri.r.
l-r:rn,.ry
requires identification,of specific {,; Fi;,r.. 3.3). This shared vision
obiectives for corporat. .n?r.p..n.uring
of the programs needed ro achieve rho1. srrategies and
Kanter has described.three major obl'ectives
ob;".ti".r.i;;;; lni ..r."..t,er Rosabeth Moss
.na ,r,.i. ...fl.ri* p.ogr"ms designed for
ture deveropment within companies. ven-
These are outrined in Table 3.3.

Source: lon Arild .Johannessen' " A Sy-stematic '' t ''

Approach . ., r-bl..T
lf t,no. :f 1..r]l* Vision in the Basic components o, un
a
8Jfiilr;'*;J:::,',:r|:#::[:'n"*"i'ii"icil\t" 1 (Marcrr]es?)' ir.'*"o.i,,ed with
permission from prenum

Make sure that current systems, structures,

and practices
- Reduce unnecessary bureaucracy,
do not present insurmountable roadblocks," and encourage
flexibility and fast action needed for
if" communication across departments
and functions.
innovation.
Provide the incentives and tools for
intrapreneurial Use internal "venture capital,,and
projects. special project
buqse!:. (This money has been ,"rr"j iriiaiopitat
to signify a special fund for intrapreneurial
projects.) Allow discretionary
time for projects
(bootlegging time).
Seek synergles across business areas
opportunities are discovered in new
so new t":l[:T;iffi:l?::11il1ffi.;,fiffi:o".1ffi:,,
combinations.
employees to discuss and brainstorm '
new ideas.
Source: Adapted by permission of the
publisher from Rosabeth,Moss Kanter,.Suppor
Development in Established co-pani..," ting Innovarion and Venture
Copvright @ 1985 by Elsevier
7rrrr, ;i;;i;;;;"r,
venturingl, no. 1 f.winrer 1985): 55t59.
prbfkf,i"e
Science i'"- ir;.
 Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy 57
S*4h Enccuraging lnnovetian "t
As will be discussed in chapter
5, innovarion is. the specific tool
fore, corporarions must urrd.rrt"nd of rhe entrepreneur.
J.u.lop i.-.r"rr., ,J rrr. r.., el.ement There_
"rrd
have.*"-i,.d in their
l*"iJ;.T#:jHU::','rchers ir,. i-p.ri""i"or'inrou"tion within
the
Innovarion is described as chaoric
and unplanned by some authors,3j
while other research_
,n... p.,i,i*;:;";J,.,., d.p.,;l;;;;';h;
;:ffi':','il:i,'#l'#,:::
types of
*:tl;*
i.rrourti*, Ldical
i_,Tr this concept is
to ,*o d"iff*;;;
focus o.,
i.r...-..rt"l.jtand
and
[trrrjical inn*r'irri.n is the raunchirg
mobile computing, cloud storag.,
;; i;;;grral breakthroughs such as sociar nerworking,
oniin. a"ring, and green ,..inoro*,.r.
::f-Tfi'ffi Hi:H:i a*"Lin'J';;ffi ;;ffi l;.:#li!, -"n,r.o
These innovarions
but must be
Iilerennenta! i*novation refers
to the systematic evolution of a product
newer or larger markets. Examples or service into
(to replace i,y'"r",.,1, r.o,.n
l".lrd. rni,
iog,;;,,J;,i:HlliXJrri,?ll;:;::::l.H:i,flf:i":X
will take over after a iadicar i;r";;;';r;tir..,
ing, financing' and formar sysrems a breakthrough. The strucrure,
;i;;.;;;;"rion.can market_
tion' It has been said that rn o.g".,,,";"i herp impre-menr incremenrar innova_
percenr better rather than waitin!,o
rrr-rgl11r oJil,?;'io
,t oor"nd things 1
Both rypes of innovation ,.q,iir.
ao o.r. riing 1,000 percenr berter."
for effective deveropment..(see Tabre "i.;"r-r"a ,"rp;;.; T;;;';;;il takes differenr
:.+r. i, laairion, ,rr.y uorr, ,'.ij a ch,rrnpi<,nDa sreps
with a vision and rhe abiritv to rhr.. person
ir.i; Fi;;rv, b.;h ;;;.r; rr?*r,.,
by the top managemenr or rr,..orpo.*i."',. require an effort
innovation and intrapren.rrrhip, a.*r.p'"lJ;;;';*rloyees concerning
Encouraging innovation ..q,ri..,"
io;..p, k;-"
as rop mnrlagenle,t suptrlort.3e
a willlngness not only ,o ,ot.r"i.l"ilure
from it' For exampre, one of *. but also to learn
razor blades with sandpaper' He
rou.,a.., IiJu, F*";,
a. ["0 o;[,"
an idea to reprace
believed thrtL.n,.ou-ld.rub sandpaper
than use a sharp t,ror. H. was wrong,-"il;h. idea failed, on.their face rather
developed a waterproof sandpaper u* t'i.ia.". evolved unril he
r..7i.
"i "'industry, ;lii;;; Lto.kburt., success!

Stimulate through challenges and puzzles.

Set systematic
Aoals and deadlines.
Remove budgetary and deadline
possible.
rurrrrc LUlrstralnrs wnen
constraints when Stimulate through competitive pressures.

Encourage technical education

and exposure to Encourage technical education
customers. and exposure to
customers.
Allow technical sharing and brainstorming
sessions. Hold weekly meetings that include
key
management and marketing staff.
Give personal attention_develop relationships of
Delegate more responsibility.
trust.

Encourage praise from outside parties.

Set.clear financial rewards for
meeting goals and
deadlines.
Have flexible funds for opportunities
that arise.
Reward with freedom and capital
for new projects
and interests.

Dent'Jr', "Gr owth through New product

il3[fif"tffiiil"r}.'""'s' Development," smail Business
Reports
$% 6e CilAtr*f ER 3 The Entrepreneurial Mind-Set in Organizations: Corporate Entrepreneurship
game: The more ideas, the better
Thus, 3M's philosophy was born. Innovation is a numbers
innovation, companies must
the chances for a successful innovation. In other words, to master
Antistatic videotape, trans-
have a ,ot.ru.r.. io, failure. This philosophy has paid off for 3M.
reflective sheeting for
lucent dental Ur^..r, synthetic [g;me.r$^for kn.. ,,rrg.ry, heavy-duty
,ig.r, ,.ri, of coors-e,
Post-it notes are some
iilit of the great innovations devel-
construction
oped by ,rr. o.[*irr,ion. overall, the company has a catalog of 60,000 products..ao ideas'
Todan 3M?o[ows a set of innovativeiules that..t.o.rr"git employees to foster
The key rules include the following:
: Don',t kill a project If an idea can't find a home in one of 3M's
divisions, a staffer can
For those who need seed
devote rs p.."."t of his or her time to prove it is workable.
money,"r*urryasg0Genesisgrantsof$50,000areawardedeachyear'
't Tolerate failure. Encouraging plenty of experimentation and
risk taking allows more
percent of sales from
chances f.;;";;;;oarr.Inti. rn" io"l' Divisions must derive 25 to 30 percent in
products ln,roao..a in the past fivJyears. The target may be boosted
' some cases.
. Keep diuisions small. Division managers must.know each staffer's
first name' When a
in sales, it is split up'
division gers too big, perhaps .."Ji"iSzs0 million to $300 million
idea, he or she recruits
e Motiuate the champioas. lrhen a 3M employee has a product
promotions are tied into the product's progress'
an action i""r" ," develop it. Salaries and
rh. .h"*pio" has a chance to someday run his or her own product Sroup or division'
. close to the customer, Researchers, marketers, and managers visit with customers
stay
and routinely invite them to help brainstqrm product ideas'
. Share the weahh.Technology, wherever it is developed, belongs
to.everyone'41

3'4c $tructuring the Work Environment most critical

\rhen establishing the drive to innovate in today's corporations, one of thejob.
top-level manager's is to create
steps is to invest h"eavily in an innovative environment. A
and entrepreneurial b.ehaviors'
a work .rrriror,*.n, t(at is highly conducive to innovation u platel
\(ithin r,r.t environment, Ja.i, e*ployee has the opportunity to step up to.the
"r, entrePreneurial potential is based on a
The willingness and ability to act upoi one's innate
in the internal work environment dictate the perceived
calculated Conditions
".r.rr-.nr.
cosrs and benefits associated with taking personal risks, challenging
current practices' devot-
and
p.rrl*.ing in the face of organizational resistance,
ing time ,o ,rrprou.r, approaches,
Therefore, cred-
enduring the ambiguity and stress ,h", .r,..pi.neurjal behavior can create.
uial potential is
ible innovatio. l, rio.. likely in companies where all individuals' entrePrene
knowledge is widely shared' The managerial
sought and nurtured and where organizational
-workplace
design elements to develop an " innovation
challenge becomes that of using
friendly' internal environment
strategy, can
This concept, when coupled with the other elements of an innovation
To develop employees as
enhance ttt. pJt*ti"r fo. .*ploy..s to become venture developers'
a source of innovations, com-panies need to provide more
nurturing and information-sharing
activities.a2 In addition, they need to develop an environment
that will help innovative-
fuil potential. Employee perception of an innovative 'environment
minded p.opl. reach their
importanc. of ,rranagement's commitment not only to the organi-
is critical for stressing the
zation's people but also to the innovative proiects' r ,-
,q. fir-', iiri.*al entrepreneurial climati should be
assessed to evaluate in what manner it
is perceived by the manag-
is supportive 1;; ;";;.;.;"eurial behavior to exist and how that
'When
attempting to inventory the firm's current situation regarding the readiness for
ers.
systems' human
i..rou"tlorr, *l;;g.; need to identify parts of the fjrm's structure, control
parts that facilitate entrepre-
resource management systems, a.rd culture tha_t inhibit and
corporate innovation'
neurial behavio"r as the foundation for successfully implementing
Entre-
one example of an assessment instrument that can be used is the corporate
which was developed by res-earchers Donald
preneurship Assessment lnstrumegt tCEAU,
S. Hornsby io p.ouii. for a psychometrically sound
measurement of
F. K.r.atko'a.,Ji.ifr.y
 :
Corporate EntrepreneurshipStrategy 69 tro
key entrepreneurial climate factors.a3 The responses
to the GEAI were statisticaily analv,zed
and resulted in five identified factors. These
five rr.,or, the internal environ-
ment of an orgaoization seeking to have its
managers pursue"r.G;;l;.
innovative activity. It is impor-
tant to understand these factors in order to assess=the
o.gunir"ti*ls readi,ers for corporare
entrepreneurial activity. Each of the factors discussed
over which management has some control. Each
;;;;;-;;cts of the organization
is b.i.flt;;;J'rna in.t,rd., illustrations
of specific elements of a firm's environmenr relative
,. ;l;;;;".
";:h
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
tE9l Examine This is the extent to which the management
the methods strrcture itself encourages employees to believe
that innovation is, in fact, part of tf,e role set for
of developing all organization members. Some of the
managers specific conditions that reflect management
support include quick adoption of employee
for corporate ideas, recognition of peopre who brlng ideas
entrepreneurship iorwar;, ;;;p;;or smalr experimental
projects, and seed money to get project, off
th. ground.
AUTCINGMYIWC}RK NISCF?ETION
.workers
have discretion to the extent that they are
able to make decisions about perform-
ing their own work in.the way they believe is
most.ff..rir.lbrfJn;rtio.r, should allow
employees to make decisions ih.i. work process and should-avoid criticizing them for
making "tou,
mistakes when innovating.

REWARNS/R EI N FORCEMENT
Rewards and reinforcement enhance the motivation
of individuals to engage in innirvative
behavior. organizations musr be characterized
by.proviil;;;;;;;
mance, providing chailenges, increasipg resporsibiriti.r,
contingent on perfor_
people known
;;;;;d;!in.
------'^o ' ra.", of innovative
to others in the organir"'rion"t hierarchy.
TIME AVAILABILITY
The fostering of new and innovative ideas requires
that individuals have time to incubate
ideas. organizations musr moderate the worklo"d
on all aspects of a person's job, and allow people "r;;;;i;,'rriij irrrirg time constraints
,o *frt *itr, orrr.r'r-o, rong_term problem
solving.

ORGANIZATICINAL BOUNDARIES
These boundaries, real and imagined, prevent
people from looking at problems outside
own jobs. People must be..n.our"g.i to looi their
ai the organir"riln-rlo. a broad perspec_
tive. organizations shourd avoid ha-ving standard
.p:.";;;;;;il;.,
of I'obs, and should reduce dependenceln ,rrr.o* job for all major parts
descriptions and rigid performance
standards.aa
The statistical results from the GEAI demonstrated
supporr for this underlying set of inter-
nal environmental factors that organizatiorr, ,r..d
to fo.,r, on *t.r, ,a.ting to introduce an
innovative straregy.ai These factori, as
well as the previou;;;;h;;ntioned, are the foun-
dation for the critical steps involved in introJulin!
a corporar.-.rir.p..r.urial
climate.
An instrument like the GEAI can be used to j.r.lop
internal climate dimensions mentioned above. T.o* ;;;irr.-;;; firm
" i, .". rp..mc acioss the five
sco-res dimension of the
CEAI suggest the need,to focus on that particur".
enhance the firm's readiness fo, .rtr.p...reurial
ai.n*rion;;; #;;"r.*enr in order to
behavior and .u.ni,iitty successful corpo-
rate innovation' This can significantly benefit
organization, i, p.orriaes indication of
a firm's likelihood of being to successfully use a corporate", innovation an
lights the specific dimensions "bl. process. It high-
of the internai #ort environment it ,r,.rra be
ongoing design and development efforts. Further, the focus of
,t,. ciai-.1"'u.*"i r..a as an assessmenr
t:"1 f:r evaluating corporare training needs with r..p.;;;;;;;;;;."rship
tion. Derermining these training n.J, ,.t, the and innova-
stage for improving managers, skills and
their sensitivitv to the challenges of elicitiig ,rd;'.;;;;o.ti.,g
ilifi,:lr .r,tr.preneuriar
Another researcher, Mjay Sathe, has suggested
a number of areas on which corporations
must focus if they are going to facilitate
6.porrr. entepreneurial behavior. The first is to
 i#rrFr,- rrH J lne Lntrepreneurial Mind-Set in organizations:
corporate Entrepreneurship
encourageD not mandateE innovative
activity. Managers should use financial rewards
strong company recognition rather than and r

rules or r,riJt pro..aures to encourage corporare

entrepreneurship' This is actually a stronger
internal .o.ri.oLrnd direction method than
ditional parameters. tra_
Another area of focus is the proper control
of human resource policies. Managers need
to remain in positions rong erough to ailow
division. Rather than mor,"e *"r,ig.rr. aro^und
,rr.* ,o i"rri'an industry and a particular
panies, sathe suggests 'selected rJtation,"
i, po.rtrorr, as is the case in many com_
but related territories. This helps
i" *hi.h ;;;;!.r. exposed to different
"r.
-r.,"g.r, gain sufficierit knowledge for innovation
development.
A third factor
is for management to susrain a commitment
to_ innovative projects long
enough for momentum to occur. Failures
will inevitabl1".lr., learning must be the key
aftermath of those failures. Thus, sustained "ra
commitmen, i, .i.-.r, i, -rrr"g-
ing corporate entrepreneurship. "n'i*po.,"rr,
A final element suggested by Sathe is to bet
on people, not on analysis. Although analysis
is always importantto judge a project's progression,
iishould be done in a supportive rarher
-t
than an imposed sryle' ThJsuppotriu. .t affi."ri
convictions, and accomplish iself_analysis.a6 v +"irr.u"tors
---r -r-..vr realize errors, test their
It should be mentioned that the exact rewards
for corporate entrepreneuring are not yet
agreed on by most researchers.4T Some
b.li.rt;h;;ri.#"g
the new venture is the best reward. others.say
,rr. inventor to take charge of
it^is allowing ,i..o.por"r. enrrepreneur
discretionary time to work on future projecis. more
Still otherl i.xirt thrt special capital, called
inracapit*i' sho-uld be set aside for the corporate
enffepreneur to use whenever investmenr
money is needed for further research ideas.
In light of these climate elements, it is clear
that change in the corporate structure is
inevitable if innovative activity is going
to exis.t prorp? The change process consists
of a series of emerging ,o.,rrr*ri"or, "gr p."p1.,"rd
short, the ..*""f,1:,^.^1.:iL:l:::r"ge innovairon
.il;;;l;';."rs, and existing needs. In
by relt.,quishi.j .onrrot, o.l .frrreirs
the traditional bureaucraric structure. (See
Tabre 3.5 f;; ,h. corpo.rte Innovator,s
Commandments.)
Managers and employees across a firm
are most.likely to engage in entrepreneurial
ior when the organizational dimensions to behav-
that beha#r-"r. .,i.ir-p..ceiuei, *ia.ry r."r*r,
and universailv accepted. Individuars assess
what they perceive to be,is a.set of organization"lg;,..pr;;;;i;l:;;;;;;
their ;;:iil;:. ,.
related to entrepreneurial activity. or!.
...;;;;;r; oppo.trrnities, and obstacres
it is determineJ ,r,li ,rr. value of an environmenr
encouraging entrepreneurial behavior exceeds
that of r[;tir;, organizational behaviors,
wilt continuo,rsly champion, facilitate,
:Hm::::s that innovationlf.t.rdly
";;;;;;rr.

1. Come to work each day willing to give

up your job for the innovation.
2. Circumvent any bureaucratic orders aimed at
stopping your innovation.
3' lgnore your job description-do any job
needed to make your innovation work.
4. Build a spirited innovation team that has
the fire,, to make it happen.
5' Keep your innovation "underground"
until it is prepared for demonstration to the
corporate management.
t manager who believes in you and your ideas
and who wiil serve as a sponsor to your
ilffiliJr:pper-level
rarelygrantedinorganizations;thus,alwaysseekforgivenessforthe,,ignorance,,oftherulesthat
'fflffi;u:
8. Always be realistic about the ways to achieve
the innovation goals. 'E

9. share the grory of the accomprishments

with everyone on the team.
:l .- .l :...i..
::r, ttr, it:.,r,i,,it,r:Jntrr,,ii,r

O
o
 Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy 71 *sS
3-4d *antr*l v*rsus Aut*nar.ny
As we have tl:Y,^:-.q'oyees engaging in entrepreneurial behavior are the foundation
organizational innovation, so in ordeito develop;.".p.*r. for
innovation,o organizarions
must establish a process through which individrr"i.
ir, ,i established firm pursue enrrepre-
neurial opportunities to innovate without..g^.d;;;dl;
and nature of currentr' ar.air-
able resources'.However, keep in mind that,ln
trr. proper
firms that manifest corporate innovatire.actiuiry "br."..'"fto generatecontrol
*"y;i.ra -..h;",r;j,
an incoherenr mass
of interesting,but unrelated opportunities thai .r",
rr"". profit potential, but that don,r
move [thosel firms toward a disirable
{uly::" rh.r.io.",lnor" i".,o* ii", J.r"., corpo-
rate entrepreneurial activity to produce high
levels of innovation performance iir..ry .on-
tingent upon a firm's ability to
ludiciously ,r. .o.,r.ol -..n.rrl.-, for the proper
^r. selection
and effective guidance on entrepreneurial actions r.riiliii.r.o,
Although sohe consultants emphasize the need"ra
,o'r.rt. u.t the entrepreneurial hostages"
in organizations simply by removing corstraints
on behavior, it is clear that, in doing so,
they may be ignoring opportunities bltte.
to align innovations with organizational interesrs,
which results ftom encouraging, directing, restricting,
and prohibiting behaviors and initia-
tives' Not all corporate entrepreneurial b"eiravior
rr g.oJ-ili rrre organization. yet the litera-
ture in the corporate innovation area tends ,:
i:rpli.rJ, ,.g*a ,uJh b.h"r.io, "r'r.ir...n,ry
virruous. This is an unforrunate and potentially'dangero,i,
Donald F Kuratko and Michael c. cotasurl;irr.
ui"r. e, ;;;;d ;il;"r.h..,
."1.rr"gemenr of corporare enrrepre-
neurship can and often does result in counterprodu.tir.,
rog"rr. behavior by organizational
members' Thus, the deliberate design and developm;r;';i;.gr,rizational
ing the organizational dimension, io. systems reflecr-
environment conducive to corporate innovation
"n
is critical' As such, the.senior manager's.task
is not simpiy-i. uura an organization whose
core qualities are conducive to innovation
facilitating and control-facilitating mechanisms
but."tt., io'a.rign and develop innovation-
innovative potential that resides r,v-ithin the
ri"i ."*pr.-ent one another such that the
organizati;;;i;;;.rged for the highest and best
organ izational purposes.
The exhibition of certain controls is not antithetical
to the interests of corporate innova-
tion but rather inherent to those interests. As such,
observati,ons to the effect that control is
of successful innovation are naive. Managers
:lta 1*,
rs process amenable to the application
should understand that innovation
of srructu;d, aisciflinea ih;'r",r...rr-
ful pursuit of innovation demanis that managers "r.;rl;h;.
approach innovation challenges with the
understanding thar the means by which p.r.,irl"ily'a1,i*ur.'oor.o..,
can be well understood and deliteratery .orrrrrr.*a. might be generated
process knowledge that can be brought
i;;;';* rures, merhods, and general
io bea. - r".iii,"iio, ii rr...rrful innovation efforts.
As such' it's often not the absence 6f .,rles
,"a -.rr-rnJ.r.,."a procedures that results in
successful innovation, it's their presence.
Managers ,.. *.rl ,auired to recognize this
reality.

3-4e Pr*paration for Failure

The idea of " learning from failure" is axiomatic
in the corporate entrepreneurial com-
munity' However, dealing with failure on a personal
level is something that has nor been,
until recently, fully examined. Researchers Dean
A. shepherd, JeffreyG. covin, and Donard
F. Kuratko have,written about the importance.
of .rr.,rging g'ri.f ,hr, resurrs from project
failure. Grief, which triggers behavioral,.pry.h.l;;l';;lr"?ihrri"rogicat
negative emotional response to the loss of-somethirig symptoms, is a
represents a particularly salient task in
i-po.trit. Managing grief, therefore,
the.context Ir.orpo.r,. entrepreneurship practice,
because the amount of commitment esse.ntial
sponding levels of grief when projects fail.
a p.o;.* .ic.J* l. often matched by corre-
organizdtional routines and iituals are likely
to influence the grief recovery of those
involved in failed projects. To the extenr that
effectively channel negative emotions, grearer"n'org;;rrioii, .o.irt supporr sysrems can
learning and motivational outcomes from
project failures are certainry possible. The
"i;;;;;t r"iLo..i"rtr";i;i';;;'.r,
inwitabiliry
mechanisms and failure-related coping skills-of
.orfJ."r.'*7.rigers, giving dedicated inno-
vation units with adequate social suplors
I:. deaiin;;i;h g;.r operationar edge that
also strengthens coping self_efficacy oii.rdirrid,rals.ji "n
 eifu ?? ;HAprtR 3 The Entrepreneurial Mind-Set in organizations: corporate Entrepreneurship
3-4f Pr*paring hlmnagement
Executive leaders must create an understanding
of the innovation process for their employ-
ees' Having assessed the firm's internal
*o.ti.rrulro;;;;;r"pp.rts innovative activitn
senior managers should also determine if
corporate i"""rli;"" and enrepreneurial behavior
are understotg.ll-:n: firms'employees. Key i
decision makers-must find ways to explain
the purpose of using a corporate innovation
process to those from whom entrepreneurial
behaviors are expected.
Understanding and supporting a corporate innovation
process should not be left to
chance' Experience demonstrates ihat executiues
need to develop a program with the pur-
pose of helping all parties who will
be.affected- bl ..rr*;;
' value of the entrepreneurial behavior trt"t
nnovation to understand the
tn. n.io i [q""rilrs of them as the foundation
for a successful innovation.
As a way fot otganizations to develop that
understanding for
neurial activity,.a corporat€ .rt..p..nr,r.ihip/innovaii,o;;;;firg innovation and entrepre-
program often induces the
change needed in the work atmosphere' It
is not our intent to .l"borrt. completely
conrent of a training program here, brt a brief on the
to provide a general understanding of how
t;;;;; ,, program is presented
".trrt to introduce an enrre-
,r.h , p.ogr^- i. J"rigrr.d
preneurial environmenr in a company. This
,*"ia-rij""jrrglrri.ring program is intended
to create an awareness of entrepreneurial opportunities
in"organizl,io.ri. irr. co.fo.r,.
Innovation Training Program consists .f ri";;;;[r,
.r.rr i*lgred to train participants to
support corporate innovations in their own
work are'a.S2 The modules , f.i.i ri--"ry
of their contents are as follows: "na
1' The Entrepreneurial Experience. An enthusiastic
overview of the Enrrepreneurial
Experience,,in which participants are introduced to the .ntrepreneurial
has taken place throughout ihe world revolution that
over tn. r"ri rrrr.. a.cades. participants are
lenged to think innovaiively and recognize chal-
the need for breaking out of the old paradigms
in today's organizations
2" Innovative Thinking' The process of thinking
innovatively is foreign to most traditional
organizations' The misconceptions a.boutthirking
in;ou;ti*ly,rL.ri.*.J,lnJ" air-
cussion of the most common inhibitors ir pr.r.i*J.1i*,
inventory, managers engage in several .*.r.ir.r-a.r;;';;
.o-pteting an innovation
facilitate their own innova_
tive thinking.
'1' Idea Acceleration-Process. Managers generate a set
of specific ideas on which they
would like to work' The process lri.tuaI...""-i"i*
ration, including structural barriers and facilitatori "
,r.ruer of aspects of the corpo-
aaJiriorrrlls managers determine
resources needed to accomplish their projects.
4" Barriers and Facilitators to Innovative Thinking.
The most common barriers to inno-
vative behavior are reviewed and discussed.
will help them deal
M";;;r .olpt.r" several exercises that
with barriers in the workfh.;.ilil;ion, video
case histories are
shown that depictactual corporate innovatori
that have been successful in dealing with
corporate barriers.
-5' sustaining Innovation Teams (I-Teams). The
concept of forming I-Teams to focus on
specific innovations is examined. Managers
work together to fdrm teams based on the
ideas that have been circulating among
tire entire g;;;;lbr- dynamics is reviewed
each group to understand. for
{r' The Innovation Action Plan. After managers examine
several aspects of facilitators and
barriers to behaving innovatively in thelr o.g";ir;;i;;,;;;"r,
process of completing an action plan.
are asked to begin the
The ptln i".lud.r r.*i.,g go"tr, .rr"Ltirlift
I-Team, assessing currenr conditions, d.r.b;ir;;-r',lf;;_rr.,
completion, and project
timetable for project""
evaluation.

. This type of program should be ongoing in nature. As new innovative opportunities sur-
lace in a firm's external enui.o.rmerri rrih.
irrt..nrl *ork.rrrironment changes, and as
new employees join the organization, it is
appropriate f.; ;;;; f.._;h;;-;;;;r._
ial behavior is expected to work together r" ri,ig
,h. t;;r";;; to proceed to implement
a corporare innovation process. In this sense,
efforts to .uc..'r.f,r[; ."g;;-;'..'ro"il"r.

E
 Sustaining a Corporate EntrepreneurshipStrategy j3
innovation musr themselves be innovativeE
changing in response to ever-changing condi_
tions in the firm's internal and external ..ruiror-..rtr.

3-49 Devei*ping l-Tearns

I-Teams and the potential they hold for. producing
innovative results are recognized as a
twentv-firsr centurv productivity breakttuough.
larity is on the rise' companies that have committed
c;;i;r;,;; 9r. doubts that their popu_
to an l-Team approach often Iabel
the change they have undergone a'transform"tiorrJ
o, I .Jroturiorr: This modern breed of
work team is a new strategy-for many firms. It is
referred to as self-directing, self-managing,
or high performing, in reality an I-Team fits ail of those descriptions.s3
In examining the illf.rtn
entrepreneurial developmenr ;i.;.;;;i.ns,
entrepreneurial thinking is not the sole province Robert Reich found that
of tn. .irnf"ny,, fourd.. or its top manag_
ers' Rather, it is diffused throughout the
company, *her. .*p.rimentarion and development
occur all the time as the company searches.lo.
.r.* ,rrr'i.'urird on knowledge aiready
accumulated by its workert. n.l.r.a.ri.res callective
e$tr*ilrlrfi€lirship as follows:
In collective entrepreneurship, individual skills
are.integrated into a group; this collective
capaciry to innovate becomes something greater
group members work through various p.iut.-.
,trr' it. .u- of its parts. over time, as
orher's abilities. They rearn-how they. ian herp "";
;;;;.hes, they rearn abour each
perform better, what each
can contribute to a particular project, how
thei."n"r. b;;;;;k.
";;lh;. advantage of one another,s
experience' Each participant is constantly
on rir. r"or.l"ii.. small adjustments that will
speed and smooth the evolution of the
whole. Th. ;;;;lt of many such small-scale
adaptations, effected throughout the organization,
is to propel the enterprise forward.sa
In keeping with Reich's focus on collective.enrrepreneurship,
I-Teams offer corporations
the.opportunity to use the talents of individual.
An innr>vatirln t$anl, or r-Teo:u, is composed
*i;t.;;l;.ffi ..nr. of teamwork.
of two o, *?.. peopre who formaly cre-
ate and share ownership of a new organizition.5s
that it has its own budget as well as"a leader
rh. unit i, ,.,.,i"uro.romous in rhe sense
*irh ;i. i;;;oi, ,o -"t. decisions within
broad guidelines' sometimes the leader is called
championo or a " corporare
entrepreneur.o rhe unit often is separated "rr'i.rnou"iL,
from other p"rr.-orirr. firmo rn p;;.;;;;.*
parts involved with daily activitiet. lhir prevents
the unit from engaging in procedures that
can stifle innovative activities. If the innovation
proves ,u...rrrut, however, it eventually
treated the same as.other outputs the organizaritn is
producer.ll i, ,rr.r, integrated into the
larger organization.56
In many ways, an I-Team is a small business
operating within a large business, and its
strength is its focus on design issues (i.e., o.n
structure and process) for innovative activities.
one organization that operated successfuily with
the I-i;;;;;..pt was the Signode cor_
poration (see.Entr epreneurship in practiceo).
specific entrepreneurial strategies vary from firm
to firm. However, they all follow simi-
lar patterns of seeking a p.orctiu". .hung. of th.
.t"trs ;;;-;;;" new, frexible approach to
operaq.ions management.

l,'iliil?,1'-::l':iil:t":1*-".T';*::::,a"ng.,ii",#;,s;;;'ff
.j'G;.d;;:;';iffi ;H;il:,;
ll. S;:::'iff 11:j llxlyl-"I 1*'1,,,",.
to become enamored
ffi:il :::i::;:
withthe id;";fi;;;;;;,;;;;il.J;fi:,.J
i:::::::l: ,I:l:-.i'J executi".L..a"l, ,.. ;;;;;,,.d l;;iffi[";:T :;
ffi."'*::,i::".'^- :|::::::::.--which
'n',:,:::1,1 :^:t::1':.:Til1c'y to create .,,,,,i.,"iiJll*;;;#;;ilil;l
Ii::,::lll::Tll,:I".*,conceptuarrit..,i,..;;H;;;;;,T:;.,"rauevers
nr,,;;; ; ;;;;:;.: ;;i: il[;, il,ff::,TJ; have
;:'jl::1,:l'::'--:: j:':' :: l'li!. 1" ih. o,g"
distinct..'p.i,iiiiii:;';;,h ***,;fl;i":ffi;#llX,!;;11,1
l:,::l::l_::::?:T^r:::::
leuel managers have ratifying, recogniii"t,
"ra
directing roles that ,,1',#fitji; :::::r';
 'i:i:.i il The Entrepreneurial Mind-Set in Organizationsr Corporate Entrepreneurship

with particular managerial actions.5T Researchers Donald F. Kuratko, R. Duane Ireland,

Jeffrey G. Covin, and Jeffrey Hornsby
S. contend that middle-leuel managers endorse, refine,
and shepherd entrepreneurial opportunities, and identify, acquire, and deploy resources
needed to pursue those opportunities. First-leuel l.nanagers have experimenting roles that
correspond to rhe competence definition subprocess, adjusting roles that correspond to the
competence modification subprocess, and conforming roles that correspond to the compe-
tence deployment subprocess.
Thus, organizations that pursue corporate entrepreneurship smategies likely exhibit a
cascading yet integrated set of entrepreneurial actions at the senior, middle, and first levels
of management.
At the senior level, managers acr in concert with others throughout the firm to identify
effective means through which new businesses can be created or existing ones reconfigured'
Corporate entrepreneurship is pursued in light of environmental opportunities and threats,
with the purpose of creating a more effective alignment between the company and condi-
rions in its external environment. The entrepreneurial actions expected of middle-levei man-
agers are framed around the need for this group to propose and interpret entrepreneurial
opportunities that might create new business for the firm or increase the firm's competitive-
ness in current business domains, First-line managers exhibit the " experimenting" role as
they unearth the operational ideas for innovative improvements. An important interpreta-
tion of previous research has been the belief that managers would surface ideas for entrepre-
neurial actions from every level of management, particularly the first-line and middle levels.
Therefore, managers across levels are jointly responsible for their organization's entrepre-
neurial actions.58
m lllustrate An organization's sustained effort in corporate entrepreneurship is contingent upon indi-
the interactlve vidual members continuing to undertake innovative activities and upon positive perceptions
process of
corporate
of the activity by the organization's executive management, which will in turn support the
e ntrepreneu rsh i p further allocation of necessary organizational antecedents. Figure 3.4 illustrates the impor-
tance of perceived impiementation/output relationships at the organizational and individual
1evels for sustaining corporate entrepreneurship.se
The first part of the model is based on theoretical {oundations from previous strategy and
entrepreneurship research. The second part of the model considers the comparisons made at

Source:DonaldF. Kuratko, Ieffrey S. Hornsby, and Michael G. Goldsby,"Sustaining Corporate Entrepreneurship: Modeling Perceived
Implementation and Outcome Comparisons at Organizational and Individual Levels," lnternational Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Itqot'atiott 5, no. 2 (Iv{ay 2004):79.
 Sustaining a Corporate Entrepreneurship Straiegl

the individual and organizational level on organizational ourcomes, both perceiled and :ea,.
-rt that influence the continuation of the entrepreneurial activity.
t-,
#$tr
The modei demonstrates that a transformational trigger (something externai or interna:
bd* to the company that causes a change to take place) initiates the neeci foi strategic adaptariol
L&,i
ill or change' One such change that can be chosen is corporate entreprefleurial ictivity. Baseti
on this choice of strategic direction, the proposecl model centerc arorrrd the individual,s
,.t
.ff
I
I
decision to behave entrepreneuriaily. Sustained enrrepreneurial activity is the result of the
perception of the existence of several organizational antecedenrs, such as top managemenr
uefi I support, autonomy, rewards, resources, and fiexible organizational boundaries, The out-
a.

XH
{"'i
,$51 comes realized from this entrepreneurial activity are then compared at both the individual

J f( :J15
tr,il I
I
and otganizational level to previous expectations. Thus, corporate entrepreneurial activities
are a result of an equity perception by both the individual and the organization. Both must
be satisfied with the outcolnes for the entreprenelrrial activities to conlinue from the organi-
64 *
4 H5I
\t- *J Lt* rl
zational perspective as well as the individual perspective. Satisfaction with performancJout-
comes serves as a feedback mechanism for either sustaining the current strategy or selecting
d\ *l OE I
tc'

td
lm
g?
.l an alternative one. Individuals, as agents of the strategic .hrrlg., must also be satisfied witf,
the intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes they receive for their .r-rtr"p..r.,-,.ial behavior.'While it
may be a'chicken-and-egg" question as to whether individuai behavior or organizational
strategy should change first, the model suggests thatE for a major strategic changeD both
are instrumental in making the change successful.

Emphasizing that the success ot aorpo,uta jnnovarors;s ma.Leting campaign Peed coqvinced senior executrves that
due ro their ded;carion to pulsu;ng a new. ours;de the box the orqan;ldtion needed a vice presidenr ol rnis cause, to
idea that benefit their emptoyers, we look at a few young wnlcr, sne was then promoted.
mahagers who adopreo an enr+preneurial attitude and
creative problem-solving to rise through their o,ganization s Pam Rogers Klyn: A p.ooucl Cevetopmenr manager at
yy5;slpool Corpo.dtton wl^o focuseo on cost controi efforts.
Rarl-er tnan having a',specia, s96116:nee,team dedicated Lo
tvtatthew zubiller; A corporate straiegisr at pharmaceut cuttirg costs, she advocared for a con'pany wide emphasis
ca{ c96p6n, McKesson Corporarion who started a high- on cosr savings, siressing snrall efforts ljke turning oFf l;ghis
rech healthcare bus;ness in an atmosphere unused to and tying annr-r.ll bon;ses io (osL goals. tn developjng af d
internat slari ups Uslng rhe companys healthcare informa- implemenr;ng ihis rdea, she worked 6l65gty with ner CiO
tion technology uniL as a starLing point, Zubiiler developed and gave nim a lol or credit. By tirking cost savinos req,-rire-
Advanced Diagnost;cs Managemeni, a u.lit centered on a roents to yearly bonr,ses Whi' poot s \orth Amer.can drvi-
highrtech tooi for pnysiCians relaied to genetic l.esfing. He sion was able ro save over S8>0 million irr one yedr.
likely had to ove,come a number oF rrad,rional manage-
One ciear commonalily dmong these ,nd:viduals is
ment practiaes in this large bureaucratic company that was
thpil sf[6r1 to gain senior Ieadership bi_t;1-in and involve-
unaccustomed to interaal innovarion, such as 'rt's not in ou,
ment. ln each case, they wo,keo wjth a serecr few. picking
budget'or"That's a weird idea'lresponse. I,c ach;eve inrernar
individuals who couid 56s ths gigger picrure while being
support, ne created a'shadow hoard'of *.Oany .*u.,
excired about a small. focused e ffort A successfut corporate
tives who advtsed the venture creation dnd heloed secure
enfrepreneurship program needs the execurive support rhat
55 million in support. As a resulr of his eftqrts, Z.rbiller was
can herp build the new ventu{e from rhe inside -orporate
buieaucracies usuaily require a champior for any change.
Korl Reed: A pLrblic re,ations mdnager at ConAgra and an Gening perm,ssion is always rhe mosr cha!leng;.1q p311 6f
expert in child hLrnger, Reeo recognized rhat ConAgra could d1y ne\v idea bur having a champion means having some
oenefit by linking its products [o initiarrves ro fight ctijd help in mov;r g Lhe proces: along. lt always Lakes individuals
hunger She used her existing knowledge of antih,rnger who are self-starrers with a strong dilve to achieve and an
campaigns and interesi in combalng cl^ildhood hunger to opportun:ry orien Lation.
identifu an opportuniry She noted ,1-,* 1,-lgqng.uir! befween thej. Wdl to rhe
:oU'ce: Adapteo Irom Joanr 5. -uo r'l.rji19 Fast
working for a food products company, overllowinq with T'ocll.Wal SrreerLournal. JdnLdty 19. 20l7 dnd Donald F. 4u-art o.
food abundance, and staiving and undernourishe.d chr:tdren Mlr hael C Cotdsoy, and re['rey' S t-ornsby . ]lnova,;an AcceLeraL on:
She brought execut;ves inro an advisory comn iftee and lrsn5forving Qrgan,z\lianatthl.t rq {LJoper Saddle R,ver r: oedrsonr
N
'made antihunger language a cornerstone oithe companys