corporate entrepreneurship performance: slovenia and · pdf filecorporate entrepreneurship...

24
Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania boštjan antonˇ ciˇ c University of Primorska, Slovenia cezar scarlat University Politechnica of Bucharest, Romania Entrepreneurship development is an imperative agenda for the improvement of competitiveness of current and future eu mem- ber countries. Corporate entrepreneurship activities and orien- tations can be considered important predictors of organizational performance. Hypotheses on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship (organizational-level entrepreneurial behav- iors) and performance elements and between alliance and cor- porate entrepreneurship elements were developed and tested. The analyses were done by using questionnaire data collected in two countries: Slovenia and Romania. Findings indicated very mi- nor differences in corporate entrepreneurship and alliance item means between the two countries. Innovation in products and services can be considered crucial for performance of firms and economic growth. Strategic alliance relationships can be impor- tant for corporate entrepreneurship development. Key words: corporate entrepreneurship, performance, alliances, Slovenia, Romania Introduction Entrepreneurship development is an imperative agenda for the im- provement of competitiveness of current and future European Union (eu) member countries. The focus of this study is corporate en- trepreneurship (i.e. entrepreneurship at the level of an existing firm). Corporate entrepreneurship activities and orientations can be considered important predictors of organizational performance. While past corporate entrepreneurship research in North America (for example, Covin and Slevin 1986; Covin 1991; Zahra 1991; 1993; A previous version of this paper was published in Managing the Process of Globalis- ation in New and Upcoming eu Members: Proceedings of the 6th International Con- ference of the Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, 71–89 (Koper: Faculty of Management, 2006). management 3 (1): 15–38 15

Upload: hoangtuong

Post on 09-Mar-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate EntrepreneurshipPerformance: Sloveniaand Romaniaboštjan antonci c

University of Primorska, Slovenia

cezar scarlat

University Politechnica of Bucharest, Romania

Entrepreneurship development is an imperative agenda for theimprovement of competitiveness of current and future eu mem-ber countries. Corporate entrepreneurship activities and orien-tations can be considered important predictors of organizationalperformance. Hypotheses on the relationship between corporateentrepreneurship (organizational-level entrepreneurial behav-iors) and performance elements and between alliance and cor-porate entrepreneurship elements were developed and tested.The analyses were done by using questionnaire data collected intwo countries: Slovenia and Romania. Findings indicated very mi-nor differences in corporate entrepreneurship and alliance itemmeans between the two countries. Innovation in products andservices can be considered crucial for performance of firms andeconomic growth. Strategic alliance relationships can be impor-tant for corporate entrepreneurship development.

Key words: corporate entrepreneurship, performance, alliances,Slovenia, Romania

Introduction

Entrepreneurship development is an imperative agenda for the im-provement of competitiveness of current and future European Union(eu) member countries. The focus of this study is corporate en-trepreneurship (i. e. entrepreneurship at the level of an existingfirm). Corporate entrepreneurship activities and orientations canbe considered important predictors of organizational performance.While past corporate entrepreneurship research in North America(for example, Covin and Slevin 1986; Covin 1991; Zahra 1991; 1993;

A previous version of this paper was published in Managing the Process of Globalis-ation in New and Upcoming eu Members: Proceedings of the 6th International Con-ference of the Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, 71–89 (Koper:Faculty of Management, 2006).

management 3 (1): 15–38 15

Page 2: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

Zahra and Covin 1995) provided substantial evidence on the cor-porate entrepreneurship-performance relationship, empirical re-search on this relationship in new or future eu accession countrieshas been rare and is mainly concentrated in works of Antoncic andassociates (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004; Antoncic andZorn 2004) in Slovenia – a relatively newer eu country (a new eu

country at the time of the study). This study extends the study ofcorporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship to a new eu

member country (a prospective eu member country at the time ofthe study) – Romania, by making a comparison with Slovenia. Thisstudy is exploiting a research opportunity to assess the role of en-trepreneurship – in this case corporate entrepreneurship – in firmperformances that were brought with the shift from socialism tomarket-based systems in Central and Eastern Europe, as advocatedby Hills and LaForge (1992).

A significant amount of research has been conducted includingtwo groups of corporate entrepreneurship antecedents: factors ofthe firm’s external environment (e. g., Miller 1983; Khandwalla 1987;Covin and Slevin 1991; Zahra 1991; 1993; Badguerahanian and Abetti1995; Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004) and organizational-level internal factors (e. g., Souder 1981; Schollhammer 1982; Kan-ter 1984, Pinchot 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby 1987; Antoncic andHisrich 2000; 2001; 2004). This research, with the exception of An-toncic and Hisrich (2004), failed to recognize that corporate en-trepreneurship may also be influenced by the firm’s engagementin inter-organizational alliances. The present study remedies thisweakness of past research by examining the relationship betweenalliance elements and corporate entrepreneurship.

In what follows, hypotheses on the relationship between corporateentrepreneurship and performance elements and between allianceand corporate entrepreneurship elements are developed, researchmethods are described, findings are presented and discussed.

Theory and Hypotheses

In this paper, corporate entrepreneurship is defined as entrepreneur-ship within an existing organization, including emergent behavioralintentions and behaviors of an organization related to departuresfrom the customary (Antoncic and Hisrich 2003). Even if corporateentrepreneurship can have several characteristic dimensions, suchas new business venturing, product/service innovation, process in-novation, self-renewal, risk taking, proactiveness, and competitiveaggressiveness, this paper focuses only on the most evident cor-

16 management · volume 3

Page 3: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

porate entrepreneurship activities: new businesses, new ventures,and product and service innovation. These activities are definedas: (1) new businesses – pursuit of and entering into new busi-nesses related to current products or markets (Rule and Irvin 1988;Zahra 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Antoncic and Hisrich2003); (2) new ventures – creation of new autonomous or semi-autonomous units or firms (Schollhammer 1981; Hisrich and Peters1984; MacMillan et al. 1984; Vesper 1984; Kanter and Richardson1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Sharma and Chrisman 1999;Antoncic and Hisrich 2003); (3) product/service innovation – cre-ation of new products and services (Schollhammer 1982; Covin andSlevin 1991; Zahra 1993; Damanpour 1996; Burgelman and Rosen-blom 1997; Knight 1997; Tushman and Anderson 1997; Antoncic andHisrich 2003). Corporate entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship) canbe differentiated from other similar concepts in management andbusiness research, such as diversification strategy, capabilities, or-ganizational learning and organizational innovation (a more precisedescription of this differentiation and the corporate entrepreneur-ship definition is provided in Antoncic and Hisrich 2003).

corporate entrepreneurship and performance

Growth and profitability are performance elements that can be con-sidered important consequences of corporate entrepreneurship. Ingeneral, corporate entrepreneurship has been regarded an impor-tant element of successful organizations (Peters and Waterman 1982;Kanter 1984; Pinchot 1985). On the one hand, the relationship be-tween corporate entrepreneurship and growth has received widesupport in past research. Corporate entrepreneurship was foundpredictive of the growth of small firms (Covin 1991) and large firms(Covin and Slevin 1986; Zahra 1991; 1993; Zahra and Covin 1995).A positive corporate entrepreneurship-growth relationship was dis-covered for Slovenian (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; 2004) and us es-tablished firms (Morris and Sexton 1996; Antoncic and Hisrich 2001)and health care firms (Stetz et al. 1998). On the other hand, past re-search on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship andprofitability produced mixed support. Corporate entrepreneurshipwas found to be related to the profitability of large firms (Covin andSlevin 1986; Zahra 1991; 1993; Zahra and Covin 1995), and small,medium-sized, and large firms from various industries in Slovenia,but not in the us (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001). Morris and Sexton(1996) also did not find a significant positive relationship betweenentrepreneurial intensity and profitability of us firms. One explana-

number 1 · spring 2008 17

Page 4: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

tion for such mixed results is that ‘firms in the us are more growthoriented and value growth more than profitability than do the firmsin Slovenia that may be still more survival and profit rather thangrowth oriented’ (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001, 523). A similar pos-itive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and perfor-mance may be expected also for other similar countries referred toas transition economies, such as Romania. For firms in transitioneconomies it may be particularly beneficial to exercise corporate en-trepreneurship in order to ensure change and growth (Antoncic andHisrich 2000). Romania has been going through the transition to-wards a market-based economic system in a similar period to thatof Slovenia. When taking into consideration the economic develop-ment model based on corporate entrepreneurship (Douglas et al.2003), Romania may be at the medium levels of economic devel-opment (gdp per capita), where strong efforts need to be made toincrease all dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. In contrast,Slovenia may be at the medium-high, where among entrepreneurialactivities innovativeness becomes a key for improved performance.Hence, we would expect a general positive relationship between cor-porate entrepreneurship and performance in terms of profitabil-ity and growth, with a distinction in more positive and significantrelationships of innovativeness items to performance than the im-pact of other elements on performance in Slovenia, while in Roma-nia we may find a more balanced impact of different corporate en-trepreneurship elements on performance. This research forms thebasis of the following hypotheses:

hypothesis 1: The extent of corporate entrepreneurship (newbusinesses, new ventures, product/service innovation) will be pos-itively related to organizational performance in terms of growthand profitability in Slovenia and Romania.

hypothesis 2: Positive and significant relationships of corpo-rate entrepreneurship to performance will have the following prop-erties: (2a) product/service innovation will be the most impor-tant among corporate entrepreneurship elements in Slovenia, and(2b) the importance of new businesses, new ventures, and prod-uct/service innovation will be balanced in Romania.

alliance elements and corporate entrepreneurship

Inter-organizational relationships have received limited researchattention in the context of corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic1999). Firms participate in alliances in order to learn know-how and

18 management · volume 3

Page 5: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

capabilities from their alliance partners (Kale et al. 2000). Inter-firm elements that reside in networks and strategic alliances andcan be beneficial for corporate entrepreneurship, as conceptuallyelaborated by Antoncic (2001), are: inter-firm communication, trust,external-relationship oriented support, value congruence, and thenumber of external relationships. First, the frequency and qualityof inter-firm communication can have a positive impact on corpo-rate entrepreneurship. Past research that supports this notion hasemphasized the following: face-to-face interaction (Saxenian 1991),communication quality and participation (Mohr and Spekman 1994),information sharing (Jones et al. 1997; Uzzi 1997), open and promptcommunication (Das and Teng 1998), and frequency of communi-cation (Deeds and Hill 1998). Second, inter-firm trust can have apositive impact on corporate entrepreneurship. Past research hasstressed the importance of trust in alliances (Pruitt 1981; Parkhe1993; Das and Teng 1998; Weaver and Dickson 1998) and networks(Saxenian 1991). Third, the inter-firm level organizational supportcan be seen as a crucial element for corporate entrepreneurship. Thesupport elements can be found in discussions about: commitmentin inter-firm relationships (Porter et al. 1974; Mohr and Spekman1994) and permeability of network boundaries (Jones et al. 1997).Fourth, congruence of organizational values across alliance or net-work partner firms can be an important predictor of corporate en-trepreneurship development. Values in general can serve as socialcontrol mechanisms that encourage desirable behavior in alliances(Das and Teng 1998), sharing values can improve alliance success(Parkhe 1991), and, in addition, values can even be a byproductof joint networking (Jones et al. 1997). Fifth, the number of inter-firm relationships of a firm can have a positive impact on corporateentrepreneurship development, particularly on product innovation(Saxenian 1991); Deeds and Hill 1996; 1998; Powell et al. 1996), aswell as on corporate entrepreneurship as a construct (Antoncic andHisrich 2004).

hypothesis 3: The extent of alliance elements (communication,trust, support, value congruence, number of alliances) will be pos-itively related to corporate entrepreneurship in terms of new busi-nesses, new ventures, and product/service innovation in Sloveniaand Romania.

Methods

The methodology will be discussed in terms of measurement instru-ment, data collection, samples, and data analysis.

number 1 · spring 2008 19

Page 6: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

measurement instrument

In this research, corporate entrepreneurship, alliance character-istics, and performance elements were measured mostly throughscales previously tested and used by other researchers. The ques-tionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated intoSlovenian and Romanian. Perceptual measures were selected basedon their congruence with the concepts under examination. Five pointscales (Likert-type scales and semantic differentials) were used tokeep the questionnaire as simple as possible. In some cases longerscales were needed to capture the information. Companies reportedanswers for the past three-year period.

Corporate entrepreneurship was measured by selected items ofnew businesses, new ventures, and product/service innovation (seetable 1) from the corporate entrepreneurship scale used by Antoncicand Hisrich (2004). The number of alliances was measured as thenumber of strategic alliances of the focal firm (Antoncic and Hisrich2004) and was assessed across different alliance types: customer-supplier relationships, licensing, technology sharing, joint develop-ment, and equity joint ventures (Mowery et al. 1996), and at the over-all level.

Dependent variables – performance – were measured in terms ofgrowth and profitability in absolute and relative terms (Antoncic andHisrich 2001): absolute growth items are the average annual growthin number of employees in the last three years and the average an-nual growth in sales in the last three years, while the relative growthitem is growth in market share (Chandler and Hanks 1993) in the lastthree years; absolute profitability items are average annual returnon sales (ros), average return on assets (roa), and average annualreturn on equity (roe), in the last three years, while relative prof-itability items are a subjective measure of firm performance relativeto competitors (Chandler and Hanks 1993) and its extension (Anton-cic and Hisrich 2001; 2004): the company’s profitability in compari-son to all competitors, as well as to competitors that are at about thesame age and stage of development. Control variables included firmage, size, and industry.

data collection, samples, and data analysis

Questionnaire data were collected from top executives of selectedfirms in Slovenia and Romania. For analysis 477 usable responseswere obtained from Slovenia (a representative random sample) and30 responses were obtained from Romania.

The average firm in the Slovenian sample had 100 to 249 employ-

20 management · volume 3

Page 7: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

ees (full time equivalent), had $5 Million to up to $10 Million sales,was 21 to 50 years old, and operated in manufacturing, trade andservices sectors. The average firm in the Romanian sample had 50 to99 employees (full time equivalent), had $1 Million to up to $5 Mil-lion sales, was 11 to 20 years old, and operated in trade, services, andmanufacturing sectors. In both countries also other industries werewell represented. The samples were not ideally matched, but past re-search (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004) mostly confirmed thestability of corporate entrepreneurship models across control vari-ables.

Data were analyzed by using the spss statistical analytical soft-ware. Item means were compared in absolute and statistical terms(Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). The hypotheses were tested with theanalysis of correlations. These simple analytical methods were usedbecause of the small size of the Romanian sample.

Findings

Research findings will be discussed in terms of comparisons of cor-porate entrepreneurship and alliance mean values between Slove-nia and Romania, and hypotheses testing findings on corporateentrepreneurship–performance and alliance–corporate entrepre-neurship relationships.

comparisons of means

Means for all corporate entrepreneurship and alliance items areshown in table 1. Most differences in item means were found notto be statistically significant (at 0.05 levels). Significant differenceswere found only for few items: only one among 17 corporate en-trepreneurship items (the number of products introduced by thecompany lower in Slovenia – mean 2.65 – than in Romania – mean3.40); three among 28 alliance items (the congruence of organiza-tional values was found higher in Romania than in Slovenia for twoitems: in technology sharing – Slovenia 2.64, Romania 3.80 – andin joint development – Slovenia 2.58, Romania 3.50; the number ofstrategic alliances in the equity joint ventures type was found higherin Slovenia than in Romania: mean value 1.91 is close to one allianceof this type in Slovenia and mean 1.13 is close to zero alliances inRomania).

corporate entrepreneurship–performance

relationships

Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between corporateentrepreneurship and performance. Correlations for the Slovenian

number 1 · spring 2008 21

Page 8: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

ta

bl

e1

Mea

nco

mp

aris

ons

bet

wee

nS

love

nia

and

Rom

ania

Qu

esti

onn

aire

item

Dim

ensi

onC

ode

Slo

ven

iaR

oman

ia

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

Sti

mu

lati

ng

you

rn

ewd

eman

don

you

rex

isti

ng

pro

du

cts

inyo

ur

curr

ent

mar

kets

thro

ugh

aggr

essi

vead

vert

isin

gan

dm

arke

tin

gN

ewb

usi

nes

ses

i1

nb

01

2.71

0.05

2.97

0.24

Bro

aden

ing

you

rb

usi

nes

sli

nes

inyo

ur

curr

ent

ind

ust

ries

New

bu

sin

esse

si1

nb

02

3.13

0.05

3.50

0.20

Pu

rsu

ing

new

bu

sin

esse

sin

new

ind

ust

ries

that

are

rela

ted

toyo

ur

curr

ent

bu

sin

ess

New

bu

sin

esse

si1

nb

03

3.14

0.05

2.83

0.24

Fin

din

gn

ewn

ich

esfo

ryo

ur

pro

du

cts

inyo

ur

curr

ent

mar

kets

New

bu

sin

esse

si1

nb

04

3.50

0.05

3.07

0.21

En

teri

ng

new

bu

sin

esse

sby

offe

rin

gn

ewli

nes

and

pro

du

cts

New

bu

sin

esse

si1

nb

05

3.00

0.06

2.80

0.22

Cre

atin

gn

ewse

mi-

auto

nom

ous

un

its

New

ven

ture

si1

nb

06

2.24

0.05

2.47

0.25

Cre

atin

gn

ewau

ton

omou

su

nit

sN

ewve

ntu

res

i1

nb

07

1.97

0.05

2.07

0.22

Cre

atin

gn

ewfi

rms

New

ven

ture

si1

nb

08

1.84

0.05

1.97

0.26

Cre

atin

gn

ewto

tall

yin

dep

end

ent

firm

sN

ewve

ntu

res

i1

nb

09

1.44

0.04

1.50

0.20

You

rco

mp

any’

sem

ph

asis

ond

evel

opin

gn

ewp

rod

uct

sP

rod

uct

/ser

vice

inn

ovat

ion

i2

pi0

13.

450.

053.

400.

19

Rat

eof

new

pro

du

ctin

trod

uct

ion

into

the

mar

ket

Pro

du

ct/s

ervi

cein

nov

atio

ni2

pi0

23.

160.

043.

200.

20

You

rco

mp

any’

ssp

end

ing

onn

ewp

rod

uct

dev

elop

men

tac

tivi

ties

Pro

du

ct/s

ervi

cein

nov

atio

ni2

pi0

33.

200.

053.

170.

21

Th

en

um

ber

ofn

ewp

rod

uct

sad

ded

byyo

ur

com

pan

yP

rod

uct

/ser

vice

inn

ovat

ion

i2

pi0

43.

220.

043.

270.

23

Th

en

um

ber

ofn

ewp

rod

uct

sin

trod

uce

dby

you

rco

mp

any

Pro

du

ct/s

ervi

cein

nov

atio

ni2

pi0

52.

650.

053.

400.

21*

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

ep

erce

nt

ofth

eco

mp

any’

sre

ven

ue

gen

erat

edfr

omp

rod

uct

sth

atd

idn

otex

ist

thre

eye

ars

earl

ier

(1=

0–9%

...7

=70

%or

mor

e)

Pro

du

ct/s

ervi

cein

nov

atio

ni2

pi0

52.

650.

053.

400.

21

How

man

yn

ewli

nes

ofp

rod

uct

sor

serv

ices

has

you

rfi

rmm

arke

ted

inla

stth

ree

year

s(5

=ve

rym

any

new

lin

esof

pro

du

cts

orse

rvic

es)

Pro

du

ct/s

ervi

cein

nov

atio

ni2

pi0

63.

110.

083.

530.

36

How

man

yn

ewli

nes

ofp

rod

uct

sor

serv

ices

has

you

rfi

rmm

arke

ted

inla

stth

ree

year

s(5

=ch

ange

sin

pro

du

ctor

serv

ice

lin

esh

ave

usu

ally

bee

nq

uit

ed

ram

atic

)

Pro

du

ct/s

ervi

cein

nov

atio

ni2

pi0

73.

030.

052.

790.

21

22 management · volume 3

Page 9: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship PerformanceP

leas

era

teth

eex

ten

tof

com

mu

nic

atio

nw

ith

you

rst

rate

gic

alli

ance

par

t-n

ers

inge

ner

alin

last

thre

eye

ars

(r;1

=ti

mel

y)A

llia

nce

com

mu

nic

atio

nn

1c

o0

12.

340.

042.

420.

22

Ple

ase

rate

the

exte

nt

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hyo

ur

stra

tegi

cal

lian

cep

art-

ner

sin

gen

eral

inla

stth

ree

year

s(r

;1=

accu

rate

)A

llia

nce

com

mu

nic

atio

nn

1c

o0

22.

490.

042.

380.

22

Ple

ase

rate

the

exte

nt

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hyo

ur

stra

tegi

cal

lian

cep

art-

ner

sin

gen

eral

inla

stth

ree

year

s(r

;1=

adeq

uat

e)A

llia

nce

com

mu

nic

atio

nn

1c

o0

32.

570.

042.

350.

25

Ple

ase

rate

the

exte

nt

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hyo

ur

stra

tegi

cal

lian

cep

art-

ner

sin

gen

eral

inla

stth

ree

year

s(r

;1=

com

ple

te)

All

ian

ceco

mm

un

icat

ion

n1

co

04

2.78

0.03

2.62

0.24

Ple

ase

rate

the

exte

nt

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hyo

ur

stra

tegi

cal

lian

cep

art-

ner

sin

gen

eral

inla

stth

ree

year

s(r

;1=

cred

ible

)A

llia

nce

com

mu

nic

atio

nn

1c

o0

52.

340.

042.

380.

21

Ple

ase

rate

the

exte

nt

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hyo

ur

stra

tegi

cal

lian

cep

art-

ner

sin

gen

eral

inla

stth

ree

year

s(r

;1=

freq

uen

t)A

llia

nce

com

mu

nic

atio

nn

1c

o0

62.

530.

042.

620.

20

Ple

ase

rate

the

exte

nt

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hyo

ur

stra

tegi

cal

lian

cep

art-

ner

sin

gen

eral

inla

stth

ree

year

s(r

;1=

hig

hq

ual

ity)

All

ian

ceco

mm

un

icat

ion

n1

co

07

2.63

0.04

2.46

0.19

We

tru

stth

atth

eal

lian

cep

artn

ers’

dec

isio

ns

wil

lbe

ben

efici

alto

our

bu

sin

ess

All

ian

cetr

ust

n2

tr

01

3.34

0.04

3.62

0.19

We

feel

that

we

do

not

get

fair

dea

lsfr

omou

ral

lian

cep

artn

ers

(r)

All

ian

cetr

ust

n2

tr

02

2.38

0.04

2.38

0.22

Rel

atio

nsh

ips

wit

hou

ral

lian

cep

artn

ers

are

mar

ked

bya

hig

hd

egre

eof

har

mon

yA

llia

nce

tru

stn

2t

r0

33.

190.

043.

190.

22

Ou

ral

lian

cep

artn

ers

pro

vid

eu

sw

ith

atr

uth

fulp

ictu

reof

thei

rb

usi

nes

ses

All

ian

cetr

ust

n2

tr

04

3.09

0.04

3.00

0.22

Ou

ral

lian

cep

artn

ers

carr

you

td

uti

esev

enif

we

do

not

chec

ku

pon

them

All

ian

cetr

ust

n2

tr

05

3.14

0.04

3.00

0.24

Ou

ral

lian

cep

artn

ers

hav

eso

met

imes

pro

mis

edto

do

thin

gsw

ith

out

actu

-al

lyd

oin

gth

emla

ter

(r)

All

ian

cetr

ust

n2

tr

06

2.97

0.05

2.85

0.24

Th

em

anag

emen

tst

ruct

ure

itse

lfen

cou

rage

sem

plo

yees

tob

elie

veth

atco

llab

orat

ion

wit

hp

artn

erco

mp

anie

sis

par

tof

the

role

set

for

allm

em-

ber

sof

the

orga

niz

atio

n

All

ian

cesu

pp

ort

n3

es

01

3.34

0.05

3.60

0.23

Rew

ard

san

dre

info

rcem

ent

enh

ance

the

mot

ivat

ion

ofin

div

idu

als

toco

l-la

bor

ate

wit

hp

artn

erco

mp

anie

sA

llia

nce

sup

por

tn

3e

s0

23.

090.

053.

130.

23

Con

tinu

edon

the

follo

win

gp

age

number 1 · spring 2008 23

Page 10: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

Con

tinu

edfr

omth

ep

revi

ous

pag

e

Bou

nd

arie

s(r

eala

nd

imag

ined

)th

atp

reve

nt

peo

ple

from

look

ing

atp

rob

-le

ms

outs

ide

our

com

pan

yd

on

otex

ist

All

ian

cesu

pp

ort

n3

es

03

3.01

0.05

3.07

0.22

Ou

rco

mp

any

has

am

inim

alco

mm

itm

ent

tost

rate

gic

alli

ance

par

tner

s(r

)A

llia

nce

sup

por

tn

3e

s0

42.

880.

052.

750.

26

Ple

ase

rate

the

leve

lof

con

gru

ence

ofor

gan

izat

ion

alva

lues

bet

wee

nyo

ur

com

pan

yan

dyo

ur

alli

ance

par

tner

sby

alli

ance

typ

e(c

ust

omer

-su

pp

lier

rela

tion

ship

s)

All

ian

ceva

lue

con

gru

ence

n4

vc

01

3.48

0.04

3.92

0.16

Ple

ase

rate

the

leve

lof

con

gru

ence

ofor

gan

izat

ion

alva

lues

bet

wee

nyo

ur

com

pan

yan

dyo

ur

alli

ance

par

tner

sby

alli

ance

typ

e(l

icen

sin

g)A

llia

nce

valu

eco

ngr

uen

cen

4v

c0

22.

270.

063.

360.

28

Ple

ase

rate

the

leve

lof

con

gru

ence

ofor

gan

izat

ion

alva

lues

bet

wee

nyo

ur

com

pan

yan

dyo

ur

alli

ance

par

tner

sby

alli

ance

typ

e(t

ech

nol

ogy

shar

ing)

All

ian

ceva

lue

con

gru

ence

n4

vc

03

2.64

0.05

3.80

0.29

*

Ple

ase

rate

the

leve

lof

con

gru

ence

ofor

gan

izat

ion

alva

lues

bet

wee

nyo

ur

com

pan

yan

dyo

ur

alli

ance

par

tner

sby

alli

ance

typ

e(j

oin

td

evel

opm

ent)

All

ian

ceva

lue

con

gru

ence

n4

vc

04

2.58

0.06

3.50

0.15

*

Ple

ase

rate

the

leve

lof

con

gru

ence

ofor

gan

izat

ion

alva

lues

bet

wee

nyo

ur

com

pan

yan

dyo

ur

alli

ance

par

tner

sby

alli

ance

typ

e(e

qu

ity

join

tve

ntu

res)

All

ian

ceva

lue

con

gru

ence

n4

vc

05

2.26

0.06

3.50

0.65

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

eov

eral

lnu

mb

erof

stra

tegi

cal

lian

ces

ofyo

ur

com

pan

yw

ith

oth

erco

mp

anie

sin

last

thre

eye

ars

All

ian

cen

um

ber

n5

de

01

3.89

0.08

4.77

0.43

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

en

um

ber

ofst

rate

gic

alli

ance

sin

last

thre

eye

ars

byth

efo

llow

ing

alli

ance

typ

es(c

ust

omer

-su

pp

lier

rela

tion

ship

s)A

llia

nce

nu

mb

ern

5d

e0

24.

560.

094.

380.

43

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

en

um

ber

ofst

rate

gic

alli

ance

sin

last

thre

eye

ars

byth

efo

llow

ing

alli

ance

typ

es(l

icen

sin

g)A

llia

nce

nu

mb

ern

5d

e0

31.

690.

061.

790.

22

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

en

um

ber

ofst

rate

gic

alli

ance

sin

last

thre

eye

ars

byth

efo

llow

ing

alli

ance

typ

es(t

ech

nol

ogy

shar

ing)

All

ian

cen

um

ber

n5

de

04

2.38

0.07

2.03

0.34

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

en

um

ber

ofst

rate

gic

alli

ance

sin

last

thre

eye

ars

byth

efo

llow

ing

alli

ance

typ

es(j

oin

td

evel

opm

ent)

All

ian

cen

um

ber

n5

de

05

2.28

0.07

1.87

0.25

Ple

ase

esti

mat

eth

en

um

ber

ofst

rate

gic

alli

ance

sin

last

thre

eye

ars

byth

efo

llow

ing

alli

ance

typ

es(e

qu

ity

join

tve

ntu

res)

All

ian

cen

um

ber

n5

de

06

1.91

0.06

1.13

0.08

*

no

te

sC

olu

mn

hea

din

gsar

eas

foll

ows:

(1)

mea

n,(

2)st

and

ard

erro

r.*

Dif

fere

nce

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

0.05

leve

l.

24 management · volume 3

Page 11: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

sample are shown in table 2. The majority of correlations betweencorporate entrepreneurship and growth items (44 out of 51 correla-tions, 86%) and corporate entrepreneurship and profitability items(60 out of 85 correlations, 71%) were found positive and significant.For one item – creating new totally independent firms – no signifi-cant relationship to profitability was found.

Correlations for the Romanian sample are shown in table 3. Cor-porate entrepreneurship and growth items were found not to be pre-dominantly significantly correlated (31 out of 51 correlations werenot significant, 61%), but three corporate entrepreneurship items(broadening business lines in current industries, the percent of com-pany revenue generated from newer products, dramatic changes inlines of products or services) stand out with strong and positive re-lationships to all growth items. Similar results were found for corre-lations between corporate entrepreneurship and profitability items(65 out of 85 correlations were not significant, 76%), but with twoitems strongly correlated to absolute profitability (broadening busi-ness lines in current industries, the percent of company revenuegenerated from newer products) and two items with strong corre-lation to relative profitability (broadening business lines in currentindustries, marketing of many new lines of products or services).

However, when we move over the significance levels and look atthe coefficient size, we can see that the results are not that differentbetween the two samples. For instance, many correlations below 0.2values are significant for the Slovenian sample, while many correla-tions above 0.2 are not significant in the Romanian sample. This isdue to the difference in sample sizes and measurement items’ codingproperties. Overall, Hypothesis 1 received mixed support.

Hypothesis 2 postulated that product/service innovation may bethe most important in the relationship to performance in Slovenia,while the relationship to performance of new businesses, new ven-tures, and product/service innovation may be balanced in Romania.Significant correlations to growth in Slovenia were found as follows(see table 2): new businesses – 9 out of 15, 60%; new ventures – 12 outof 12, 100%; product/service innovation – 23 out of 24, 96%. Signifi-cant correlations to profitability in Slovenia were found as follows:new businesses – 12 out of 25, 48%; new ventures – 11 out of 20, 55%;product/service innovation – 38 out of 40, 95%. These findings are ingeneral in support of Hypothesis 2a, with the notion that new ven-ture formation is also very important for growth in Slovenia.

In Romania, significant correlations to growth were found as fol-lows (see table 3): new businesses – 9 out of 15, 60%; new ventures –

number 1 · spring 2008 25

Page 12: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

ta

bl

e2

Pea

rson

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

bet

wee

nco

rpor

ate

entr

epre

neu

rsh

ipan

dp

erfo

rman

ceit

ems:

Slo

ven

ia

Cod

eP

erfo

rman

ceit

ems

p1

gr

01

p1

gr

02

p1

gr

03

p2

pr

01

p2

pr

02

p2

pr

03

p2

pr

04

p2

pr

05

i1

nb

01

.085

.161

**.1

68**

.089

.067

.059

.142

**.1

54**

i1

nb

02

.079

.168

**.1

98**

.147

**.1

78**

.165

**.1

53**

.181

**

i1

nb

03

.075

.143

**.2

17**

.075

.117

*.0

83.0

19.0

42

i1

nb

04

.016

.089

.129

**.0

85.0

91.0

50.0

56.0

97*

i1

nb

05

.118

*.2

02**

.229

**.1

30**

.106

*.0

98*

.066

.086

i1

nb

06

.163

**.1

71**

.194

**.0

75.0

83.0

82.1

37**

.150

**

i1

nb

07

.188

**.2

03**

.167

**.1

08*

.106

*.0

96*

.091

.120

*

i1

nb

08

.092

*.1

79**

.120

**.1

37**

.150

**.1

58**

.144

**.1

39**

i1

nb

09

.137

**.1

35**

.105

*.0

38.0

43.0

27.0

32.0

63

i2

pi0

1.0

88.1

90**

.243

**.1

48**

.167

**.1

57**

.157

**.1

51**

i2

pi0

2.1

13*

.193

**.2

03**

.148

**.1

77**

.189

**.1

85**

.177

**

i2

pi0

3.1

03*

.134

**.1

81**

.088

.139

**.1

49**

.089

.110

*

i2

pi0

4.1

22**

.164

**.2

17**

.148

**.1

68**

.197

**.1

39**

.139

**

i2

pi0

5.1

03*

.144

**.1

97**

.153

**.1

66**

.146

**.1

32**

.132

**

i2

pi0

6.3

01**

.340

**.3

12**

.215

**.2

35**

.216

**.1

51**

.175

**

i2

pi0

7.2

09**

.242

**.2

77**

.270

**.2

63**

.240

**.1

04*

.147

**

i2

pi0

8.1

75**

.209

**.2

53**

.238

**.2

61**

.260

**.1

37**

.194

**

no

te

s*

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

.05

leve

l(2-

tail

ed).

**C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

nt

atth

e.0

1le

vel(

2-ta

iled

).

pe

rf

or

ma

nc

eit

em

sp

1g

r0

1–

aver

age

ann

ual

grow

thin

nu

mb

erof

emp

loye

esin

last

thre

eye

ars;

p1

gr

02

–av

erag

ean

nu

algr

owth

insa

les

inla

stth

ree

year

s;p

1g

r0

3–

grow

thin

mar

ket

shar

ein

last

thre

eye

ars;

p2

pr

01

–av

erag

ean

nu

alre

turn

onsa

les

inla

stth

ree

year

s;p

2p

r0

2–

aver

age

ann

ual

retu

rnon

asse

tsin

last

thre

eye

ars;

p2

pr

03

–av

erag

ean

nu

alre

turn

oneq

uit

yin

last

thre

eye

ars;

p2

pr

04

–p

rofi

tab

ilit

yof

you

rco

mp

any

inla

stth

ree

year

sin

com

par

ison

toal

lco

mp

etit

ors

that

you

are

awar

eof

;p2

pr

05

–p

rofi

tab

ilit

yof

you

rco

mp

any

inla

stth

ree

year

sin

com

par

ison

toco

mp

etit

ors

atab

out

sam

eag

ean

dst

age

ofd

evel

opm

ent.

26 management · volume 3

Page 13: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

ta

bl

e3

Pea

rson

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

bet

wee

nco

rpor

ate

entr

epre

neu

rsh

ipan

dp

erfo

rman

ceit

ems:

Rom

ania

Cod

eP

erfo

rman

ceit

ems

p1

gr

01

p1

gr

02

p1

gr

03

p2

pr

01

p2

pr

02

p2

pr

03

p2

pr

04

p2

pr

05

i1

nb

01

.272

.212

.404

*.2

60.2

21.2

56.0

51.1

19

i1

nb

02

.470

**.4

13*

.600

**.4

30*

.579

**.5

78**

.350

.407

*

i1

nb

03

.471

**.3

51.4

53*

.253

.177

.232

–.05

7.1

58

i1

nb

04

.177

.529

**.4

06*

.265

.294

.291

.163

.258

i1

nb

05

.021

.343

.378

*.3

61*

.304

.311

.195

.305

i1

nb

06

.091

.267

.137

.158

–.03

3–.

032

.296

.405

*

i1

nb

07

–.12

6.0

39–.

104

.142

–.01

6–.

018

.270

.145

i1

nb

08

.089

–.13

9–.

064

.014

–.12

6–.

140

–.03

1–.

182

i1

nb

09

.024

–.04

8–.

026

.037

.062

.062

–.07

8–.

024

i2

pi0

1.0

97.2

90.3

84*

.250

.231

.171

.369

*.3

40

i2

pi0

2.1

38.1

85.3

48.3

47.3

12.2

84.5

25**

.530

**

i2

pi0

3.2

58.3

36.4

13*

.183

.138

.113

.317

.411

*

i2

pi0

4.1

21.2

80.3

60.4

18*

.257

.229

.245

.308

i2

pi0

5.3

79*

.321

.475

**.4

15*

.388

*.3

53.3

10.4

04*

i2

pi0

6.6

21**

.643

**.6

64**

.540

**.5

91**

.590

**.1

98.3

79*

i2

pi0

7.2

69.1

57.4

60*

.336

.352

.360

.388

*.4

36*

i2

pi0

8.3

68*

.407

*.5

17**

.343

.285

.243

.198

.316

no

te

s*

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

.05

leve

l(2-

tail

ed).

**C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

nt

atth

e.0

1le

vel(

2-ta

iled

).

pe

rf

or

ma

nc

eit

em

sp

1g

r0

1–

aver

age

ann

ual

grow

thin

nu

mb

erof

emp

loye

esin

last

thre

eye

ars;

p1

gr

02

–av

erag

ean

nu

algr

owth

insa

les

inla

stth

ree

year

s;p

1g

r0

3–

grow

thin

mar

ket

shar

ein

last

thre

eye

ars;

p2

pr

01

–av

erag

ean

nu

alre

turn

onsa

les

inla

stth

ree

year

s;p

2p

r0

2–

aver

age

ann

ual

retu

rnon

asse

tsin

last

thre

eye

ars;

p2

pr

03

–av

erag

ean

nu

alre

turn

oneq

uit

yin

last

thre

eye

ars;

p2

pr

04

–p

rofi

tab

ilit

yof

you

rco

mp

any

inla

stth

ree

year

sin

com

par

ison

toal

lco

mp

etit

ors

that

you

are

awar

eof

;p2

pr

05

–p

rofi

tab

ilit

yof

you

rco

mp

any

inla

stth

ree

year

sin

com

par

ison

toco

mp

etit

ors

atab

out

sam

eag

ean

dst

age

ofd

evel

opm

ent.

number 1 · spring 2008 27

Page 14: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

ta

bl

e4

Pea

rson

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

bet

wee

nal

lian

cean

dn

ewb

usi

nes

ses/

ven

ture

sit

ems:

Slo

ven

ia

Cod

ei1

nb

01

i1

nb

02

i1

nb

03

i1

nb

04

i1

nb

05

i1

nb

06

i1

nb

07

i1

nb

08

i1

nb

09

n1

co

01

–.17

8**

–.11

6*–.

010

–.12

2**

–.08

1–.

064

.014

.000

.045

n1

co

02

–.16

6**

–.10

6*–.

058

–.11

5*–.

098*

–.05

6.0

15.0

24.0

36

n1

co

03

–.10

9*–.

065

–.06

7–.

064

–.05

5–.

061

.019

.041

.046

n1

co

04

–.04

7.0

03–.

007

–.04

0–.

093*

–.04

0.0

07–.

011

.031

n1

co

05

–.10

4*–.

040

–.01

0–.

042

–.00

9–.

014

.059

.029

.110

*

n1

co

06

–.16

1**

–.11

8*–.

033

–.12

5**

–.04

7–.

026

.045

.064

.101

*

n1

co

07

–.13

7**

–.06

3–.

038

–.09

8*–.

034

–.07

1.0

17.0

38.0

43

n2

tr

01

.143

**.1

74**

.116

*.1

94**

.179

**.1

05*

.030

.094

*.0

29

n2

tr

02

–.06

3–.

048

–.01

4–.

014

–.12

0*–.

073

.000

.030

.116

*

n2

tr

03

.119

*.1

31**

.029

.104

*.1

73**

.154

**.1

18*

.076

–.00

1

n2

tr

04

.098

*.0

70.0

40.0

45.0

91.0

83.1

12*

.120

**–.

009

n2

tr

05

.156

**.1

28**

.036

.024

.072

.065

.025

.126

**.0

09

n2

tr

06

.006

–.00

7–.

028

.032

–.03

1.0

29.0

36.0

09.0

37

n3

es

01

.184

**.1

94**

.132

**.1

50**

.090

.181

**.1

37**

.101

*.0

51

n3

es

02

.220

**.1

97**

.192

**.2

12**

.175

**.1

60**

.136

**.0

78.0

58

n3

es

03

.032

.003

.025

.039

–.02

7.1

05*

.169

**.1

18*

.126

**

n3

es

04

–.00

9–.

109*

–.07

8–.

082

–.08

1–.

053

–.00

3–.

030

.036

n4

vc

01

.134

**.2

03**

.161

**.2

48**

.145

**.0

45.0

12.0

74.0

26

n4

vc

02

.215

**.2

19**

.093

.097

.089

.130

*.1

62**

.245

**.1

68**

n4

vc

03

.206

**.2

05**

.121

*.1

06*

.154

**.1

72**

.161

**.2

30**

.094

n4

vc

04

.205

**.2

58**

.136

**.1

24*

.165

**.1

73**

.120

*.2

07**

.075

n4

vc

05

.202

**.2

01**

.055

.106

*.1

06*

.212

**.1

39**

.278

**.1

35**

n5

de

01

.177

**.1

88**

.227

**.1

43**

.157

**.1

57**

.127

**.1

06*

.122

**

n5

de

02

.151

**.1

41**

.212

**.1

38**

.193

**.1

18*

.146

**.0

65.1

00*

28 management · volume 3

Page 15: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

n5

de

03

.137

**.1

07*

.064

.039

.107

*.1

46**

.187

**.1

80**

.224

**

n5

de

04

.136

**.1

63**

.142

**.1

48**

.144

**.1

85**

.179

**.1

25**

.100

*

n5

de

05

.123

**.1

90**

.146

**.1

03*

.151

**.1

48**

.171

**.1

63**

.148

**

n5

de

06

.096

*.0

96*

.054

.042

.083

.191

**.1

90**

.258

**.1

87**

no

te

s*

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

.05

leve

l(2-

tail

ed).

**C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

nt

atth

e.0

1le

vel(

2-ta

iled

).

ta

bl

e5

Pea

rson

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

bet

wee

nal

lian

cean

dp

rod

uct

/ser

vice

inn

ovat

ion

item

s:S

love

nia

Cod

ei2

pi0

1i2

pi0

2i2

pi0

3i2

pi0

4i2

pi0

5i2

pi0

6i2

pi0

7i2

pi0

8

n1

co

01

–.15

5**

–.12

3**

–.12

0**

–.11

6*–.

088

–.07

5–.

148*

*–.

167*

*

n1

co

02

–.14

2**

–.10

6*–.

131*

*–.

115*

–.06

4–.

090

–.09

7*–.

173*

*

n1

co

03

–.07

3–.

083

–.12

6**

–.06

5–.

055

–.03

4–.

028

–.10

2*

n1

co

04

–.10

9*–.

066

–.16

1**

–.07

4–.

098*

–.02

4–.

059

–.16

9**

n1

co

05

–.06

6–.

070

–.13

4**

–.10

6*–.

076

.026

–.05

4–.

100*

n1

co

06

–.10

7*–.

147*

*–.

149*

*–.

116*

–.10

1*–.

060

–.08

5–.

118*

n1

co

07

–.11

1*–.

124*

*–.

234*

*–.

117*

–.16

6**

–.05

0–.

089

–.13

4**

n2

tr

01

.155

**.1

95**

.099

*.1

38**

.104

*.1

63**

.216

**.2

60**

n2

tr

02

–.13

1**

–.14

8**

–.15

1**

–.18

0**

–.12

7**

–.16

4**

–.10

0*–.

114*

n2

tr

03

.178

**.1

66**

.127

**.1

28**

.078

.161

**.1

44**

.184

**

n2

tr

04

.039

.114

*.0

74.0

60.0

77.0

26.0

89.1

04*

n2

tr

05

.117

*.1

62**

.052

.124

**.1

19*

.146

**.1

52**

.139

**

n2

tr

06

–.06

2–.

071

–.07

5–.

074

–.08

0–.

060

–.07

3–.

090

n3

es

01

.183

**.1

23**

.163

**.1

24**

.107

*.1

01*

.162

**.2

07**

n3

es

02

.182

**.1

17*

.199

**.1

12*

.134

**.1

69**

.125

**.2

18**

n3

es

03

.025

–.02

0.0

53–.

025

.019

.020

.043

.087

Con

tinu

edon

the

follo

win

gp

age

number 1 · spring 2008 29

Page 16: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

Con

tinu

edfr

omth

ep

revi

ous

pag

e

n4

vc

01

.186

**.2

00**

.245

**.1

95**

.116

*.1

72**

.214

**.2

17**

n4

vc

02

.045

.100

.109

*.1

53**

.213

**.1

24*

.163

**.1

01

n4

vc

03

.161

**.1

08*

.197

**.1

59**

.221

**.1

39**

.213

**.1

36**

n4

vc

04

.185

**.1

19*

.237

**.1

46**

.260

**.1

41**

.152

**.2

32**

n4

vc

05

.138

**.0

84.1

90**

.136

**.2

47**

.121

*.1

43**

.127

*

n5

de

01

.216

**.2

19**

.183

**.1

69**

.168

**.1

45**

.157

**.2

24**

n5

de

02

.158

**.2

04**

.120

*.1

18*

.178

**.1

81**

.174

**.2

31**

n5

de

03

–.00

5.0

62.0

36.0

15.1

25**

.202

**.1

38**

.114

*

n5

de

04

.159

**.1

23**

.135

**.1

30**

.164

**.1

78**

.182

**.1

72**

n5

de

05

.158

**.1

63**

.162

**.1

60**

.218

**.2

12**

.168

**.2

18**

n5

de

06

.022

.014

.052

.030

.125

**.1

56**

.062

.081

no

te

s*

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

.05

leve

l(2-

tail

ed).

**C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

nt

atth

e.0

1le

vel(

2-ta

iled

).

ta

bl

e6

Pea

rson

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

bet

wee

nal

lian

cean

dn

ewb

usi

nes

ses/

ven

ture

sit

ems:

Rom

ania

Cod

ei1

nb

01

i1

nb

02

i1

nb

03

i1

nb

04

i1

nb

05

i1

nb

06

i1

nb

07

i1

nb

08

i1

nb

09

n1

co

01

.016

.214

.184

–.05

9.2

36.0

75.1

37.1

25.4

80*

n1

co

02

.073

.198

.424

*.0

72.2

30.1

12.1

98.1

03.4

67*

n1

co

03

–.00

8.0

72.2

73–.

019

.137

.086

.277

.112

.532

**

n1

co

04

.034

.264

.364

–.09

3.1

20–.

009

.170

–.00

5.3

80

n1

co

05

.104

.410

*.3

55.0

08.3

07.0

90.2

36.0

31.4

17*

n1

co

06

.041

.283

.180

–.00

8.2

88.0

72.2

38.0

46.4

25*

n1

co

07

.140

.439

*.3

26.0

39.3

80.2

69.3

17.0

83.4

09*

n2

tr

01

–.08

1.0

37.0

07–.

044

.374

.132

.080

.266

–.05

8

n2

tr

02

–.27

9–.

032

.098

–.08

7.2

23.1

09.2

21.0

76.2

67

n2

tr

03

.076

–.27

2.1

93.0

82–.

001

.092

–.20

9.0

62.0

41

n2

tr

04

.135

–.06

4.0

78–.

063

–.06

5–.

124

–.26

2–.

118

.279

30 management · volume 3

Page 17: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performancen

2t

r0

5–.

025

–.44

1*.0

24.0

00–.

207

.046

–.08

0.0

65.0

00

n2

tr

06

–.29

6–.

030

.234

.212

.455

*.1

81.1

12.1

16.2

63

n3

es

01

.140

.154

.329

.237

.218

.292

.179

.302

.385

*

n3

es

02

.065

.201

.435

*.0

41.1

73.0

42–.

141

.362

*.1

50

n3

es

03

.090

–.16

0.0

07.0

22–.

274

–.28

9–.

027

–.18

0.0

00

n3

es

04

–.01

6–.

333

–.15

1–.

226

–.36

7–.

043

.000

–.01

8.0

12

n4

vc

01

–.04

1–.

211

.123

.274

.244

.242

.255

.113

.152

n4

vc

02

.086

.053

–.60

7*–.

461

–.34

5–.

228

.489

–.29

8–.

404

n4

vc

03

–.15

7.1

24–.

440

.135

.355

.000

–.02

2.0

17–.

058

n4

vc

04

–.06

4–.

290

.000

–.09

7–.

329

–.11

6–.

271

.212

.374

n4

vc

05

–.37

8–.

258

–.10

3.0

86–.

775

–.61

4–.

405

–.93

9–.

775

n5

de

01

.299

.155

.453

*.0

95–.

029

–.01

8–.

188

–.08

4.0

34

n5

de

02

.260

–.00

1.3

56.0

78–.

128

–.06

4–.

170

–.04

3.1

02

n5

de

03

.104

.065

.323

–.03

2.2

65.1

95–.

083

–.07

7.0

75

n5

de

04

.158

.165

.336

–.08

3.1

26.0

75–.

110

–.15

7.0

43

n5

de

05

.095

–.09

5.4

04*

.028

.130

.071

–.12

1.0

51.0

95

n5

de

06

.130

.296

.099

–.01

9–.

013

–.05

0.1

15.0

07.0

00

no

te

s*

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

.05

leve

l(2-

tail

ed).

**C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

nt

atth

e.0

1le

vel(

2-ta

iled

).

ta

bl

e7

Pea

rson

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

bet

wee

nal

lian

cean

dp

rod

uct

/ser

vice

inn

ovat

ion

item

s:R

oman

ia

Cod

ei2

pi0

1i2

pi0

2i2

pi0

3i2

pi0

4i2

pi0

5i2

pi0

6i2

pi0

7i2

pi0

8

n1

co

01

.385

.059

.257

.136

.281

.128

.210

.230

n1

co

02

.432

*-.

060

.354

.171

.114

.161

.124

.330

n1

co

03

.416

*.0

07.3

36.2

26.0

84.2

16.1

04.2

61

n1

co

04

.535

**.2

20.3

72.3

78.2

48.3

17.2

35.2

23

Con

tinu

edon

the

follo

win

gp

age

number 1 · spring 2008 31

Page 18: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

Con

tinu

edfr

omth

ep

revi

ous

pag

e

n1

co

05

.555

**.2

29.4

33*

.430

*.4

30*

.357

.413

*.4

08*

n1

co

06

.573

**.2

66.4

49*

.311

.299

.145

.085

.131

n1

co

07

.415

*.1

28.3

93*

.204

.333

.415

*.2

28.4

33*

n2

tr

01

.133

–.14

2.0

00.2

33.2

78.1

72.2

30.3

88*

n2

tr

02

.218

–.30

0.0

31.0

08–.

036

–.02

3–.

192

.007

n2

tr

03

.009

.031

–.12

5.0

44–.

091

–.06

6.0

01.0

19

n2

tr

04

–.10

0.0

61–.

188

–.15

8–.

176

.000

.000

–.18

8

n2

tr

05

–.27

6–.

306

–.37

3–.

169

–.40

4*–.

214

–.20

4–.

259

n2

tr

06

.322

–.14

7.1

73.0

26.0

73–.

001

–.14

6.3

28

n3

es

01

.501

**.4

64**

.422

*.4

22*

.410

*.4

07*

.507

**.5

13**

n3

es

02

.478

**.2

26.4

66**

.363

*.3

43.2

82.4

06*

.586

**

n3

es

03

–.21

6–.

141

–.08

1–.

149

–.35

0–.

073

–.28

2–.

368*

n3

es

04

–.11

8–.

185

.067

.057

–.23

6–.

261

–.21

3–.

189

n4

vc

01

.085

–.02

7.0

42.1

83.0

35.0

13.1

45.1

60

n4

vc

02

–.45

9–.

086

–.14

1–.

076

–.03

8.0

73–.

045

–.31

0

n4

vc

03

.251

.249

.466

.131

.433

.280

–.06

5.2

56

n4

vc

04

–.35

4–.

267

–.42

0–.

603*

–.41

2–.

297

–.40

8–.

374

n4

vc

05

–.31

6.8

94–.

674

–.31

6–.

800

.000

–.75

6–.

602

n5

de

01

.025

.178

–.14

6.0

91.0

62.4

20*

.352

.188

n5

de

02

–.09

7.0

94–.

246

–.04

9–.

075

.310

.238

.018

n5

de

03

.182

.086

.100

.270

.141

.221

.358

.280

n5

de

04

.335

.218

.204

.382

*.1

75.2

57.3

20.2

37

n5

de

05

.260

–.02

8.0

79.3

04.0

81.1

04.2

88.3

96*

n5

de

06

.260

.160

.225

.248

.098

.273

–.07

3.2

07

no

te

s*

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

can

tat

the

.05

leve

l(2-

tail

ed).

**C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

nt

atth

e.0

1le

vel(

2-ta

iled

).

32 management · volume 3

Page 19: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

0 out of 12, 0%; product/service innovation – 11 out of 24, 46%. Sig-nificant correlations to profitability in Slovenia were found as fol-lows: new businesses – 5 out of 25, 20%; new ventures – 1 out of20, 5%; product/service innovation – 15 out of 40, 37%. These find-ings are not in support of Hypothesis 2b. New businesses and prod-uct/service innovation can be considered important for growth, andproduct/service innovation can be important for profitability in Ro-mania.

alliance–corporate entrepreneurship relationships

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the extent of alliance elements (com-munication, trust, support, value congruence, number of alliances)would be positively related to corporate entrepreneurship. Correla-tions for the Slovenian sample are shown in tables 4 and 5. Signif-icant correlations in the proposed direction were found as follows:for the alliance–new businesses relationship – 15 out of 35 (43%) foralliance communication items, 13 out of 30 (43%) for alliance trustitems, 9 out of 20 (45%) for alliance support items, 21 out of 25 (84%)for value congruence items, 25 out of 30 (83%) for alliance numberitems; for the alliance–new ventures relationship – 2 out of 28 (7%)for alliance communication items, 8 out of 24 (33%) for alliance trustitems, 9 out of 16 (56%) for alliance support items, 14 out of 20 (70%)for value congruence items, 23 out of 24 (96%) for alliance numberitems; for the alliance–product/service innovation relationship – 33out of 56 (59%) for alliance communication items, 31 out of 48 (65%)for alliance trust items, 24 out of 32 (75%) for alliance support items,21 out of 25 (84%) for shared values items, 38 out of 48 (79%) foralliance number items.

Correlations for the Romanian sample are shown in tables 6 and7. Significant correlations in the proposed direction were found asfollows: for the alliance–new businesses relationship – 0 out of 35(0%) for alliance communication items, 0 out of 30 (0%) for alliancetrust items, 1 out of 20 (5%) for alliance support items, 0 out of 25(0%) for value congruence items, 2 out of 30 (7%) for alliance numberitems; for the alliance–new ventures relationship – 0 out of 28 (0%)for alliance communication items, 0 out of 24 (0%) for alliance trustitems, 2 out of 16 (12%) for alliance support items, 0 out of 20 (0%)for shared values items, 0 out of 24 (0%) for alliance number items;for the alliance–product/service innovation relationship – 0 out of 56(0%) for alliance communication items, 1 out of 48 (2%) for alliancetrust items, 12 out of 32 (75%) for alliance support items, 0 out of25 (0%) for shared values items, 3 out of 48 (6%) for alliance number

number 1 · spring 2008 33

Page 20: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

items. The results based on the Romanian sample should be inferredwith caution because of the low number of responses.

Overall, Hypothesis 3 did not receive enough support. Some find-ings were supportive only for Slovenia, particularly between al-liances (value congruence and number) and new businesses, be-tween alliances (support, value congruence, and number) and newventures, and between alliances (communication, trust, support,value congruence, and number) and product/service innovation.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study provided some new evidence on the relationship betweencorporate entrepreneurship and performance, as well as alliancecharacteristics and corporate entrepreneurship in two countries –Slovenia and Romania. The analysis indicated very minor differ-ences in corporate entrepreneurship and alliance item means be-tween the two countries. This similarity in levels of corporate en-trepreneurship and alliance characteristics may be due to the factthat the transition to the market-based economy has followed sim-ilar paths in past the two decades (democracy, private ownership,competition, efforts to join the eu, etc.). Even though the overallhypothesis on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurshipreceived mixed support, we are confident that recommendations forSlovenia from past research (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; Douglas etal. 2003) can be equally or even more relevant for Romania: increasecorporate entrepreneurship in order to increase firm performancein terms of growth and profitability.

We discovered that in Slovenia innovation in products and ser-vices represents a driving force for improvements in growth andprofitability of firms, with the addition that new venture formationcan be also important for growth. In Romania, on the other hand,new businesses and product/service innovation can be very impor-tant for growth of firms, while product/service innovation can be re-lated to profitability. Therefore, innovation in products and servicescan be considered a crucial element in the performance of firms andconsequently in the economic growth of the two countries. Devel-opment of an innovation friendly environment should become a toppriority of practitioners and policy makers in Slovenia and Romania,and probably also in other countries that have followed similar pathsof economic development.

The study provided also some insights on the relationship betweenalliance characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship. On the ba-sis of the findings for Slovenia, we can claim that firms can achieve

34 management · volume 3

Page 21: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

beneficial results in their product and service innovation activitiesby taking good care of their strategic alliance relationships, whichincludes: developing a good communication with alliance partners;developing trust between partners; supporting collaboration activi-ties with appropriate encouragements, commitments, structures, andrewards; developing value congruence between partners; and enter-ing a higher number of strategic alliances.

The study has some limitations. Measures were based on percep-tions of managers. The Romanian sample was small, so only limitedanalysis techniques could be used and the results based on the Ro-manian sample need to be inferred with caution. The study was lim-ited to item by item correlation analysis that resulted in rather smallcorrelation coefficients. Testing relationships between constructs byusing structural equation modelling would provide better results.The study was conducted in two countries; future research may fur-ther validate the results of this study in other countries. Despite thelimitations, we believe we have provided some interesting evidenceon the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and perfor-mance and on the relationship between alliance characteristics andcorporate entrepreneurship.

References

Antoncic, B. 1999. Entrepreneurship networks: A review and future re-search directions. Slovenian Economic Review 50 (3): 195–221.

. 2001. Organizational processes in intrapreneurship: A concept-ual integration. Journal of Enterprising Culture 9 (2): 221–235.

Antoncic, B., and R. D. Hisrich. 2000. Intrapreneurship modeling intransition economies: A comparison of Slovenia and the UnitedStates. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 5 (1): 21–40.

. 2001. Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-culturalvalidation. Journal of Business Venturing 16 (5): 495–527.

. 2003. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of SmallBusiness and Enterprise Development 10 (1): 7–24.

. 2004. Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organiza-tional wealth creation. Journal of Management Development 23 (6):518–550.

Antoncic, B., and O. Zorn. 2004. The mediating role of corporate en-trepreneurship in the organizational support-performance relation-ship: An empirical examination. Managing Global Transitions 2 (1):5–14.

Badguerahanian, L., and P. A. Abetti. 1995. The rise and fall of theMerin-Gerin Foundry business: A case study in French corporateentrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 10 (6): 477–493.

number 1 · spring 2008 35

Page 22: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

Burgelman, R. A., and R. S. Rosenbloom. 1997. Technology strategy: Anevolutionary process perspective. In Managing strategic innovationand change: A collection of readings, ed. M. L. Tushman and P. An-derson, 273–286. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chandler, G. N., and S. H. Hanks. 1993. Measuring the performance ofemerging businesses: A validation study. Journal of Business Ventur-ing 8 (5): 391–408.

Covin, J. G. 1991. Entrepreneurial vs. conservative firms: A comparisonof strategies and performance. Journal of Management Studies 25 (5):439–462.

Covin, J. G., and D. P. Slevin. 1986. The development and testing ofan organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. In Frontiers of en-trepreneurship research 1986, ed. R. Ronstadt, R. Peterson, and K.Vasper, 628–639. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.

. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (1): 7–25.

Damanpour, F. 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation: Devel-oping and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science42 (5): 693–716.

Das, T. K., and B. Teng. 1998. Between trust and control: Developingconfidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Manage-ment Review 23 (3): 491–512.

Deeds, D. L., and C. W. L. Hill. 1996. Strategic alliances and the rateof new product development: An empirical study of entrepreneurialbiotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing 11 (1): 41–55.

. 1998. An examination of opportunistic action within research al-liances: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Busi-ness Venturing 14 (2): 141–163.

Douglas, E. J., B. Antoncic, R. D. Hisrich, and T. A. McLaughlin. 2003.Intrapreneurship in Australian, us, and Slovenian firms. Paper pre-sented at Babson College/Kauffman Foundation Research Confer-ence, Wellesley, ma.

Hills, G., and R. LaForge. 1992. Research at the marketing interfaceto advance entrepreneurship theory. Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, 16 (3): 33–59.

Hisrich, R. D., and M. P. Peters. 1984. Internal venturing in large cor-porations. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1984, ed. J. A.Hornaday, F. A. Tarpley, jr., J. A. Timmons, and K. H. Vesper, 321–346. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.

Jones, C., W. S. Hesterly, and S. P. Borgatti. 1997. A general theory ofnetwork governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms.Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 911–945.

Kale, P., H. Singh, and H. Perlmutter. 2000. Learning and protection ofproprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital.Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 217–237.

36 management · volume 3

Page 23: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance

Kanter, R. M. 1984. The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kanter, R. M., and L. Richardson. 1991. Engines of progress: Design-ing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies– The Enter-Prize Program at Ohio Bell, 1985–1990. Journal of Busi-ness Venturing 6 (3): 209–229.

Khandwalla, P. N. 1987. Generators of pioneering-innovative manage-ment: Some Indian evidence. Organization Studies 8 (1): 39–59.

Knight, G. A. 1997. Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale tomeasure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Ven-turing 12 (3): 213–225.

Luchsinger, V., and D. R. Bagby. 1987. Entrepreneurship and intraprene-urship. sam Advanced Management Journal 52 (3): 10–13.

MacMillan, I. C., Z. Block, and P. N. S. Narasimha. 1984. Obstacles andexperience in corporate ventures. In Frontiers of EntrepreneurshipResearch 1984, ed. J. A. Hornaday, F. A. Tarpley, jr., J. A. Timmons,and K. H. Vesper, 280–293. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.

Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types offirms. Management Science 29:770–791.

Mohr, J., and R. Spekman. 1994. Characteristics of partnership success:Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict reso-lution techniques. Strategic Management Journal 15 (2): 135–152.

Morris, M. H., and D. L. Sexton. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial in-tensity: Implications for company performance. Journal of BusinessResearch 36 (1): 5–13.

Mowery, D. C., J. E. Oxley, and B. S. Silverman. 1996. Strategic alliancesand interfirm knowledge transfer. Special issue, Strategic Manage-ment Journal 17:77–91.

Parkhe, A. 1991. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longev-ity in global strategic alliances. Journal of International BusinessStudies 22 (4): 579–601.

Parkhe, A. 1993. Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic andtransaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy ofManagement Journal 36 (4): 794–829.

Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman. 1982. In search of excellence. New York:Harper and Row.

Pinchot, G. III. 1985. Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper and Row.

Porter, L., R. Steers, R. Mowday, P. and Boulian. 1974. Organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric tech-nicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59:603–609.

Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput, and L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganiza-tional collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learn-ing in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): 116–145.

Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.

number 1 · spring 2008 37

Page 24: Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and · PDF fileCorporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania ... the firm’s external environment (e.g., ... Zahra

Boštjan Antoncic and Cezar Scarlat

Rule, E. G., and D. W. Irwin. 1988. Fostering intrapreneurship: The newcompetitive edge. Journal of Business Strategy 9 (3): 44–47.

Saxenian, A. 1991. The origins and dynamics of production networks inSillicon Valley. Research Policy 20 (5): 423–437.

Schollhammer, H. 1981. The efficacy of internal corporate entrepreneur-ship strategies. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1981, ed.K. H. Vesper, 451–456. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.

. 1982. Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia ofEntrepreneurship, ed. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper,209–229. Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice-Hall.

Sharma, P., and J. J. Chrisman. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of thedefinitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. En-trepreneurship Theory and Practice 23 (3): 11–27.

Souder, W. E. 1981. Encouraging entrepreneurship in the large corpo-rations. Research Management 14 (3): 18–22.

Stetz, P. E., A. Stewart, R. Howell, J. D. Blair, and M. D. Fottler. 1998. Di-mensionality of the entrepreneurial posture/orientation construct:A structural equation study. Paper presented at the 1998 AnnualAcademy of Management Meeting, San Diego, ca.

Stopford, J. M., and C. W. F. Baden-Fuller. 1994. Creating corporate en-trepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 15 (7): 521–536.

Tushman, M. L., and P. Anderson, P., eds. 1997. Managing strategic in-novation and change: A collection of readings. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 35–67.

Vesper, K. H. 1984. Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship. In Fron-tiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1984, ed. J. A. Hornaday, F. A.Tarpley, jr., J. A. Timmons, and K. H. Vesper, 294–320. Wellesley, ma:Babson College.

Weaver, K. M., and P. H. Dickson. 1998. Outcome quality of small- tomedium-sized enterprise-based alliances: The role of perceivedpartner behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing 13 (6): 505–522.

Zahra, S. A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate en-trepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing6 (4): 259–285.

. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financialperformance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing8 (4): 319–340.

Zahra, S. A., and J. G. Covin. 1995. Contextual influences on the cor-porate entrepreneurship–performance relationship: A longitudinalanalysis. Journal of Business Venturing 10 (1): 43–58.

38 management · volume 3