1

Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intensity in Communities

by

Sibylle Heilbrunn

Ruppin Academic Center

Department of Business Administration

Israel

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors influencing entrepreneurial

intensity. More specifically the study addresses the following objectives: Propose a way

to measure entrepreneurial intensity within the community context in order to determine

entrepreneurial activity over a period of ten years, detect the factors influencing the

entrepreneurial intensity, and finally locate Kibbutz communities on the entrepreneurial

grid.

Methodology - Kibbutz communities are the level of analysis. Using a comprehensive

questionnaire, a sample of 60 Kibbutzim - constituting 22% of the population of Kibbutz

communities in Israel – was investigated over a period of 10 years. The same

questionnaire was administered to the same sample Kibbutzim1 in 1994, 1997 and 2004.

Collected data include number and types of enterprises, economic strength,

organizational size and age, and features of organizational structure and culture.

Findings – Quantitative data analysis revealed a significant increase of entrepreneurial

activity of kibbutz communities in terms of frequency, degree and intensity of

entrepreneurship. Organizational size and age have an impact on entrepreneurial intensity

as well as the existence of an “entrepreneurial vehicle”. On the entrepreneurial grid

kibbutzim are moving from the incremental/periodic cluster towards the dynamic cluster,

but few meaningful breakthroughs can be observed.

Research Limitations – More research is needed in order to understand the

interrelationship between community environments and entrepreneurship. The major

research limitation of this paper constitutes the fact that only Kibbutz communities were

investigated.

Value – The paper utilizes the concept of the entrepreneurial grid for an empirical

analysis of community entrepreneurship.

Keywords: Community entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intensity, the entrepreneurial

grid, Kibbutzim, Israel

Paper Type: Research Paper

1 Kibbutzim is the plural of Kibbutz

2

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is positively associated with economic development (Rocha, 2004).

Small and medium size businesses (SME‟s) are a recognized major business trend in the

21st century, a trend existing also in the Israeli economy with a share of 11.8%

entrepreneurs in the Israeli labor force (by data of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and

Labor of Israel, 2005). Thus, research trying to explore the determinants of

entrepreneurship at the individual, organizational and national level is of increasing

importance.

With environments constantly changing and becoming more competitive, organizations

have to be flexible, innovative and take advantage of emerging opportunities. Therefore,

corporate entrepreneurship has gained growing academic interest. Several studies focus

on the impact of corporate entrepreneurship on organizational performance (Kanter,

1984; Rule and Irwing, 1988; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1991). Some scholars

explore the characteristics and determinants of corporate entrepreneurship in the

framework of small and medium sized businesses (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Covin and

Covin, 1990, Wiklund, 1998). Wennekers and Thurik (1999) argue that corporate

entrepreneurship improves productivity not only for the organization itself but is also a

vehicle for national economic growth and development.

This article attempts to investigate entrepreneurship at the community level. The

interrelationship of community development and entrepreneurship has been discussed in

the literature. Recent studies state that entrepreneurship is a potential strategy for

community development in poor communities (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Anderson,

2002). Following the embeddedness perspective (Granoveter, 1985; Williamson, 1985)

3

entrepreneurship flourishes in communities with mobile resources, where successful

entrepreneurs reinvest and success is perceived as a community asset and where change

is looked upon positively, rather than negatively (Stevenson, 2000). This study attempts

to explore entrepreneurship in Israeli Kibbutzim, a setting combining community and

organizational features. Kibbutz communities encompass all spheres of life and can be

described as economic, social and ideological entities with an organizational structure

differentiated vertically and horizontally (Heilbrunn, 2005). The economic crisis of the

1980's led to processes of change which essentially altered the economic and social

outlook of the kibbutz (Seginer & Schlesinger, 1998). The average age of kibbutz

members as well as the percentage of Kibbutz members older than 55 years increased, the

number of children decreased, the percentage of Kibbutz members within the Israeli

society dropped from 2.8 % prior to the crisis in 1994 to 2.1% in 2004 (Data of the

United Kibbutz Movement), and Kibbutz industries were on gradual decline (Palgi,

2002). Kibbutzim vary as to their exposure to crisis and change, and basically two types

of kibbutzim emerge: collective and differential ones. The former, although also being

exposed to processes of crisis and change, hold on to the main ideological features with

income of members still allocated to the Kibbutz. The latter type – adopting a more

capitalist/materialistic system (Gluck, 1998) - is now characterized by the fact that more

than 50% of the family income is allocated to family itself (Richman, 2004). In spite of

ongoing processes of change during the last decade, Kibbutzim can still be characterized

as rather collectivistic in comparison to their external environment. Thus, following

Tiessen (1997) it can be expected that in Kibbutz settings variety is generated via

processes of adaptation and incremental change (Reich, 1987) and relatively small,

4

equilibrium restoring (Kirzner, 1985) ventures emerge in an incubator like environment.

Leverage of resources is accomplishes via adherence to norms based on shared norms,

values and goals of Kibbutz members (Wilkens and Ouchi, 1983).

Using the concept of entrepreneurial intensity (Morris, Lewis & Sexton, 1994), which

provides a possibility to determine quantitative measurement of entrepreneurship in terms

of frequency and degree, entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutzim is measured over time.

Within the entrepreneurial grid (Morris, Lewis & Sexton, 1994) scenarios of

entrepreneurial intensity emerge. Kibbutzim can then be located within these scenarios at

various points of time.

The objectives of the study are:

1. To propose a way to measure entrepreneurial intensity within the community

context in order to determine entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over a

period of ten years.

2. To detect the factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity.

3. To locate Kibbutz communities on the entrepreneurial grid.

Theoretical Framework

Entrepreneurial Intensity

Morris et al. (1994) maintain that economic opportunities arise from organizational

innovations. Entrepreneurs exploit opportunities (inputs) and create new ventures

(outputs). Thus, within the framework of the organization, the rate of new product

introduction distinguishes entrepreneurial from non-entrepreneurial firms (Kanter, 1985;

Drucker, 1985; Schuler, 1986). Entrepreneurship is not an either – or phenomenon, but a

5

question of "how often" and "how much" (Morris, Lewis and Sexton, 1994:26). Thus,

entrepreneurial intensity – for any given level of analysis – is a matter of degree,

representing a quantitative continuum. The immediate outputs of entrepreneurship are

new ventures – following Morris, Lewis and Sexton (1994) I maintain that: "….it should

be recognized that the set of necessary inputs is fairly definite, while the set of possible

outputs may or may not happen". Morris, Lewis and Sexton (1994) established an input-

output framework describing the intensity of entrepreneurship at the individual and the

organizational level. Frequency (the number of entrepreneurial events) and degree (the

extent to which events are innovative, risky and proactive) constitute the variables of

entrepreneurial intensity (Heilbrunn, 2005). As presented in figure 1, individuals,

organizations or countries can then be placed into an emerging entrepreneurial grid,

frequency of entrepreneurship presented at the x-axis and the degree of entrepreneurship

represented at the y-axis.

6

Figure 1: Five Categories of Entrepreneurial Intensity*

* Source: Morris, M.M., Lewis, P.S and Sexton, D.L. 1994. “Reconceptualizing

Entrepreneurship: An Input-Output Perspective”. SAM Advanced Management

Journal, winter. Pg.27

Five possible scenarios emerge which the authors label Periodic/Incremental,

Continuous/Incremental, Periodic/Discontinuous, Dynamic and Revolutionary. Thus

organizations can be placed within the grid: Organizations launching many

entrepreneurial events which are highly innovative, risky and proactive will fit the

revolutionary segment and organizations launching relatively few entrepreneurial events

which rate low on innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness will fit the

periodic/incremental segment.

CONTINUOUS/

INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

PERIODIC/

INCREMENTAL

PERIODIC/

DISCONTINUOUS

DYNAMIC

Fre

qu

ency

of

En

trep

ren

eurs

hip

Degree of

Entrepreneurship

High

High

Low

Low

7

Organizational factors of corporate entrepreneurship

Since Kibbutz communities establish the unit of analysis of this paper, its theoretical

framework is located within the field of corporate entrepreneurship, which is widely

discussed in the entrepreneurial literature (Dess et al., 2003; Ireland, Kuratko & Covin,

2002; Zahra, Neubaum & Huse, 2000). A number of studies discuss organizational

factors of corporate entrepreneurship (Dess et al., 2003; Zahra, Neubaum, & Huse, 2000;

Zahra & Nielsen, 2002; Kanter, 1986; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). These studies can be

further categorized into contingency approaches (e.g. Dess, Lumpkin & Covin, 1997;

Zahra, 1993) and configurational approaches (e.g. Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005), both

dealing with internal and external environmental factors influencing corporate

entrepreneurship and firm performance.

Organizational Resources

Slack resources or resource availability are an essential aspect of corporate

entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999; Zajac .et.al., 1991; Hornsby et.al, 2002). In the

framework of Kibbutz communities three types of organizational resources are especially

important, namely economic strength, membership size and age. For communities such as

Kibbutzim, which often exist within socio-economic environments characterized by a

very different ideological outlook, age, size and economic strength of the community are

of critical importance and often determine survival. Storey (1994) states, that capital

availability affects growth and Miles and Arnold (1991) found a positive relationship

between size of the organization and corporate entrepreneurship but no significant

relationship between age and corporate entrepreneurship.

8

Organizational Features

Previous studies emphasize different aspects of organizational structure. Management

support for new ideas and projects (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), participation in decision

making (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Kemelgor, 2002) and autonomy (Sundbo, 1999)

are only some examples for structural organizational elements associated with corporate

entrepreneurship. The conceptualization of organizational structure in the framework of

Kibbutz communities demands for a fit with its organizational nature, taking into

consideration that the traditional Kibbutz was ideologically collectivistic with equal

allocation of rewards to all members regardless of their inputs. Topol (1996) suggests that

„managerialism‟ is a pattern of Kibbutz organizational structure (such as the introduction

of boards of directors, professional non-member managers, and the establishment of

profit centers, etc) and states that increasing „managerialism‟ represents a transformation

process in direction of business orientation, a move towards a more balanced position on

the collectivism-individualism continuum. Thus, organizational structure in terms of

„managerialism‟ is expected to have an impact upon entrepreneurial intensity within the

Kibbutz community setting.

Organizational culture is described as a key factor of entrepreneurship within a firm

(Covin & Slevin, 1991). Culture can encourage or discourage business-related risk-taking

(Burgelman & Sayles, 1986) and management support (Brazeal, 1993, Hornsby et.al.

1993) and an appropriate reward system (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Kuratko et.al, 1990)

also constitute elements of organizational culture fostering corporate entrepreneurship

(Heilbrunn, 2005). Following Morris et.al (1992) a balanced emphasis between

collectivism and individualism will result in higher rates of entrepreneurship than an

9

overemphasis of either pole on the continuum (Heilbrunn, 2005). Thus, in order to

account for the Kibbutz community setting in the framework of this study organizational

culture is perceived in terms of induced mechanisms of change placing single Kibbutzim

on an individualism-collectivism continuum (Getz, 1998). Accounting for the originally

collectivistic nature of Kibbutzim and the speculation of Morris (1992) a move towards a

more balanced organizational culture would be expected to foster entrepreneurship within

the community setting (Heilbrunn, 2005).

Institutionalization. Organizations have to integrate innovation as a strategic key

element (Schroeder, 1986) within the organizational mainstream. Thus, the likelihood of

corporate entrepreneurship to succeed depends not only on the effective management of

single projects, but also on the effective management of new stream (Kanter et.al.; 1990).

Zahra (1993a) argues the importance of support mechanisms such as procedures for

dealing with new ideas and Hornsby et.al. (1990, 1993) stress the need for loose intra –

organizational boundaries. Therefore, community organizations must establish

“entrepreneurial vehicles” (Kanter, 1990) in order to institutionalize the new stream

within the mainstream (DiMaggio, 1988). Within the Kibbutz setting entrepreneurial

vehicles take the form of entrepreneurship committees, entrepreneurship teams or

managers.

10

The Study

The level of analysis of this study is the Kibbutz community and not the individual

entrepreneur. Using a comprehensive questionnaire, a sample of 60 Kibbutzim -

constituting 22% of the population of Kibbutz communities in Israel – was investigated

over a period of 10 years. The same questionnaire was administered to the same sample

Kibbutzim in 1994, 1997 and 2004. Collected data include number and types of

enterprises, economic strength, features of organizational structure and organizational

culture, and human capital.

Entrepreneurial Intensity

Following Morris, Lewis and Sexton (1994) entrepreneurial intensity is a combination of

frequency and degree of entrepreneurship. Thus, the construction of a degree measure

compatible with Morris, Lewis and Sexton's (1994) conceptualization, is necessary. The

following procedure was applied: First the maximal degree of entrepreneurship for each

kibbutz is calculated. Table 1 represents the variable profiles of new ventures by types.

Based on a former study classifying new business ventures in the kibbutz framework

(Samuel & Heilbrunn, 2001), the parameters of technology, knowledge, capital

investment, infrastructure and novelty were chosen to represent the degree of innovation,

risk and proactiveness (Samuel & Heilbrunn, 2001: 49). Table 1 shows the rational for

the evaluation.

11

Table 1: Evaluating the Degree of Entrepreneurship

Criteria

for

Degree

Scope of

Evaluation

Pro-

type 1

Proto-

type 2

Proto-

type 3

Proto-

type 4

Proto-

type 5

Proto-

type 6

Proto-

type 7

Capital

Invest-

ment

High (3)

Medium (2)

Low (1)

2.5 2 1 2 1 1 1

Techno-

logy High (3)

Medium (2)

Low (1)

2.5 1 1 1 2 1 2

Infra-

structure New (2)

Old (1)

2 2 1.5 2 2 1 1

Novelty National (2)

Organiz.

(1)

2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Degree Maxim.=10

Minim. = 4

9 6 4.5 6 6 4 5

Following empirical investigation, each type of venture receives a grade that is based

upon an evaluation taking into account the "average" venture representing its type. Thus,

for example, the majority of type 6 ventures – personal services such as beauty parlors

and kindergartens (*) – are characterized by low capital investment, low level of

technology, are based upon existing infrastructure and novel in organizational terms only.

Prototype 6 therefore received the degree 4. In accordance with the scope of evaluation, a

venture can receive a maximal degree of 10 points. Therefore the maximal degree of

entrepreneurship for a kibbutz with 10 ventures is 100 (10 ventures X degree 10). On this

basis it is possible to calculate the actual degree of entrepreneurship for each kibbutz by

taking into consideration the number and the types of ventures of a kibbutz. Following is

the description of one example for clarification: Assume that Kibbutz Alpha has 6

ventures, two ventures of type 2, two ventures of type 4 and two ventures of type 6. The

maximal degree of entrepreneurship for Kibbutz Alpha is 60 (6X10). The actual degree

of entrepreneurship for Kibbutz Alpha = (2x6) + (2x6) + (2x5) = 34.

12

Entrepreneurial intensity is calculated as the number of ventures per Kibbutz plus the

difference between the optimal degree and the actual degree of entrepreneurship. The

difference between the optimal and actual degree of entrepreneurship stands for the

exploited potential of ventures in terms of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactivity.

Thus, the entrepreneurial intensity of a Kibbutz is a calculated combination of the

frequency and the degree of entrepreneurship.

Factors influencing Entrepreneurial Intensity

The intensity of entrepreneurship in 2004 served as the dependent variable for the second

stage of the study. Organizational resources and features established the independent

variables and quantitative statistical measures were applied in order to detect the impact

of the independent variables upon entrepreneurial intensity of the Kibbutz.

Organizational Resources: Economic strength of the Kibbutzim was evaluated via expert-

judgment of office holders (range of judgment from 1 – very weak to 5 – very strong).

Organizational size was operationalized in terms of number of residents representing the

actual size of the community. Organizational age is the number of years of existence of

the Kibbutz.

Organizational Features: Organizational structure is operationalized by means of an index

including items that indicate implementation of business orientation and/or

managerialism such as accounting procedures, board of directors, etc. The index includes

16 items and is the simple sum of items per Kibbutz, ranking from 0 (a negative answer

to all 16 questions) to 16 (a positive answer to all 16 items). The Cronbach‟s alpha result

13

of the index is .7682, thus it can be considered reliable (Heilbrunn, 2005). Organizational

culture is measured in terms of collectivism versus individualism. The index includes

privatization trends in the consumption and work sphere as well as allocation of rewards

(Getz, 1998: 16-20). The index includes 12 items and is a simple sum of items per

Kibbutz, ranking from 0 (a negative answer to all 12 questions) to 12 (a positive answer

to all 12 items). The Cronbach‟s alpha result of the index is .7438, thus it can be

considered reliable (Heilbrunn, 2005). Institutionalization is a dichotomy variable –

indicating whether or not the Kibbutz has established an “entrepreneurial vehicle”.

Findings

Entrepreneurial intensity and entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over

a period of ten years.

Frequency of Entrepreneurship

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of frequency of entrepreneurship in terms of

number of ventures per Kibbutz over the period of 10 years.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of number of ventures per Kibbutz 1994, 1997 and 2004.

1994 1997 2004

N (Kibbutzim) 60 60 60

Mean (Number of

Ventures)

4.37 9.03 9.27

Std Deviation 3.369 5.155 5.358

Sum of Ventures 262 542 556

The data reveal that there is a significant increase of average ventures per kibbutz from

1994 to 1997, and a minor increase of average ventures per kibbutz between the years

14

1997 and 2004. In all years there are Kibbutzim with no ventures, but the maximal

number of ventures increases over the years, whereas in 1994 the highest venture number

is 18 in 2004 one Kibbutz has 35 ventures. Also note that the total number of ventures in

the 60 sample Kibbutzim more than doubled in a period of ten years.

Degree of Entrepreneurship

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for calculated degree of entrepreneurship 1994, 1997

and 2004.

1994 1997 2004

N 60 60 60

Mean 22.8 48.03 48.63

Std Deviation 17.43 27.16 28.14

Table 3 reveals a significant increase as to the calculated degree of entrepreneurship

between 1994 and 1997. Minimum stays the same, but maximum increases meaningfully.

Between 1997 and 2004 only a minor increase of calculated degree of entrepreneurship

can be observed

Entrepreneurial Intensity

Table 4: Entrepreneurial intensity of ventures of sample Kibbutzim over a period

of 10 years.

1994 1997 2004

N 60 60 60

Mean 24.5 51.3 54.9

Std Deviation 21.02 30.39 33.77

Summing up, the data reveal an increase of overall number of venture in the 60 sample

Kibbutzim over ten years, with a dramatic increase between the years 1994 and 1997 and

a moderate increase between the years 1997 and 2004. The calculated degree of

15

entrepreneurship per Kibbutz, indicating innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness of

the established ventures show a similar trend: a significant increase between the years

1994 and 1997 but no change during the years 1997 and 2004.Entrepreneurial intensity –

a function of combined frequency and degree of entrepreneurship per Kibbutz, also

shows a dramatic increase between the years 1994 and 1997 and a much more moderate

increase between 1997 and 2004.

Factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity

Stepwise regression analysis was applied in order to detect which of the independent

variables influences entrepreneurial intensity. Stepwise regression removes and adds

variables to the regression model for the purpose of identifying a useful subset of the

predictors.

Table 5: Results of step-wise regression model

Dependent

Variable

Independent

Variables

(Predictors)

B Beta Sig

Entrepreneurial

Intensity

(Constant)

Organizational Size

Institutionalization

Organizational Age

-35.397

.061

21.094

.888

.311

.311

.239

.164

.008

.007

.048

Excluded Independent Variables Beta

In

Sig

Organizational Structure

Organizational Culture

Economic Strength

.083

.052

.186

.438

.651

.127

R Square 0.404

N 60

16

The results of the regression model indicate that organizational size, organizational age

and the existence of an institutionalization mechanism are factors influencing

entrepreneurial intensity. In order to further investigate those variables, which have been

excluded from the regression model, correlations between the independent variables and

the dependent variable were investigated. The correlation analysis revealed that

organizational culture and structure correlate significantly with each other (P = .648, Sig.

0.000, N = 60) but do not correlate with the dependent variable. Economic strength

correlates positively and significantly with the dependent variable (P = .413, Sig. 0.001,

N = 60) and also correlates positively and significantly with organizational size (P = .444,

Sig. 0.000, N=60). Thus it seems safe to say that economic strength, which correlates

positively with entrepreneurial intensity and with organizational size, establishes a kind

of “hidden” variable. In other words, the Kibbutzim which are bigger in size are also

stronger in terms of evaluated economic strength and have a higher profile of

entrepreneurial intensity.

Locating Kibbutzim on the Entrepreneurial Grid

Figure 2, 3 and 4 present the location of the 60 Kibbutzim on the entrepreneurial grid at

the years 1994, 1997 and 2004, thus it is possible to observe the overall development of

entrepreneurial intensity over a period of ten years. A comparison of the location of the

kibbutzim in 1994, 1997 and 2004 reveals that in terms of the grid, most kibbutzim

remain to be located within the periodic/incremental cluster at all times, thus representing

a modest level of entrepreneurship with most entrepreneurial events being only nominally

innovative, risky and proactive.

17

Figure 2: Kibbutzim on the grid 1994

.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

Degree of Entrepreneurship

Freq

uen

cy

of

En

trep

ren

eu

rsh

ip

CONTINUOUS/

INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

PERIODIC/

INCREMENTAL PERIODIC/

DISCONTINUOUS

DYNAMIC

High

High

Low

Low

High

Low

CONTINUOUS/

INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

PERIODIC/

INCREMENTAL PERIODIC/

DISCONTINUOUS

DYNAMIC

High Low

Figure 3: Kibbutzim on the grid 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

Degree of Entrepreneurship

Fre

qu

ency

of

En

trep

ren

eurs

hip

18

Nevertheless, the data also show a general upward movement of entrepreneurial

frequency especially in 1997. In other words a group of kibbutzim is moving into the

dynamic cluster as a result of increase in entrepreneurial frequency and degree. In 2004

no major changes in comparison to 1997 can be seen, except for one Kibbutz now located

in the revolutionary cluster. In terms of Morris, Lewis and Sexton (1994) this is a

community with a very high level of entrepreneurial intensity, encompassing many

innovative ventures. Via the framework of the entrepreneurial grid it is possible to see

the development of entrepreneurial intensity of the Kibbutzim over time. Although the

majority of theses communities remain within the periodic/incremental cluster, an

upwards tendency towards the dynamic cluster can be observed, indicating an increase of

CONTINUOUS/

INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

PERIODIC/

INCREMENTAL PERIODIC/

DISCONTINUOUS

DYNAMIC

High

High

Low

Low

Figure 4: Kibbutzim on the grid 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

Degree of Entrepreneurship

Fre

qu

ency

of

En

trep

ren

eurs

hip

19

frequency and degree of entrepreneurial activity. It thus seems that Kibbutz communities

are adapting to environmental changes and investing in strategies potentially increasing

community development.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper I proposed a method to measure entrepreneurial intensity in order to

determine entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over a period of ten years.

The concept of entrepreneurial intensity encompasses not only the number of

entrepreneurial events, but accounts also for the level of innovativeness, risk-taking and

proactivenss. The findings of the study revealed a significant increase of entrepreneurial

intensity especially between the years 1994 and 1997. This increase can be explained by

external and internal factors influencing the Kibbutz movement during the period in

question. The macro-level socio-economic environment in Israel became constantly more

competitive, and at the same time, Kibbutz communities underwent processes of change

towards a more individualistic organizational climate. The growing entrepreneurial

engagement by members of the community reflects the need of the individual within the

community to take responsibility for his/her economic future and also reflects the need of

the community to generate variety in order to survive in a changing, competitive

environment. Kibbutz communities increase the frequency of entrepreneurship over the

years but do not manage to increase the degree of entrepreneurship at the same time (see

the grid location). This might be due to the fact, that they can still be characterized as

rather collectivistic in comparison to their external environment. Thus, variety is

generated via processes of adaptation and incremental change (Reich, 1987) and

20

relatively small, equilibrium restoring (Kirzner, 1985) ventures emerge. The Kibbutz

community acts like an incubator with leverage of resources accomplished via adherence

to shared norms, values and goals of Kibbutz members (Wilkens & Ouchi, 1983). Life-

style rather than high-growth entrepreneurship (Henderson, 2002) emerges which fits the

community setting well. In a previous research on Kibbutz communities, analyzing only

the frequency of entrepreneurship, institutionalization established the explanatory

independent variable. The presence or absence of an “entrepreneurial vehicle” influenced

the number of entrepreneurial events (Heilbrunn, 2005). In this study the intensity of

entrepreneurship was analyzed, taking into account not only the quantitative but also the

qualitative aspect of entrepreneurial events. Now organizational resources in terms of

size, age and economic strength influence the entrepreneurial intensity of the kibbutz,

meaning that the stronger the community in terms of these resources, the more

entrepreneurial activity can be observed. Nevertheless, although theses resources allow

for entrepreneurial activity to take place, they do not necessarily increase their degree in

terms of innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness. Thus, more than resources are needed

in order for the Kibbutz movement to move towards the revolutionary cluster of the grid,

indicating high frequency and degree of entrepreneurship.

The findings of this paper contribute to the corporate entrepreneurship literature by

utilizing the model proposed by Morris et. al (1994) in the framework of communities,

thus enabling the analysis of development of entrepreneurial activity over time. The

notion of entrepreneurial intensity takes into consideration not only frequency but also

degree of entrepreneurship, thereby differentiating quality of entrepreneurial outcome.

21

In accordance with the results of the study, policy makers should consider measures

aimed at increasing qualitative rather than quantitative aspects of entrepreneurship,

mainly in terms of improving institutionalization in terms of entrepreneurial vehicles.

Further research should investigate entrepreneurial intensity in communities other than

the Kibbutz. Various kinds of communities could then be compared as to their location

on the entrepreneurial grid and as to the factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity. The

fact that in the framework of this study only Kibbutzim were investigated constitutes its

main limitation.

References

Anderson, R. (2002) “Entrepreneurship and aboriginal Canadians: A case study in

economic development”, Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, Vol 7 No 1, pp. 45-

66

Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999) “The relationship between corporate

entrepreneurship and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 20, pp.

421-444

Brazeal, D.V. (1993) “Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures”, Journal

of Business Venturing, Vol 8, pp. 75-90

Burgelman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986) Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy,

Structure and Managerial Skills, Free Press, New York, NY.

Covin, J.G. and Miles, M.P. (1999) “Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of

competitive advantage”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 23 No 4, pp. 47-63

Covin, J. G. and Slevin, D. (1991) "A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm

Behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No 1, pp. 7-25

Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., and Lane, P. J.

(2003) "Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship", Journal of Management, Vol

29 No 3, pp. 351-378

22

Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. and Covin, J. (1997) “Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm

performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models”, Strategic Management

Journal, Vol 18, pp. 677-695

DiMaggio, P.J. (1988) “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, in Zucker, L.G. (Ed.),

Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Ballinger, Cambridge,

MA, pp. 3-22

Drucker, P.F. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: Harper and Row

Getz, S. (1998), “Winds of change”, in Leviatan, U., Oliver, H. and Quarter, J. (Eds),

Crisis in the Israeli Kibbutz, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 13-26

Gluck, Y. 1998. Individual needs and public distribution in the kibbutz. In Leviatan, U.,

Oliver, H. and Quarter, J. (Eds,) Crisis in the Israel Kibbutz, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp.

119-130

Granovetter, M. (1985) “Economic action and social structure”, American Journal of

Sociology, Vol 5 No 1 pp. 53-81

Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990) “Guest editors‟ introduction: Corporate

entrepreneurship”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11, pp. 5-15

Heilbrunn, S. (1999) Corporate entrepreneurship in the kibbutz movement. PhD Thesis,

University of Haifa, Israel

Heilbrunn, S. (2005) “The impact of organizational change on entrepreneurship in

community settings”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol 12 No

3, pp. 422-436

Henderson, J. (2002) “Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs”,

Working paper of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Available: www.kc.frb.org

Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1990) “Developing

an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate environmental

environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11, pp. 49-58

Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1993) “An

interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, Vol 17 No 2, pp. 29-37

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002) “Middle managers‟ perception of the

internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”,

Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 17 No 3, pp. 253-273

Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2002) “Antecedents, elements, and

23

consequences of corporate entrepreneurship strategy”, Working Paper, University of

Richmond

Kanter, R.M. (1984). The Change Masters, New York, NY: Touchstone, Simon &

Schuster

Kanter, R.M. (1986) "Supporting innovation and venture development in established

companies", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 1 No 1, pp. 47-60

Kanter, R.M., North, J., Bernstein, A.P. and Williamson, A. (1990), “Engines of

progress: Designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies”,

Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 3, pp. 415-430

Kemelgor, B. (2002) “A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation

between selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA”, Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development, Vol 14, pp. 67-87

Kirzner, I.M. (1985) Discovery and Capitalist Process. Chicago University Press,

Chicago, IL

Kuratko, D.F., Motagno, R.V. and Hornsby, J.S. (1990) “Developing an intrapreneurial

assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment”, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol 11, pp. 49-58

Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G., (1996) “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation

construct and linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 21

No1, pp. 135-172

Miles, M.P. and Arnold, D.R. (1991) “The relationship between market orientation and

entrepreneurial orientation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 15 No 4, pp. 49 –

65

Morris, M.H., Pitt, L.F., Davis, D.L. and Allen, J.A. (1992) “Individualism and corporate

entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparison”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research

1992, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, pp. 552-64

Morris, M.M., Lewis, P.S and Sexton, D.L. (1994) “Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship:

An input-output perspective”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, winter, pp. 1-31

Palgi, M. 2002. Organizational change and ideology: The case of the kibbutz.

International Review of Sociology, 12(3): 389-402.

Peredo, A.M. and Chrisman, J.J. (2006) “Towards a theory of community-based

enterprise”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 31 No 2, pp.309-328

24

Reich, R.B. (1987) “Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as a hero”, Harvard

Business Review, Vol 65, pp. 77–83

Richman, C.L. 2004. Kibbutzim in constant transition. Psychology Developing Societies,

Vol 16 No 2, pp. 125-138

Rocha, H. (2004) “Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters”, Small

Business Economics, Vol 23 No 5, pp.363-400

Rule, E.G. and Irwing, D.W. (1988) “Fostering intrapreneurship: The competitive edge”,

The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol 9 No 3, pp. 44-47

Samuel, Y. and Heilbrunn, S. (2001) “Entrepreneurship in the kibbutz setting: Towards a

classification of new business ventures”, Journal of Rural Corporation, Vol 29 No 1, pp.

47 – 62

Schroeder, D.M. (1986) “A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation

upon competitive strategies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 2, pp. 25-41

Schuler, R.S. (1986) “Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations:

implications for organization structure and human resource management practices”,

Human Resource Management, Vol 25 No 4, pp. 607-29

Seginer, R., and Schlesinger, R. (1998) "Adolescents future orientation in time and place:

the case of the Israeli Kibbutz", International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol.

22, pp. 151-167.

Stevenson, H.H. (2000) “Why entrepreneurship has won”. Coleman White Paper

USASBC Plenary Address, February 17

Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990) “A paradigm of entrepreneurship entrepreneurial

management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11, pp. 17-27

Storey, D.J. (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: Routledge

Sundbo, J. (1999) “Empowerment of employees in small and medium-sized service

firms”, Employee Relations, Vol 21 No ½, pp. 105-127

Tiessen, J.H. (1997) “Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: A framework for

international comparative research”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 12, pp. 367-384

Topol, M. (1996) “Trends of change in kibbutzim”, Journal of Rural Corporation, Vol 24

No 1, pp. 87-102

Wennekers S. and Thurik, R. (1999) “Linking entrepreneurship to economic growth”,

Small Business Economics, Vol 13 No 1, pp. 27-55

25

Wiklund, J.(1998) “Entrepreneurial orientation as predictor of performance and

entrepreneurial behavior in small firms – longitudinal evidence”, Frontier of

Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College.

Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2005) “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business

performance: a configurational approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, pp. 71-

91

Wilkens, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983) “Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship

between culture and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.

28, pp. 468-481

Williamson, O. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets,

Relational Contracting, New York: Free Press

Zahra, S. (1991) “Predictors of financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: A

taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 6 No 4, pp. 259-285.

Zahra, S. (1993) “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique

and extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 17, pp. 5-22

Zahra, S.A. (1993a) “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial

performance: A taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 8 No 4, pp.319

– 340

Zahra, S. A., and Nielson, A. P. (2002) "Sources of capabilities, integration and

technology commercialization", Strategic Management Journal, Vol 23, pp 377-398

Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O. and Huse, M. (2000) "Entrepreneurship in medium-size

companies: Exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems", Journal of

Management, Vol 26 No 5, pp. 947-976

Zajac, E.J., Golden, B.R. and Shortell, S.M. (1991) “New organizational forms for

enhancing innovation. The case of internal corporate ventures”, Management Science,

Vol 37 No 2, pp. 170-184

26