factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity in communities

Factors influencingentrepreneurial intensity

in communitiesSibylle Heilbrunn

Department of Business Administration, Ruppin Academic Center, 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 measureentrepreneurial intensity within the community context in order to determine entrepreneurial activityover a period of ten years, detect the factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity, and finally locateKibbutz communities on the entrepreneurial grid.

Design/methodology/approach – Kibbutz communities are the level of analysis. Using acomprehensive questionnaire, a sample of 60 Kibbutzim – constituting 22 percent of the populationof Kibbutz communities in Israel – was investigated over a period of ten years. The samequestionnaire was administered to the same sample Kibbutzim (Kibbutzim is the plural of Kibbutz) in1994, 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 ofKibbutz communities in terms of frequency, degree and intensity of entrepreneurship. Organizationalsize and age have an impact on entrepreneurial intensity as well as the existence of an “entrepreneurialvehicle.” On the entrepreneurial grid Kibbutzim are moving from the incremental/periodic clustertowards the dynamic cluster, but few meaningful breakthroughs can be observed.

Research limitations/implications – More research is needed in order to understand theinterrelationship between community environments and entrepreneurship. The major researchlimitation of this paper constitutes the fact that only Kibbutz communities were investigated.

Originality/value – The paper utilizes the concept of the entrepreneurial grid for an empiricalanalysis of community entrepreneurship.

Keywords Entrepreneurship, Communities, Israel

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEntrepreneurship is positively associated with economic development (Rocha, 2004).Small- and medium-size businesses are a recognized major business trend in thetwenty-first century, a trend existing also in the Israeli economy with a share of11.8 percent 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 ofentrepreneurship at the individual, organizational and national level is of increasingimportance.

With environments constantly changing and becoming more competitive,organizations have to be flexible, innovative and take advantage of emergingopportunities. Therefore, corporate entrepreneurship has gained growing academicinterest. Several studies focus on the impact of corporate entrepreneurship onorganizational performance (Kanter, 1984; Rule and Irwing, 1988; Guth and Ginsberg,1990; Zahra, 1991). Some scholars explore the characteristics and determinants ofcorporate entrepreneurship in the framework of small- and medium-sized businesses

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6204.htm

Entrepreneurialintensity in

communities

37

Journal of Enterprising Communities:People and Places in the Global

EconomyVol. 2 No. 1, 2008

pp. 37-51q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1750-6204DOI 10.1108/17506200810861249

(Covin and Slevin, 1989; Covin and Covin, 1990, Wiklund, 1998). Wennekers and Thurik(1999) argue that corporate entrepreneurship improves productivity not only for theorganization itself but is also a vehicle for national economic growth and development.

This paper attempts to investigate entrepreneurship at the community level. Theinterrelationship of community development and entrepreneurship has been discussedin the literature. Recent studies state that entrepreneurship is a potential strategy forcommunity development in poor communities (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Anderson,2002). Following the embeddedness perspective (Granovetter, 1985; Williamson, 1985)entrepreneurship flourishes in communities with mobile resources, where successfulentrepreneurs reinvest and success is perceived as a community asset and wherechange is looked upon positively, rather than negatively (Stevenson, 2000). This studyattempts to explore entrepreneurship in Israeli Kibbutzim, a setting combiningcommunity and organizational features. Kibbutz communities encompass all spheresof life and can be described as economic, social and ideological entities with anorganizational structure differentiated vertically and horizontally (Heilbrunn, 2005).The economic crisis of the 1980s led to processes of change which essentially alteredthe economic and social outlook of the Kibbutz (Seginer and Schlesinger, 1998). Theaverage age of Kibbutz members as well as the percentage of Kibbutz members olderthan 55 years increased, the number of children decreased, the percentage of Kibbutzmembers within the Israeli society dropped from 2.8 percent prior to the crisis in 1994to 2.1 percent in 2004 (Data of the United Kibbutz Movement), and Kibbutz industrieswere on gradual decline (Palgi, 2002). Kibbutzim vary as to their exposure to crisis andchange, 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 tothe main ideological features with income of members still allocated to the Kibbutz.The latter type – adopting a more capitalist/materialistic system (Gluck, 1998) – isnow characterized by the fact that more than 50 percent of the family income isallocated to family itself (Richman, 2004). In spite of ongoing processes of changeduring the last decade, Kibbutzim can still be characterized as rather collectivistic incomparison to their external environment. Thus, following Tiessen (1997) it can beexpected that in Kibbutz settings variety is generated via processes of adaptation andincremental change (Reich, 1987) and relatively small, equilibrium restoring (Kirzner,1985) ventures emerge in an incubator like environment. Leverage of resources isaccomplishes via adherence to norms based on shared norms, values and goals ofKibbutz members (Wilkens and Ouchi, 1983).

Using the concept of entrepreneurial intensity (Morris et al., 1994), which provides apossibility to determine quantitative measurement of entrepreneurship in terms offrequency and degree, entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutzim is measured over time.Within the entrepreneurial grid (Morris et al., 1994) scenarios of entrepreneurial intensityemerge. Kibbutzim can then be located within these scenarios at various points of time.

The objectives of the study are:. To propose a way to measure entrepreneurial intensity within the community

context in order to determine entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communitiesover a period of ten years.

. To detect the factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity.

. To locate Kibbutz communities on the entrepreneurial grid.

JEC2,1

38

Theoretical frameworkEntrepreneurial intensityMorris et al. (1994) maintain that economic opportunities arise from organizationalinnovations. Entrepreneurs exploit opportunities (inputs) and create new ventures(outputs). Thus, within the framework of the organization, the rate of new productintroduction distinguishes entrepreneurial from non-entrepreneurial firms (Kanter,1985; Drucker, 1985; Schuler, 1986). Entrepreneurship is not an either – orphenomenon, but a question of “how often” and “how much” (Morris et al., 1994, p. 26).Thus, entrepreneurial intensity – for any given level of analysis – is a matter ofdegree, representing a quantitative continuum. The immediate outputs ofentrepreneurship are new ventures – following Morris et al. (1994) I maintain that:“. . . it should be recognized that the set of necessary inputs is fairly definite, while theset of possible outputs may or may not happen.” Morris et al. (1994) established aninput-output framework describing the intensity of entrepreneurship at the individualand the organizational level. Frequency (the number of entrepreneurial events) anddegree (the extent to which events are innovative, risky and proactive) constitute thevariables of entrepreneurial intensity (Heilbrunn, 2005). As shown in Figure 1,individuals, organizations or countries can then be placed into an emergingentrepreneurial grid, frequency of entrepreneurship presented at the x-axis and thedegree of entrepreneurship represented at the y-axis.

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

Figure 1.Five categories of

entrepreneurial intensity

CONTINUOUS/ INCREMENTAL

REVOLUTIONARY

PERIODIC/ INCREMENTAL

PERIODIC/ DISCONTINUOUS

DYNAMIC

Freq

uenc

y of

E

ntre

pren

eurs

hip

Degree of Entrepreneurship

High

High

Low

Low

Source: Morris et al. (1994)


communities

39

revolutionary segment and organizations launching relatively few entrepreneurialevents which rate low on innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness will fit theperiodic/incremental segment.

Organizational factors of corporate entrepreneurshipSince, Kibbutz communities establish the unit of analysis of this paper, its theoreticalframework is located within the field of corporate entrepreneurship, which is widelydiscussed in the entrepreneurial literature (Dess et al., 2003; Ireland et al., 2002; Zahraet al., 2000). A number of studies discuss organizational factors of corporateentrepreneurship (Dess et al., 2003; Zahra et al., 2000; Zahra and Nielson, 2002; Kanter,1986; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). These studies can be further categorized intocontingency approaches (Dess et al., 1997; Zahra, 1993a) and configurationalapproaches (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005), both dealing with internal and externalenvironmental factors influencing corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance.

Organizational resourcesSlack resources or resource availability are an essential aspect of corporateentrepreneurship (Covin and Miles, 1999; Zajac et al., 1991; Hornsby et al., 2002). Inthe framework of Kibbutz communities three types of organizational resources areespecially important, namely economic strength, membership size and age. Forcommunities such as Kibbutzim, which often exist within socio-economicenvironments characterized by a very different ideological outlook, age, size andeconomic strength of the community are of critical importance and often determinesurvival. Storey (1994) states, that capital availability affects growth and Miles andArnold (1991) found a positive relationship between size of the organization andcorporate entrepreneurship but no significant relationship between age and corporateentrepreneurship.

Organizational featuresPrevious studies emphasize different aspects of organizational structure. Managementsupport for new ideas and projects (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), participation indecision making (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999; Kemelgor, 2002) and autonomy(Sundbo, 1999) are only some examples for structural organizational elementsassociated with corporate entrepreneurship. The conceptualization of organizationalstructure in the framework of Kibbutz communities demands for a fit with itsorganizational nature, taking into consideration that the traditional Kibbutzwas ideologically collectivistic with equal allocation of rewards to all membersregardless of their inputs. Topol (1996) suggests that “managerialism” is a pattern ofKibbutz organizational structure (such as the introduction of boards of directors,professional non-member managers, and the establishment of profit centers, etc.) andstates that increasing “managerialism” represents a transformation process indirection of business orientation, a move towards a more balanced position on thecollectivism-individualism continuum. Thus, organizational structure in terms of“managerialism” is expected to have an impact upon entrepreneurial intensity withinthe Kibbutz community setting.

Organizational culture. Organizational culture is described as a key factor ofentrepreneurship within a firm (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Culture can encourageor discourage business-related risk-taking (Burgelman and Sayles, 1986) and

JEC2,1

40

management support (Brazeal, 1993, Hornsby et al., 1993) and an appropriate rewardsystem (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Kuratko et al., 1990) also constitute elements oforganizational culture fostering corporate entrepreneurship (Heilbrunn, 2005).Following Morris et al. (1992) a balanced emphasis between collectivism andindividualism will result in higher rates of entrepreneurship than an overemphasis ofeither pole on the continuum (Heilbrunn, 2005). Thus, in order to account for theKibbutz community setting in the framework of this study organizational culture isperceived in terms of induced mechanisms of change placing single Kibbutzim on anindividualism-collectivism continuum (Getz, 1998). Accounting for the originallycollectivistic nature of Kibbutzim and the speculation of Morris et al. (1992) a movetowards a more balanced organizational culture would be expected to fosterentrepreneurship within the community setting (Heilbrunn, 2005).

Institutionalization. Organizations have to integrate innovation as a strategic keyelement (Schroeder, 1986) within the organizational mainstream. Thus, the likelihoodof corporate entrepreneurship to succeed depends not only on the effectivemanagement of single projects, but also on the effective management of new stream(Kanter et al., 1990). Zahra (1993b) argues the importance of support mechanisms suchas procedures for dealing with new ideas and Hornsby et al. (1990, 1993) stress the needfor loose intra – organizational boundaries. Therefore, community organizations mustestablish “entrepreneurial vehicles” (Kanter et al., 1990) in order to institutionalize thenew stream within the mainstream (DiMaggio, 1988). Within the Kibbutz settingentrepreneurial vehicles take the form of entrepreneurship committees,entrepreneurship teams or managers.

The studyThe level of analysis of this study is the Kibbutz community and not the individualentrepreneur. Using a comprehensive questionnaire, a sample of 60 Kibbutzim –constituting 22 percent of the population of Kibbutz communities in Israel – wasinvestigated over a period of ten years. The same questionnaire was administered tothe same sample Kibbutzim in 1994, 1997 and 2004. Collected data include number andtypes of enterprises, economic strength, features of organizational structure andorganizational culture, and human capital.

Entrepreneurial intensityFollowing Morris et al. (1994) entrepreneurial intensity is a combination of frequencyand degree of entrepreneurship. Thus, the construction of a degree measure compatiblewith Morris et al.’s (1994) conceptualization, is necessary. The following procedure wasapplied: First the maximal degree of entrepreneurship for each Kibbutz is calculated.Table I represents the variable profiles of new ventures by types. Based on a formerstudy classifying new business ventures in the Kibbutz framework (Samuel andHeilbrunn, 2001), the parameters of technology, knowledge, capital investment,infrastructure and novelty were chosen to represent the degree of innovation, risk andproactiveness (Samuel and Heilbrunn, 2001, p. 49). Table I shows the rational for theevaluation.

Following empirical investigation, each type of venture receives a grade thatis based upon an evaluation taking into account the “average” venture representing itstype. Thus, for example, the majority of type 6 ventures – personal services such as


communities

41

Cri

teri

afo

rd

egre

eS

cop

eof

eval

uat

ion

Pro

toty

pe

1P

roto

typ

e2

Pro

toty

pe

3P

roto

typ

e4

Pro

toty

pe

5P

roto

typ

e6

Pro

toty

pe

7

Cap

ital

inv

estm

ent

Hig

h(3

)M

ediu

m(2

)L

ow(1

)2.

52

12

11

1T

ech

nol

ogy

Hig

h(3

)M

ediu

m(2

)L

ow(1

)2.

51

11

21

2In

fra-

stru

ctu

reN

ew(2

)O

ld(1

)2

21.

52

21

1N

ovel

tyN

atio

nal

(2)

Org

aniz

.(1

)2

11

11

11

Deg

ree

Max

im.¼

10M

inim

.¼4

96

4.5

66

45

Table I.Evaluating the degree ofentrepreneurship

JEC2,1

42

beauty parlors and kindergartens ( *) – are characterized by low-capital investment,low level of technology, are based upon existing infrastructure and novel inorganizational terms only. Prototype 6 therefore received the degree 4. In accordancewith the scope of evaluation, a venture can receive a maximal degree of ten points.Therefore, the maximal degree of entrepreneurship for a Kibbutz with ten ventures is100 (10 ventures £ degree 10). On this basis it is possible to calculate the actual degreeof entrepreneurship for each Kibbutz by taking into consideration the number and thetypes of ventures of a Kibbutz. Following is the description of one example forclarification: Assume that Kibbutz Alpha has six ventures, two ventures of type 2, twoventures of type 4 and two ventures of type 6. The maximal degree of entrepreneurshipfor Kibbutz Alpha is 60 (6 £ 10). The actual degree of entrepreneurship for KibbutzAlpha ¼ (2 £ 6) þ (2 £ 6) þ (2 £ 5) ¼ 34.

Entrepreneurial intensity is calculated as the number of ventures per Kibbutz plusthe difference between the optimal degree and the actual degree of entrepreneurship.The difference between the optimal and actual degree of entrepreneurship stands forthe exploited potential of ventures in terms of innovativeness, risk-taking andproactivity. Thus, the entrepreneurial intensity of a Kibbutz is a calculatedcombination of the frequency and the degree of entrepreneurship.

Factors influencing entrepreneurial intensityThe intensity of entrepreneurship in 2004 served as the dependent variable for thesecond stage of the study. Organizational resources and features established theindependent variables and quantitative statistical measures were applied in order todetect the impact of the independent variables upon entrepreneurial intensity of theKibbutz.

Organizational resourcesEconomic strength of the Kibbutzim was evaluated via expert-judgment of officeholders (range of judgment from 1 – very weak to 5 – very strong). Organizationalsize was operationalized in terms of number of residents representing the actual size ofthe community. Organizational age is the number of years of existence of the Kibbutz.

Organizational featuresOrganizational structure is operationalized by means of an index including items thatindicate implementation of business orientation and/or managerialism such asaccounting procedures, board of directors, etc. The index includes 16 items and is thesimple sum of items per Kibbutz, ranking from 0 (a negative answer to all16 questions) to 16 (a positive answer to all 16 items). The Cronbach’s a result of theindex is 0.7682, thus it can be considered reliable (Heilbrunn, 2005). Organizationalculture is measured in terms of collectivism versus individualism. The index includesprivatization trends in the consumption and work sphere as well as allocation ofrewards (Getz, 1998, pp. 16-20). The index includes 12 items and is a simple sum ofitems per Kibbutz, ranking from 0 (a negative answer to all 12 questions) to 12 (apositive answer to all 12 items). The Cronbach’s a result of the index is 0.7438, thusit can be considered reliable (Heilbrunn, 2005). Institutionalization is a dichotomyvariable – indicating whether or not the Kibbutz has established an “entrepreneurialvehicle.”


communities

43

FindingsEntrepreneurial intensity and entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over aperiod of ten yearsFrequency of entrepreneurship. Table I shows the descriptive statistics of frequency ofentrepreneurship in terms of number of ventures per Kibbutz over the period of tenyears (Table II).

The data reveal that there is a significant increase of average ventures per Kibbutzfrom 1994 to 1997, and a minor increase of average ventures per Kibbutz between theyears 1997 and 2004. In all years there are Kibbutzim with no ventures, but the maximalnumber of ventures increases over the years, whereas in 1994 the highest venturenumber is 18 in 2004 one Kibbutz has 35 ventures. Also note that the total number ofventures in the 60 sample Kibbutzim more than doubled in a period of ten years.

Degree of entrepreneurshipTable III reveals a significant increase as to the calculated degree of entrepreneurshipbetween 1994 and 1997. Minimum stays the same, but maximum increasesmeaningfully. Between 1997 and 2004 only a minor increase of calculated degree ofentrepreneurship can be observed.

Entrepreneurial intensitySumming up, the data reveal an increase of overall number of venture in the 60 sampleKibbutzim over ten years, with a dramatic increase between the years 1994 and 1997and a moderate increase between the years 1997 and 2004. The calculated degree ofentrepreneurship per Kibbutz, indicating innovativeness, risk taking andproactiveness of the established ventures show a similar trend: a significantincrease between the years 1994 and 1997 but no change during the years 1997 and2004.Entrepreneurial intensity – a function of combined frequency and degree ofentrepreneurship per Kibbutz, also shows a dramatic increase between the years 1994and 1997 and a much more moderate increase between 1997 and 2004 (Table IV).

Factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensityStepwise regression analysis was applied in order to detect which of the independentvariables influences entrepreneurial intensity. Stepwise regression removes and adds

1994 1997 2004

N (Kibbutzim) 60 60 60Mean (Number of ventures) 4.37 9.03 9.27SD 3.369 5.155 5.358Sum of ventures 262 542 556

Table II.Descriptive statistics ofnumber of ventures perKibbutz 1994, 1997 and2004

1994 1997 2004

N 60 60 60Mean 22.8 48.03 48.63SD 17.43 27.16 28.14

Table III.Descriptive statistics forcalculated degree ofentrepreneurship 1994,1997 and 2004

JEC2,1

44

variables to the regression model for the purpose of identifying a useful subset of thepredictors (Table V).

The results of the regression model indicate that organizational size, organizationalage and the existence of an institutionalization mechanism are factors influencingentrepreneurial intensity. In order to further investigate those variables, which havebeen excluded from the regression model, correlations between the independentvariables and the dependent variable were investigated. The correlation analysisrevealed that organizational culture and structure correlate significantly with eachother (P ¼ 0.648, Sig. ¼ 0.000,N ¼ 60) but do not correlate with the dependent variable.Economic strength correlates positively and significantly with the dependent variable(P ¼ 0.413, Sig. ¼ 0.001, N ¼ 60) and also correlates positively and significantly withorganizational size (P ¼ 0.444, Sig. ¼ 0.000, N ¼ 60). Thus, it seems safe to say thateconomic strength, which correlates positively with entrepreneurial intensity and withorganizational size, establishes a kind of “hidden” variable. In other words, theKibbutzim which are bigger in size are also stronger in terms of evaluated economicstrength and have a higher profile of entrepreneurial intensity.

Locating Kibbutzim on the entrepreneurial gridFigures 2-4 show the location of the 60 Kibbutzim on the entrepreneurial grid at theyears 1994, 1997 and 2004, thus it is possible to observe the overall development ofentrepreneurial intensity over a period of ten years. A comparison of the location of theKibbutzim in 1994, 1997 and 2004 reveals that in terms of the grid, most Kibbutzimremain to be located within the periodic/incremental cluster at all times, thusrepresenting a modest level of entrepreneurship with most entrepreneurial eventsbeing only nominally innovative, risky and proactive.

Nevertheless, the data also show a general upward movement of entrepreneurialfrequency especially in 1997. In other words a group of Kibbutzim is moving into the

1994 1997 2004

N 60 60 60Mean 24.5 51.3 54.9SD 21.02 30.39 33.77

Table IV.Entrepreneurial intensity

of ventures of sampleKibbutzim over a period

of ten years

Dependent variable Independent variables (predictors) B b Sig.Entrepreneurial intensity (Constant) 235.397 0.164

Organizational size 0.061 0.311 0.008Institutionalization 21.094 0.311 0.007Organizational age 0.888 0.239 0.048Excluded independent variables b in Sig.Organizational structure 0.083 0.438Organizational culture 0.052 0.651Economic strength 0.186 0.127

R 2 0.404N 60

Table V.Results of step-wise

regression model


communities

45

dynamic cluster as a result of increase in entrepreneurial frequency and degree. In 2004no major changes in comparison to 1997 can be seen, except for one Kibbutznow located in the revolutionary cluster. In terms of Morris et al. (1994) this is acommunity with a very high level of entrepreneurial intensity, encompassing

Figure 2.Kibbutzim on the grid1994

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

0.00

40.00

50.00 100.00 150.000.00 200.00


Freq

uenc

y of

Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p

CONTINUOUS/INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY



DYNAMIC

High

High

Low

Low

Figure 3.Kibbutzim on the grid1997

High

Low

CONTINUOUS/INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY



DYNAMIC

HighLow

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50.00 100.00 150.000.00 200.00


Freq

uenc

y of

Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p

JEC2,1

46

many innovative ventures. Via the framework of the entrepreneurial grid it is possibleto see the development of entrepreneurial intensity of the Kibbutzim over time.Although the majority of theses communities remain within the periodic/incrementalcluster, an upwards tendency towards the dynamic cluster can be observed, indicatingan increase of frequency and degree of entrepreneurial activity. It thus seems thatKibbutz communities are adapting to environmental changes and investing instrategies potentially increasing community development.

Discussion and conclusionIn this paper, I proposed a method to measure entrepreneurial intensity in order todetermine entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over a period of ten years.The concept of entrepreneurial intensity encompasses not only the number ofentrepreneurial events, but accounts also for the level of innovativeness, risk-takingand proactivenss. The findings of the study revealed a significant increase ofentrepreneurial intensity especially between the years 1994 and 1997. This increase canbe explained by external and internal factors influencing the Kibbutz movementduring the period in question. The macro-level socio-economic environment in Israelbecame constantly more competitive, and at the same time, Kibbutz communitiesunderwent processes of change towards a more individualistic organizational climate.The growing entrepreneurial engagement by members of the community reflects theneed of the individual within the community to take responsibility for his/her economicfuture and also reflects the need of the community to generate variety in order tosurvive in a changing, competitive environment. Kibbutz communities increase thefrequency of entrepreneurship over the years but do not manage to increase the degreeof entrepreneurship at the same time (see the grid location). This might be due to

Figure 4.Kibbutzim on the grid

2004

CONTINUOUS/INCREMENTAL

REVOLUTIONARY



DYNAMIC

High

High

Low

Low 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00


Freq

uenc

y of

Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p


communities

47

the fact, that they can still be characterized as rather collectivistic in comparison totheir external environment. Thus, variety is generated via processes of adaptation andincremental change (Reich, 1987) and relatively small, equilibrium restoring (Kirzner,1985) ventures emerge. The Kibbutz community acts like an incubator with leverage ofresources accomplished via adherence to shared norms, values and goals of Kibbutzmembers (Wilkens and Ouchi, 1983). Life-style rather than high-growthentrepreneurship (Henderson, 2002) emerges which fits the community setting well.In a previous research on Kibbutz communities, analyzing only the frequency ofentrepreneurship, institutionalization established the explanatory independentvariable. The presence or absence of an “entrepreneurial vehicle” influenced thenumber of entrepreneurial events (Heilbrunn, 2005). In this study, the intensity ofentrepreneurship was analyzed, taking into account not only the quantitative but alsothe qualitative aspect of entrepreneurial events. Now organizational resources in termsof size, age and economic strength influence the entrepreneurial intensity of theKibbutz, meaning that the stronger the community in terms of these resources, themore entrepreneurial activity can be observed. Nevertheless, although theses resourcesallow for entrepreneurial activity to take place, they do not necessarily increase theirdegree in terms of innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness. Thus, more thanresources are needed in order for the Kibbutz movement to move towards therevolutionary cluster of the grid, indicating high frequency and degree ofentrepreneurship.

The findings of this paper contribute to the corporate entrepreneurship literature byutilizing the model proposed by Morris et al. (1994) in the framework of communities,thus enabling the analysis of development of entrepreneurial activity over time. Thenotion of entrepreneurial intensity takes into consideration not only frequency but alsodegree of entrepreneurship, thereby differentiating quality of entrepreneurial outcome.

In accordance with the results of the study, policy makers should consider measuresaimed 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 otherthan the Kibbutz. Various kinds of communities could then be compared as to theirlocation on the entrepreneurial grid and as to the factors influencing entrepreneurialintensity. The fact that in the framework of this study only Kibbutzim wereinvestigated constitutes its main limitation.

References

Anderson, R. (2002), “Entrepreneurship and aboriginal Canadians: a case study in economicdevelopment”, Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-66.

Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999), “The relationship between corporate entrepreneurshipand strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 421-44.

Brazeal, D.V. (1993), “Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures”, Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Vol. 8, pp. 75-90.

Burgelman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986), Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure andManagerial Skills, Free Press, New York, NY.

Covin, J.G. and Covin, T.J. (1990), “Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context, and smallfirm performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 35-50.

JEC2,1

48

Covin, J.G. and Miles, M.P. (1999), “Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitiveadvantage”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 47-63.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benignenvironments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 75-87.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25.

Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. and Covin, J. (1997), “Entrepreneurial strategy making and firmperformance: tests of contingency and configurational models”, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 18, pp. 677-95.

Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003), “Emergingissues in corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 351-78.

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, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Getz, S. (1998), “Winds of change”, in Leviatan, U., Oliver, H. and Quarter, J (Eds), Crisis in theIsraeli Kibbutz, Praeger, Westport, CT, 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, Praeger, Westport, CT,pp. 119-30.

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. (2005), “The impact of organizational change on entrepreneurship in communitysettings”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 422-36.

Henderson, J. (2002), “Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs”, workingpaper of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, available at: www.kc.frb.org

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), “Middle managers’ perception of the internalenvironment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”, Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253-73.

Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1990), “Developingan intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate environmentalenvironment”, 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 ofthe corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 17No. 2, pp. 29-37.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Covin, J.G. (2002), “Antecedents, elements, and consequences ofcorporate entrepreneurship strategy”, working paper, University of Richmond, Virginia.

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

Kanter, R.M. (1985), “Supporting innovation and venture development in establishedcompanies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 47, pp. 47-60.

Kanter, R.M. (1986), “Supporting innovation and venture development in establishedcompanies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-60.


communities

49

Kanter, R.M., North, J., Bernstein, A.P. and Williamson, A. (1990), “Engines of progress:designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies”, Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Vol. 3, pp. 415-30.

Kemelgor, B. (2002), “A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation betweenselected firms in The Netherlands and the USA”, Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment, 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 intrapreneurialassessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 49-58.

Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct andlinking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.

Miles, M.P. and Arnold, D.R. (1991), “The relationship between market orientation andentrepreneurial orientation”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 49-65.

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.

Morris, M.H., Pitt, L.F., Davis, D.L. and Allen, J.A. (1992), “Individualism and corporateentrepreneurship: cross-cultural comparison”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research1992, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, pp. 552-64.

Palgi, M. (2002), “Organizational change and ideology: the case of the Kibbutz”, InternationalReview of Sociology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 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. 309-28.

Reich, R.B. (1987), “Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as a hero”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 65, pp. 77-83.

Richman, C.L. (2004), “Kibbutzim in constant transition”, Psychology Developing Societies, Vol. 16No. 2, pp. 125-38.

Rocha, H. (2004), “Entrepreneurship and development: the role of clusters”, Small BusinessEconomics, 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. 44-7.

Samuel, Y. and Heilbrunn, S. (2001), “Entrepreneurship in the Kibbutz setting: towards aclassification 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 uponcompetitive strategies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 25-41.

Schuler, R.S. (1986), “Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations: implicationsfor organization structure and human resource management practices”, Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 607-29.

Seginer, R. and Schlesinger, R. (1998), “Adolescents future orientation in time and place: the caseof the Israeli Kibbutz”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 22, pp. 151-67.

Stevenson, H.H. (2000), “Why entrepreneurship has won”, Coleman White Paper USASBCPlenary Address, February 17.

Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship entrepreneurialmanagement”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 17-27.

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

JEC2,1

50

Sundbo, J. (1999), “Empowerment of employees in small and medium-sized service firms”,Employee Relations, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 105-27.

Tiessen, J.H. (1997), “Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: a framework forinternational comparative research”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, pp. 367-84.

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”, SmallBusiness Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-55.

Wiklund, J. (1998), “Entrepreneurial orientation as predictor of performance and entrepreneurialbehavior in small firms – longitudinal evidence”, Frontier of Entrepreneurship Research,Babson College, Babson Park, MA.

Wiklund, J. and 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 betweenculture and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28,pp. 468-81.

Williamson, O. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, RelationalContracting, Free Press, New York, NY.

Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors of financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: a taxonomicapproach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-85.

Zahra, S.A. (1993a), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique andextension”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 17, pp. 5-22.

Zahra, S.A. (1993b), “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance:a taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-40.

Zahra, S.A. and Nielson, A.P. (2002), “Sources of capabilities, integration and technologycommercialization”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 377-98.

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. 947-76.

Zajac, E.J., Golden, B.R. and Shortell, S.M. (1991), “New organizational forms for enhancinginnovation. The case of internal corporate ventures”, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 170-84.

Further reading

Heilbrunn, S. (1999), “Corporate entrepreneurship in the Kibbutz movement”, PhD thesis,University of Haifa, Haifa.

Corresponding authorSibylle Heilbrunn can be contacted at: [email protected]


communities

51

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity in communities

Documents