AT&T, and 3M have attempted to engender such a process to .... corporate entrepreneurship, surveys of a number of me- dium and ..... Support are involved.
Institutionalizing Entrepreneurship in a Large Company: A Case Study at AT&T Michael H. Morris J. Don Trotter This article approaches corporate entrepreneurship as a logical response to the increasingly turbulent environment confronting industrial$rms. A framework is developed to classify the obstacles which render entrepreneurship problematic in most industrial firms. A case study of successful mainstream entrepreneurship is summarized.
INTRODUCTION The considerable attention devoted to entrepreneurship in recent years is not simply a recognition of the valuable contributions made by the small business sector to the economy. There is, alternatively, a growing emphasis on the need to engender an entrepreneurial orientation in companies of all sizes [3, 17, 181. This emphasis is the
Address correspondence to Professor Michael H. Morris, Marketing,
University
of Central Florida,
P.O.
Box 25000,
32816.
Industrial Marketing Manqemenr 19, I3 I - I39 ( 1990) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1990 655 Avenue of the Americas. New York, NY
IO010
Department of Orlando,
FL
result, at least in part, of problems in product quality, productivity, and a loss in competitive position attributed to major American industrial firms. In addition, corporate entrepreneurship is viewed by some as the most effective means for responding to an increasingly turbulent external environment [6, 15, 16, 221. Facilitating entrepreneurship in larger firms requires a move away from the traditional conceptualization of the entrepreneur as an independent-thinking individual who creates a start-up venture against considerable odds, and instead approaching entrepreneurship as an organizational process. As a process, entrepreneurship is concerned with recognizing and encouraging innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness. The entrepreneurial firm is one that is able to internalize each of these dimensions among managers at all levels, and on a continuous basis. At the same time, surprisingly little is known regarding how corporate entrepreneurship can be effectively accomplished. Industrial firms seem adept at generating new products, services, and processes under conditions 131 0019.8501/90/$3.50
of adversity, but this reactive approach typically results in piecemeal and sporadic innovation, the responsibility for which is isolated in one or two functional departments. Companies appear to resist the idea of entrepreneurship as a mainstream, everyday activity. There is, in fact, a natural tendency for companies to lose the entrepreneurial spirit, and build internal constraints on entrepreneurship, as they evolve through the organizational life cycle. The purpose of this article is to propose a role for entrepreneurship within the mainstream operations of established industrial firms. Conceptual dimensions of the construct are assessed, and the forces driving the need for corporate entrepreneurship are identified. A framework is presented for classifying entrepreneurial barriers, and determining areas upon which to improve. A case study of mainstream entrepreneurship in a large telecommunications company is used to illustrate key components of the proposed approach. Entrepreneurship
as a Process
What is entrepreneurship? While the term has been around for ‘centuries, it remains an elusive concept that resists precise definition. The traditional perspective has been to view entrepreneurship as a trait of the individual who goes against the odds in translating a vision into a successful business enterprise. As a trait, studies suggest that entrepreneurs tend to be aggressive, independent, hard-working, dedicated, well-organized, nurturing of their vision, reward-oriented, takers of calculated risks, achievement-oriented, optimistic, and have a strong internal locus of control [2, 41. An alternative approach is to conceptualize entrepreneurship as the starting and operating of a new business [21]. The focus here is typically on the principles of small business start-up and management. Although both perspectives contain dimensions of entrepreneurship, neither is complete nor systematic. The personality trait perspective is not especially effective in identifying prospective entrepreneurs, or in establishing the factors that directly contribute to successful entre-
MICHAEL H. MORRIS is an Associate versity of Central Florida. J. DON TROTTER is a Marketing A.T.&T.
132
Professor at the Uni-
Programs
Manager
at
preneurship. The small business perspective fails to distinguish between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial efforts, or to establish the requisite conditions for a venture to be considered entrepreneurial. A more useful approach involves conceptualizing entrepreneurship as a process or activity within organizations, distinct from but dependent upon specific individuals, and applicable to organizations of all sizes and types [5, 14, 201. Approached in this manner, entrepreneurship refers to the organization’s willingness to encourage creativity and flexibility, and to support risk. The focus of these efforts is to create value by bringing together a unique bundle of productive resources. Entrepreneurship is, accordingly, a process of organizational vitalization and revitalization. Companies as large as DuPont, Exxon, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, and 3M have attempted to engender such a process to overcome the bureaucratic tendencies that come with bigness. The entrepreneurial organization seeks to reconceptualize the strategic parameters within which it and competitors currently operate. Examples of companies that have effected such change in their environments include IBM with computers (e.g., the need for other firms to be IBM-compatible), Citicorp with financial services, Gannett with newspapers (e.g., U.S.A. Today), and Turner Broadcasting with the Cable News Network (CNN). These are firms that initiated changes in technology, marketing, or organization, and managed to keep the lead in changes over competitors. Dimensions
of an Entrepreneurial
Orientation
As a process, entrepreneurship consists of three dimensions: innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness. The entrepreneurial firm is one that: “ . . . engages in product-market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with “proactive” innovations, beating competitors to the punch. A non-entrepreneurial firm is one that innovates very little, is highly risk averse, and imitates the moves of competitors instead of leading the way” [14]. Let us briefly examine each of these. Innovativeness refers to the seeking of creative, unusual, or novel solutions to problems and needs. This includes the development of new products and services, as well as new processes and technologies for performing
Entrepreneurship consists of three dimensions organizational functions (e.g., production, packaging, delivery, sales, promotion, administration). The innovativeness dimension is missing from the large number of small business start-ups that do little more then mimic existing establishments. Similarly, many so-called “new” products and services are imitative replications of proven market successes. The risk-taking dimension involves the willingness of management to commit significant resources to opportunities that have a reasonable chance of costly failure. These are not extreme, uncontrollable risks, but instead, are moderate and calculated. Entrepreneurship does not entail reckless decision-making, but rather, a reasonable awareness of the risks involved, and an attempt to manage these risks. Proactiveness is the opposite of reactiveness. The focus here is implementation, on making events happen through whatever means are necessary. Obstacles arise in virtually any attempt at innovativeness, and must be overcome. This frequently means breaking with established, or even accepted, ways of accomplishing a task. Bending or ignoring rules, and asking for forgiveness rather than permission are commonplace occurrences in successful entrepreneurship. Moreover, the proactiveness dimension implies a “hands-on” management style, where executives work with employees, customers, suppliers, and others to overcome obstacles.
Why Established Firms Need Entrepreneurship The importance of entrepreneurship in a corporate context is primarily environmentally determined. Where the external environments of corporations are characterized as increasingly dynamic, threatening, and/or complex, managers find themselves losing control over these environments. The appropriate strategies for addressing such environmental turbulence can be generally grouped into two categories: adaptive and entrepreneurial. The adaptive approach is to anticipate environmental change, and then quickly adjust to the changing condi-
tions, or buffer the firm to limit its vulnerability. Organizational survival is a function both of a firm’s speed in responding to change, and its ability to establish defensive barriers to moderate the impact of significant environmental developments. Although widely accepted, this is an overly passive and reactive point of view. The survival of firms as we move into the twenty-first century may well depend on their ability to manage the environment, and to serve as agents of change. Such firms will seek to continually rewrite the rules of the competitive game. Stevenson and Gumpert [20] have identified a set of conditions that encourage entrepreneurship in established organizations. They note that pressures for greater entrepreneurship are primarily external to the firm, while constraints on entrepreneurship typically can be found inside the firm. The need for entrepreneurship is greatest where firms face diminishing opportunity streams, as well as rapid changes in technology, consumer needs, social values, and political roles. In addition, where firms are confronted with short decision windows, unpredictable resource needs, a lack of long-term control over the environment, and limited constituencies to whom they must answer, entrepreneurship becomes vital. Also encouraging entrepreneurial management is the presence of increased resource specialization, quicker resource obsolescence, the need for flexible commitment to resources, and employee demands for independence. For many large, established firms, the pressures from each of these can be expected to magnify in the foreseeable future. In fact, much of the current interest in facilitating corporate entrepreneurship originates from companies facing these very pressures [ 10, 221. Furthermore, there is a small but growing volume of empirical research supporting the need for entrepreneurial management. Miller and Friesen [ 151, for instance, have demonstrated a significant positive relationship between the degrees of environmental dynamism, hostility, and heterogeneity present and the amount of proactive, risk133
taking, and innovative behavior in successful firms. They found no such relationship, however, in unsuccessful filTllS.
Effecting
Change:
Where to Focus Attention
Organizations tend to evolve through different stages as they grow and mature [ 1, 81. The requirements of size are such that developing firms go through a metamorphosis in moving from start-up venture to large diversified corporation. Stated differently, large companies are not simply scaled-up versions of small companies. While many small enterprises fail to demonstrate significant entrepreneurship, the constraints on entrepreneurship in such firms are comparatively limited. However, the changes instituted or experienced by larger companies to accommodate growth also tend to undermine the potential for ongoing entrepreneurship in these firms [ 12, 191. While the actual constraints on corporate entrepreneurship derive from a sizeable number of sources, these constraints can be generally classified into six groups. They include systems, structure, strategic direction, policies, people, and culture. This framework is proposed based on an extensive review of the limited literature on corporate entrepreneurship, surveys of a number of medium and large-sized industrial organizations, and indepth assessments of three Fortune 500 companies. Examples of the specific constraints found within each group are provided in Table 1. These items are not purported to be comprehensive, but instead indicate some of the more persuasive problem areas. Also, the groups are not mutually exclusive or independent. For instance, systems overlap with policies, while people problems may be highly correlated with cultural problems. Keeping this interdependence in mind, let us examine each of the categories. Systems Maturing organizations are typically dependent upon a number of formal managerial systems that have evolved
over the years. These systems seek to provide stability, order, and coordination to an increasingly complex internal corporate environment. The trade-off, however, is a strong disincentive for entrepreneurship. For example, employee reward and measurement systems often encourage safe, conservative behavior and actions that produce short-term payoffs. Other times, they are vague, inconsistent, or perceived as inequitable. Steven Kerr [ 111 explains that many managers are guilty of “the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. ” Control systems encourage managers to micro-manage the expenditure of every dollar, and to establish quantifiable performance benchmarks in as many activity areas as possible. These benchmarks become ends in themselves. They also convey a lack of trust in employee discretion. Budgeting systems provide no flexibility for the funding of bootleg projects or experimentation, and tend to reward the politically powerful. Costing systems are frequently based on arbitrary allocation schemes, where any product or project can be made to look untenable simply as a function of the indirect fixed costs that must be recovered. Planning, although critical for successful entrepreneurship, often serves as an obstacle. This occurs because of an over-emphasis on form instead of content, on superfluous analysis, on the document instead of the process, and on professional planners instead of those charged with implementing the plan. The result is an overly rigorous process that is incapable of quickly responding to new opportunities with short decision windows. Structure As a firm designs more hierarchical levels into the organizational structure, the ability to identify market opportunities, achieve management commitment, reallocate resources, take risks, or implement effective marketplace moves becomes problematic. Moreover, hierarchies tend to be accompanied by two other entrepreneurial barriers, top-down management and restrictive channels of communication. The result is frequently intransigence
Planning and documentation procedures often serve as obstacles 134
TABLE 1 Six Categories
-Misdirected
of Organizational
reward
and evaluation 4ppressive
control
systems, inflexible budgeting systems -Arbitrary
cost
allocation systems 4verly
rigid, formal
planning systems
-Too
Constraints
many hierarchical
levels
on Entrepreneurship
-Absence
of innovation
goals
4verly
narrow span of -No
control without
authority
-No -Lack
formal strategy for vision from the top of commitment
from senior executives
-Top-down management -Restricted
-No
complex
approval cycles
entrepreneurship
-Responsibility
-Long,
entrepreneurial role
models at the top
communication
-Extensive
-Fear
of failure
-Resistance -Parochial
bias
documentation
-“Turf”
requirements
Komplacency
aver-reliance
on
established rules of thumb
--Ill-defined
to change
-Lack -Values
orientation
-Inappropriate
values
of consensus
over priorities
protection
-Short-term
-Lack
skills/
of fit that conflict
with entrepreneurial requirements
talents
-Unrealistic performance criteria
channels -Lack -Bloated
of accountability staff functions
lack of commitment organization. There is also a tendency to narrow the span of control of managers and to over-departmentalize oversupervised employees with little room to be creative or improvise. Furthermore, as employees become more segmented and compartmentalized,
accountability for effective change efforts is sufficiently diffused such that no one has a positive stake in ensuring that change occurs. Structures that assign responsibility
More fundamental, however, is the lack of commitment from senior executives to the principle of institutionalized entrepreneurship. This requires leaders who are visionaries, seeing the firm and its people for what they can be, not what they have been. Instead, senior management is more typically cautious, suspicious, or completely unaware of efforts to break with tradition and capitalize on opportunity. Middle and lower level employees are strongly influenced by the role models found at the top of the organization. What they often find are politicians and technocrats, well-versed in the art of corporate survival.
Policies and Procedures
Strategic Direction While the desire may be to achieve entrepreneurship throughout the firm, little can be accomplished without meaningful direction from the top. Established firms frequently have sophisticated planning systems that produce comprehensive strategies for marketing, production, and corporate finance, but that ignore the subject of innovation altogether. In the absence of specific goals for product and process innovation, and a strategy for acwill be hapcomplishing such goals, entrepreneurship penstance.
Those involved in entrepreneurial endeavors are, by definition, addressing the unknown. Their efforts are often undermined by a set of organizational policies and procedures established to bring order and consistency to the everyday operational requirements of the firm. These requirements tend to be relatively well-known. Operating guidelines are established based on the rules of experience, with a premium placed on conservatism. The corporate entrepreneur comes to view these policies and procedures as burdensome red tape, and many find success to be unattainable unless rules are bent or broken. Two of the most costly side-effects of detailed operating policies and procedures are complex approval cycles for new ventures and elaborate documentation requirements. These obstacles not only consume an inordinate amount of the entrepreneur’s time and energy, but fre-
135
A pervading fear of failure is present in most big companies quently serve as well-designed mechanisms for incrementally dismantling an innovative concept. A related problem is the tendency for existing policies and procedures to impose unrealistic time tables and performance benchmarks on entrepreneurial programs. This creates an incentive to compromise on truly novel ideas. The entrepreneur finds it necessary to tailor innovations to performance criteria that do not reflect changing competitive conditions. People Entrepreneurship is concerned with change and the management of change efforts. There is, however, a natural tendency for people to resist change. Given the opportunity, employees become comfortable with established ways of doing things. They value predictability and stability, and are frequently skeptical of the need for change. Change is viewed as threatening, and is met with a defensive, parochial attitude. This is especially the case where employees have no role in the change program. There is, furthermore, a preoccupation among workers with the demands of the present, not the future. Correspondingly, it is unrealistic to expect them to adopt a long-term perspective, or to recognize the need for continual adaptation. The entrepreneurial spirit is further stifled by a pervading fear of failure that is prevalent in most companies. People come to believe it is better to avoid failure than to risk success. They apparently perceive there is more to lose than to gain. Not that failure must be congratulated; rather, it should be personally detested. But failure is a principle medium for learning; it should be embraced as such. Furthermore, a majority of new ventures (companies, products, services, processes) fail, suggesting the need for a realistic appraisal of the outcome of any entrepreneurial effort. People motivation is also a problem, especially for those driven by a need for power and status. Such individuals approach questions of innovation from the standpoint of “turf protection.” They harbor resources, 136
especially information. They resist open communication, and are suspicious of collaborative efforts, One additional people-related issue concerns a general lack of skills and talents in the entrepreneurial area. While there is ample creative potential in every employee of the firm, many have never learned to develop or channel their creative energies. Some convince themselves that they are incapable of creative thinking. Others refuse to look beyond their current field of reference for ideas and solutions. Still others, on finding a creative solution, lack the skills necessary to bend the rules, build the coalitions, and work through or around the system to achieve successful implementation. Such problems are compounded by the apparent inability of many of those in supervisory positions to motivate and manage creative individuals. Culture Companies noted as successful innovators tend to foster a strong organizational culture. This culture is built around a central set of values that pervade every aspect of company operations. Employees are indoctrinated to internalize these values, and those who do not, rarely last. These values are the lifeblood of the firm, creating the standards and providing the direction for growth and development. Where companies fail to clearly detine what they stand for, or do not achieve a consensus over value priorities (e.g., customer needs, quality, efficiency, service, reliability), entrepreneurship will have no focus. Even where priorities exist, values can be inconsistent with current competitive requirements. For instance, the company that stresses reliability or efficiency may hnd the marketplace placing a much higher premium on flexibility or value for the dollar. entrepreneurship must itself become Furthermore, part of the organizational value system. This means a company-wide commitment to innovation, calculated risk-taking, and proactiveness. Such a commitment becomes impossible when the pervading emphasis is on
imitation of competitors, aggrandizement.
conservatism,
and
self-
GETTING THERE THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION: A CASE STUDY The magnitude of these constraints has led some companies to conclude that entrepreneurship can only be achieved by creating new, autonomous units distinct from the mainstream operations of the firm. Such “venture groups” have been used with mixed results by Allied Corporation, Exxon, Control Data, Owens-Illinois, and IBM [7,9]. Efficacy aside, this approach is a tacit concession that entrepreneurship is not a viable aspect of everyday operations, and so an alternative start-up organization must be created. In fact, the need to rely on relatively autonomous structures, such as special product teams or groups, new venture departments or divisions, or independent business units, is dependent upon the degree of innovativeness and relatedness to current operations of new business opportunities. Many innovation programs do not involve new technologies or the development of completely new-to-the-world products or processes. In these circumstances, which represent the majority of the cost-reducing, productivity-enhancing, and revenue-producing opportunities open to firms, entrepreneurship within the corporate mainstream may be a workable alternative. The key to success is to recognize that there is no model approach to systems, structure, culture, or any of the other entrepreneurial constraints. In fact, few guidelines exist regarding the ways in which large firms can begin to move their operations in the entrepreneurial direction. The companies achieving some success would appear to be using a trial-and-error approach in establishing new value systems, reward and measurement programs, budgeting processes, control mechanisms, and methods for decision-making. They combine tangible as well as symbolic support from the top for the principles
of innovation, risk-taking, and proactiveness with an emphasis on controlled experimentation. In effect, pockets of entrepreneurship are created to determine what works and why. Successful methods are incrementally improved, and subsequently modified to fit other lines of business. Thus, a reward system that motivates entrepreneurial behavior in one part of the firm may look entirely different by the time it is adapted to the opportunities of another area. Local initiatives are strongly encouraged, and an infrastructure that addresses each of the constraint areas is designed to facilitate such initiatives. An excellent example of how the entrepreneurial barriers are overcome within a large corporation can be found in AT&T’s Network Systems Equipment Engineering Organization. AT&T Network Systems is the global leader responsible for manufacturing, installing, servicing, and marketing central office equipment used by telephone companies domestically and internationally. The Equipment Engineering Organization provides a variety of engineering services to the telecommunications industry. Noting that industry deregulation and changing technology are slowing the growth in demand for such services, management of the division sought to translate a stable, conservative operation into an entrepreneurial venture. A New Opportunities Program was created in late 1986 to encourage employees to identify ideas and opportunities for new services, new applications of existing services, and new markets not traditionally served by the organization. An Opportunity Review Board (ORB) was developed and given the authority to make decisions and take appropriate actions in evaluating and implementing new service opportunities. Once a new idea has been proposed, it is highly likely that the employee behind the idea will become a National Champion, responsible for full-scale implementation. The Review Board provides the environment for its employees to be entrepreneurs and come up with new service opportunities. Many of the suggestions have been simple, but highly profitable, applications of existing services, such as offering grounding
An Opportunity Review Board was created and given authority 137
services to cable television companies. The Board proactively encourages risk taking and creativity, and rewards success. Employees are told they are expected to become champions. Seminars have been given on entrepreneurship, marketing, and related topics to large groups of prospective champions. Pep sessions are common, and achievements are publicized. The ORB is made up of three representatives from the Engineering Planning and Development Organization who perform the roles of Chairman, Secretary, and a person who evaluates mechanized service opportunities. In addition, there are four members from each of the Network Systems Engineering Operations locations that evaluate local ideas and assist potential National Champions in implementing their ideas. Finally, an experienced new venture start up person and a representative from the Financial Organization and Marketing and Sales Support are involved. After approval to proceed is given from the person’s supervisor and local ORB member, the employee must develop a prototype of the service and conduct a field test in the local market. If successful, the idea is given to the full ORB to explore national potential. When the proposal reaches this stage, the Champion is required to produce a brief two- to three-page business case. This document describes the service, customer needs and benefits, a mission statement, competitive advantage and added value, financial objectives, and milestones to be met in order to nurture the new service. The key here is to minimize bureaucracy. Once an idea is sanctioned, the National Champion has the freedom to work independently on his or her project. The Board monitors the progress on milestones and financial results in reviewing mini-business cases to ensure the new opportunity is meeting its objectives. The program goal is to generate about 20% of current-year sales from entirely new service opportunities and to have half of the organization’s business in nontraditional areas by the early 1990s. Successful champions receive monetary rewards beyond their regular salary (from a special pool of money
Twenty-five
138
set aside) and special recognition as well as being invited to attend an annual champion banquet with upper management. The champions who are not successful return to their former positions. Appreciation is expressed for their efforts and they are encouraged to try again. In either case, periodic follow-up interviews are conducted to identify problems and aspects of the experience which were undesirable. The board proactively works to remove roadblocks. Twenty-five employees have become National Champions since the program began. Many of these have come from the ranks of lower (first level) management. The new services evolving from this program range in size from the 20-person Digital Records Systems Venture to one-person businesses. The primary item that the new ventures have in common is that each began with an idea that could be converted into dollars and cents on AT&T’s bottom line. Some services have come full circle, and been absorbed into mainstream operations. Those who conceived the Opportunity Review Board started with an agreed-upon set of values, which centered on customer, quality, and innovation. These values are continuously given high visibility, such as with a logo that is prominent on internal documents and at meetings. The experiment has achieved a degree of permanence. However, improvements are continually made based on experience and suggestions from participants. Importantly, this entrepreneurial effort not only thrives in the mainstream, but was initiated at an operational level, instead of being directed from the top.
CONCLUSIONS Implementing an entrepreneurial strategy in a large corporation is a lengthy and demanding process. In the absence of systematic, normative models for accomplishing entrepreneurship, implementation tends to be experimental. Experimentation at the local level allows for the development of novel solutions for addressing the entre-
employees became National Champions
preneurial barriers that fit the requirements of a particular company. Senior management must take the lead in setting innovation goals, opening communication, accepting failure, empowering middle management, and creating an environment in which the burden of proof for killing an idea rests with the antagonist. Middle managers must be the catalysts in directly attacking the entrepreneurial barriers, with new structures and systems, lessened bureaucracy, and training and incentive programs. They also can fill the role of champion when necessary. Front-line management must become the bona fide entrepreneurs of the corporation. They represent the dreamers and doers with the energy, hands-on involvement, open perspective, and potential motivation for uncovering the ways and means of the future. Accomplishing such a work environment will be critical for the survival of major corporations in the years ahead. The social indicators suggest environmental dynamism will only become marked in the foreseeable future. External turbulence will give rise to internal turbulence. The extent to which this internal adjustment is achieved through a kind of controlled chaos built around innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness will define tomorrow’s successful enterprises.
4. Burch, J. G., Profiling the Entrepreneur, October), 13-16 (1986).
and Strategic Manage5. Burgelman, R. A., Corporate Entrepreneurship ment: Insights from a Process Study, Management Science (December), 1349-1364 (1983). 6. Burgelman, R. A., Designs for Corporate Entrepreneurship in Established Firms, California Management Review, 26 (3). 154-66 (1985). 7. Fast, N. D., The Future of Industrial New Venture Departments, trial Marketing Management 8, 264-273 (1979). 8. Griener, L. E., Evolution and Revolution as Organizations vard Business Review (July-August), 37-46 (1972).
Indus-
Grow, Har-
9. Hlavacek, J. D., Towards More Successful Venture Management, nal of Marketing38 (October), 55-60 (1974). 10. Kao, J.. Entrepreneurship. Creativity and Organization, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989. II.
Jour-
Prentice-Hall,
Kerr, S., On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B, Academic of Management Journal 18 (December), 769-783 (1975).
12. Knight, R., Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Canadian Study, Journal ofProduct Innovation Management 4, 284-297 (1987). 13. Maidique, M. A., Entrepreneurs, Champions, and Technological vation, Sloan Managemenf Review 21 (2), 59-76 (1980).
Inno-
14. Miller, D., The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms, Managemenr Science 29 (July), 770-791 (1983). 15. Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen, Strategy-Making and Environment: Third Link, Strategic Management Journal 4, 221-235 (1983). 16. Murray, J. A., Marketing Is Home for Entrepreneurial Marketing Management 10,93-99 (1981).
The
Process, Industrial
17. Peters, T., Thriving On Chaos. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1988. 18. Pinchot, G., fntrapreneuring.
Harper and Row, New York, 1985.
Obstacles to Innovation: A Formulation of 19. Stefflre, V., Organizational the Problem, Journal of Product Innovation Management 2,3-l 1 (1985).
REFERENCES Adizes, I., Organizational Passages-Diagnosing and Treating Lifecycle Problems of Organizations, Organizationa/ Dynamics (Summer), 2-25 (1978). Bird, B. J., Enrrepreneurial Glenview, IL, (1989).
Business Horizons, (September-
Behavior.
Brandt, S. C., Entrepreneuring Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1986.
Scott, Foresman,
in Established
and Company,
Companies.
Dow-Jones-
20. Stevenson, H. H., and Gumpert, D. E., The Heart of Entrepreneurship, Harvard Business Review (March-April), 85-93 (1985). 21. Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M., and Grousbeck, H. I., New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur. Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1989. 22. Zeithaml, C. D., and Zeithaml, V. A., Environmental vising the Marketing Perspective, Journal ofMarker@ 53 (1984).
Management: Re48 (Spring), 46-
139
