Description
A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand.
Corporate Entrepreneurship and Organisational
Performance in the Information and
Communications Technology Industry
Thokozani Nkosi
A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and
Management, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Management in Entrepreneurship
and New Venture Creation
Johannesburg, 2011
(July 2011)
ABSTRACT
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognised as a potentially viable
means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness (Covin & Miles 1999).
Turbulence and rapidly changing knowledge - especially in the Information and
Communications Technology sector (ICT) - has forced companies to become more
entrepreneurial in order to capitalise on new business opportunities and to create value.
The research study was quantitative and data was collected through an online survey,
which used closed-ended questionnaires. The questionnaires entail assessing the degree
of CE in an organisation in relation to its performance. The analysis had 114 samples of
companies in the ICT sector.
The study indicated that there is a strong positive association between level of CE and
company performance. Companies that sustain their businesses and are able to prosper
are likely to have a high level of CE.
The most important contribution of this study is the testing of CE theories in the South
African context. The ICT managers can contribute to entrenching CE by being the
champions in creating the environment that stimulates entrepreneurial behaviour.
DECLARATION
I, Thokozani Nkosi, declare that this research report is my own work, except as
indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management in
Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation in the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree
or examination in this, or any other, university.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thokozani Nkosi
Signed at Wits Business School, JHB
On the …………………………….. day of ………………………… 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish gratefully to acknowledge valuable contributions and input from the
following people and institutions. Without their assistance this study would not
have been possible:
? Supervisor Dr Jose Barreira for his intellectual perspective and input on
the subject matter;
? Lecturers from the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management at Wits
Business School (WBS) for their willingness to assist and give sound
advice;
? My classmates for their support and encouragement;
? My wife and children for their assistance, patience, sacrifice and loyal
support;
? My mother and brothers for their endless support and encouragement;
? My late father for his strong belief in, and emphasis on, education and
self empowerment;
? Respondents for sacrifices made and expert advice;
? Bmicompanydata and ITWEB for their database used to make this
possible.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................... 2
DECLARATION ............................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 8
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 8
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................ 9
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 10
1.4 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY................................................................... 11
1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................. 12
1.6 ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 13
2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................. 14
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 14
2.2 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITION ........................................... 15
2.3 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP............................................................. 17
2.4 DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ..................................... 20
2.4.1 RISK TAKING ........................................................................................................ 21
2.4.2 INNOVATION ......................................................................................................... 23
2.4.3 PRO-ACTIVENESS ................................................................................................. 25
2.4.4 ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE ................................................................................ 27
2.5 WHY ORGANISATIONS NEED CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ................... 29
2.6 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP BARRIERS AND TRIGGERS ...................... 33
2.7 ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................. 37
2.8 CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................. 41
3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/PARADIGM ...................................................... 42
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................. 42
3.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLE......................................................................... 43
3.3.1 POPULATION ........................................................................................................ 43
3.3.2 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING METHOD ........................................................................... 43
3.4 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT .................................................................... 44
3.5 PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION .......................................................... 46
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ....................................................... 46
3.6.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ......................................................................... 47
3.6.2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) ............................................................ 48
3.6.3 MULTIVARIATE ANOVA ............................................................................ 49
3.6.4 DEGREE OF ASYMMETRY (SKEWNESS) ...................................................... 50
3.6.5 CHI-SQUARE TEST ................................................................................... 51
3.6.6 SCHEFFE TEST ......................................................................................... 51
3.6.7 PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 52
3.6.8 BOX & WHISKER PLOT ............................................................................. 53
3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 53
3.8 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ........................................................................ 54
3.9 VALIDITY ................................................................................................. 55
3.10 RELIABILITY ............................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ........................... 56
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 56
4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF COMPANIES ..................................................... 58
4.2.1 COMPANY SIZE ........................................................................................ 58
4.2.2 COMPANY AGE ........................................................................................ 59
4.3 THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USED IN THE RESEARCH: METRIC SCALES ....... 59
4.4 THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES USED IN THE RESEARCH: NON-METRIC SCALES .. 60
4.5 RESULTS PERTAINING TO THE MULTIVARIATE HYPOTHESIS ........................... 66
4.6 RESULTS PERTAINING TO THE UNIVARIATE HYPOTHESES .............................. 67
4.7 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ...................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS ......................... 73
5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 73
5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF COMPANIES ..................................................... 73
5.4 MULTIVARIATE TEST ................................................................................. 76
5.5 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1A ........................................... 76
5.6 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1B ........................................... 79
5.7 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1C .......................................... 82
5.8 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1D .......................................... 84
5.9 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 88
6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 88
6.2 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 88
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 89
6.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................... 90
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 91
APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 97
APPENDIX B ............................................................................... 105
APPENDIX C ............................................................................... 106
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this research study is to find the link between Corporate
Entrepreneurship (CE) and organisational performance in Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) companies operating in South Africa.
Organisations in the ICT industry require sustainable business performance and
this may be achievable through innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness and
entrepreneurially orientated behaviour (Miller 1983; Covin and Miles 1995;
Moreno and Casillas 2008; Wiklund 2009; Wakkee, Elfring, & Monaghan 2010).
The research investigates the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship
(innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, and entrepreneurial culture) and
company performance. The company performance is evaluated based on
financial and non-financial measures.
Finally, the results give a solid conclusion on how these two constructs
(corporate entrepreneurship and company performance) relate to each other.
The recommendations to senior executives, directors and management are
depicted and they are aimed at giving direction and guidelines on which parts of
corporate activities ICT companies need to focus on in order to become more
entrepreneurially orientated. Entrepreneurial behaviours and attitudes are key
determinants of the ability of large companies to survive and prosper in
turbulent environments (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).
1.2 Problem statement
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognised as a potentially
viable means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness (Covin &
Miles 1999). As ICT in South Africa is facing rapid technological changes,
corporates need a strategy for competitive advantage and sustainability.
Entrepreneurial behaviour by management and employees could lead to
competitive advantage and sustainability (Zahra and Miles 1995; Landstrom,
Crijns, Lavern, and Smallbone 2008).
However, the link between corporate entrepreneurship and organisational
performance in the ICT environment is unclear from previous research. Thus, if
entrepreneurship is to be used by ICT companies as a strategy for survival, it is
critical that this link be empirically investigated in the context of this industry.
Very little in-depth research regarding Corporate Entrepreneurship has been
undertaken in the ICT context. Few studies have empirically researched this
relationship in the South African context, especially in the ICT sector.
1.3 Significance of the study
The study fills a gap as there have been very few studies of the relationship
between corporate Entrepreneurship and organisation performance in
Information and Communications Technology in the South African context.
The study will provide guidance to ICT companies operating in South Africa on
which factors to focus on in order to entrench entrepreneurial behaviour within
the organisation. The study results could be used by management to instil
entrepreneurship in the corporate environment. Organisations could also use
this empirical research study to promote an entrepreneurial culture to
employees. This could impact organisational performance and business
sustainability.
The Information and Communications Technology industry will be able to
benchmark their degree of entrepreneurship against other market players
through the results analysis of this research. Company managers could utilise
this study to encourage their staff to be involved in calculated risk-taking by
encouraging bold actions and trying out new ideas. In this way, managers will
act as shock absorbers when subordinates’ new ideas fail.
The study will add value to the South African Information and Communications
Technology industry’s operation and future growth by outlining the basic key
requirements for companies to practise corporate entrepreneurship and improve
their performance.
1.4 Delimitations of the study
The study focuses on the relationship between Corporate Entrepreneurship and
company performance in the South African Information and Communications
Technology industry (ICT). The company size, ranging from small to large as
defined by DTI, is used and the focus is on ICT companies operating in South
Africa.
The research study targets respondents at management level (such as
directors, executives and senior managers) because they have information on
the organisational performance trends, corporate entrepreneurship dimensions
and performance measures. The study only requires one response per
company.
The online survey intends to capture responses all over South Africa and this
has been made easier by sending emails using the Surveymonkey website. The
study uses both listed and non-listed companies. The sampling frame only
includes ICT companies on the ITWEB site and bmicompanydata database.
The research methodology used is:
Quantitative;
Cross-sectional study;
Using Descriptive data and Multivariate inferential stats;
Using Convenience sample – because of easy access to the ICT data.
1.5 Definition of terms
Certain terms will be used repeatedly in the study and thus need to be defined.
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE): is the entrepreneurial behaviour inside
established mid-sized and large organisations (Morris, Kuratko and Covin
2008). Zahra and Garvis (2000) define Corporate Entrepreneurship as the sum
of a company’s efforts aimed at innovation, pro-activeness and risk taking.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have noted that CE can be used to enhance
company performance by promoting product and process innovation. At any
rate, corporate entrepreneurship allows an incumbent company to make full use
of its resources to capture new opportunities (Yiu and Lau 2008).
Intrapreneurship: is a concept used to explain entrepreneurial activities in
existing organisations (Agca, Topal, and Kaya 2009). They emphasise that,
tthrough intrapreneurship, companies also maintain and increase their
sustainable competitive capabilities, which are fostered by different areas of
organisational performance.
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO): Covin, Green and Slevin (2006) described
entrepreneurial orientation as the presence of a firm’s strategy - oriented
towards innovation and growth through their capacity to assume relevant risks.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define EO as the process, practices and decision-
making activities that lead to new entry, innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness
and entrepreneurial behaviour. EO leads to autonomy and competitive
aggressiveness.
Terms such as Corporate Entrepreneurship or Intrapreneurship and firm-level
entrepreneurial orientation have been used for describing the entrepreneurial
activities of an organisation (Agca, Topal, and Kaya 2009).
Although these terms are being used interchangeably, this study is using the
definition of CE based on the Zahra and Garvis explanation.
1.6 Assumptions
The study assumes that respondents have an understanding of the construct
Corporate Entrepreneurship. It assumes respondents have a meaningful
understanding of the words entrepreneurial culture. The knowledge around
entrepreneurial behaviour by the organisation is assumed to be understood by
executives, directors and senior management.
The study also assumes that the potential respondents understand the
company performance trends and performance measures such as Return On
Assets, Return On Investments, Sales Growth, Market Value Growth, Return
On Equity, Return On Sales and Operating Profit.
2 Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Introduction
In this study, the literature review outlines the structure and contents of the
previous research studies around Corporate Entrepreneurship. This chapter
gives a definition of corporate entrepreneurship based on the previous
researchers. The characteristics and elements of CE will be explained broadly.
The corporate entrepreneurship triggers and inhibitors are discussed as they
can either enable, or discourage, CE in an organisation.
The existing literature on entrepreneurship has implicitly stated that Corporate
Entrepreneurship and company performance are positively related to each other
(Moreno and Casillas 2008). Currently, there has not been a consensus on the
direct definition of corporate entrepreneurship. Different definitions of CE are
extracted from the previous research documents. As the field of study grows,
relevant topics consulted in this subject often fall under the following headings:
Entrepreneurial orientation, Strategic entrepreneurship, corporate business
venturing, Conceptualising CE, Contextualising CE, Entrepreneurial
environments and sustaining entrepreneurship. In this study, corporate
entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are being used interchangeably.
In South Africa there has not been much research done to test empirically the
relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and company performance in
the Information and Communication Industry (ICT). The research uses the ICT
industry to collect data information. In this section, the literature review is
divided into sub-headings:
Corporate entrepreneurship definition;
Corporate entrepreneurship;
Dimensions of Corporate Entrepreneurship;
Why organisations need CE;
Corporate Entrepreneurship barriers and triggers;
Organisational Performance.
The key definition of Corporate Entrepreneurship includes innovation, venture
creation, business venturing, risk taking, pro-activeness, opportunity recognition
and market development (Miller, 1983; Morris et al 2008; Wang 2008).
2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurship Definition
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognised as a potentially
viable means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness (Covin
and Miles, 1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship is a term used to describe
entrepreneurial behaviour inside established mid-sized and large organisations
(Morris et al 2008). CE refers to a scenario where the entire company, rather
than individuals, acts entrepreneurially (Covin and Miles, 1999).
Zahra and Garvis (2000) define Corporate Entrepreneurship as the sum of a
company’s efforts aimed at innovation, pro-activeness and risk taking. These
efforts offer an important means of revitalising and renewing established
companies and improving their performance.
Agca et al (2009) classified intrapreneurship as two approaches:
entrepreneurial orientation and corporate entrepreneurship. In the literature,
researchers and academics have used different terms to define entrepreneurial
efforts in organisations and the differences in terminology in defining
entrepreneurial activities still continue (Agca et al 2009).
Agca et al (2009); Dess et al (1999) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define CE
as a process in which individuals in an existing organisation seek for the
opportunities by, developing and venturing into new businesses.
Vozikis, Bruton, Prasad and Merikas (1999) defined corporate entrepreneurship
as additional value creation. This additional value creation occurs within the
established organisation. The value can be realised through adding new
products and services. Moreover, this could be achieved by improving the
current products and optimisation of processes.
Ireland et al (2009), state that Entrepreneurial Orientation is an organisational
state or quality that is defined in terms of several behavioural dimensions.
These dimensions are found on most levels of the structure of an organisation.
Management should be in a state to drive and align the organisational
behaviour to their strategic objectives. Miller (1983); Covin and Slevin (1991)
define Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) as the presence of organisational
behaviour reflecting risk-taking, pro-activeness, and innovativeness. The
intensity of EO in an organisation can be associated to the overall company
performance over a certain period of time. The increase in performance does
not often happen overnight, but rather over a long period.
2.3 Corporate Entrepreneurship
Corporate entrepreneurship has been studied by different authors before
(Sebora, and Theerapatvong 2009; Ireland et al 2009; Zahra and Covin, 1995;
Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Venter et al 2008). Most of these studies were
attempting empirically to test the influence of corporate entrepreneurship on
company performance and sustainability. Sebora and Theerapatvong (2009)
have suggested that large companies tend to experience difficulties in
employing corporate entrepreneurship in their management and employees;
and this is often caused by a bureaucratic environment.
According to Sebora and Theerapatvong (2009), companies need continuous
innovation, risk taking, and pro-activeness in order to stay competitive. The
presence of Corporate Entrepreneurship among company managers leads to
positive outcomes (Ireland et al 2009). Top managers need to have an
entrepreneurial strategy and be able to cascade this through different levels
within the company.
Corporate Entrepreneurship may be viewed broadly as consisting of two types
of phenomena and processes: firstly, the birth of new business within existing
organisations - whether through internal innovation or joint ventures/alliances;
and, secondly, the transformation of organisations through strategic renewal, for
example the creation of new wealth through a combination of resources (Dess,
et al 1999).
Wiklund (1999) has studied the impact of corporate entrepreneurship on
company performance and the findings showed a positive relationship. In
Wiklund (1999), the survey results showed a strong relationship over time,
which meant that the corporate entrepreneurship is effective within the
organisation over a certain period. Zahra and Garvis (2000) found that
corporate entrepreneurship is positively associated with company performance.
In the study by Zahra and Garvis (2000), it was found that one corporate
entrepreneurship dimension - innovation - had a more positive relationship with
company performance, especially in a company that is international. The
company that innovates a lot tends to be more entrepreneurially- oriented than
the one that does it seldom (Zahra and Garvis 2000). These companies have a
culture that allows individuals within the organisation to act autonomously and
to be able to suggest new ideas that can lead to efficiency of operations.
Through intrapreneurship, companies also maintain and increase their
sustainable competitive capabilities, which are fostered by different areas of
organisational performance (Agca et al 2009). Ireland et al (2009) believe that a
corporate entrepreneurship strategy is manifested through the presence of
three elements, which are: entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-
entrepreneurship organisational architecture and entrepreneurial processes and
behaviour.
Corporate entrepreneurship is an important predictor of company growth
(Venter et al 2008). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also found that EO is a key
element for organisational success and improved performance. Many
organisations attribute their success to an Entrepreneurial Orientation (Lumpkin
et al 2009). They stated that organisations that rely on an EO to create new
value and growth must make an effort to foster entrepreneurial behaviour. The
entrepreneurial behaviour allows teams to operate outside an organisation’s
existing norms.
Entrepreneurial orientation, company rejuvenation and strategic renewal form
part of corporate entrepreneurship (Miles et al 2009). Corporate
entrepreneurship can be used to improve competitive advantage and to
reposition the company in the market (Lumpkin & Dess 1996; Ireland et al
2009).
Ireland et al (2009) stated that Entrepreneurial Orientation is an organisational
state or quality that is defined in terms of several behavioural dimensions. Miller
(1983), Covin and Slevin (1991) defined Entrepreneurial Orientation as the
presence of organisational behaviour reflecting risk taking, pro-activeness and
innovativeness. The company that embraces corporate entrepreneurship is said
to be entrepreneurially- orientated. An EO keeps companies alert by exposing
them to new technologies, making them aware of marketplace trends and
helping them to evaluate new possibilities (Lumpkin et al 2009).
Top-level managers articulating an entrepreneurial strategic vision seek to
direct attitude and outlook of employees more than specific behaviour (Ireland
et al 2009). An entrepreneurial strategic vision is the mechanism by which top-
level management paints the picture of the type of organisation they hope to
lead in the future (Ireland et al 2009). Entrepreneurial strategic vision is a logical
response to the presence of three often-related environmental conditions, which
are: competitive intensity, technological change and evolving product-market
domains (Ireland et al 2009).
In an environment of rapid change and shortened product and business
lifecycle, the future profit streams from existing operations are uncertain and
businesses need constantly to seek out new opportunities (Rauch et al 2009;
Wang 2008). Therefore, businesses need to adopt and entrench Corporate
Entrepreneurship.
2.4 Dimensions of Corporate Entrepreneurship
The Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions include activities such as
innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, new product development, new business
venturing, autonomy, competitive aggressiveness, self-renewal and strategic
renewal (Miller 1983; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Wiklund 1999; Covin and Miles
1999; Zahra and Garvis 2000; Ireland et al 2009; Agca et al 2009).
Miller (1983) suggested that a company’s degree of entrepreneurship could be
seen by the extent to which they innovate, take risks and act proactively. The
company that is entrepreneurially-orientated is seen to be practising corporate
entrepreneurship, which includes the aforementioned characteristics (Miller
1983). Self-renewal or strategic renewal is widely defined as the periodic
transformation of organisations through the renewal of key ideas and resources
on which organisations are built (Zahra and Covin 2005). Self-renewal activities
include redefinition of a company’s vision, mission, business concept;
reorganisation of activities and the introduction of system-wide changes for
innovation (Agca et al 2009). The articulation of the vision and strategic
direction by management at all levels in the organisation are crucial, especially
when the company implements some changes to their way of doing business.
Venturing activities emphasise the creation of new businesses by entering new
foreign markets and expanding in existing ones (Zahra and Garvis 2000).
According to Zahra and Garvis (2000) venturing can increase a company’s
knowledge base, which increases the innovativeness of a company’s products
and strategy. This study only focuses on four dimensions of corporate
entrepreneurship, which are: innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, and
entrepreneurial culture.
According to Covin and Miles (1999), innovation is at the centre of a network
that encompasses the constructs of corporate entrepreneurship. Therefore the
label entrepreneurial should be applied to companies that are innovative.
Having said that, they also believe that some element must exist in conjunction
with innovation in order for a company to claim an entrepreneurial orientation;
and such elements are sustainable high performance, or improving competitive
position. Lumpkin et al (2009) have studied autonomy as the key characteristic
of Entrepreneurial Orientation and they concluded that this element can help the
organisation to foster corporate entrepreneurship. These authors have
considered autonomy as a driver that encourages innovation, promotes the
launching of entrepreneurial ventures and increases the competitiveness and
effectiveness of the company.
2.4.1 Risk taking
Risk taking involves taking bold actions by venturing into the unknown,
borrowing heavily and/or committing significant resources to ventures in
uncertain environments (Wang 2008; Lumpkin et al 2009; Rauch et al 2009).
Zahra and Garvis (2000) define risk taking as a company’s disposition to
support innovative projects, even when the payoff from these activities is
uncertain. Subsequently these activities can enhance the company’s ability to
recognise and exploit market opportunities ahead of its competitors.
Autonomy within the entrepreneurial organisation allows individuals to act freely
and be able to explore new ideas (Lumpkin et al 2009) that can create
competitive advantage. This type of behaviour by individuals within the firm
brings about the possibility of acting on potential ideas for the future growth of
the firm. The behaviour of managers by insisting on following the tried-and-
tested paths or tending to support only projects with expected returns that are
certain, have a negative relation to performance as compared to taking bold
actions by entering the unknown business environment (Lumpkin and Dess
1996). Thus, the support by senior management within the organisation allows
for individuals to take calculated risks.
Entrepreneurial firms are risk-tolerant and this characteristic often stimulates
them to eliminate the kind of traditional authoritarian structures that inhibit
collaborative learning (Wang 2008). These firms allow individuals and teams to
act independently and exercise their creativity by taking risks in coming up with
new ideas (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). According to Miller (1983) and Wang
(2008) risk-tolerant and innovative firms’ managers encourage new ways of
thinking - tolerating mistakes and rewarding individuals with new ideas that
contribute to innovation and business improvement. The culture of allowing
individuals to making mistakes when trying new ways of improving business
performance promotes a sense of open-mindedness (Moreno and Casillas
2008).
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1a: Risk taking is positively related to company performance
2.4.2 Innovation
Innovativeness reflects a firm's tendency to engage in, and support, new ideas,
uniqueness, experimentation and creative processes that may result in new
products, services, or technological processes (Clark 2010; Lumpkin and Dess
1996). Innovative firms have capabilities to monitor the market changes and
respond quickly, thus capitalising on emerging opportunities (Wiklund, 1999).
According to Huse et al (2005), firms operating in turbulent environments are
often characterised by rapid and frequent new product creation and high levels
of research and development. Such environments appear to play a crucial role
in influencing corporate entrepreneurship in an organisation. Environmental
changes stimulate firms to innovate by introducing new technologies, new
products, service and processes to take advantage of opportunities arising from
the dynamic environment (Huse et al 2005). Environmental change can cause
the firm to search for new means to remain competitive, which foster process
innovation activities. Innovation keeps firms ahead of their competitors, thereby
gaining a competitive advantage that leads to improved financial results
(Wiklund, 1999).
Zahra and Garvis (2000) define innovation as the firm’s ability to create new
products and successfully introduce them to the market. Innovation also revises
the firm’s knowledge base, allowing it to develop new competitive approaches,
which can be exploited in new foreign markets to achieve growth and
profitability (Zahra and Garvis, 2000). Clark (2010) found that companies that
are clearly innovators based their focus on new innovations, the number of new
innovations and levels of investment in new innovations.
Venter et al (2008) state that: “At the centre of entrepreneurship is
innovativeness”. An organisation that innovates is classified as being
entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurial activities influence a company’s commitment to
innovation (Miller 1983; Lumpkin and Dess 1996) by offering innovative
products and processes. According to Huse et al (2005), innovation has
become a source of international competitive advantage.
Zahra and Garvis (2000) stated that innovation can also lead to the
development of key capabilities that can improve a firm’s performance. They
also put emphasis on the fact that innovation generates products, goods,
processes, services and systems that can be used to meet customer needs and
build a strong market position. Thus innovation can improve the firm’s
profitability and fuel its growth. Better profitability and sustainability are also
realised from continuous innovation by the entrepreneurial organisation. Huse
et al (2005) stated that innovation can be distinguished in three ways: the
development of new products and services, the adoption of new technologies
with an intention to improve production methods, the establishment of novel
organisational structures and administrative systems.
Innovation involves reinventing products in a profitable manner (Venter et al
2008). The level of entrepreneurial behaviour by the organisation allows the
company constantly to evaluate the potential possible business opportunities
that will bring growth and sustainable business (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).
Innovation can be forced by industrial factors (fast technology changes in the
industry, customer demands), environmental dynamism (new processes,
technology) and international activities such as international diversification
(Huse et al 2005). According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), a level of
expenditure and a number of resources dedicated to research and development
represent a firm’s involvement in innovation activities. Innovation stimulates
firms to behave entrepreneurially. According to Venter et al (2008, most
technological firms use innovation to achieve objectives such as:
Maximum profits;
Gaining market share;
Creating niche markets;
Adding value for stakeholders.
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1b: Innovation is positively related to company performance
2.4.3 Pro-activeness
Pro-activeness shows a firm’s aggressive pursuit of market opportunities and a
strong emphasis on wanting to be among the very first to implement innovation
in its industry (Rauch et al 2009). Pro-activeness is an opportunity-seeking,
forward-looking perspective characterised by the introduction of new products
and services ahead of the competitors and acting in anticipation of future
demand (Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Rauch et al 2009). Miller (1983) defines pro-
activeness as an indication of a company’s determination to pursue promising
opportunities, rather than merely responding to competitors’ moves. According
to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), pro-activeness refers to how a firm relates to
market opportunities in the process of new entry. They added that pro-
activeness involves pursuing opportunities and the will to respond aggressively
to competitors.
Wiklund (1999) stated that pro-activeness gives firms the ability to present new
products or services to the market ahead of competitors, which also gives them
a competitive advantage. Pro-active firms have a greater tendency to lead than
to follow in the development of new procedures and technologies and the
introduction of new products and services (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). An
entrepreneurial firm instils flexibility and grants individuals and teams the
freedom to exercise their creativity to champion new ideas (Wang 2008). These
activities by the firm’s team enable the firm to be more pro-active in introducing
new products. Pro-activeness suggests an emphasis on initiating activities. It is
closely related to innovativeness. For example, new product innovation is part
of innovativeness but also forms part of pro-activeness by the firm (Lumpkin
and Dess 1996).
According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), the importance of being a first-mover or
pioneer has been frequently emphasised in the entrepreneurial process since
Schumpeter. Proactive firms are likely to be first-movers when they face threats
and/or opportunities in their environment (Agca et al 2009). In the business
world, proactive firms tend to be leaders, rather than followers of other
corporations (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
According to Zahra and Garvis (2000), proactive corporate entrepreneurship,
such as first entry, can improve a firm’s performance. The first entrants tend to
exploit opportunities before their rivals and enjoy significant strategic advantage
in the markets (Zahra and Garvis, 2000). Consequently, pro-activeness can be
conducive to a company’s performance improvement.
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1c: Pro-activeness is positively related to company performance
2.4.4 Entrepreneurial culture
Entrepreneurial culture is a pattern of basic assumptions invented and designed
to assist people to learn to cope with the problems of external adaptation and
internal integration (Morris et al 2008; Covin and Miles 1999).
Rauch et al (2009) suggested that the influence of corporate entrepreneurship
on business performance may vary as a function of cultural norms. Venter et al
(2008) differentiate between entrepreneurial culture and corporate culture. In
their differentiation they define corporate entrepreneurship culture as the polar
opposite of a conservative corporate culture. The corporate culture is one which
celebrates caution and conformity, convention, protocol, rules and procedures
(Venter et al 2008). “The culture that allows individuals to bring new ideas and
tolerate risk is a key element of sustainable business performance” (Wang
2008). Entrepreneurial culture stimulates innovation, flexibility and performance
(Lumpkin and Dess 1996). Entrepreneurship should be encouraged in an
organisation by creating an appropriate entrepreneurial culture and fostering an
entrepreneurial climate (Venter et al 2008).
Entrepreneurially- oriented companies establish clear and meaningful core
values and ensure they are shared within the organisation (Morris et al 2008).
Entrepreneurial organisations are guided by their vision. Firms successful at a
sustained form of corporate entrepreneurship tend to have cultures and
systems supportive of innovation (Covin and Miles 1999).
An entrepreneurial organisation empowers its people and gives them freedom
to decide and act by devolving decision-making authority (Morris et al 2008;
Wang 2008). They found that culture is an important controlling instrument for
corporate entrepreneurship, because it provides a space for taking risks and a
certain degree of immunity from failure.
A favourable company culture encourages employees to try out new ideas,
even if they fail. The belief is that mistakes can be learned from. .
Entrepreneurship culture encourages learning through information sharing,
commitment and accountability (Morris et al 2008). As innovation is a key
element of corporate entrepreneurship, it can be influenced by cultural factors
and/or differences in the market structures of different countries (Huse et al
(2005).
Zahra, et al (1999) believed that the culture that reinforces communication and
sharing of knowledge within the organisation is a crucial element of success in
encouraging the implementing of new ideas. Sub-cultures exist in an
organisation, with each culture having its dominant values and assumptions
(Zahra et al 1999). They concluded that understanding the key values of these
cultures and recognising the key powerful elements within them can lead to
successful innovations. Entrepreneurial firms are more prone to having a
market-driven culture by constantly updating, improving and changing business
processes, products and services that eventually create more value for
customers (Agca at al 2009).
As mentioned earlier, core values are critical for the entrepreneurial culture to
be successful. A meaningful level of entrepreneurship cannot be sustained
over time unless entrepreneurship is reflected in the core values of the firm
(Morris et al 2008; Zahra et al 1999). Culture has many elements, but there are
some aspects that are more conducive to entrepreneurial culture than others.
The following are the elements that form part of the entrepreneurial culture
(Morris et al 2008):
Focus on people and empowerment;
Value creation through innovation and change;
Attention to the basics;
Hands-on management;
Doing the right thing;
Freedom to grow and fail;
Commitment and personal responsibility;
Emphasis on the future and a sense of urgency.
According to Morris et al (2008) these core values are embedded in the life-
blood of the entrepreneurial organisation. They found that employees in the
entrepreneurial firm strive for major achievement and always want their
organisation to prosper. Based on the above discussion, the following
hypothesis is formed:
H1d: Entrepreneurial Culture is positively related to company
performance.
2.5 Why organisations need Corporate Entrepreneurship
Some of the challenges facing South Africa are to develop sustainable
economic growth, to improve its international competitiveness and to build the
country’s capacity for innovation, especially in the Information and
Communication Technology sector because there is fast technological
development in this sector. Venter et al (2008) mentioned that, throughout the
world, environmental change is accelerating at national, industrial and
organisational levels. So this means that, in order for South Africa to sustain
economic growth, corporate entrepreneurship at organisational and/or industrial
level should be encouraged and entrenched.
Emerging global markets and rapid technological developments make strong
demands on the ability of companies to develop and utilise their resources
(Huse et al 2005). By being involved in corporate entrepreneurship, companies
can absorb these pressures and prosper. It has been said that corporate
entrepreneurship has a positive impact on a company’s performance (Covin
and Miles 1995; Moreno and Casillas 2008; Wiklund 2009; Wakkee et al 2010).
This view implies that organisations that practise entrepreneurship are able to
increase their results, which can then lead to an increase in the South African
Gross Domestic Production (GDP). Increased performance at the industrial
level positions the country more competitively in relation to other countries.
Innovation is imperative as part of corporate entrepreneurship and is pertinent
in South Africa, especially in the e-business arena. E-business is seen as
information exchanges, commercial or administrative transactions between
individuals, businesses and government that take place via Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) based computer-mediated networks. Ireland,
et al (2009), state that corporate entrepreneurship can be used to improve
competitive advantage and to reposition the company in the market. For
companies to realise more output and growth, they need to instil
entrepreneurship in their business environment. Entrepreneurial activities help
companies to develop new businesses that create revenue streams and these
activities also enhance the company’s success by promoting product and
process innovation (Zahra et al 1999). According to Miller (1983), these
Corporate Entrepreneurship activities embody risk taking, pro-activeness and
radical product innovations.
Previous studies have theorised that the incidence of entrepreneurial
behaviours in a company will be positively associated with organisational
profitability and growth (Miller 1983; Zahra and Covin 1995; Lumpkin and Dess
1996; Wiklund, 1999; Venter et al 2008; Ireland et al 2009; Kreiser and Davis
2010). These authors have proven that the high level of entrepreneurial
behaviour within an organisation leads to high levels of performance and
profitability. Most of these studies had emphasised key elements which needed
to be entrenched in entrepreneurial companies in order for them to be classified
as entrepreneurial.
The study by Agca et al (2009) has confirmed that intrapreneurship activities
have a positive and significant impact on profitability in terms of innovation and
risk taking. According to Wang (2008), entrepreneurial behaviour is a key
ingredient for a company’s success. Entrepreneurial behaviour tends to be
associated with higher growth and this behaviour is a result of innovation, risk
taking and pro-activeness (Moreno and Casillas 2008).
Covin and Miles (1999) put corporate entrepreneurship as the spark and
catalyst that is intended to place firms on the path to competitive superiority and
to keep them in competitive advantageous positions. Through corporate
entrepreneurship, firms are able to rejuvenate, redefine and reposition
themselves (Miller 1983; Covin & Miles 1999; Miles et al 2009).
Through intrapreneurship, firms also maintain and increase their sustainable
competitive capabilities, which are fostered by different areas of organisational
performance (Agca et al 2009). The level of top management involvement in
ensuring information flow and aligning different divisions in strategic directions
allows them to foster intrapreneurship with great understanding. Entrepreneurial
firms that are first-movers incur the greatest business and financial risk and
spend the most on innovative activities, but are always rewarded in the
marketplace (Dess et al 1999). On the other hand, some firms may enjoy long-
term benefits from imitation strategy rather than from a high level of
innovativeness (Dess et al 1999).
Through intrapreneurship, companies are able re-engineer internal processes
and procedures to secure efficiencies. In this way, they become more
competitive (Venter et al 2008). Organisations that take entrepreneurship
seriously are seen to perform better and able to sustain their businesses. In the
study by Barrett & Weinstein (1998), the Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.84 was found
when evaluating the level of Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) and company
performance. Based on their findings, there is a strong relationship between CE
and company performance. In contrast to that, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue
that examining Entrepreneurial Orientation does not give a true picture of the
relationship between CE and company performance if the external
environmental factors are not investigated.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also found a company could more easily adapt to
fast-changing business environments if it embraced Corporate
Entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial behaviour. Wang (2008) stated that an
entrepreneurial company is one that engages in product-market innovation,
undertakes some risky ventures and is first to come up with proactive
innovation, beating the competitors (pro-active). Such characteristics indicate
that the company has a certain degree of corporate entrepreneurship. Wang
(2008) added that these characteristics are associated with improved firm
performance in today’s business environment, where product and business
model life-cycles are shortened. The future profits stream from existing
operations, but are uncertain. Businesses need constantly to seek out new
opportunities that will give them a competitive advantage and lead to
sustainability. Based on the results findings of the study by Agca et al (2009), it
is suggested that intrapreneurship activities in existing organisations generally
improve firm performance in financial and non-financial dimensions. Wiklund
(1999) found that firms that practise Corporate Entrepreneurship perform better.
These firms position themselves in the market and are ready to act in a
turbulent environment. According to the conclusion by Lumpkin et al (2009),
these companies emphasise a conceptualisation of Corporate Entrepreneurship
with clearly defined sub- dimensions. .
The above discussion leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H1: Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions are positively related to
company performance in the ICT industry.
2.6 Corporate Entrepreneurship Barriers and Triggers
Intensifying global competition, corporate downsizing rapid technological
progress and many other factors have heightened the need for organisations to
become more entrepreneurial in order to survive and prosper (Dess et al 1999;
Huse et al 2005; Venter et al 2008). Companies operating in this type of
environment have to be more innovative so that they can absorb these
pressures.
The environment in which the organisations operate can be a source of
corporate entrepreneurship (Huse et al 2005). Because the environment is
complex and volatile, long-term competitiveness requires organisations to be
open to signals regarding current and future conditions of the environment and
to apply this knowledge to change their own behaviour and position themselves
in the market. Previous studies have found that environmental dynamism
encourages entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation (Huse et al 2005; Miller
1983). Environmental dynamism stimulates firms to take advantage of new
opportunities created by change. Corporate entrepreneurship can be triggered
by strong entrepreneurial characteristics, such as leadership, good planning
systems, a customer-driven orientation, efficient operation and hands-on
management (Morris and Jones, 1999).
Corporate entrepreneurship is the main driver of innovation, risk taking and pro-
activeness and can be triggered by different activities and actions within, and
outside, the organisation (Miller 1983; Dess et al. 1999). Tang, Tang, Marino,
Zhang and Li (2009) have argued that ever increasing levels of entrepreneurial
behaviour (innovation, risk taking, and pro-activeness) can lead to worsening
company performance. Based on their research findings, the relationship
between EO and company performance is curvilinear. They found that, over a
certain period, a continuous increase in the level of corporate entrepreneurship
negatively impacted on company performance.
Coaching and entrepreneurial self efficacy are some of the triggers of
intrapreneurship (Wakkee et al 2010). They said that coaching by managers
might be important in improving employees’ entrepreneurial behaviour (Wakkee
et al 2010) because, through coaching, managers provide their employees with
access to resources and expertise. Stimulating intrapreneurship is a difficult
task and it is not something that can be achieved overnight. Rather, becoming
more entrepreneurial should be considered to be a learning process (Wakkee et
al 2010).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is an important variable, which explains both the
strength of entrepreneurial intentions and the likelihood of translating these
intentions into entrepreneurial activities (Wakkee et al 2010). Both management
coaching and entrepreneurial self-efficacy are found to be positively related to
entrepreneurial behaviour (Wakkee et al 2010). It was concluded that
organisational and individual variables are crucial predictors of entrepreneurial
behaviour. These variables tend to trigger entrepreneurial behaviour in an
organisation.
Dess at al (1999) suggested that successful corporate entrepreneurship may
hinge on the firm’s ability to combine structural approaches that focus on
efficiencies and processes and fit with strategic approaches, quality and
effectiveness. They mentioned that organisations that put emphasis on reducing
the internal boundaries play a critical role in successful corporate
entrepreneurship. A barrier-free organisation has been touted as critical in the
building of an entrepreneurial environment. Fewer layers of management,
interdisciplinary work groups, empowerment of first line managers, supervisors,
open communication vertically and laterally and accountability are typical
features of an organisation that embraces corporate entrepreneurship (Lumpkin
and Dess 1996).
Larger companies should have an edge in innovation and fostering
entrepreneurial behaviour, because they can afford engineers, staff, modern
facilities and the latest technology equipment (Barrett and Weinstein 1998;
Morris et al 2008). So access to financial resources offers firms the flexibility to
invest in research and development and to become more innovative (Clark
2010). External supports from other institutions help smaller firms with scarce
resources to invest in innovation (Clark 2010). So, according to Barrett and
Weinstein (1998), larger firms are more entrepreneurial than smaller firms due
to access to resources. The availability of such resources tends to trigger
corporate entrepreneurship.
The traditional hierarchy-driven organisational models make it difficult to foster
corporate entrepreneurship in an organisation (Dess et al 1999). They
emphasise that such models tend to create clearly-defined boundaries that limit
flexibility and choke communication. Moreover, these organisations often suffer
from political issues arising from different levels in the structure. Such politics
make it difficult for information to flow freely within an organisation.
According to Sebora and Theerapatvong (2009); Morris et al (2008),
bureaucratic structures constrain entrepreneurial behaviour in an organisation.
Dess et al (1999); Morris et al (2008) state that hierarchical levels in traditional
structures which assign responsibility for entrepreneurial activities to managers,
without delegating adequate amounts of authority, also represent constraints
on entrepreneurship behaviour. Moreover, Clark (2010) recommends that
organisations need to review existing policies and programmes to support and
facilitate entrepreneurial and innovative growth.
A culture that is averse to risk and/or process-driven is almost, by definition,
discouraging employees from acting in an entrepreneurial manner (Morris et al
2008). Due to the presence of this type of culture, a firm will tend to possess a
lower level of intrapreneurship. Budgeting systems, with no room for failure,
impose a threat on risk taking because there are no funds for experimental
projects (Morris et al 2008). In addition to budgeting systems, other obstacles
such as structure, strategic direction, policies and procedures, people and
culture tend to become barriers when attempting to introduce intrapreneurship
into a firm. Culture has been noted as a key element in fostering entrepreneurial
activities in an organisation and companies that practise entrepreneurship are
more successful than the ones that don’t (Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Morris et al
2008; Venter et al 2008). The lack of involvement by senior managers in driving
and articulating the vision, mission and aligning these with strategic direction
also put constraints on intrapreneurship in an organisation (Morris et al 2008;
Venter et al 2008). In the study of entrepreneurship in established organisations
(Morris and Jones, 1999), obstacles such as policies, procedures, personnel
restrictions, red-tape, limitations to amount of rewards and limited managerial
autonomy were identified as leading obstacles that impede entrepreneurial
behaviour.
2.7 Organisational Performance
Organisational performance in a fast and changing environment requires an
entrepreneurial approach. Huse et al (2005) state that emerging global markets
and rapid technological developments make strong demands on the ability of
companies to develop and utilise their resources in order to meet their customer
demands. These firms are flexible to environmental dynamics, which allows
them to identify new opportunities caused by disequilibrium (Huse et al 2005).
In addition to corporate entrepreneurship, the age of firms influences their
growth and profitability. Thus, the company performance increased relative to
company age. Companies that have been in the market for a longer tenure tend
to have more experience and knowledge about the industry compared to new
entrants. Such advantages position them at a level where they can innovate
better. In contrast to that, smaller companies are more flexible and can easily
adapt to market changes, which then gives them a better advantage when
coping with environmental changes (Steffens et al 2009).
Sebora and Theerapatvong (2010) say there is a possibility that firm size might
affect the relationship between organisational performance and entrepreneurial
attitude. Large organisations use rigid rules and procedures to administer their
operations, which in turn could impede entrepreneurial behaviour by employees
and which could lead to less innovation (Morris et al 2008).
Corporate entrepreneurship dimensions, such as innovation, risk taking and
pro-activeness, have a positive influence on company performance (Miller 1983;
Lumpkin and Dess 1996). The presence of these entrepreneurial dimensions
means the organisation is acting entrepreneurially. Higher growth tends to be
associated with firms that support entrepreneurial behaviour (Moreno and
Casillas 2008). Thus, growth tends to be considered a logical consequence of
the innovative, pro-active and risk taking behaviour of the firm. Although Zahra
and Covin (1995); and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have found a positive
relationship between EO and performance, other authors (Tang et al 2009)
have argued that this relationship tends to be curvilinear over a certain period if
the organisation continues to increase its level of entrepreneurship.
There are numerous non-financial rewards for innovation, such as increased
employee motivation, staff retention and creating a positive organisational
culture. Adaptive firms typically have higher overheads, measured as a
percentage of sales, than repetitive firms. Company growth and profitability are
relevant measures of firm performance in the domain of corporate
entrepreneurship (Steffens et al 2009). On other hand, they argued that
company growth does not always lead to profitability as the relationship
between these two variables can be negative or neutral. The company can
show an increase in growth, whilst profits are reduced. This could be as a
result of various causes including company expansion, purchase of new assets,
and increase in sales or operations costs. In contrast to Steffens et al (2009),
other authors (Rutherford et al 2008) used multiple measures of performance,
which included financial and non-financial measures such as Return On Assets
(ROA), Profit, Sales and Return On Equity (ROE). It typically takes eight years
for a new venture to reach profitability and about ten years before its Return On
Investment (ROI) equals that of mainstream business activities (Rutherford et al
2008). Ruach et al (2009) considered and recommended financial measures
such as Sales growth and Return On Investments (ROI) to assess business
performance. Entrepreneurship research and practice place emphasis on
company growth as a measure of entrepreneurial success (Steffens et al 2009).
Steffens et al (2009) argue that changes in assets are not recommended as a
measure of growth as this measure is more relevant for companies which are
capital-intensive. It is not an appropriate measure for a service sector, which is
less capital-intensive than the manufacturing sector. In this study, both service
and manufacturing companies are part of the sampling frame. Thus, the other
measures of performance were added to evaluate the organisational
performance.
Organisational Performance was measured in terms of growth. Thus, in this
study Sales performance, Return On Assets (ROA), employment growth,
Return on Sales, Return On Equity (ROE), Return On Investment (ROI), and
Operating profit were used to measure organisational performance. The study
used both financial and non-financial measures to capture the essence of
entrepreneurial business performance. The respondents were asked to
consider the performance of the organisation over a period of five years.
According to Winklund (1999), it is possible to increase sales without acquiring
additional resources, by simply outsourcing the increased business volume. In
this case, only sales growth will increase, thus sales growth has a high
generality. Steffens et al (2009) have argued that sales growth does not always
lead to profitability at all times, due to the ever-changing relationship between
these two variables.
Sales and employees have a different flexibility, with sales changing more
rapidly with demand than does the number of employees. The company can
either outsource/sub-contract other divisions which could result in fewer
employees, or they could hire more employees. Both of these actions by the
firm could mean positive or negative performance. Thus, changes in the number
of employees are not directly related to company performance.
2.8 Conclusion of Literature Review
Based on previous studies, the overall evaluation of corporate entrepreneurship
is that the firms involved in entrepreneurial endeavours see more increased
growth and profitability levels than firms that do not attempt to engage in
intrapreneurship activities (Agca et al 2009). Thus it can be said that the
intensity of intrapreneurship in a firm is positively related to the level of
organisational growth and profitability. Wiklund (1999) found that there is a
positive relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and performance. A
number of other studies have found that there is a positive relationship between
a firm’s Corporate Entrepreneurship activities and their long-term organisational
performance (Zahra and Covin 1995; Covin and Miles 1999; Wiklund 1999).
Entrepreneurial firms must foster organisational learning in order to maximise
the effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation on company performance (Wang
2008). Organisational learning has been explained as knowledge acquisition in
the former view and value acquisition in the latter. According to Sebora and
Theerapatvong (2009), an entrepreneurial mindset is encouraged by and
related to management support. Management support indicates a willingness to
support entrepreneurial behaviour within the organisation. Corporate
Entrepreneurship is important for organisational survival, growth, profitability
and renewal (Sebora and Theerapatvong 2009; Covin and Miles 1999; Lumpkin
and Dess 1996).
The hypotheses of the study are as follows:
H1: Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions (innovation, risk taking, pro-
activeness, and entrepreneurial culture) are positively related to company
performance.
H1a: Innovation is positively related to company performance.
H1b: Pro-activeness is positively related to company performance.
H1c: Risk taking is positively related to company performance
H1d: Entrepreneurial culture is positively related to company performance
CHAPTER 3: Research methodology
This chapter describes the research methodology utilised in this study. The
research methodology specifies how the study was conducted to reach the
stated objective. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of
corporate entrepreneurship on company performance in ICT companies in
South Africa. The study assesses the level of corporate entrepreneurship in
relation to company performance in the Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) sector.
The methodology explains how the relationship between various constructs -
such as innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, entrepreneurial culture and
overall company performance (financial and non-financial measures) - was
evaluated. The research methodology describes the method used to address
the following hypothesis:
H1: Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions (innovation, risk taking, pro-
activeness, and entrepreneurial culture) are positively related to company
performance.
H1a: Innovation is positively related to company performance.
H1b: Pro-activeness is positively related to company performance.
H1c: Risk taking is positively related to company performance.
H1d: Entrepreneurial culture is positively related to company performance
3.1 Research methodology/Paradigm
This is a quantitative research study, which deals with the statistical analysis for
the useable sets of completed questionnaires from respondents. A quantitative
approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses post-positivist claims for
developing knowledge. It employs strategies of inquiry - such as experiments
and surveys - and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield
statistical data (Creswell 2003). The use of online questionnaires was deemed
appropriate for this research study because that was the only feasible way of
eliciting responses from respondents throughout the country.
The research study used a database which has listed and non-listed ICT
companies in South Africa. This study is a descriptive study of corporate
entrepreneurship in South Africa. A cross-sectional survey was used to
determine how corporate entrepreneurship influences company performance in
the Information and Communication Technology industry. The research
structure includes the target population, sampling method, instruments used for
data collection and procedures for data collection.
3.2 Research Design
The study adopted on-line survey-type questionnaires. These were self-
administered questionnaires and respondents had no time pressures to
complete them by a deadline. The reasoning behind using on-line
questionnaires was to reach as many respondents as possible in all regions in
South Africa.
3.3 Population and sample
3.3.1 Population
The population of this research study consisted of all Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) companies operating in South Africa. Each
company was represented by one individual employee in this research study.
The target population only included permanent employees. The targeted
population included managers/leaders/supervisors/executives in each company.
Both listed and non-listed companies were used..
The population from Information Technology and Telecommunications
companies ranges from web designers, cellular phone assembling, computer
networking, data services, cabling, to cellular network providers. The target
population was deemed relevant for this study, especially when looking at the
turbulence and dynamism experienced by the companies in this industry
recently.
3.3.2 Sample and sampling method
The non-probability sampling method was used in this study. Non-probability
sampling is appropriate when there are time constraints for the research study
(Cooper & Schindler, 2008). The convenience samples type of non-probability
samples were used in this study. The sampling method was targeted at
Information and Communication Technology companies operating in South
Africa. Company sizes ranged from small to large organisations and this was
based on their number of employees, as defined by the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI).
The sampling frame consisted of one permanent, management-level employee
per company. The sample size of n=114 companies was deemed to be
appropriate for this research study. The research had only 114 valid usable
responses, one email address bounced. 153 did not respond. This puts the
response rate at 42.7%. Telephone calls were made to numerous respondents
to encourage them to complete the online surveys. Refer to Appendix B for a
response snapshot.
Company data was obtained from the ITWEB website and bmicompanydata.
Responses from 114 companies were received, thus ensuring that the data
analysis could be generalised across the ICT industry. Refer to Appendix C for
names of companies that participated. The company size used included all
sizes of firms ranging from micro to large, as described by the South African
Department of Trade and Industry.
3.4 The research instrument
The empirical investigation took place through a cross-sectional survey. The
research employed quantitative, closed-ended questionnaires. Closed-ended
questionnaires ask respondents to select a response/s from a series of pre-
designated choices (Kalaf et al 2008). These were self-administered
questionnaires sent by email through the surveymonkey website.
The research questions were structured to enquire about the presence of
entrepreneurial behaviour among Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) companies in South Africa. The questionnaires used the 5-point Likert
scale, which has been used in previous studies (Monsen and Boss 2009;
Wakkee et al 2010). These questionnaires used forced-answer types of
questions. The covering letter and actual instrument are as depicted in
Appendix A.
A pilot test was conducted to detect weakness in design and instrumentation.
The pilot test was sent to Vodacom management and errors in the survey, such
as “allow one answer per column”, were corrected. Prior to that, the
questionnaires had been verified by Wits Business School’s research
methodology lecturer and the research supervisor.
The advantages of using self-administered surveys are;
? Allows contact with inaccessible participants;
? Incentives may be used to increase response rate;
? Allows participants time to think about questions;
? Perceived as more anonymous;
? Participants who cannot be reached by phone are accessible
? Expanded geographical area without an increase in cost.
The shortcomings of this type of communication method are incorrect e-mail
addresses and lack of interview intervention available for explanation.
Moreover, low response rates may be experienced when using this method.
3.5 Procedure for data collection
The ITWEB website and bmicompanydata databases were used to obtain
contacts in the Information and Communications Technology industry in South
Africa.
The questionnaires were sent through weblink (www.surveymonkey.co.za) to
ICT managers, directors, CEOs and supervisors. The collection of data was
obtained by the 5-point Likert scale and closed-ended questions. The scale
represented each of the five constructs in the model: innovation, risk taking,
pro-activeness, entrepreneurial culture and company performance. Company
demographic measures were used as the control variables.
The five point Likert scale placing 5 as the highest score and 1 as the lowest
score, was utilised. The frequencies of positive responses to each item, as well
as the mean and standard deviation of scale totals, were calculated. The
research only used primary data. The primary data source was extracted from
respondents answering the on-line survey sent through the surveymonkey
website. Weekly email reminders were sent to those who had not responded
after a certain time. Numerous follow-up phone calls were made to encourage
people to respond to the on-line survey.
3.6 Data analysis and interpretation
The research used statistical analysis (Barrett & Weinstein, 1998) to evaluate
the relationship between the dependent variable of company performance and
several independent variables (innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness and
entrepreneurial culture).
During the data analysis stage, data collected is converted into a format that
can be used to address the research problem. Data preparation is the process
of extracting data from questionnaires so that these can be read and
manipulated by computer software. During this process, data is validated,
edited and then cleaned. Since nominal, ordinal and interval data were used in
this study, various descriptive and inferential statistical analyses could be
performed.
Descriptive statistics are used to describe data and inferential statistics are
used to determine significant levels of relationships between independent and
dependent variables. The following table is a summary of the permissible
descriptive and inferential relevant statistical test used in the study of nominal,
ordinal and interval data.
Table A
Measurement Scale Statistics
Nominal Scales Frequency distribution, Mode
Ordinal Scales Frequency distribution, Median, Mean,
Standard Deviation, Coefficient of
Variation, Correlation analysis, One-way
ANOVA, Chi-Square test
Interval Scales Frequency distribution, Median, Mean,
Standard Deviation, Skewness, Coefficient
of Variation, Correlation Analysis,
Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Multiple
regression
Source: Saunders et al 1997: Pg 310
3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of the respondents, as
indicated in Table A. Descriptive statistics use frequencies, means, modes,
medians, standard deviation and coefficients of variation to summarise the
characteristics of large sets of data. The following statistics were used:
Frequencies: frequencies refer to the actual number or percentage of
responses to a certain question. These may be represented by way of
bar charts or tables.
Mean: is a sum of the values for all the observations of a variable divided
by the number of observations. It measures the central, or average,
response of respondents.
Mode: The observation that occurs most frequently
Median: The middle value when the data is arranged from smallest to
largest.
Coefficient of Variation: provides a relative measure of the dispersion
in the data relative to the mean. Dispersion refers to the degree of
variation in the data (numerical spread of the data).
In this research study, the frequency distribution was calculated to assess the
percentage of responses to multiple performance ordinal variables used.
3.6.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is the most common approach to test differences
among means. ANOVA computes a measure of the variance between the
means of each group and a measure of variance within the groups. The study
used ANOVA to calculate the effect of single variables on dependent variables.
The level of significance was observed.
ANOVA tests the null hypothesis that the means of several populations are
equal. One-way analysis variance uses single-factor, fixed-mode effects models
to compare the effects of one treatment on a continuous dependent variable
(Cooper and Schindler 2008). ANOVA requires assumptions that the mean
groups or factor levels being studied represent populations whose outcome
measures:
Are randomly and independently obtained;
Are normally distributed; and
Have equal variance.
ANOVA calculates both the F-ratio and P-value. A p-value of 0.05 or less is
considered significant. If the null hypothesis is true, there should be no
difference between the sample means. The ratio should be close to 1. If the
sample means are not equal, the numerator should manifest this difference and
the F-ratio should be greater than 1. To calculate the F-ratio, the sum of the
squared deviation for the numerator and denominator are divided by their
respective degrees of freedom. The F-ratio determines the size of the ratio
necessary to reject the null hypothesis for a particular sample size and level of
significance (Cooper and Schindler 2008; Evans 2010).
3.6.3 Multivariate ANOVA
Multivariate analysis of variance is a commonly used multivariate technique.
MANOVA is similar to ANOVA, but with several dependent variables. Thus
ANOVA tests for the difference in means between two or more groups, while
MANOVA tests differences among samples of employees, customers, etc.
MANOVA could be used to test hypotheses. Instead of a univariate F-value, the
multivariate F-value (Wilks ?) is obtained, based on a comparison of the error
variance / covariance matrix. Testing multiple dependent variables is
accomplished by creating new dependent variables that maximise group
differences. These artificial dependent variables are linear combinations of the
measured dependent variables. The multivariate test was done in this research
study to compare the means between multiple performance groups with regard
to the degree of relationship between CE dimensions (innovation, pro-
activeness, risk taking) and entrepreneurial culture. The Wilks Lambda and
confidence levels were obtained. Multivariate analysis comprises a set of
techniques dedicated to the analysis of data sets with more than one variable.
Before using MANOVA to test for significant differences, the following
assumptions should be met:
The distribution must be normal.
Linearity among all pairs of dependent variables.
Homogeneity of variances – dependent variables exhibit equal levels of
variance across the range of predictor variables.
Homogeneity of variances and covariance – since there are multiple
dependent variables, it is also required that their intercorrelations
(covariance) are homogeneous across all the cells of the design.
3.6.4 Degree of Asymmetry (Skewness)
Descriptive statistics tools results measure the degree of asymmetry of
distribution around its mean. Histograms of sample data can take on a variety of
different shapes. The distribution that has its modal value in the middle and
falling away from the centre in roughly the same fashion on either side is said to
be symmetrical. The asymmetrical, or skewed, distribution is concentrated on
one side and the distribution tails off to the other (Evans 2010). Distributions
that tail off to the right are said to be positively skewed and those that tail off to
the left are said to be negatively skewed. Comparing measures of central
tendency can sometimes reveal information about the shape of a distribution. In
a perfectly symmetrical unimodal distribution, the mean, median and mode
would all be the same. For a highly negatively skewed unimodal distribution, the
mean
A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand.
Corporate Entrepreneurship and Organisational
Performance in the Information and
Communications Technology Industry
Thokozani Nkosi
A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and
Management, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Management in Entrepreneurship
and New Venture Creation
Johannesburg, 2011
(July 2011)
ABSTRACT
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognised as a potentially viable
means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness (Covin & Miles 1999).
Turbulence and rapidly changing knowledge - especially in the Information and
Communications Technology sector (ICT) - has forced companies to become more
entrepreneurial in order to capitalise on new business opportunities and to create value.
The research study was quantitative and data was collected through an online survey,
which used closed-ended questionnaires. The questionnaires entail assessing the degree
of CE in an organisation in relation to its performance. The analysis had 114 samples of
companies in the ICT sector.
The study indicated that there is a strong positive association between level of CE and
company performance. Companies that sustain their businesses and are able to prosper
are likely to have a high level of CE.
The most important contribution of this study is the testing of CE theories in the South
African context. The ICT managers can contribute to entrenching CE by being the
champions in creating the environment that stimulates entrepreneurial behaviour.
DECLARATION
I, Thokozani Nkosi, declare that this research report is my own work, except as
indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management in
Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation in the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree
or examination in this, or any other, university.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thokozani Nkosi
Signed at Wits Business School, JHB
On the …………………………….. day of ………………………… 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish gratefully to acknowledge valuable contributions and input from the
following people and institutions. Without their assistance this study would not
have been possible:
? Supervisor Dr Jose Barreira for his intellectual perspective and input on
the subject matter;
? Lecturers from the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management at Wits
Business School (WBS) for their willingness to assist and give sound
advice;
? My classmates for their support and encouragement;
? My wife and children for their assistance, patience, sacrifice and loyal
support;
? My mother and brothers for their endless support and encouragement;
? My late father for his strong belief in, and emphasis on, education and
self empowerment;
? Respondents for sacrifices made and expert advice;
? Bmicompanydata and ITWEB for their database used to make this
possible.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................... 2
DECLARATION ............................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 8
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 8
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................ 9
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 10
1.4 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY................................................................... 11
1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................. 12
1.6 ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 13
2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................. 14
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 14
2.2 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITION ........................................... 15
2.3 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP............................................................. 17
2.4 DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ..................................... 20
2.4.1 RISK TAKING ........................................................................................................ 21
2.4.2 INNOVATION ......................................................................................................... 23
2.4.3 PRO-ACTIVENESS ................................................................................................. 25
2.4.4 ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE ................................................................................ 27
2.5 WHY ORGANISATIONS NEED CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ................... 29
2.6 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP BARRIERS AND TRIGGERS ...................... 33
2.7 ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................. 37
2.8 CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................. 41
3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/PARADIGM ...................................................... 42
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................. 42
3.3 POPULATION AND SAMPLE......................................................................... 43
3.3.1 POPULATION ........................................................................................................ 43
3.3.2 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING METHOD ........................................................................... 43
3.4 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT .................................................................... 44
3.5 PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION .......................................................... 46
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ....................................................... 46
3.6.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ......................................................................... 47
3.6.2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) ............................................................ 48
3.6.3 MULTIVARIATE ANOVA ............................................................................ 49
3.6.4 DEGREE OF ASYMMETRY (SKEWNESS) ...................................................... 50
3.6.5 CHI-SQUARE TEST ................................................................................... 51
3.6.6 SCHEFFE TEST ......................................................................................... 51
3.6.7 PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 52
3.6.8 BOX & WHISKER PLOT ............................................................................. 53
3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 53
3.8 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ........................................................................ 54
3.9 VALIDITY ................................................................................................. 55
3.10 RELIABILITY ............................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ........................... 56
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 56
4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF COMPANIES ..................................................... 58
4.2.1 COMPANY SIZE ........................................................................................ 58
4.2.2 COMPANY AGE ........................................................................................ 59
4.3 THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USED IN THE RESEARCH: METRIC SCALES ....... 59
4.4 THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES USED IN THE RESEARCH: NON-METRIC SCALES .. 60
4.5 RESULTS PERTAINING TO THE MULTIVARIATE HYPOTHESIS ........................... 66
4.6 RESULTS PERTAINING TO THE UNIVARIATE HYPOTHESES .............................. 67
4.7 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ...................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS ......................... 73
5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 73
5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF COMPANIES ..................................................... 73
5.4 MULTIVARIATE TEST ................................................................................. 76
5.5 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1A ........................................... 76
5.6 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1B ........................................... 79
5.7 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1C .......................................... 82
5.8 DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO HYPOTHESIS H1D .......................................... 84
5.9 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 88
6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 88
6.2 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 88
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 89
6.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................... 90
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 91
APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 97
APPENDIX B ............................................................................... 105
APPENDIX C ............................................................................... 106
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this research study is to find the link between Corporate
Entrepreneurship (CE) and organisational performance in Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) companies operating in South Africa.
Organisations in the ICT industry require sustainable business performance and
this may be achievable through innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness and
entrepreneurially orientated behaviour (Miller 1983; Covin and Miles 1995;
Moreno and Casillas 2008; Wiklund 2009; Wakkee, Elfring, & Monaghan 2010).
The research investigates the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship
(innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, and entrepreneurial culture) and
company performance. The company performance is evaluated based on
financial and non-financial measures.
Finally, the results give a solid conclusion on how these two constructs
(corporate entrepreneurship and company performance) relate to each other.
The recommendations to senior executives, directors and management are
depicted and they are aimed at giving direction and guidelines on which parts of
corporate activities ICT companies need to focus on in order to become more
entrepreneurially orientated. Entrepreneurial behaviours and attitudes are key
determinants of the ability of large companies to survive and prosper in
turbulent environments (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).
1.2 Problem statement
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognised as a potentially
viable means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness (Covin &
Miles 1999). As ICT in South Africa is facing rapid technological changes,
corporates need a strategy for competitive advantage and sustainability.
Entrepreneurial behaviour by management and employees could lead to
competitive advantage and sustainability (Zahra and Miles 1995; Landstrom,
Crijns, Lavern, and Smallbone 2008).
However, the link between corporate entrepreneurship and organisational
performance in the ICT environment is unclear from previous research. Thus, if
entrepreneurship is to be used by ICT companies as a strategy for survival, it is
critical that this link be empirically investigated in the context of this industry.
Very little in-depth research regarding Corporate Entrepreneurship has been
undertaken in the ICT context. Few studies have empirically researched this
relationship in the South African context, especially in the ICT sector.
1.3 Significance of the study
The study fills a gap as there have been very few studies of the relationship
between corporate Entrepreneurship and organisation performance in
Information and Communications Technology in the South African context.
The study will provide guidance to ICT companies operating in South Africa on
which factors to focus on in order to entrench entrepreneurial behaviour within
the organisation. The study results could be used by management to instil
entrepreneurship in the corporate environment. Organisations could also use
this empirical research study to promote an entrepreneurial culture to
employees. This could impact organisational performance and business
sustainability.
The Information and Communications Technology industry will be able to
benchmark their degree of entrepreneurship against other market players
through the results analysis of this research. Company managers could utilise
this study to encourage their staff to be involved in calculated risk-taking by
encouraging bold actions and trying out new ideas. In this way, managers will
act as shock absorbers when subordinates’ new ideas fail.
The study will add value to the South African Information and Communications
Technology industry’s operation and future growth by outlining the basic key
requirements for companies to practise corporate entrepreneurship and improve
their performance.
1.4 Delimitations of the study
The study focuses on the relationship between Corporate Entrepreneurship and
company performance in the South African Information and Communications
Technology industry (ICT). The company size, ranging from small to large as
defined by DTI, is used and the focus is on ICT companies operating in South
Africa.
The research study targets respondents at management level (such as
directors, executives and senior managers) because they have information on
the organisational performance trends, corporate entrepreneurship dimensions
and performance measures. The study only requires one response per
company.
The online survey intends to capture responses all over South Africa and this
has been made easier by sending emails using the Surveymonkey website. The
study uses both listed and non-listed companies. The sampling frame only
includes ICT companies on the ITWEB site and bmicompanydata database.
The research methodology used is:
Quantitative;
Cross-sectional study;
Using Descriptive data and Multivariate inferential stats;
Using Convenience sample – because of easy access to the ICT data.
1.5 Definition of terms
Certain terms will be used repeatedly in the study and thus need to be defined.
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE): is the entrepreneurial behaviour inside
established mid-sized and large organisations (Morris, Kuratko and Covin
2008). Zahra and Garvis (2000) define Corporate Entrepreneurship as the sum
of a company’s efforts aimed at innovation, pro-activeness and risk taking.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have noted that CE can be used to enhance
company performance by promoting product and process innovation. At any
rate, corporate entrepreneurship allows an incumbent company to make full use
of its resources to capture new opportunities (Yiu and Lau 2008).
Intrapreneurship: is a concept used to explain entrepreneurial activities in
existing organisations (Agca, Topal, and Kaya 2009). They emphasise that,
tthrough intrapreneurship, companies also maintain and increase their
sustainable competitive capabilities, which are fostered by different areas of
organisational performance.
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO): Covin, Green and Slevin (2006) described
entrepreneurial orientation as the presence of a firm’s strategy - oriented
towards innovation and growth through their capacity to assume relevant risks.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define EO as the process, practices and decision-
making activities that lead to new entry, innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness
and entrepreneurial behaviour. EO leads to autonomy and competitive
aggressiveness.
Terms such as Corporate Entrepreneurship or Intrapreneurship and firm-level
entrepreneurial orientation have been used for describing the entrepreneurial
activities of an organisation (Agca, Topal, and Kaya 2009).
Although these terms are being used interchangeably, this study is using the
definition of CE based on the Zahra and Garvis explanation.
1.6 Assumptions
The study assumes that respondents have an understanding of the construct
Corporate Entrepreneurship. It assumes respondents have a meaningful
understanding of the words entrepreneurial culture. The knowledge around
entrepreneurial behaviour by the organisation is assumed to be understood by
executives, directors and senior management.
The study also assumes that the potential respondents understand the
company performance trends and performance measures such as Return On
Assets, Return On Investments, Sales Growth, Market Value Growth, Return
On Equity, Return On Sales and Operating Profit.
2 Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Introduction
In this study, the literature review outlines the structure and contents of the
previous research studies around Corporate Entrepreneurship. This chapter
gives a definition of corporate entrepreneurship based on the previous
researchers. The characteristics and elements of CE will be explained broadly.
The corporate entrepreneurship triggers and inhibitors are discussed as they
can either enable, or discourage, CE in an organisation.
The existing literature on entrepreneurship has implicitly stated that Corporate
Entrepreneurship and company performance are positively related to each other
(Moreno and Casillas 2008). Currently, there has not been a consensus on the
direct definition of corporate entrepreneurship. Different definitions of CE are
extracted from the previous research documents. As the field of study grows,
relevant topics consulted in this subject often fall under the following headings:
Entrepreneurial orientation, Strategic entrepreneurship, corporate business
venturing, Conceptualising CE, Contextualising CE, Entrepreneurial
environments and sustaining entrepreneurship. In this study, corporate
entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are being used interchangeably.
In South Africa there has not been much research done to test empirically the
relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and company performance in
the Information and Communication Industry (ICT). The research uses the ICT
industry to collect data information. In this section, the literature review is
divided into sub-headings:
Corporate entrepreneurship definition;
Corporate entrepreneurship;
Dimensions of Corporate Entrepreneurship;
Why organisations need CE;
Corporate Entrepreneurship barriers and triggers;
Organisational Performance.
The key definition of Corporate Entrepreneurship includes innovation, venture
creation, business venturing, risk taking, pro-activeness, opportunity recognition
and market development (Miller, 1983; Morris et al 2008; Wang 2008).
2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurship Definition
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has long been recognised as a potentially
viable means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness (Covin
and Miles, 1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship is a term used to describe
entrepreneurial behaviour inside established mid-sized and large organisations
(Morris et al 2008). CE refers to a scenario where the entire company, rather
than individuals, acts entrepreneurially (Covin and Miles, 1999).
Zahra and Garvis (2000) define Corporate Entrepreneurship as the sum of a
company’s efforts aimed at innovation, pro-activeness and risk taking. These
efforts offer an important means of revitalising and renewing established
companies and improving their performance.
Agca et al (2009) classified intrapreneurship as two approaches:
entrepreneurial orientation and corporate entrepreneurship. In the literature,
researchers and academics have used different terms to define entrepreneurial
efforts in organisations and the differences in terminology in defining
entrepreneurial activities still continue (Agca et al 2009).
Agca et al (2009); Dess et al (1999) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) define CE
as a process in which individuals in an existing organisation seek for the
opportunities by, developing and venturing into new businesses.
Vozikis, Bruton, Prasad and Merikas (1999) defined corporate entrepreneurship
as additional value creation. This additional value creation occurs within the
established organisation. The value can be realised through adding new
products and services. Moreover, this could be achieved by improving the
current products and optimisation of processes.
Ireland et al (2009), state that Entrepreneurial Orientation is an organisational
state or quality that is defined in terms of several behavioural dimensions.
These dimensions are found on most levels of the structure of an organisation.
Management should be in a state to drive and align the organisational
behaviour to their strategic objectives. Miller (1983); Covin and Slevin (1991)
define Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) as the presence of organisational
behaviour reflecting risk-taking, pro-activeness, and innovativeness. The
intensity of EO in an organisation can be associated to the overall company
performance over a certain period of time. The increase in performance does
not often happen overnight, but rather over a long period.
2.3 Corporate Entrepreneurship
Corporate entrepreneurship has been studied by different authors before
(Sebora, and Theerapatvong 2009; Ireland et al 2009; Zahra and Covin, 1995;
Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Venter et al 2008). Most of these studies were
attempting empirically to test the influence of corporate entrepreneurship on
company performance and sustainability. Sebora and Theerapatvong (2009)
have suggested that large companies tend to experience difficulties in
employing corporate entrepreneurship in their management and employees;
and this is often caused by a bureaucratic environment.
According to Sebora and Theerapatvong (2009), companies need continuous
innovation, risk taking, and pro-activeness in order to stay competitive. The
presence of Corporate Entrepreneurship among company managers leads to
positive outcomes (Ireland et al 2009). Top managers need to have an
entrepreneurial strategy and be able to cascade this through different levels
within the company.
Corporate Entrepreneurship may be viewed broadly as consisting of two types
of phenomena and processes: firstly, the birth of new business within existing
organisations - whether through internal innovation or joint ventures/alliances;
and, secondly, the transformation of organisations through strategic renewal, for
example the creation of new wealth through a combination of resources (Dess,
et al 1999).
Wiklund (1999) has studied the impact of corporate entrepreneurship on
company performance and the findings showed a positive relationship. In
Wiklund (1999), the survey results showed a strong relationship over time,
which meant that the corporate entrepreneurship is effective within the
organisation over a certain period. Zahra and Garvis (2000) found that
corporate entrepreneurship is positively associated with company performance.
In the study by Zahra and Garvis (2000), it was found that one corporate
entrepreneurship dimension - innovation - had a more positive relationship with
company performance, especially in a company that is international. The
company that innovates a lot tends to be more entrepreneurially- oriented than
the one that does it seldom (Zahra and Garvis 2000). These companies have a
culture that allows individuals within the organisation to act autonomously and
to be able to suggest new ideas that can lead to efficiency of operations.
Through intrapreneurship, companies also maintain and increase their
sustainable competitive capabilities, which are fostered by different areas of
organisational performance (Agca et al 2009). Ireland et al (2009) believe that a
corporate entrepreneurship strategy is manifested through the presence of
three elements, which are: entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-
entrepreneurship organisational architecture and entrepreneurial processes and
behaviour.
Corporate entrepreneurship is an important predictor of company growth
(Venter et al 2008). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also found that EO is a key
element for organisational success and improved performance. Many
organisations attribute their success to an Entrepreneurial Orientation (Lumpkin
et al 2009). They stated that organisations that rely on an EO to create new
value and growth must make an effort to foster entrepreneurial behaviour. The
entrepreneurial behaviour allows teams to operate outside an organisation’s
existing norms.
Entrepreneurial orientation, company rejuvenation and strategic renewal form
part of corporate entrepreneurship (Miles et al 2009). Corporate
entrepreneurship can be used to improve competitive advantage and to
reposition the company in the market (Lumpkin & Dess 1996; Ireland et al
2009).
Ireland et al (2009) stated that Entrepreneurial Orientation is an organisational
state or quality that is defined in terms of several behavioural dimensions. Miller
(1983), Covin and Slevin (1991) defined Entrepreneurial Orientation as the
presence of organisational behaviour reflecting risk taking, pro-activeness and
innovativeness. The company that embraces corporate entrepreneurship is said
to be entrepreneurially- orientated. An EO keeps companies alert by exposing
them to new technologies, making them aware of marketplace trends and
helping them to evaluate new possibilities (Lumpkin et al 2009).
Top-level managers articulating an entrepreneurial strategic vision seek to
direct attitude and outlook of employees more than specific behaviour (Ireland
et al 2009). An entrepreneurial strategic vision is the mechanism by which top-
level management paints the picture of the type of organisation they hope to
lead in the future (Ireland et al 2009). Entrepreneurial strategic vision is a logical
response to the presence of three often-related environmental conditions, which
are: competitive intensity, technological change and evolving product-market
domains (Ireland et al 2009).
In an environment of rapid change and shortened product and business
lifecycle, the future profit streams from existing operations are uncertain and
businesses need constantly to seek out new opportunities (Rauch et al 2009;
Wang 2008). Therefore, businesses need to adopt and entrench Corporate
Entrepreneurship.
2.4 Dimensions of Corporate Entrepreneurship
The Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions include activities such as
innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, new product development, new business
venturing, autonomy, competitive aggressiveness, self-renewal and strategic
renewal (Miller 1983; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Wiklund 1999; Covin and Miles
1999; Zahra and Garvis 2000; Ireland et al 2009; Agca et al 2009).
Miller (1983) suggested that a company’s degree of entrepreneurship could be
seen by the extent to which they innovate, take risks and act proactively. The
company that is entrepreneurially-orientated is seen to be practising corporate
entrepreneurship, which includes the aforementioned characteristics (Miller
1983). Self-renewal or strategic renewal is widely defined as the periodic
transformation of organisations through the renewal of key ideas and resources
on which organisations are built (Zahra and Covin 2005). Self-renewal activities
include redefinition of a company’s vision, mission, business concept;
reorganisation of activities and the introduction of system-wide changes for
innovation (Agca et al 2009). The articulation of the vision and strategic
direction by management at all levels in the organisation are crucial, especially
when the company implements some changes to their way of doing business.
Venturing activities emphasise the creation of new businesses by entering new
foreign markets and expanding in existing ones (Zahra and Garvis 2000).
According to Zahra and Garvis (2000) venturing can increase a company’s
knowledge base, which increases the innovativeness of a company’s products
and strategy. This study only focuses on four dimensions of corporate
entrepreneurship, which are: innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, and
entrepreneurial culture.
According to Covin and Miles (1999), innovation is at the centre of a network
that encompasses the constructs of corporate entrepreneurship. Therefore the
label entrepreneurial should be applied to companies that are innovative.
Having said that, they also believe that some element must exist in conjunction
with innovation in order for a company to claim an entrepreneurial orientation;
and such elements are sustainable high performance, or improving competitive
position. Lumpkin et al (2009) have studied autonomy as the key characteristic
of Entrepreneurial Orientation and they concluded that this element can help the
organisation to foster corporate entrepreneurship. These authors have
considered autonomy as a driver that encourages innovation, promotes the
launching of entrepreneurial ventures and increases the competitiveness and
effectiveness of the company.
2.4.1 Risk taking
Risk taking involves taking bold actions by venturing into the unknown,
borrowing heavily and/or committing significant resources to ventures in
uncertain environments (Wang 2008; Lumpkin et al 2009; Rauch et al 2009).
Zahra and Garvis (2000) define risk taking as a company’s disposition to
support innovative projects, even when the payoff from these activities is
uncertain. Subsequently these activities can enhance the company’s ability to
recognise and exploit market opportunities ahead of its competitors.
Autonomy within the entrepreneurial organisation allows individuals to act freely
and be able to explore new ideas (Lumpkin et al 2009) that can create
competitive advantage. This type of behaviour by individuals within the firm
brings about the possibility of acting on potential ideas for the future growth of
the firm. The behaviour of managers by insisting on following the tried-and-
tested paths or tending to support only projects with expected returns that are
certain, have a negative relation to performance as compared to taking bold
actions by entering the unknown business environment (Lumpkin and Dess
1996). Thus, the support by senior management within the organisation allows
for individuals to take calculated risks.
Entrepreneurial firms are risk-tolerant and this characteristic often stimulates
them to eliminate the kind of traditional authoritarian structures that inhibit
collaborative learning (Wang 2008). These firms allow individuals and teams to
act independently and exercise their creativity by taking risks in coming up with
new ideas (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). According to Miller (1983) and Wang
(2008) risk-tolerant and innovative firms’ managers encourage new ways of
thinking - tolerating mistakes and rewarding individuals with new ideas that
contribute to innovation and business improvement. The culture of allowing
individuals to making mistakes when trying new ways of improving business
performance promotes a sense of open-mindedness (Moreno and Casillas
2008).
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1a: Risk taking is positively related to company performance
2.4.2 Innovation
Innovativeness reflects a firm's tendency to engage in, and support, new ideas,
uniqueness, experimentation and creative processes that may result in new
products, services, or technological processes (Clark 2010; Lumpkin and Dess
1996). Innovative firms have capabilities to monitor the market changes and
respond quickly, thus capitalising on emerging opportunities (Wiklund, 1999).
According to Huse et al (2005), firms operating in turbulent environments are
often characterised by rapid and frequent new product creation and high levels
of research and development. Such environments appear to play a crucial role
in influencing corporate entrepreneurship in an organisation. Environmental
changes stimulate firms to innovate by introducing new technologies, new
products, service and processes to take advantage of opportunities arising from
the dynamic environment (Huse et al 2005). Environmental change can cause
the firm to search for new means to remain competitive, which foster process
innovation activities. Innovation keeps firms ahead of their competitors, thereby
gaining a competitive advantage that leads to improved financial results
(Wiklund, 1999).
Zahra and Garvis (2000) define innovation as the firm’s ability to create new
products and successfully introduce them to the market. Innovation also revises
the firm’s knowledge base, allowing it to develop new competitive approaches,
which can be exploited in new foreign markets to achieve growth and
profitability (Zahra and Garvis, 2000). Clark (2010) found that companies that
are clearly innovators based their focus on new innovations, the number of new
innovations and levels of investment in new innovations.
Venter et al (2008) state that: “At the centre of entrepreneurship is
innovativeness”. An organisation that innovates is classified as being
entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurial activities influence a company’s commitment to
innovation (Miller 1983; Lumpkin and Dess 1996) by offering innovative
products and processes. According to Huse et al (2005), innovation has
become a source of international competitive advantage.
Zahra and Garvis (2000) stated that innovation can also lead to the
development of key capabilities that can improve a firm’s performance. They
also put emphasis on the fact that innovation generates products, goods,
processes, services and systems that can be used to meet customer needs and
build a strong market position. Thus innovation can improve the firm’s
profitability and fuel its growth. Better profitability and sustainability are also
realised from continuous innovation by the entrepreneurial organisation. Huse
et al (2005) stated that innovation can be distinguished in three ways: the
development of new products and services, the adoption of new technologies
with an intention to improve production methods, the establishment of novel
organisational structures and administrative systems.
Innovation involves reinventing products in a profitable manner (Venter et al
2008). The level of entrepreneurial behaviour by the organisation allows the
company constantly to evaluate the potential possible business opportunities
that will bring growth and sustainable business (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).
Innovation can be forced by industrial factors (fast technology changes in the
industry, customer demands), environmental dynamism (new processes,
technology) and international activities such as international diversification
(Huse et al 2005). According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), a level of
expenditure and a number of resources dedicated to research and development
represent a firm’s involvement in innovation activities. Innovation stimulates
firms to behave entrepreneurially. According to Venter et al (2008, most
technological firms use innovation to achieve objectives such as:
Maximum profits;
Gaining market share;
Creating niche markets;
Adding value for stakeholders.
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1b: Innovation is positively related to company performance
2.4.3 Pro-activeness
Pro-activeness shows a firm’s aggressive pursuit of market opportunities and a
strong emphasis on wanting to be among the very first to implement innovation
in its industry (Rauch et al 2009). Pro-activeness is an opportunity-seeking,
forward-looking perspective characterised by the introduction of new products
and services ahead of the competitors and acting in anticipation of future
demand (Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Rauch et al 2009). Miller (1983) defines pro-
activeness as an indication of a company’s determination to pursue promising
opportunities, rather than merely responding to competitors’ moves. According
to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), pro-activeness refers to how a firm relates to
market opportunities in the process of new entry. They added that pro-
activeness involves pursuing opportunities and the will to respond aggressively
to competitors.
Wiklund (1999) stated that pro-activeness gives firms the ability to present new
products or services to the market ahead of competitors, which also gives them
a competitive advantage. Pro-active firms have a greater tendency to lead than
to follow in the development of new procedures and technologies and the
introduction of new products and services (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). An
entrepreneurial firm instils flexibility and grants individuals and teams the
freedom to exercise their creativity to champion new ideas (Wang 2008). These
activities by the firm’s team enable the firm to be more pro-active in introducing
new products. Pro-activeness suggests an emphasis on initiating activities. It is
closely related to innovativeness. For example, new product innovation is part
of innovativeness but also forms part of pro-activeness by the firm (Lumpkin
and Dess 1996).
According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), the importance of being a first-mover or
pioneer has been frequently emphasised in the entrepreneurial process since
Schumpeter. Proactive firms are likely to be first-movers when they face threats
and/or opportunities in their environment (Agca et al 2009). In the business
world, proactive firms tend to be leaders, rather than followers of other
corporations (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
According to Zahra and Garvis (2000), proactive corporate entrepreneurship,
such as first entry, can improve a firm’s performance. The first entrants tend to
exploit opportunities before their rivals and enjoy significant strategic advantage
in the markets (Zahra and Garvis, 2000). Consequently, pro-activeness can be
conducive to a company’s performance improvement.
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1c: Pro-activeness is positively related to company performance
2.4.4 Entrepreneurial culture
Entrepreneurial culture is a pattern of basic assumptions invented and designed
to assist people to learn to cope with the problems of external adaptation and
internal integration (Morris et al 2008; Covin and Miles 1999).
Rauch et al (2009) suggested that the influence of corporate entrepreneurship
on business performance may vary as a function of cultural norms. Venter et al
(2008) differentiate between entrepreneurial culture and corporate culture. In
their differentiation they define corporate entrepreneurship culture as the polar
opposite of a conservative corporate culture. The corporate culture is one which
celebrates caution and conformity, convention, protocol, rules and procedures
(Venter et al 2008). “The culture that allows individuals to bring new ideas and
tolerate risk is a key element of sustainable business performance” (Wang
2008). Entrepreneurial culture stimulates innovation, flexibility and performance
(Lumpkin and Dess 1996). Entrepreneurship should be encouraged in an
organisation by creating an appropriate entrepreneurial culture and fostering an
entrepreneurial climate (Venter et al 2008).
Entrepreneurially- oriented companies establish clear and meaningful core
values and ensure they are shared within the organisation (Morris et al 2008).
Entrepreneurial organisations are guided by their vision. Firms successful at a
sustained form of corporate entrepreneurship tend to have cultures and
systems supportive of innovation (Covin and Miles 1999).
An entrepreneurial organisation empowers its people and gives them freedom
to decide and act by devolving decision-making authority (Morris et al 2008;
Wang 2008). They found that culture is an important controlling instrument for
corporate entrepreneurship, because it provides a space for taking risks and a
certain degree of immunity from failure.
A favourable company culture encourages employees to try out new ideas,
even if they fail. The belief is that mistakes can be learned from. .
Entrepreneurship culture encourages learning through information sharing,
commitment and accountability (Morris et al 2008). As innovation is a key
element of corporate entrepreneurship, it can be influenced by cultural factors
and/or differences in the market structures of different countries (Huse et al
(2005).
Zahra, et al (1999) believed that the culture that reinforces communication and
sharing of knowledge within the organisation is a crucial element of success in
encouraging the implementing of new ideas. Sub-cultures exist in an
organisation, with each culture having its dominant values and assumptions
(Zahra et al 1999). They concluded that understanding the key values of these
cultures and recognising the key powerful elements within them can lead to
successful innovations. Entrepreneurial firms are more prone to having a
market-driven culture by constantly updating, improving and changing business
processes, products and services that eventually create more value for
customers (Agca at al 2009).
As mentioned earlier, core values are critical for the entrepreneurial culture to
be successful. A meaningful level of entrepreneurship cannot be sustained
over time unless entrepreneurship is reflected in the core values of the firm
(Morris et al 2008; Zahra et al 1999). Culture has many elements, but there are
some aspects that are more conducive to entrepreneurial culture than others.
The following are the elements that form part of the entrepreneurial culture
(Morris et al 2008):
Focus on people and empowerment;
Value creation through innovation and change;
Attention to the basics;
Hands-on management;
Doing the right thing;
Freedom to grow and fail;
Commitment and personal responsibility;
Emphasis on the future and a sense of urgency.
According to Morris et al (2008) these core values are embedded in the life-
blood of the entrepreneurial organisation. They found that employees in the
entrepreneurial firm strive for major achievement and always want their
organisation to prosper. Based on the above discussion, the following
hypothesis is formed:
H1d: Entrepreneurial Culture is positively related to company
performance.
2.5 Why organisations need Corporate Entrepreneurship
Some of the challenges facing South Africa are to develop sustainable
economic growth, to improve its international competitiveness and to build the
country’s capacity for innovation, especially in the Information and
Communication Technology sector because there is fast technological
development in this sector. Venter et al (2008) mentioned that, throughout the
world, environmental change is accelerating at national, industrial and
organisational levels. So this means that, in order for South Africa to sustain
economic growth, corporate entrepreneurship at organisational and/or industrial
level should be encouraged and entrenched.
Emerging global markets and rapid technological developments make strong
demands on the ability of companies to develop and utilise their resources
(Huse et al 2005). By being involved in corporate entrepreneurship, companies
can absorb these pressures and prosper. It has been said that corporate
entrepreneurship has a positive impact on a company’s performance (Covin
and Miles 1995; Moreno and Casillas 2008; Wiklund 2009; Wakkee et al 2010).
This view implies that organisations that practise entrepreneurship are able to
increase their results, which can then lead to an increase in the South African
Gross Domestic Production (GDP). Increased performance at the industrial
level positions the country more competitively in relation to other countries.
Innovation is imperative as part of corporate entrepreneurship and is pertinent
in South Africa, especially in the e-business arena. E-business is seen as
information exchanges, commercial or administrative transactions between
individuals, businesses and government that take place via Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) based computer-mediated networks. Ireland,
et al (2009), state that corporate entrepreneurship can be used to improve
competitive advantage and to reposition the company in the market. For
companies to realise more output and growth, they need to instil
entrepreneurship in their business environment. Entrepreneurial activities help
companies to develop new businesses that create revenue streams and these
activities also enhance the company’s success by promoting product and
process innovation (Zahra et al 1999). According to Miller (1983), these
Corporate Entrepreneurship activities embody risk taking, pro-activeness and
radical product innovations.
Previous studies have theorised that the incidence of entrepreneurial
behaviours in a company will be positively associated with organisational
profitability and growth (Miller 1983; Zahra and Covin 1995; Lumpkin and Dess
1996; Wiklund, 1999; Venter et al 2008; Ireland et al 2009; Kreiser and Davis
2010). These authors have proven that the high level of entrepreneurial
behaviour within an organisation leads to high levels of performance and
profitability. Most of these studies had emphasised key elements which needed
to be entrenched in entrepreneurial companies in order for them to be classified
as entrepreneurial.
The study by Agca et al (2009) has confirmed that intrapreneurship activities
have a positive and significant impact on profitability in terms of innovation and
risk taking. According to Wang (2008), entrepreneurial behaviour is a key
ingredient for a company’s success. Entrepreneurial behaviour tends to be
associated with higher growth and this behaviour is a result of innovation, risk
taking and pro-activeness (Moreno and Casillas 2008).
Covin and Miles (1999) put corporate entrepreneurship as the spark and
catalyst that is intended to place firms on the path to competitive superiority and
to keep them in competitive advantageous positions. Through corporate
entrepreneurship, firms are able to rejuvenate, redefine and reposition
themselves (Miller 1983; Covin & Miles 1999; Miles et al 2009).
Through intrapreneurship, firms also maintain and increase their sustainable
competitive capabilities, which are fostered by different areas of organisational
performance (Agca et al 2009). The level of top management involvement in
ensuring information flow and aligning different divisions in strategic directions
allows them to foster intrapreneurship with great understanding. Entrepreneurial
firms that are first-movers incur the greatest business and financial risk and
spend the most on innovative activities, but are always rewarded in the
marketplace (Dess et al 1999). On the other hand, some firms may enjoy long-
term benefits from imitation strategy rather than from a high level of
innovativeness (Dess et al 1999).
Through intrapreneurship, companies are able re-engineer internal processes
and procedures to secure efficiencies. In this way, they become more
competitive (Venter et al 2008). Organisations that take entrepreneurship
seriously are seen to perform better and able to sustain their businesses. In the
study by Barrett & Weinstein (1998), the Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.84 was found
when evaluating the level of Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) and company
performance. Based on their findings, there is a strong relationship between CE
and company performance. In contrast to that, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue
that examining Entrepreneurial Orientation does not give a true picture of the
relationship between CE and company performance if the external
environmental factors are not investigated.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also found a company could more easily adapt to
fast-changing business environments if it embraced Corporate
Entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial behaviour. Wang (2008) stated that an
entrepreneurial company is one that engages in product-market innovation,
undertakes some risky ventures and is first to come up with proactive
innovation, beating the competitors (pro-active). Such characteristics indicate
that the company has a certain degree of corporate entrepreneurship. Wang
(2008) added that these characteristics are associated with improved firm
performance in today’s business environment, where product and business
model life-cycles are shortened. The future profits stream from existing
operations, but are uncertain. Businesses need constantly to seek out new
opportunities that will give them a competitive advantage and lead to
sustainability. Based on the results findings of the study by Agca et al (2009), it
is suggested that intrapreneurship activities in existing organisations generally
improve firm performance in financial and non-financial dimensions. Wiklund
(1999) found that firms that practise Corporate Entrepreneurship perform better.
These firms position themselves in the market and are ready to act in a
turbulent environment. According to the conclusion by Lumpkin et al (2009),
these companies emphasise a conceptualisation of Corporate Entrepreneurship
with clearly defined sub- dimensions. .
The above discussion leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H1: Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions are positively related to
company performance in the ICT industry.
2.6 Corporate Entrepreneurship Barriers and Triggers
Intensifying global competition, corporate downsizing rapid technological
progress and many other factors have heightened the need for organisations to
become more entrepreneurial in order to survive and prosper (Dess et al 1999;
Huse et al 2005; Venter et al 2008). Companies operating in this type of
environment have to be more innovative so that they can absorb these
pressures.
The environment in which the organisations operate can be a source of
corporate entrepreneurship (Huse et al 2005). Because the environment is
complex and volatile, long-term competitiveness requires organisations to be
open to signals regarding current and future conditions of the environment and
to apply this knowledge to change their own behaviour and position themselves
in the market. Previous studies have found that environmental dynamism
encourages entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation (Huse et al 2005; Miller
1983). Environmental dynamism stimulates firms to take advantage of new
opportunities created by change. Corporate entrepreneurship can be triggered
by strong entrepreneurial characteristics, such as leadership, good planning
systems, a customer-driven orientation, efficient operation and hands-on
management (Morris and Jones, 1999).
Corporate entrepreneurship is the main driver of innovation, risk taking and pro-
activeness and can be triggered by different activities and actions within, and
outside, the organisation (Miller 1983; Dess et al. 1999). Tang, Tang, Marino,
Zhang and Li (2009) have argued that ever increasing levels of entrepreneurial
behaviour (innovation, risk taking, and pro-activeness) can lead to worsening
company performance. Based on their research findings, the relationship
between EO and company performance is curvilinear. They found that, over a
certain period, a continuous increase in the level of corporate entrepreneurship
negatively impacted on company performance.
Coaching and entrepreneurial self efficacy are some of the triggers of
intrapreneurship (Wakkee et al 2010). They said that coaching by managers
might be important in improving employees’ entrepreneurial behaviour (Wakkee
et al 2010) because, through coaching, managers provide their employees with
access to resources and expertise. Stimulating intrapreneurship is a difficult
task and it is not something that can be achieved overnight. Rather, becoming
more entrepreneurial should be considered to be a learning process (Wakkee et
al 2010).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is an important variable, which explains both the
strength of entrepreneurial intentions and the likelihood of translating these
intentions into entrepreneurial activities (Wakkee et al 2010). Both management
coaching and entrepreneurial self-efficacy are found to be positively related to
entrepreneurial behaviour (Wakkee et al 2010). It was concluded that
organisational and individual variables are crucial predictors of entrepreneurial
behaviour. These variables tend to trigger entrepreneurial behaviour in an
organisation.
Dess at al (1999) suggested that successful corporate entrepreneurship may
hinge on the firm’s ability to combine structural approaches that focus on
efficiencies and processes and fit with strategic approaches, quality and
effectiveness. They mentioned that organisations that put emphasis on reducing
the internal boundaries play a critical role in successful corporate
entrepreneurship. A barrier-free organisation has been touted as critical in the
building of an entrepreneurial environment. Fewer layers of management,
interdisciplinary work groups, empowerment of first line managers, supervisors,
open communication vertically and laterally and accountability are typical
features of an organisation that embraces corporate entrepreneurship (Lumpkin
and Dess 1996).
Larger companies should have an edge in innovation and fostering
entrepreneurial behaviour, because they can afford engineers, staff, modern
facilities and the latest technology equipment (Barrett and Weinstein 1998;
Morris et al 2008). So access to financial resources offers firms the flexibility to
invest in research and development and to become more innovative (Clark
2010). External supports from other institutions help smaller firms with scarce
resources to invest in innovation (Clark 2010). So, according to Barrett and
Weinstein (1998), larger firms are more entrepreneurial than smaller firms due
to access to resources. The availability of such resources tends to trigger
corporate entrepreneurship.
The traditional hierarchy-driven organisational models make it difficult to foster
corporate entrepreneurship in an organisation (Dess et al 1999). They
emphasise that such models tend to create clearly-defined boundaries that limit
flexibility and choke communication. Moreover, these organisations often suffer
from political issues arising from different levels in the structure. Such politics
make it difficult for information to flow freely within an organisation.
According to Sebora and Theerapatvong (2009); Morris et al (2008),
bureaucratic structures constrain entrepreneurial behaviour in an organisation.
Dess et al (1999); Morris et al (2008) state that hierarchical levels in traditional
structures which assign responsibility for entrepreneurial activities to managers,
without delegating adequate amounts of authority, also represent constraints
on entrepreneurship behaviour. Moreover, Clark (2010) recommends that
organisations need to review existing policies and programmes to support and
facilitate entrepreneurial and innovative growth.
A culture that is averse to risk and/or process-driven is almost, by definition,
discouraging employees from acting in an entrepreneurial manner (Morris et al
2008). Due to the presence of this type of culture, a firm will tend to possess a
lower level of intrapreneurship. Budgeting systems, with no room for failure,
impose a threat on risk taking because there are no funds for experimental
projects (Morris et al 2008). In addition to budgeting systems, other obstacles
such as structure, strategic direction, policies and procedures, people and
culture tend to become barriers when attempting to introduce intrapreneurship
into a firm. Culture has been noted as a key element in fostering entrepreneurial
activities in an organisation and companies that practise entrepreneurship are
more successful than the ones that don’t (Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Morris et al
2008; Venter et al 2008). The lack of involvement by senior managers in driving
and articulating the vision, mission and aligning these with strategic direction
also put constraints on intrapreneurship in an organisation (Morris et al 2008;
Venter et al 2008). In the study of entrepreneurship in established organisations
(Morris and Jones, 1999), obstacles such as policies, procedures, personnel
restrictions, red-tape, limitations to amount of rewards and limited managerial
autonomy were identified as leading obstacles that impede entrepreneurial
behaviour.
2.7 Organisational Performance
Organisational performance in a fast and changing environment requires an
entrepreneurial approach. Huse et al (2005) state that emerging global markets
and rapid technological developments make strong demands on the ability of
companies to develop and utilise their resources in order to meet their customer
demands. These firms are flexible to environmental dynamics, which allows
them to identify new opportunities caused by disequilibrium (Huse et al 2005).
In addition to corporate entrepreneurship, the age of firms influences their
growth and profitability. Thus, the company performance increased relative to
company age. Companies that have been in the market for a longer tenure tend
to have more experience and knowledge about the industry compared to new
entrants. Such advantages position them at a level where they can innovate
better. In contrast to that, smaller companies are more flexible and can easily
adapt to market changes, which then gives them a better advantage when
coping with environmental changes (Steffens et al 2009).
Sebora and Theerapatvong (2010) say there is a possibility that firm size might
affect the relationship between organisational performance and entrepreneurial
attitude. Large organisations use rigid rules and procedures to administer their
operations, which in turn could impede entrepreneurial behaviour by employees
and which could lead to less innovation (Morris et al 2008).
Corporate entrepreneurship dimensions, such as innovation, risk taking and
pro-activeness, have a positive influence on company performance (Miller 1983;
Lumpkin and Dess 1996). The presence of these entrepreneurial dimensions
means the organisation is acting entrepreneurially. Higher growth tends to be
associated with firms that support entrepreneurial behaviour (Moreno and
Casillas 2008). Thus, growth tends to be considered a logical consequence of
the innovative, pro-active and risk taking behaviour of the firm. Although Zahra
and Covin (1995); and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have found a positive
relationship between EO and performance, other authors (Tang et al 2009)
have argued that this relationship tends to be curvilinear over a certain period if
the organisation continues to increase its level of entrepreneurship.
There are numerous non-financial rewards for innovation, such as increased
employee motivation, staff retention and creating a positive organisational
culture. Adaptive firms typically have higher overheads, measured as a
percentage of sales, than repetitive firms. Company growth and profitability are
relevant measures of firm performance in the domain of corporate
entrepreneurship (Steffens et al 2009). On other hand, they argued that
company growth does not always lead to profitability as the relationship
between these two variables can be negative or neutral. The company can
show an increase in growth, whilst profits are reduced. This could be as a
result of various causes including company expansion, purchase of new assets,
and increase in sales or operations costs. In contrast to Steffens et al (2009),
other authors (Rutherford et al 2008) used multiple measures of performance,
which included financial and non-financial measures such as Return On Assets
(ROA), Profit, Sales and Return On Equity (ROE). It typically takes eight years
for a new venture to reach profitability and about ten years before its Return On
Investment (ROI) equals that of mainstream business activities (Rutherford et al
2008). Ruach et al (2009) considered and recommended financial measures
such as Sales growth and Return On Investments (ROI) to assess business
performance. Entrepreneurship research and practice place emphasis on
company growth as a measure of entrepreneurial success (Steffens et al 2009).
Steffens et al (2009) argue that changes in assets are not recommended as a
measure of growth as this measure is more relevant for companies which are
capital-intensive. It is not an appropriate measure for a service sector, which is
less capital-intensive than the manufacturing sector. In this study, both service
and manufacturing companies are part of the sampling frame. Thus, the other
measures of performance were added to evaluate the organisational
performance.
Organisational Performance was measured in terms of growth. Thus, in this
study Sales performance, Return On Assets (ROA), employment growth,
Return on Sales, Return On Equity (ROE), Return On Investment (ROI), and
Operating profit were used to measure organisational performance. The study
used both financial and non-financial measures to capture the essence of
entrepreneurial business performance. The respondents were asked to
consider the performance of the organisation over a period of five years.
According to Winklund (1999), it is possible to increase sales without acquiring
additional resources, by simply outsourcing the increased business volume. In
this case, only sales growth will increase, thus sales growth has a high
generality. Steffens et al (2009) have argued that sales growth does not always
lead to profitability at all times, due to the ever-changing relationship between
these two variables.
Sales and employees have a different flexibility, with sales changing more
rapidly with demand than does the number of employees. The company can
either outsource/sub-contract other divisions which could result in fewer
employees, or they could hire more employees. Both of these actions by the
firm could mean positive or negative performance. Thus, changes in the number
of employees are not directly related to company performance.
2.8 Conclusion of Literature Review
Based on previous studies, the overall evaluation of corporate entrepreneurship
is that the firms involved in entrepreneurial endeavours see more increased
growth and profitability levels than firms that do not attempt to engage in
intrapreneurship activities (Agca et al 2009). Thus it can be said that the
intensity of intrapreneurship in a firm is positively related to the level of
organisational growth and profitability. Wiklund (1999) found that there is a
positive relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and performance. A
number of other studies have found that there is a positive relationship between
a firm’s Corporate Entrepreneurship activities and their long-term organisational
performance (Zahra and Covin 1995; Covin and Miles 1999; Wiklund 1999).
Entrepreneurial firms must foster organisational learning in order to maximise
the effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation on company performance (Wang
2008). Organisational learning has been explained as knowledge acquisition in
the former view and value acquisition in the latter. According to Sebora and
Theerapatvong (2009), an entrepreneurial mindset is encouraged by and
related to management support. Management support indicates a willingness to
support entrepreneurial behaviour within the organisation. Corporate
Entrepreneurship is important for organisational survival, growth, profitability
and renewal (Sebora and Theerapatvong 2009; Covin and Miles 1999; Lumpkin
and Dess 1996).
The hypotheses of the study are as follows:
H1: Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions (innovation, risk taking, pro-
activeness, and entrepreneurial culture) are positively related to company
performance.
H1a: Innovation is positively related to company performance.
H1b: Pro-activeness is positively related to company performance.
H1c: Risk taking is positively related to company performance
H1d: Entrepreneurial culture is positively related to company performance
CHAPTER 3: Research methodology
This chapter describes the research methodology utilised in this study. The
research methodology specifies how the study was conducted to reach the
stated objective. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of
corporate entrepreneurship on company performance in ICT companies in
South Africa. The study assesses the level of corporate entrepreneurship in
relation to company performance in the Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) sector.
The methodology explains how the relationship between various constructs -
such as innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness, entrepreneurial culture and
overall company performance (financial and non-financial measures) - was
evaluated. The research methodology describes the method used to address
the following hypothesis:
H1: Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions (innovation, risk taking, pro-
activeness, and entrepreneurial culture) are positively related to company
performance.
H1a: Innovation is positively related to company performance.
H1b: Pro-activeness is positively related to company performance.
H1c: Risk taking is positively related to company performance.
H1d: Entrepreneurial culture is positively related to company performance
3.1 Research methodology/Paradigm
This is a quantitative research study, which deals with the statistical analysis for
the useable sets of completed questionnaires from respondents. A quantitative
approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses post-positivist claims for
developing knowledge. It employs strategies of inquiry - such as experiments
and surveys - and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield
statistical data (Creswell 2003). The use of online questionnaires was deemed
appropriate for this research study because that was the only feasible way of
eliciting responses from respondents throughout the country.
The research study used a database which has listed and non-listed ICT
companies in South Africa. This study is a descriptive study of corporate
entrepreneurship in South Africa. A cross-sectional survey was used to
determine how corporate entrepreneurship influences company performance in
the Information and Communication Technology industry. The research
structure includes the target population, sampling method, instruments used for
data collection and procedures for data collection.
3.2 Research Design
The study adopted on-line survey-type questionnaires. These were self-
administered questionnaires and respondents had no time pressures to
complete them by a deadline. The reasoning behind using on-line
questionnaires was to reach as many respondents as possible in all regions in
South Africa.
3.3 Population and sample
3.3.1 Population
The population of this research study consisted of all Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) companies operating in South Africa. Each
company was represented by one individual employee in this research study.
The target population only included permanent employees. The targeted
population included managers/leaders/supervisors/executives in each company.
Both listed and non-listed companies were used..
The population from Information Technology and Telecommunications
companies ranges from web designers, cellular phone assembling, computer
networking, data services, cabling, to cellular network providers. The target
population was deemed relevant for this study, especially when looking at the
turbulence and dynamism experienced by the companies in this industry
recently.
3.3.2 Sample and sampling method
The non-probability sampling method was used in this study. Non-probability
sampling is appropriate when there are time constraints for the research study
(Cooper & Schindler, 2008). The convenience samples type of non-probability
samples were used in this study. The sampling method was targeted at
Information and Communication Technology companies operating in South
Africa. Company sizes ranged from small to large organisations and this was
based on their number of employees, as defined by the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI).
The sampling frame consisted of one permanent, management-level employee
per company. The sample size of n=114 companies was deemed to be
appropriate for this research study. The research had only 114 valid usable
responses, one email address bounced. 153 did not respond. This puts the
response rate at 42.7%. Telephone calls were made to numerous respondents
to encourage them to complete the online surveys. Refer to Appendix B for a
response snapshot.
Company data was obtained from the ITWEB website and bmicompanydata.
Responses from 114 companies were received, thus ensuring that the data
analysis could be generalised across the ICT industry. Refer to Appendix C for
names of companies that participated. The company size used included all
sizes of firms ranging from micro to large, as described by the South African
Department of Trade and Industry.
3.4 The research instrument
The empirical investigation took place through a cross-sectional survey. The
research employed quantitative, closed-ended questionnaires. Closed-ended
questionnaires ask respondents to select a response/s from a series of pre-
designated choices (Kalaf et al 2008). These were self-administered
questionnaires sent by email through the surveymonkey website.
The research questions were structured to enquire about the presence of
entrepreneurial behaviour among Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) companies in South Africa. The questionnaires used the 5-point Likert
scale, which has been used in previous studies (Monsen and Boss 2009;
Wakkee et al 2010). These questionnaires used forced-answer types of
questions. The covering letter and actual instrument are as depicted in
Appendix A.
A pilot test was conducted to detect weakness in design and instrumentation.
The pilot test was sent to Vodacom management and errors in the survey, such
as “allow one answer per column”, were corrected. Prior to that, the
questionnaires had been verified by Wits Business School’s research
methodology lecturer and the research supervisor.
The advantages of using self-administered surveys are;
? Allows contact with inaccessible participants;
? Incentives may be used to increase response rate;
? Allows participants time to think about questions;
? Perceived as more anonymous;
? Participants who cannot be reached by phone are accessible
? Expanded geographical area without an increase in cost.
The shortcomings of this type of communication method are incorrect e-mail
addresses and lack of interview intervention available for explanation.
Moreover, low response rates may be experienced when using this method.
3.5 Procedure for data collection
The ITWEB website and bmicompanydata databases were used to obtain
contacts in the Information and Communications Technology industry in South
Africa.
The questionnaires were sent through weblink (www.surveymonkey.co.za) to
ICT managers, directors, CEOs and supervisors. The collection of data was
obtained by the 5-point Likert scale and closed-ended questions. The scale
represented each of the five constructs in the model: innovation, risk taking,
pro-activeness, entrepreneurial culture and company performance. Company
demographic measures were used as the control variables.
The five point Likert scale placing 5 as the highest score and 1 as the lowest
score, was utilised. The frequencies of positive responses to each item, as well
as the mean and standard deviation of scale totals, were calculated. The
research only used primary data. The primary data source was extracted from
respondents answering the on-line survey sent through the surveymonkey
website. Weekly email reminders were sent to those who had not responded
after a certain time. Numerous follow-up phone calls were made to encourage
people to respond to the on-line survey.
3.6 Data analysis and interpretation
The research used statistical analysis (Barrett & Weinstein, 1998) to evaluate
the relationship between the dependent variable of company performance and
several independent variables (innovation, risk taking, pro-activeness and
entrepreneurial culture).
During the data analysis stage, data collected is converted into a format that
can be used to address the research problem. Data preparation is the process
of extracting data from questionnaires so that these can be read and
manipulated by computer software. During this process, data is validated,
edited and then cleaned. Since nominal, ordinal and interval data were used in
this study, various descriptive and inferential statistical analyses could be
performed.
Descriptive statistics are used to describe data and inferential statistics are
used to determine significant levels of relationships between independent and
dependent variables. The following table is a summary of the permissible
descriptive and inferential relevant statistical test used in the study of nominal,
ordinal and interval data.
Table A
Measurement Scale Statistics
Nominal Scales Frequency distribution, Mode
Ordinal Scales Frequency distribution, Median, Mean,
Standard Deviation, Coefficient of
Variation, Correlation analysis, One-way
ANOVA, Chi-Square test
Interval Scales Frequency distribution, Median, Mean,
Standard Deviation, Skewness, Coefficient
of Variation, Correlation Analysis,
Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Multiple
regression
Source: Saunders et al 1997: Pg 310
3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of the respondents, as
indicated in Table A. Descriptive statistics use frequencies, means, modes,
medians, standard deviation and coefficients of variation to summarise the
characteristics of large sets of data. The following statistics were used:
Frequencies: frequencies refer to the actual number or percentage of
responses to a certain question. These may be represented by way of
bar charts or tables.
Mean: is a sum of the values for all the observations of a variable divided
by the number of observations. It measures the central, or average,
response of respondents.
Mode: The observation that occurs most frequently
Median: The middle value when the data is arranged from smallest to
largest.
Coefficient of Variation: provides a relative measure of the dispersion
in the data relative to the mean. Dispersion refers to the degree of
variation in the data (numerical spread of the data).
In this research study, the frequency distribution was calculated to assess the
percentage of responses to multiple performance ordinal variables used.
3.6.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is the most common approach to test differences
among means. ANOVA computes a measure of the variance between the
means of each group and a measure of variance within the groups. The study
used ANOVA to calculate the effect of single variables on dependent variables.
The level of significance was observed.
ANOVA tests the null hypothesis that the means of several populations are
equal. One-way analysis variance uses single-factor, fixed-mode effects models
to compare the effects of one treatment on a continuous dependent variable
(Cooper and Schindler 2008). ANOVA requires assumptions that the mean
groups or factor levels being studied represent populations whose outcome
measures:
Are randomly and independently obtained;
Are normally distributed; and
Have equal variance.
ANOVA calculates both the F-ratio and P-value. A p-value of 0.05 or less is
considered significant. If the null hypothesis is true, there should be no
difference between the sample means. The ratio should be close to 1. If the
sample means are not equal, the numerator should manifest this difference and
the F-ratio should be greater than 1. To calculate the F-ratio, the sum of the
squared deviation for the numerator and denominator are divided by their
respective degrees of freedom. The F-ratio determines the size of the ratio
necessary to reject the null hypothesis for a particular sample size and level of
significance (Cooper and Schindler 2008; Evans 2010).
3.6.3 Multivariate ANOVA
Multivariate analysis of variance is a commonly used multivariate technique.
MANOVA is similar to ANOVA, but with several dependent variables. Thus
ANOVA tests for the difference in means between two or more groups, while
MANOVA tests differences among samples of employees, customers, etc.
MANOVA could be used to test hypotheses. Instead of a univariate F-value, the
multivariate F-value (Wilks ?) is obtained, based on a comparison of the error
variance / covariance matrix. Testing multiple dependent variables is
accomplished by creating new dependent variables that maximise group
differences. These artificial dependent variables are linear combinations of the
measured dependent variables. The multivariate test was done in this research
study to compare the means between multiple performance groups with regard
to the degree of relationship between CE dimensions (innovation, pro-
activeness, risk taking) and entrepreneurial culture. The Wilks Lambda and
confidence levels were obtained. Multivariate analysis comprises a set of
techniques dedicated to the analysis of data sets with more than one variable.
Before using MANOVA to test for significant differences, the following
assumptions should be met:
The distribution must be normal.
Linearity among all pairs of dependent variables.
Homogeneity of variances – dependent variables exhibit equal levels of
variance across the range of predictor variables.
Homogeneity of variances and covariance – since there are multiple
dependent variables, it is also required that their intercorrelations
(covariance) are homogeneous across all the cells of the design.
3.6.4 Degree of Asymmetry (Skewness)
Descriptive statistics tools results measure the degree of asymmetry of
distribution around its mean. Histograms of sample data can take on a variety of
different shapes. The distribution that has its modal value in the middle and
falling away from the centre in roughly the same fashion on either side is said to
be symmetrical. The asymmetrical, or skewed, distribution is concentrated on
one side and the distribution tails off to the other (Evans 2010). Distributions
that tail off to the right are said to be positively skewed and those that tail off to
the left are said to be negatively skewed. Comparing measures of central
tendency can sometimes reveal information about the shape of a distribution. In
a perfectly symmetrical unimodal distribution, the mean, median and mode
would all be the same. For a highly negatively skewed unimodal distribution, the
mean