Description
Corporate Entrepreneurship Education Individual And Organizational Entrepreneurial Learning
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING
BERND P. PLATZEK
University of Applied Sciences Ravensburg?Weingarten, AWW / University of Pretoria, Graduate School of
Technology Management, Member Research Group for Systems Energy and Innovation, Germany
platzek@hs?weingarten.de
LEON PRETORIUS
University of Pretoria, Graduate School of Technology Management, Coordinator Research Group for Systems
Energy and Innovation, South Africa
[email protected]
Copyright © 2015 by the University of Pretoria. Permission granted to IAMOT to publish and use.
ABSTRACT
Corporate entrepreneurship education is an important prerequisite for innovation and management
of sustainable growth in global business environments. In highly uncertain environments creating
new opportunities and pursuing entrepreneurial initiatives in established and new business requires
an integrated view of corporate entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship education. This
paper explores a multilevel framework for corporate entrepreneurship education based on the
theoretical constructs of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization (VELO) and a role model for
the personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (PACE) mainly via an exploratory
research approach with elements of action research also rooted in a type of Design Science Research
approach. It details the implications for, and gives direction to researchers and practitioners involved
in the design of holistic corporate entrepreneurship programs in dynamic and complex business
environments.
Key words: Entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurial and managerial mindset, Multi?level
approach, Entrepreneurial learning and change management, Modular concept
INTRODUCTION: TOWARD A MULTI?LEVEL PERSPECTIVE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING
As stated by Neck and Greene (2011) entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education have more
relevance today than ever before. Entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurial agents are a driving
force for innovation, renewal and development in today’s globally competitive technology business
environment (Kuratko 2005, Baumol et al 2007). A viable interaction of the organization with the
external environment involves identifying, selecting and pursuing opportunities in established and
new business (Platzek et al. 2011). Entrepreneurial firms therefore require a corporate
entrepreneurial mindset (systems perspective, firm level), entrepreneurial teams (interdisciplinary
perspective, team level), and corporate entrepreneurs (behavioral perspective, individual level) with
entrepreneurial motivation and skills (Schumpeter 2006, Morris et al. 2013) that can be learned
(Drucker, 1985, Wunderer 2001, Kuratko 2005, Morris et al. 2008). In keeping with Morris and Hills
(1992) future personnel at all levels (Top?level managers, Middle?level managers, First?level
managers or Non?managerial personnel) will have to become more entrepreneurial. According to
Griffiths et al. (2012) there is currently little progress in entrepreneurship theory and education for
Page 336
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
multilevel approaches and a general lack of formal academic programs (Kuratko 2005, Griffiths
2012).
In this research paper we present a founded general, multi?level framework for corporate
entrepreneurship education. Our findings will have significant implications for researchers and
corporate managers involved in the design of holistic corporate entrepreneurship programs in
international and complex business environments. Which learning fields in corporate
entrepreneurship education can be defined from a multi?level perspective? How can personal
experience in the day?to?day running of a business or in the creating of new business be integrated
in a corporate entrepreneurship program (learning from first?hand experience)? How can previous
learning and failures of others be integrated in corporate entrepreneurship education (second?order
experiential learning)? How can reflection on individual and organizational entrepreneurial practice
be transformed in an educational program?
The theoretical analysis and theory?based exploration research method used inter alia in this
research (Bortz and Döring 1995) leads to building blocks (modules) for a general, holistic corporate
entrepreneurship program with integrated learning elements for individual and organizational
learning (Argyris 1999). On the one hand, the research focus is on corporate entrepreneurship
content:the application of theoretical constructs for corporate and individual entrepreneurial
mindsets (Platzek et al. 2013, Platzek et al. 2014). On the other hand, the emphasis is on the
methods used to teach corporate entrepreneurship (Ojastu et al. 2011). As a result of the
exploratory theoretical literature research, the paper highlights the importance of (1) work?based
learning (Raelin 2008), (2) integrated learning where learning takes place in a network (on the job
and off the job) and (3) reflection and experiential learning. All three are essential for the
entrepreneurial learning process (Gordon et al. 2012).
According to Raelin (1993) it’s essential to blend theory and practice in corporate entrepreneurship
education. This can in some sense also be related to the action research and Design Science research
approach. On?the job learning that views the real world as an appropriate location for learning and
classroom?based learning that introduces principles that can be applied to entrepreneurial contexts
enhance each other. Consistent with Cope (2005) dynamic entrepreneurial learning can take part in
two stages: firstly prior to entrepreneurial activities to support the entrepreneurial preparedness
and secondly during the entrepreneurial events to accumulate knowledge to act in entrepreneurial
ways. In line with Raelin (2007) it is also valuable to form theory?practice linkages: Entrepreneurship
theory helps to see entrepreneurial practice in a new light and entrepreneurial practice supports the
integration of new information into the knowledge base. Diverse accumulations of knowledge,
experience and learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation create new
insights and new knowledge to recognize innovative opportunities (Corbett 2005). In keeping with
Raelin (1997) corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning should respect different
modes of learning (experience, observation, conceptualization, experimentation) at the individual
level and foster the learning together with others. Along with Nonaka (1994) individuals, groups, and
organizations have to create and exploit information and knowledge as communities of interaction.
Therefore, a multi?level approach on entrepreneurial learning in theory and practice (fig. 1) used in
this research helps us understand the nature of holistic corporate entrepreneurship in dynamic
environments and to build knowledge and competences for ongoing entrepreneurial action. This
again reminds of the Design science and Action based research approach. Consequently, corporate
Page 337
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
entrepreneurship education should follow a multi?level perspective and combine individual, team
and organizational learning.
Figure.1: Multi?level perspective on entrepreneurial learning in entrepreneurial context: Focus on
corporate entrepreneurship theory and practice
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING AND ADAPTATION THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF A COMPANY
The dynamic that drives innovation and management for sustainable growth in today’s environment
is entrepreneurship. Corporate entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial teams create and implement new
ideas proactively with a commitment to the mission and life of the enterprise (Drucker 19985). They
shape evolution and revolution (fig. 2) as the organization grows (Greiner 1998) to reach the
dynamic end state of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization in permanent exchange with the
external environment (Platzek et al. 2014). To develop, manage and grow the business, individual
and collective entrepreneurial learning from entrepreneurial practice is vital (Cope 2005).
Page 338
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 2: Evolution and revolution towards a dynamic end state of the entrepreneurial organization
as open system along the lines of Greiner (1998)
Consistent with Plaschka and Welsch (1990) the various career paths and roles played by corporate
entrepreneurs, the different stages of the organizational life cycle (fig.2), and the different natures
of business environments call for a diversified entrepreneurship education towards an
entrepreneurial organization in symbiosis with the external environment (Sathe 2003). In keeping
with Hedberg (1981) organizational learning needs to balance learning and unlearning in line with
the characteristics of the external business environment. We can therefore distinguish adjustment?
learning in stable environments from turnover?learning, and turnaround?learning in dynamic and
complex environments. Further, off?the?job learning, on?the?job learning, near?the?job learning, and
parallel?to?the?job learning can be combined (Wunderer 2006). It would, however, be valuable to
develop an adaptable theory based concept for content (what should be taught) and learning
mechanisms (how should it be taught) to meet the evolving needs of organizations, managers, and
employees (Kuratko, 2005, Vanevenhoven 2013).
The theoretical building blocks of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2014)
and the role model of the personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur in the vital
entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2013) can be used as a theoretical frame of
reference to develop a holistic learning concept for corporate entrepreneurship education. This
theory?based approach helps to identify the individual and collective entrepreneurial preparedness
(Cope 2005) and to define the content (Béchard and Grégoire 2005) for entrepreneurial learning in
different stages of the organizational life?cycle. Following this approach, we can derive the content
of corporate entrepreneurship education based on solid conceptual building blocks allowing
corporate entrepreneurs to understand the nature of entrepreneurial activity (Tracey and Phillips
2007). A common understanding of the entrepreneurial process (fig. 3) and the contribution of each
manager and employee with a personality of an ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur forms the
base towards understanding, supporting and developing specific roles in line with the mission of the
vital entrepreneurial learning organization. In line with Cope (2005), this perspective offers a theory
based approach towards creating an entrepreneurial organization staffed with individuals who act as
corporate entrepreneurs. As a consequence, corporate entrepreneurs should be dynamic learners
who, in practice, integrate understanding, thinking and acting in an entrepreneurial way throughout
the entrepreneurial organization.
Page 339
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 3: Entrepreneurial Process in line with Timmons and Spinelli (2007)
In the following section we give an overview of the basic theoretical constructs for holistic corporate
entrepreneurship at company?level and individual?level. This helps to explain the nature of holistic
corporate entrepreneurship and offers a general direction towards defining the content for
corporate entrepreneurship education. We go on to explore general implications from
entrepreneurship education literature and integrate these findings with our theory based concept to
present a coherent framework for the design of corporate entrepreneurship education in global
environments.
THE CONTEXT FOR HOLISTIC CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
The generic personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur: The PACE?Concept
Corporate entrepreneurs with an entrepreneurial mindset create organizations that find and pursue
opportunities. They orchestrate the entrepreneurial process, create an appropriate work climate,
monitor and control the developing opportunity and manage failure through discovery?driven
planning and involvement (McGrath and MacMillan 2000). Organizations are political, and politics
will be influential in the success or failure of any entrepreneurial initiative within an organization
(Morris et al. 2008). Therefore, political skills are helpful to overcome resistance and to obtain
resources for the entrepreneurial initiative (Block and MacMillan 1993). Corporate entrepreneurs
are creative in interpreting existing rules, developing alliances, and sharing information with others.
Ambidextrous corporate entrepreneurs with a managerial and entrepreneurial perspective perform
well in established environments while at the same time search for new activities to create new
value (Platzek et al. 2013).
Top?level corporate entrepreneurs (Sathe 2003) take ownership for entrepreneurial initiatives and
balance mainstream and new?stream activities. They are build organizational architectures for
innovation and entrepreneurship, protect innovation and remove constraints. They also design an
environmental analysis and opportunity radar system. Middle?level corporate entrepreneurs
(Kuratko et al. 2006) evaluate entrepreneurial initiatives emerging from lower levels and champion
entrepreneurial projects to enable other’s entrepreneurial actions. They are also intermediaries who
accelerate initiatives from the Top?level. First?level Managers and Non?Managerial Personnel
Page 340
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
(Wunderer 2001, Morris et al. 2008) and take on experimenting, adjusting, and conforming roles.
They initiate entrepreneurial activities, respond to the implementation challenges in pursuing
entrepreneurial initiatives and respect norms, rules, procedures to the pursuit of planned
entrepreneurial initiatives coming from higher levels in the organization.
The design of corporate entrepreneurship education should be driven by a theoretical
understanding of the personality of the corporate entrepreneur and integrate entrepreneurial
learning mechanisms (Gordon 2012). Therefore, we can focus on general manager roles (fig. 4)
derived in theoretical exploration (Platzek et al. 2013) to evaluate the current knowledge base and
to define the necessary learning content. The corporate entrepreneur shapes entrepreneurial and
managerial processes to discover, evaluate and pursue opportunities in new and established
business. As a change manager he/she balances evolution and revolution, stability and flexibility,
improvements and transformation, individual and collective learning processes with an emphasis to
the internal and external environment. He/she executes innovation as a basic function of
entrepreneurship and learns from experience of success and failure.
Figure 4: General manager roles in the vital entrepreneurial learning organization according to
Platzek et al. (2013)
The corporate entrepreneur creates ideas in the areas of products, markets, and technologies and
matches the idea with strategy, structure, and resources. As an effective manager he/she masters
the discipline of execution and results through linking people, strategy and operational processes.
He/she is balances efficiency (doing things right) and effectiveness (doing the right things) using
management tools, self?development, and continues learning (Drucker 1988). The corporate
entrepreneur makes the organization, group, and team more than the sum of its parts and combines
team roles (Belbin 2010) to enable holistic entrepreneurial action.
As a communication manager the corporate entrepreneur communicates upwards, downwards and
horizontally to integrate entrepreneurial activities and processes. He/she develops political tactics
(Neuberger 1995) to overcome obstacles and to build influential alliances through listening,
dialogue, and informal conversation. He/she masters systems design and systems thinking in
Page 341
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
entrepreneurial decision?making to create cooperative structures with symbiotic relationships and
networks to achieve adaptation and high performance. The corporate entrepreneur understands the
environment?organization system, promotes decentralized entrepreneurial experimentation and
self?regulation. As a culture manager he/she understands cultural diversity, clarifies cultural gaps
openly, builds cultural synergy, and relates characteristics of the national culture to the business and
corporate culture.
The manager roles (fig. 4) represent an evaluation and learning framework we can use to define
building blocks for the content of corporate entrepreneurship education at the individual level. To
take a multi?level perspective we have in addition to take a company?level perspective to derive
further building blocks for the content of entrepreneurial learning. We can therefore focus on the
concept of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2014) in the next section.
Page 342
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
The vital entrepreneurial learning organization: The VELO?Concept
Entrepreneurial organizations need an overall level of entrepreneurship (Morris and Sexton 1996) to
continually innovate in interaction with a global and dynamic business environment. A corporate
entrepreneurial mindset with a dual perspective on exploring new opportunities while exploiting
established businesses is therefore essential (March 1991, O’Reilly III and Tushman 2004, Platzek et
al. 2010). As described in the previous section, such organizational ambidexterity needs to combine
the perspective of the individual corporate entrepreneur with his/her managerial and
entrepreneurial mindset (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004, Platzek et al. 2013) with the ability to bring
individual and collective action together.
For an understanding of company?level entrepreneurship and to develop an image of the relevant
content for corporate entrepreneurship education from this perspective we can focus on the
theoretical building blocks of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2014). This
integrated framework with design elements for holistic corporate entrepreneurship is based on
three central tasks for the entrepreneurial organization: (1) entrepreneurial information gathering,
(2) shaping of the future and (3) shaping of the organization. The entrepreneurial collection of
meaningful information with four key activities (scanning, monitoring, forecasting, assessment)
focuses on four basic dimensions of the business environment (character, diversity, geographical
dimension and segments). Individual and collective learning are defined as dynamic components of
entrepreneurial information gathering.
The entrepreneurial shaping of the future in a vital entrepreneurial learning organization concerns
key competencies for entrepreneurial organizations, innovation areas, systems theory principles for
interaction of the organization with the environment, and central entrepreneurial decisions in new
and existing business. In entrepreneurial shaping of the organization central levers are
entrepreneurial strategy, structure, culture, resources and competencies. The vital entrepreneurial
learning organization takes central dualities into consideration: Short and long?term viability,
optimisation and renewal, flexibility and operational stability, centralised and decentralised decision
structures, interests of the organisation and interests of the individual players. Harmonisation of the
interests inside the organization is a fundamental design target for the vital entrepreneurial learning
organization.
In implementing the three entrepreneurial tasks through a process model, the vital entrepreneurial
learning organization must fulfil as a whole unit the roles of knowledge manager for opportunities
and threats, idea finder, idea implementer (innovation manager), entrepreneurial manager in
existing businesses and synergy manager. A conceptual framework for the specification and analysis
of the business environment can guide entrepreneurial gathering of meaningful information such
that future opportunities and threats can be proactively detected. A qualitative systems model can
help to understand the interaction of the organization with the environment in existing and new
business and to study internal and external impulses for the goal?oriented design of interactions. The
role model for the vital entrepreneurial learning organization with some implications from practice
(fig. 5) gives an image of the basic entrepreneurial roles an entrepreneurial organization has to act
upon as an entity to achieve adaptation, innovation and efficiency.
Page 343
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 5: Corporate manager roles of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization to perform basic
entrepreneurial tasks according to Platzek (2012)
In the vital entrepreneurial learning organization individual participants, teams and the whole
organization are learning for proactive, dynamic and creative adaptation to changes in the global
environment, in particular by the realisation of entrepreneurial opportunities and the processing of
threats. From a company?level perspective (Pedler et al. 1997), five learning elements can
strengthen the development of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization: (1) Management
workshop for entrepreneurial shaping of the future by agents of change, (2) analysis of individual
entrepreneurial activities by entrepreneurial agents and teams, (3) analysis of entrepreneurial
culture by culture agents, (4) analysis of the macro environment by country agents and (5) analysis
of the micro environment by industry agents.
The Pace?Concept (Platzek et al. 2013) and the VELO?Concept (Platzek et al. 2014) build a theoretical
framework to define the content of holistic corporate entrepreneurship education in today’s
turbulent business environment. To develop a general entrepreneurial learning program on these
fundamental concepts the next section looks at some relevant learning issues in the context of
entrepreneurship. Most educational education theory does not explicitly refer to corporate
entrepreneurship. It does, however, make sense to consider and review the existing theory for
relevant content and pointers to educational aspects that require further investigation.
IMPLICATIONS FROM ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION THEORY
Barbosa et al. (2008) focus on the developing of analytic and intuitive skills necessary in the
entrepreneurial process (Bessant and Tidd 2011, Hisrich and Kearney 2012). Intuition and
experiential thinking seems to be especially important in opportunity identification. Reasoning and
analytical thinking appear to be particular essential in evaluation and implementation of
opportunities.
Page 344
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Through integrated coursework and experiential learning (Honig 2004, Edelman et al. 2008) both
types of entrepreneurial perception should be leveraged in the four content areas (1) defining and
evaluating the opportunity; (2) defining the business concept and strategy; (3) attracting new
resources and alliances; (4) getting involved with implementation and entrepreneurship in action.
Designing effective learning opportunities for entrepreneurship (Kuratko 2005) around the
entrepreneurial process (Hisrich and Kearney 2012) aims to develop entrepreneurial understanding
(e.g. learning to relate previously unrelated things) and risk taking in entrepreneurial action (fig.6).
According to Block and MacMillan (1993) the entrepreneurial organization should learn from
experience in product, market, and technology areas to consider three levels of learning effort: (1)
the venture manager is asked to write a report about the venturing experience (including a
statement of the most important things learned), (2) venture managers and senior management
people hold one or more meetings to share experiences and identify internal obstacles that should
be removed, (3) a corporate entrepreneur should study the venturing experience by recording
information on an ongoing basis throughout the venture (venture log, interviews, report on the
history of the venture’s performance and major activities, conclusions, lessons learned).
As stated by Honig (2004) corporate entrepreneurship education should be designed as closely as
possible to the business environment. Business planning in dynamic environments consists of a lack
of certainty and follows no strictly linear process. Therefore, skills to reevaluate, adapt, and revise
activities should be practiced and developed through daily experiences at work resulting in
experiential learning (e.g. learn to tolerate risks, learn from failure, learn to navigate a team through
unknown territory). Consequently, corporate entrepreneurship education should be designed in
modules to allow a contingency?based training. Along the lines of Neck and Greene (2011) the
business planning process is an influential learning process and it is identified that business plan
competitions and workshops have the potential to enhance education experience in developing
entrepreneurial skills and networks (Gordon 2012) through action learning and work?integrated
learning in a motivational learning environment (Russell et al. 2008).
Figure 6: Entrepreneurial initiatives and learning fields consistent with Block and MacMillan (1993)
Page 345
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Seminars and workshops by industry experts can help to build up the necessary knowledge base.
The acquisition of knowledge should be a balance of theory and practice (Edelman et al. 2008). This
can be achieved through classes and the experimental development of entrepreneurial skills through
dialogue and meeting with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial managers, presentation of business
research, field work studies or entrepreneurial project (team) work with entrepreneurship content
(e.g. business environment and country analysis), all of which are powerful in corporate
entrepreneurship education (Mustar 2009).
Against this background, corporate entrepreneurs see corporate venturing and entrepreneurial
action as a laboratory and training field to learn about the process of venturing and to learn from
failure. Therefore, corporate entrepreneurs at all levels learn through adopting and implementing
new strategies, structures, and processes and they acquire new knowledge by introducing new
products, entering new markets or creating new business models (Morris et al. 2008). To form a
base for practice?based learning, work?integrated learning, and work?based learning, integrated
course?based learning in classroom will make it possible to understand the nature of entrepreneurial
activity.
The course work can therefore focus on (1) an introduction to corporate entrepreneurship and basic
concepts (e. g. managerial and entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial process and internal
corporate venturing, meaning of organizational slack, impact of triggering events, effect of a sense of
urgency, learning from failure and the need for unlearning); (2) best practices of corporate
entrepreneurship; (3) training in creative thinking; (4) the idea development process and evaluation
process; (5) the review of specific climate factors and barriers to entrepreneurial behavior; (6)
venture planning.
In line with Lans et al. (2008) corporate entrepreneurship education can focus on learning for
corporate entrepreneurship through the development of an (individual and corporate)
entrepreneurial mindset and by strengthening entrepreneurial behavior (e.g. recognizing and acting
on opportunities) or learning about corporate entrepreneurship through understanding
entrepreneurial situations and context (e.g. know?how to write a business plan). To develop
entrepreneurial competence (at individual, team, organizational level) the emphasis has to be on
competence assessment and identification of knowledge gaps in relation to the specific work and
business environment. Thus, a competence assessment can be a strategic starting point for
corporate entrepreneurship education at individual and collective level.
According to Morris et al. (2013) a distinct set of competencies are critical for entrepreneurial action
and that they should be developed together with general management competencies. To improve
individual and organizational performance the managerial and entrepreneurial competencies should
be measured against criteria and can be improved by holistic corporate entrepreneurship education.
Therefore, we can focus in corporate entrepreneurship training programs on the what (e.g. business
and management basics, industry and competitor analysis, customer analysis, market analysis,
opportunity identification, risk mitigation, resource leveraging) and the how (e.g. traditional
lectures, competency?based feedback on entrepreneurial behavior, influencing personal attitudes
through experimentation, learning in entrepreneurial performance) to develop dynamic
entrepreneurial competencies.
Page 346
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
As stated by Morris et al. (2013) the most relevant competencies are (1) social skills (e.g.
communications and interpersonal relations, networking), (2) functional business skills (e.g.
marketing and sales, strategic planning, recruiting entrepreneurial talent), (3) general management
skills (e.g. goal setting, organizing and motivating people, leadership and delegation, negotiation)
and(4) entrepreneurial skills (e.g. creative and holistic thinking, innovation and new product
development, entrepreneurial risk management, searching/interpreting/evaluating environmental
change, identifying/selecting/pursuing opportunities respectively opportunity refinement/resource
leveraging/championing). In consequence, the developing of these competencies (fig.7) takes place
in reciprocal interactions between individuals and their environments where the individuals gather
feedback and gain expertise to guide their present and/or future entrepreneurial initiatives. The
corporate entrepreneur can therefore develop his/her competency knowledge base while resolving
complex problems and exploiting an opportunities.
The knowledge base is essential to opportunity identification (Gordon 2012, Volery et al. 2013). De
Tienne and Chandler (2004) state that entrepreneurial discoveries can be the result of systematic
search but also take place randomly. Corporate Entrepreneurship Education can support opportunity
identification but it would be inappropriate to assume that all relevant information required to
identify opportunities can be presented in a classroom. Consequently and consistent with Cope
(2005) corporate entrepreneurship education should also focus on entrepreneurial learning by doing
(practical, routine, adaptive learning through resolving complex and ambiguous situations at work),
reflective learning (learning through reflecting entrepreneurial decisions and actions), learning
through crisis (stimulated fundamental learning and adaptation through discontinuities and events).
Engagement, developing new insights, inward critical self?reflection, mistakes and failure all play an
important role in entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial awareness education (Gordon 2012,
Fretschner and Weber 2013).
Figure 7: Entrepreneurial Competencies of the Corporate Entrepreneur consistent with Morris et al.
(2013)
Page 347
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
The accumulation of skills and experience cultivates entrepreneurial preparedness, supports future
actions and encourages serendipity, in other words innovations through happy entrepreneurial
accidents (Kingdon 2012). According to Pittaway and Thorpe (2012) such action?based learning
should include inward, outward, backward and forward reflection and interaction within social
communities. Further, an individual’s learning experiences should be integrated in entrepreneurship
education. In keeping with Neck and Greene (2011) experience and a portfolio of practice?based
trainings like starting businesses and practicing entrepreneurial activities coursework will result in
teaching a way of thinking and acting that supports the development of an managerial and
entrepreneurial mindset (Platzek et al. 2014) and a capacity to act entrepreneurially (Fretschner and
Weber 2013).
Beyond understanding and knowing the foundation principles of corporate entrepreneurship (e.g.
opportunity identification and analysis, feasibility analysis, business planning, resource assembling,
assessment and management of risk, performing management roles, evaluation of results) learning
fields for entrepreneurial application are e.g. dealing with complexity and uncertainty, creativity and
innovation, multi?dimensional problem solving and entrepreneurial decision?making, multi?
functional roles and empathy, business design, entrepreneurial culture, social responsibility, and
leveraging failure (Plaschka and Wells 1990, Neck and Greene 2011).
Following this, understanding, doing, learning, and reflection on entrepreneurial thinking and acting
with a holistic perspective (Wunderer 2006) is therefore a fitting method for strengthening a vital
entrepreneurial learning organization in an unpredictable business environment. A practice?based
corporate entrepreneurship education should, as a consequence, integrate reflecting?on?practice
and reflecting?in?practice elements embedded in a continuous cycle of entrepreneurial action,
learning, testing, and experimenting. Senge (2006:186?187) formulates guidelines (fig.8) for
balancing inquiry and advocacy in reflective practice as an imperative for collaborative learning,
opportunity recognition, and to put business ideas into practice. Dialogue, discussions and
structured self?reflection should be part of the entrepreneurial learning process (Ojastu et al. 2011).
Figure 8: Balancing inquiry and advocacy: Skills for effective collaborative learning according to
Senge (2006)
Page 348
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
In the next section we look at the implications from entrepreneurship education theory and the
theoretical concepts of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (VELO) and the personality of
the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (PACE) and present a corresponding modular concept for
holistic entrepreneurial learning.
A MODULAR CONCEPT FOR HOLISTIC CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Classroom?based learning: Understanding context and roles from a multi?level perspective
Module 1 provides a basic understanding of corporate entrepreneurship. The content focus areas for
module 1 are e. g. multi?level perspectives and forms of corporate entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial orientation and intensity, opportunity analysis and entrepreneurial process,
strategic renewal and organizational design elements for holistic corporate entrepreneurship,
developing a business plan and business model innovation. These form a knowledge base for a
better understanding of the international business environment as a playing field for opportunities
and risks (module 2).
The character and elements of the business environment are the focus of module 2. An
understanding of the general macro environment (political and legal, economic and social, natural
and technological environments) and the micro environment (industry, competitors, and markets)
are prerequisites for understanding the interaction between the organization and its environment
(module 3).
Content areas for module 3 are e. g. systems perspectives and systems thinking in entrepreneurial
management, dealing with complexity, understanding formal, informal, and political sub?systems,
system planning and recursive structures of organizations.
Module 4 looks at the building blocks of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (design
elements of holistic corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial tasks and process model, role
model, framework of the business environment, qualitative systems model, learning elements to
develop and strengthen the vital entrepreneurial learning organisation).
Complementary to the organization perspective in module 4, module 5 considers the personality of
the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (e. g. behavioural aspects, managerial and
entrepreneurial mind set, entrepreneurial leadership, entrepreneurial preparedness,
entrepreneurial networking and relationship management in alliances and cooperation,
entrepreneurial activity and management?level, general manager roles of the corporate
entrepreneur). For collaboration and collective action it is necessary to channel individual action of
the corporate entrepreneurs (Baghai and Quigley 2011).
To illuminate the general expectations of entrepreneurial managers, modules 6 to 12 reflect on the
theory behind the manager roles: culture manager, change manager, innovation manager, effective
manager, team manager, communication manager, and complexity manager.
Reflecting on practice: Action?based entrepreneurial learning elements
Building upon the entrepreneurship education theory, reflecting on practice makes a significant
contribution in developing analytic and intuitive skills for entrepreneurial action. Modules 13 to 18
can focus on individual study and experience (individual action) followed by presentations and
discussions (group reflection). In module 13 the corporate entrepreneur analyses the general macro
Page 349
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
environment of a country systematically to identify and evaluate opportunities and risks. In module
14 the additional intercultural issues regarding international markets are examined.
Analysing a specific micro environment is the focus of module 15. Corporate entrepreneurs should
identify the industry characteristics, success factors, trends, competitors, opportunities and threats.
In module 16 the internal study reflects on the specific role of the corporate entrepreneur for the
whole organization. The overall organizational architecture is considered (strategy, structure,
culture, competences and resources) to understand and evaluate the organization?environment?fit.
In module 17 corporate entrepreneurs take a backward perspective, write a venture log, and take
conclusions from past experience to use in future entrepreneurial activities (e. g. venture story,
lessons learned). In module 18 corporate entrepreneurs take a forward perspective, reflect on future
entrepreneurial action and write a business plan.
Group reflection on entrepreneurial practice from the perspective of the vital entrepreneurial
organization takes place in a workshop for entrepreneurial shaping of the future (module 19).
Entrepreneurial teams reflect on the practice of opportunity recognition, idea generation and
evaluation, synergy creation and building parallel interests (Mac Donald 2008). Reflection on
practice from the perspective of the individual corporate entrepreneur (e. g. performance in
manager roles, progress in individual action plans, lessons learned to strengthening entrepreneurial
preparedness) is the focus of module 20.
Reflecting in practice: Entrepreneurial work?based learning
Entrepreneurial learning also takes place in managerial and entrepreneurial field work.
Entrepreneurial action is a rich training field to learn about the entrepreneurship process and the
implementation of opportunities. At the individual level, the corporate entrepreneur can reflect in
entrepreneurial action on the manager roles. He/she can write a personal venture log and a personal
competency log to turn theory into practice. Entrepreneurial learning can also take place through
practice communities and supported by coaching by instructors, responding just in time to the needs
and preferences of the corporate entrepreneur (Raelin 2008). In addition to personal action plans,
organizational action plans can be developed and discussed in collaborative learning. Group
reflection in practice can be systematically channeled in workshops with focus on organizational
learning (module 19) or individual and team learning (module 20).
Learning mechanisms: Theory?based and practice?based pedagogies
In combining action and reflection in practice, reflection on practice and class?room based learning
we can design holistic corporate entrepreneurship education (fig. 9). Specific programs can be
derived based on this multi?level perspective together with the entrepreneurial preparedness of the
organization and the individual corporate entrepreneur.
Page 350
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 9: Holistic Corporate Entrepreneurship education: Integrating class?room based learning and
work?based learning
Following the implications from entrepreneurship education a portfolio of theory?based (e. g.
lectures, seminars, workshops, exercises, presentations, simulations, literature studies) and practice?
based pedagogies (e. g. business planning, projects, experiments, reports, venture logs, competency
logs, communities of practice, meetings, networks, discussions, coaching, competency?based
feedback, learning from success and failure in entrepreneurial action, learning from crises and happy
entrepreneurial accidents, interviews, document studies) should be used in entrepreneurial learning.
CONCLUSION
This paper extends the work on holistic corporate entrepreneurship (Platzek et al. 2013, Platzek et
al. 2014) by introducing a concept for a holistic corporate entrepreneurship education. We argued
that today’s dynamic business environment makes a multi?level approach with individual, team and
organizational learning valuable. Further, the entrepreneurial preparedness of organizations and
individuals should additionally be considered in the design of specific corporate entrepreneurship
education. Consequently, we made reference to the concept of the organizational life?cycle and the
dynamic end state of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization. We also looked to the concept of
the personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur in the vital entrepreneurial learning
organization to derive the basic content for entrepreneurial learning. Following review of existing
entrepreneurship education literature we explored implications for integrated theory?based and
practice?based pedagogies to achieve a holistic entrepreneurial learning.
Page 351
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Our theoretical and conceptual exploration led to the development of a generic entrepreneurial
learning program with twelve class?room based modules and eight practice?based modules. Two of
the practice?based modules represent extensive entrepreneurial learning in practice. Further
conceptual and business research can help to specify the modules and trainings in more detail and
for application in any specific organizational context.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(Competition Advancement through Education: Open Universities).
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. 2
nd
ed. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
Barbosa, S.D., Kickul, J. and Smith, B.R. (2008). The road less intended: Integrating Entrepreneurial
Cognition and Risk in Entrepreneurial Education. Journal of Enterprising Culture 16, no. 4: 411?439.
Baumol, W.J., Litan, R.E. and Schramm, C.J. (2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism and the
Economics of Growth and Prosperity. Yale University Press: New Haven.
Béchard, J.?P. and Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of
Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4, no. 1:22?43.
Belbin, R.M. (2010). Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. Butterworth?Heinemann:
Amsterdam.
Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2011). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2
nd
ed. Wiley: Chichester.
Bhaghai, M. and Quigley, J. (2011). As One: individual action, collective power. Penguin Groupt:
London.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004). Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan
Management Review: Summer.
Block, Z. and MacMillan, I.C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses within the Firm.
Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Bortz, J., Döring, N. (1995). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer
Verlag: Berlin.
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 29, no. 4: 373?397.
Corbett, A.C. (2005). Experiential Learning within the Process of Opportunity Identification and
Exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, July: 473?491.
De Tienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2004). Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the
Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Academy of Management
Learning and Education 3, no. 3: 242?257.
Page 352
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Drucker, P.F. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review: Boston.
Drucker, P.F. (1988). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Heinemann Professional
Publishing: London.
Edelman, L.F., Manolova, T.S. and Brush, C.G. (2008). Entrepreneurship Education: Correspondence
Between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions for Success. Academy of
Management & Education 7, no. 1: 56?70.
Fretschner, M. and Weber, S. (20139. Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Entrepreneurial
Awarness Education. Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 410?428.
Gordon, I., Hamilton, E. and Jack, S. (2012). A study of university?led entrepreneurship education
programme for small business owner/managers. Entrepreneurship & regional Development 24, no.
9?10: 767?805.
Greiner, L.E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review:
Boston.
Griffiths, M., Kickul, J., Bacq, S. and Terjesen, S. (2012). A Dialogue With William J. Baumol on
Entrepreneurship Theory and education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. July: 611?625.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In: Nystrom,P. and Starbuck, W. (ed.):
Handbook of Organizational Design. Oxford University Press. New York: 3?26.
Hisrich, R.D. and Kearney, C. (2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship: How to Create a Thriving
Entrepreneurial Spirit Throughout Your Company. McGraw?Hill: New York.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency?Based Business
Planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, no. 3: 258?273.
Kingdon, M. (2012). The Science of Serendipity: How to Unlock the Promise of Innovation in Large
Organisation. Wiley: Chichester.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Developments, Trends, and
Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. September: 577?597.
Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Hornsby, J.S. (2006). A Model of Middle?level Managers
Entrepreneurial Behavior. Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice, 29 (6): 699?716.
Lans, T., Hulsink, W., Baert, H. and Mulder, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship education and training in a
small business context: Insights from the competence?based approach. Journal of Enterprising
Culture 16, no. 4: 363?383.
MacDonald, R.W. (2008). Beat the system: 11 Secrets to Building an Entrepreneurial Culture in a
Bureaucratic World. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science: 2
(71?87).
Page 353
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
McGrath, R.G. and MacMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continously
Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Morris, M.H. and Hills, G. (1992). The Role of Entrepreneurship in Marketing Education. Marketing
Education Review, vol. 2: 1?10.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation.
Thomson: Mason.
Morris, M.H. and Sexton, D.L. (1996). The Concept of Entrepreneurial Intensity. Journal of Business
Research 36, no. 1: 5?14.
Morris, M.H., Webb, J.W., Fu, J. and Singhal,S. (2013). A Competency?Based Perspective on
Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business
Management 51 (3): 352?369.
Mustar, P. (2009). Technology Management Education: Innovation and Entrepreneurship at MINES
ParisTech, a Leading French Engineering School. Academy of Management Learning & Education 8,
no. 3: 418:425.
Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.
Journal of Small Business Management 49 (1): 55?70.
Neuberger, O. (1995). Mikropolitik: Der alltägliche Aufbau und Einsatz von Macht in Organisationen.
Ferdinand Enke Verlag: Stuttgart.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science 5,
no. 1: 14?37.
Ojastu, D., Chiu, R. and Olsen, P.I. (2011). Cognitive Model of Entrepreneurship and its reflection in
education. Journal of Enterprising Culture 19. No.4 (December): 397?434.
O’Reilly III, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business
Review: Boston.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (19979. The Learning Company: A strategy for sustainable
development. 2
nd
ed. Mc Graw?Hill: Maidenhead
Pittaway, L. and Thorpe, R. (2012). A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to Jason
Cope. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24, no. 9?10: 837?859.
Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990). Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship Education:
Curricular Designs and Strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Spring: 55?71.
Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2010). A role model for entrepreneurial firms in a
global business environment. In: Ginevi?ius, R., Rutkauskas, A.V. and Po?s, R., 2010. Business and
Management – Selected Papers, Volume II, VGTU Publishing House Technika: Vilnius.
Page 354
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2011). Identifying and pursuing business opportunities
in a vital entrepreneurial learning organisation. In: Schutte,C.S.L. and Pretorius, L., 2011. Innovative
Systems Thinking: Unravelling Complexity for Successful Solutions. ISEM 2011 Proceedings:
Stellenbosch.
Platzek, B.P. (2012). The role of intrapreneurship in a globally competitive technology business
environment: a design concept and empirical study. University of Pretoria: Pretoria.
Platzek, B.P., Hohl, E.K. and Pretorius, L. (2013). General Manager Roles in the Vital Entrepreneurial
Learning Organization. In: Innovating in global markets: Challenges for sustainable growth. XXIV
ISPIM Proceedings: Helsinki.
Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2014). The Vital Entrepreneurial Learning Organization:
A Corporate Mindset for Entrepreneurial Change Management. International Journal of Innovation
and Technology Management, 11, no. 5: 1?23.
Raelin, J.A. (1993).Theory and Practice: Their Roles, Relationship, and Limitations in Advanced
Management Education. Business Horizons, May?June: 85?89.
Raelin, J.A. (1997). A Model of Work?Based Learning. Organization Science 8, no.6: 563?578.
Raelin, J.A. (2007). Toward an Epistemology of Practice. Academy of Management Learning &
Education 6, no. 4: 495?519.
Raelin, J.A. (2008). Work?Based Learning: Bridging Knowledge and Action in the workplace. John
Wiley & Sons: San Francisco.
Russell, R., Atchison, M. and Brooks, R. (2008). Business plan competitions in tertiary institutions:
encouraging entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30,
no. 2: 123?138.
Sathe, V. (2003). Corporate Entrepreneurship: TOP Managers and New Business Creation. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J.A. (2006). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Duncker und Humblot: Berlin.
Senge, P.M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Random
House: London.
Timmons, J.A. and Spinelli, S. (2007). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21
st
Century.
7
th
Edition. McGraw?Hill: New York.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2007). The Distinctive Challenge of Educationg Social Entrepreneurs: A
Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship Education. Academy of
management Learning & education 6, no. 2: 264?271.
Vanevenhoven, J. (2013). Advances and Challenges in Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small
Business Management 51 (3): 466?470.
Page 355
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Volery, T., Müller, S., Oser, F. Naepflin, C. and Del Rey, N. (2013). The Impact of Entrepreneurship
Education on Human Capital at Upper?Secondary Level. Journal of Small Business Management 51
(3): 429?446.
Wunderer, R. (2001). Employees as Co?Intrapreneurs – A Transformation Concept. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal: 22 (5/6).
Wunderer, R. (2006). Führung und Zusammenarbeit: Eine unternehmerische Führungslehre. 6.
Auflage. Luchterhand. München.
Page 356
doc_394033875.pdf
Corporate Entrepreneurship Education Individual And Organizational Entrepreneurial Learning
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING
BERND P. PLATZEK
University of Applied Sciences Ravensburg?Weingarten, AWW / University of Pretoria, Graduate School of
Technology Management, Member Research Group for Systems Energy and Innovation, Germany
platzek@hs?weingarten.de
LEON PRETORIUS
University of Pretoria, Graduate School of Technology Management, Coordinator Research Group for Systems
Energy and Innovation, South Africa
[email protected]
Copyright © 2015 by the University of Pretoria. Permission granted to IAMOT to publish and use.
ABSTRACT
Corporate entrepreneurship education is an important prerequisite for innovation and management
of sustainable growth in global business environments. In highly uncertain environments creating
new opportunities and pursuing entrepreneurial initiatives in established and new business requires
an integrated view of corporate entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship education. This
paper explores a multilevel framework for corporate entrepreneurship education based on the
theoretical constructs of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization (VELO) and a role model for
the personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (PACE) mainly via an exploratory
research approach with elements of action research also rooted in a type of Design Science Research
approach. It details the implications for, and gives direction to researchers and practitioners involved
in the design of holistic corporate entrepreneurship programs in dynamic and complex business
environments.
Key words: Entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurial and managerial mindset, Multi?level
approach, Entrepreneurial learning and change management, Modular concept
INTRODUCTION: TOWARD A MULTI?LEVEL PERSPECTIVE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING
As stated by Neck and Greene (2011) entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education have more
relevance today than ever before. Entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurial agents are a driving
force for innovation, renewal and development in today’s globally competitive technology business
environment (Kuratko 2005, Baumol et al 2007). A viable interaction of the organization with the
external environment involves identifying, selecting and pursuing opportunities in established and
new business (Platzek et al. 2011). Entrepreneurial firms therefore require a corporate
entrepreneurial mindset (systems perspective, firm level), entrepreneurial teams (interdisciplinary
perspective, team level), and corporate entrepreneurs (behavioral perspective, individual level) with
entrepreneurial motivation and skills (Schumpeter 2006, Morris et al. 2013) that can be learned
(Drucker, 1985, Wunderer 2001, Kuratko 2005, Morris et al. 2008). In keeping with Morris and Hills
(1992) future personnel at all levels (Top?level managers, Middle?level managers, First?level
managers or Non?managerial personnel) will have to become more entrepreneurial. According to
Griffiths et al. (2012) there is currently little progress in entrepreneurship theory and education for
Page 336
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
multilevel approaches and a general lack of formal academic programs (Kuratko 2005, Griffiths
2012).
In this research paper we present a founded general, multi?level framework for corporate
entrepreneurship education. Our findings will have significant implications for researchers and
corporate managers involved in the design of holistic corporate entrepreneurship programs in
international and complex business environments. Which learning fields in corporate
entrepreneurship education can be defined from a multi?level perspective? How can personal
experience in the day?to?day running of a business or in the creating of new business be integrated
in a corporate entrepreneurship program (learning from first?hand experience)? How can previous
learning and failures of others be integrated in corporate entrepreneurship education (second?order
experiential learning)? How can reflection on individual and organizational entrepreneurial practice
be transformed in an educational program?
The theoretical analysis and theory?based exploration research method used inter alia in this
research (Bortz and Döring 1995) leads to building blocks (modules) for a general, holistic corporate
entrepreneurship program with integrated learning elements for individual and organizational
learning (Argyris 1999). On the one hand, the research focus is on corporate entrepreneurship
content:the application of theoretical constructs for corporate and individual entrepreneurial
mindsets (Platzek et al. 2013, Platzek et al. 2014). On the other hand, the emphasis is on the
methods used to teach corporate entrepreneurship (Ojastu et al. 2011). As a result of the
exploratory theoretical literature research, the paper highlights the importance of (1) work?based
learning (Raelin 2008), (2) integrated learning where learning takes place in a network (on the job
and off the job) and (3) reflection and experiential learning. All three are essential for the
entrepreneurial learning process (Gordon et al. 2012).
According to Raelin (1993) it’s essential to blend theory and practice in corporate entrepreneurship
education. This can in some sense also be related to the action research and Design Science research
approach. On?the job learning that views the real world as an appropriate location for learning and
classroom?based learning that introduces principles that can be applied to entrepreneurial contexts
enhance each other. Consistent with Cope (2005) dynamic entrepreneurial learning can take part in
two stages: firstly prior to entrepreneurial activities to support the entrepreneurial preparedness
and secondly during the entrepreneurial events to accumulate knowledge to act in entrepreneurial
ways. In line with Raelin (2007) it is also valuable to form theory?practice linkages: Entrepreneurship
theory helps to see entrepreneurial practice in a new light and entrepreneurial practice supports the
integration of new information into the knowledge base. Diverse accumulations of knowledge,
experience and learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation create new
insights and new knowledge to recognize innovative opportunities (Corbett 2005). In keeping with
Raelin (1997) corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning should respect different
modes of learning (experience, observation, conceptualization, experimentation) at the individual
level and foster the learning together with others. Along with Nonaka (1994) individuals, groups, and
organizations have to create and exploit information and knowledge as communities of interaction.
Therefore, a multi?level approach on entrepreneurial learning in theory and practice (fig. 1) used in
this research helps us understand the nature of holistic corporate entrepreneurship in dynamic
environments and to build knowledge and competences for ongoing entrepreneurial action. This
again reminds of the Design science and Action based research approach. Consequently, corporate
Page 337
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
entrepreneurship education should follow a multi?level perspective and combine individual, team
and organizational learning.
Figure.1: Multi?level perspective on entrepreneurial learning in entrepreneurial context: Focus on
corporate entrepreneurship theory and practice
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING AND ADAPTATION THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF A COMPANY
The dynamic that drives innovation and management for sustainable growth in today’s environment
is entrepreneurship. Corporate entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial teams create and implement new
ideas proactively with a commitment to the mission and life of the enterprise (Drucker 19985). They
shape evolution and revolution (fig. 2) as the organization grows (Greiner 1998) to reach the
dynamic end state of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization in permanent exchange with the
external environment (Platzek et al. 2014). To develop, manage and grow the business, individual
and collective entrepreneurial learning from entrepreneurial practice is vital (Cope 2005).
Page 338
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 2: Evolution and revolution towards a dynamic end state of the entrepreneurial organization
as open system along the lines of Greiner (1998)
Consistent with Plaschka and Welsch (1990) the various career paths and roles played by corporate
entrepreneurs, the different stages of the organizational life cycle (fig.2), and the different natures
of business environments call for a diversified entrepreneurship education towards an
entrepreneurial organization in symbiosis with the external environment (Sathe 2003). In keeping
with Hedberg (1981) organizational learning needs to balance learning and unlearning in line with
the characteristics of the external business environment. We can therefore distinguish adjustment?
learning in stable environments from turnover?learning, and turnaround?learning in dynamic and
complex environments. Further, off?the?job learning, on?the?job learning, near?the?job learning, and
parallel?to?the?job learning can be combined (Wunderer 2006). It would, however, be valuable to
develop an adaptable theory based concept for content (what should be taught) and learning
mechanisms (how should it be taught) to meet the evolving needs of organizations, managers, and
employees (Kuratko, 2005, Vanevenhoven 2013).
The theoretical building blocks of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2014)
and the role model of the personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur in the vital
entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2013) can be used as a theoretical frame of
reference to develop a holistic learning concept for corporate entrepreneurship education. This
theory?based approach helps to identify the individual and collective entrepreneurial preparedness
(Cope 2005) and to define the content (Béchard and Grégoire 2005) for entrepreneurial learning in
different stages of the organizational life?cycle. Following this approach, we can derive the content
of corporate entrepreneurship education based on solid conceptual building blocks allowing
corporate entrepreneurs to understand the nature of entrepreneurial activity (Tracey and Phillips
2007). A common understanding of the entrepreneurial process (fig. 3) and the contribution of each
manager and employee with a personality of an ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur forms the
base towards understanding, supporting and developing specific roles in line with the mission of the
vital entrepreneurial learning organization. In line with Cope (2005), this perspective offers a theory
based approach towards creating an entrepreneurial organization staffed with individuals who act as
corporate entrepreneurs. As a consequence, corporate entrepreneurs should be dynamic learners
who, in practice, integrate understanding, thinking and acting in an entrepreneurial way throughout
the entrepreneurial organization.
Page 339
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 3: Entrepreneurial Process in line with Timmons and Spinelli (2007)
In the following section we give an overview of the basic theoretical constructs for holistic corporate
entrepreneurship at company?level and individual?level. This helps to explain the nature of holistic
corporate entrepreneurship and offers a general direction towards defining the content for
corporate entrepreneurship education. We go on to explore general implications from
entrepreneurship education literature and integrate these findings with our theory based concept to
present a coherent framework for the design of corporate entrepreneurship education in global
environments.
THE CONTEXT FOR HOLISTIC CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
The generic personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur: The PACE?Concept
Corporate entrepreneurs with an entrepreneurial mindset create organizations that find and pursue
opportunities. They orchestrate the entrepreneurial process, create an appropriate work climate,
monitor and control the developing opportunity and manage failure through discovery?driven
planning and involvement (McGrath and MacMillan 2000). Organizations are political, and politics
will be influential in the success or failure of any entrepreneurial initiative within an organization
(Morris et al. 2008). Therefore, political skills are helpful to overcome resistance and to obtain
resources for the entrepreneurial initiative (Block and MacMillan 1993). Corporate entrepreneurs
are creative in interpreting existing rules, developing alliances, and sharing information with others.
Ambidextrous corporate entrepreneurs with a managerial and entrepreneurial perspective perform
well in established environments while at the same time search for new activities to create new
value (Platzek et al. 2013).
Top?level corporate entrepreneurs (Sathe 2003) take ownership for entrepreneurial initiatives and
balance mainstream and new?stream activities. They are build organizational architectures for
innovation and entrepreneurship, protect innovation and remove constraints. They also design an
environmental analysis and opportunity radar system. Middle?level corporate entrepreneurs
(Kuratko et al. 2006) evaluate entrepreneurial initiatives emerging from lower levels and champion
entrepreneurial projects to enable other’s entrepreneurial actions. They are also intermediaries who
accelerate initiatives from the Top?level. First?level Managers and Non?Managerial Personnel
Page 340
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
(Wunderer 2001, Morris et al. 2008) and take on experimenting, adjusting, and conforming roles.
They initiate entrepreneurial activities, respond to the implementation challenges in pursuing
entrepreneurial initiatives and respect norms, rules, procedures to the pursuit of planned
entrepreneurial initiatives coming from higher levels in the organization.
The design of corporate entrepreneurship education should be driven by a theoretical
understanding of the personality of the corporate entrepreneur and integrate entrepreneurial
learning mechanisms (Gordon 2012). Therefore, we can focus on general manager roles (fig. 4)
derived in theoretical exploration (Platzek et al. 2013) to evaluate the current knowledge base and
to define the necessary learning content. The corporate entrepreneur shapes entrepreneurial and
managerial processes to discover, evaluate and pursue opportunities in new and established
business. As a change manager he/she balances evolution and revolution, stability and flexibility,
improvements and transformation, individual and collective learning processes with an emphasis to
the internal and external environment. He/she executes innovation as a basic function of
entrepreneurship and learns from experience of success and failure.
Figure 4: General manager roles in the vital entrepreneurial learning organization according to
Platzek et al. (2013)
The corporate entrepreneur creates ideas in the areas of products, markets, and technologies and
matches the idea with strategy, structure, and resources. As an effective manager he/she masters
the discipline of execution and results through linking people, strategy and operational processes.
He/she is balances efficiency (doing things right) and effectiveness (doing the right things) using
management tools, self?development, and continues learning (Drucker 1988). The corporate
entrepreneur makes the organization, group, and team more than the sum of its parts and combines
team roles (Belbin 2010) to enable holistic entrepreneurial action.
As a communication manager the corporate entrepreneur communicates upwards, downwards and
horizontally to integrate entrepreneurial activities and processes. He/she develops political tactics
(Neuberger 1995) to overcome obstacles and to build influential alliances through listening,
dialogue, and informal conversation. He/she masters systems design and systems thinking in
Page 341
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
entrepreneurial decision?making to create cooperative structures with symbiotic relationships and
networks to achieve adaptation and high performance. The corporate entrepreneur understands the
environment?organization system, promotes decentralized entrepreneurial experimentation and
self?regulation. As a culture manager he/she understands cultural diversity, clarifies cultural gaps
openly, builds cultural synergy, and relates characteristics of the national culture to the business and
corporate culture.
The manager roles (fig. 4) represent an evaluation and learning framework we can use to define
building blocks for the content of corporate entrepreneurship education at the individual level. To
take a multi?level perspective we have in addition to take a company?level perspective to derive
further building blocks for the content of entrepreneurial learning. We can therefore focus on the
concept of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2014) in the next section.
Page 342
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
The vital entrepreneurial learning organization: The VELO?Concept
Entrepreneurial organizations need an overall level of entrepreneurship (Morris and Sexton 1996) to
continually innovate in interaction with a global and dynamic business environment. A corporate
entrepreneurial mindset with a dual perspective on exploring new opportunities while exploiting
established businesses is therefore essential (March 1991, O’Reilly III and Tushman 2004, Platzek et
al. 2010). As described in the previous section, such organizational ambidexterity needs to combine
the perspective of the individual corporate entrepreneur with his/her managerial and
entrepreneurial mindset (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004, Platzek et al. 2013) with the ability to bring
individual and collective action together.
For an understanding of company?level entrepreneurship and to develop an image of the relevant
content for corporate entrepreneurship education from this perspective we can focus on the
theoretical building blocks of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization (Platzek et al. 2014). This
integrated framework with design elements for holistic corporate entrepreneurship is based on
three central tasks for the entrepreneurial organization: (1) entrepreneurial information gathering,
(2) shaping of the future and (3) shaping of the organization. The entrepreneurial collection of
meaningful information with four key activities (scanning, monitoring, forecasting, assessment)
focuses on four basic dimensions of the business environment (character, diversity, geographical
dimension and segments). Individual and collective learning are defined as dynamic components of
entrepreneurial information gathering.
The entrepreneurial shaping of the future in a vital entrepreneurial learning organization concerns
key competencies for entrepreneurial organizations, innovation areas, systems theory principles for
interaction of the organization with the environment, and central entrepreneurial decisions in new
and existing business. In entrepreneurial shaping of the organization central levers are
entrepreneurial strategy, structure, culture, resources and competencies. The vital entrepreneurial
learning organization takes central dualities into consideration: Short and long?term viability,
optimisation and renewal, flexibility and operational stability, centralised and decentralised decision
structures, interests of the organisation and interests of the individual players. Harmonisation of the
interests inside the organization is a fundamental design target for the vital entrepreneurial learning
organization.
In implementing the three entrepreneurial tasks through a process model, the vital entrepreneurial
learning organization must fulfil as a whole unit the roles of knowledge manager for opportunities
and threats, idea finder, idea implementer (innovation manager), entrepreneurial manager in
existing businesses and synergy manager. A conceptual framework for the specification and analysis
of the business environment can guide entrepreneurial gathering of meaningful information such
that future opportunities and threats can be proactively detected. A qualitative systems model can
help to understand the interaction of the organization with the environment in existing and new
business and to study internal and external impulses for the goal?oriented design of interactions. The
role model for the vital entrepreneurial learning organization with some implications from practice
(fig. 5) gives an image of the basic entrepreneurial roles an entrepreneurial organization has to act
upon as an entity to achieve adaptation, innovation and efficiency.
Page 343
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 5: Corporate manager roles of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization to perform basic
entrepreneurial tasks according to Platzek (2012)
In the vital entrepreneurial learning organization individual participants, teams and the whole
organization are learning for proactive, dynamic and creative adaptation to changes in the global
environment, in particular by the realisation of entrepreneurial opportunities and the processing of
threats. From a company?level perspective (Pedler et al. 1997), five learning elements can
strengthen the development of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization: (1) Management
workshop for entrepreneurial shaping of the future by agents of change, (2) analysis of individual
entrepreneurial activities by entrepreneurial agents and teams, (3) analysis of entrepreneurial
culture by culture agents, (4) analysis of the macro environment by country agents and (5) analysis
of the micro environment by industry agents.
The Pace?Concept (Platzek et al. 2013) and the VELO?Concept (Platzek et al. 2014) build a theoretical
framework to define the content of holistic corporate entrepreneurship education in today’s
turbulent business environment. To develop a general entrepreneurial learning program on these
fundamental concepts the next section looks at some relevant learning issues in the context of
entrepreneurship. Most educational education theory does not explicitly refer to corporate
entrepreneurship. It does, however, make sense to consider and review the existing theory for
relevant content and pointers to educational aspects that require further investigation.
IMPLICATIONS FROM ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION THEORY
Barbosa et al. (2008) focus on the developing of analytic and intuitive skills necessary in the
entrepreneurial process (Bessant and Tidd 2011, Hisrich and Kearney 2012). Intuition and
experiential thinking seems to be especially important in opportunity identification. Reasoning and
analytical thinking appear to be particular essential in evaluation and implementation of
opportunities.
Page 344
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Through integrated coursework and experiential learning (Honig 2004, Edelman et al. 2008) both
types of entrepreneurial perception should be leveraged in the four content areas (1) defining and
evaluating the opportunity; (2) defining the business concept and strategy; (3) attracting new
resources and alliances; (4) getting involved with implementation and entrepreneurship in action.
Designing effective learning opportunities for entrepreneurship (Kuratko 2005) around the
entrepreneurial process (Hisrich and Kearney 2012) aims to develop entrepreneurial understanding
(e.g. learning to relate previously unrelated things) and risk taking in entrepreneurial action (fig.6).
According to Block and MacMillan (1993) the entrepreneurial organization should learn from
experience in product, market, and technology areas to consider three levels of learning effort: (1)
the venture manager is asked to write a report about the venturing experience (including a
statement of the most important things learned), (2) venture managers and senior management
people hold one or more meetings to share experiences and identify internal obstacles that should
be removed, (3) a corporate entrepreneur should study the venturing experience by recording
information on an ongoing basis throughout the venture (venture log, interviews, report on the
history of the venture’s performance and major activities, conclusions, lessons learned).
As stated by Honig (2004) corporate entrepreneurship education should be designed as closely as
possible to the business environment. Business planning in dynamic environments consists of a lack
of certainty and follows no strictly linear process. Therefore, skills to reevaluate, adapt, and revise
activities should be practiced and developed through daily experiences at work resulting in
experiential learning (e.g. learn to tolerate risks, learn from failure, learn to navigate a team through
unknown territory). Consequently, corporate entrepreneurship education should be designed in
modules to allow a contingency?based training. Along the lines of Neck and Greene (2011) the
business planning process is an influential learning process and it is identified that business plan
competitions and workshops have the potential to enhance education experience in developing
entrepreneurial skills and networks (Gordon 2012) through action learning and work?integrated
learning in a motivational learning environment (Russell et al. 2008).
Figure 6: Entrepreneurial initiatives and learning fields consistent with Block and MacMillan (1993)
Page 345
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Seminars and workshops by industry experts can help to build up the necessary knowledge base.
The acquisition of knowledge should be a balance of theory and practice (Edelman et al. 2008). This
can be achieved through classes and the experimental development of entrepreneurial skills through
dialogue and meeting with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial managers, presentation of business
research, field work studies or entrepreneurial project (team) work with entrepreneurship content
(e.g. business environment and country analysis), all of which are powerful in corporate
entrepreneurship education (Mustar 2009).
Against this background, corporate entrepreneurs see corporate venturing and entrepreneurial
action as a laboratory and training field to learn about the process of venturing and to learn from
failure. Therefore, corporate entrepreneurs at all levels learn through adopting and implementing
new strategies, structures, and processes and they acquire new knowledge by introducing new
products, entering new markets or creating new business models (Morris et al. 2008). To form a
base for practice?based learning, work?integrated learning, and work?based learning, integrated
course?based learning in classroom will make it possible to understand the nature of entrepreneurial
activity.
The course work can therefore focus on (1) an introduction to corporate entrepreneurship and basic
concepts (e. g. managerial and entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial process and internal
corporate venturing, meaning of organizational slack, impact of triggering events, effect of a sense of
urgency, learning from failure and the need for unlearning); (2) best practices of corporate
entrepreneurship; (3) training in creative thinking; (4) the idea development process and evaluation
process; (5) the review of specific climate factors and barriers to entrepreneurial behavior; (6)
venture planning.
In line with Lans et al. (2008) corporate entrepreneurship education can focus on learning for
corporate entrepreneurship through the development of an (individual and corporate)
entrepreneurial mindset and by strengthening entrepreneurial behavior (e.g. recognizing and acting
on opportunities) or learning about corporate entrepreneurship through understanding
entrepreneurial situations and context (e.g. know?how to write a business plan). To develop
entrepreneurial competence (at individual, team, organizational level) the emphasis has to be on
competence assessment and identification of knowledge gaps in relation to the specific work and
business environment. Thus, a competence assessment can be a strategic starting point for
corporate entrepreneurship education at individual and collective level.
According to Morris et al. (2013) a distinct set of competencies are critical for entrepreneurial action
and that they should be developed together with general management competencies. To improve
individual and organizational performance the managerial and entrepreneurial competencies should
be measured against criteria and can be improved by holistic corporate entrepreneurship education.
Therefore, we can focus in corporate entrepreneurship training programs on the what (e.g. business
and management basics, industry and competitor analysis, customer analysis, market analysis,
opportunity identification, risk mitigation, resource leveraging) and the how (e.g. traditional
lectures, competency?based feedback on entrepreneurial behavior, influencing personal attitudes
through experimentation, learning in entrepreneurial performance) to develop dynamic
entrepreneurial competencies.
Page 346
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
As stated by Morris et al. (2013) the most relevant competencies are (1) social skills (e.g.
communications and interpersonal relations, networking), (2) functional business skills (e.g.
marketing and sales, strategic planning, recruiting entrepreneurial talent), (3) general management
skills (e.g. goal setting, organizing and motivating people, leadership and delegation, negotiation)
and(4) entrepreneurial skills (e.g. creative and holistic thinking, innovation and new product
development, entrepreneurial risk management, searching/interpreting/evaluating environmental
change, identifying/selecting/pursuing opportunities respectively opportunity refinement/resource
leveraging/championing). In consequence, the developing of these competencies (fig.7) takes place
in reciprocal interactions between individuals and their environments where the individuals gather
feedback and gain expertise to guide their present and/or future entrepreneurial initiatives. The
corporate entrepreneur can therefore develop his/her competency knowledge base while resolving
complex problems and exploiting an opportunities.
The knowledge base is essential to opportunity identification (Gordon 2012, Volery et al. 2013). De
Tienne and Chandler (2004) state that entrepreneurial discoveries can be the result of systematic
search but also take place randomly. Corporate Entrepreneurship Education can support opportunity
identification but it would be inappropriate to assume that all relevant information required to
identify opportunities can be presented in a classroom. Consequently and consistent with Cope
(2005) corporate entrepreneurship education should also focus on entrepreneurial learning by doing
(practical, routine, adaptive learning through resolving complex and ambiguous situations at work),
reflective learning (learning through reflecting entrepreneurial decisions and actions), learning
through crisis (stimulated fundamental learning and adaptation through discontinuities and events).
Engagement, developing new insights, inward critical self?reflection, mistakes and failure all play an
important role in entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial awareness education (Gordon 2012,
Fretschner and Weber 2013).
Figure 7: Entrepreneurial Competencies of the Corporate Entrepreneur consistent with Morris et al.
(2013)
Page 347
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
The accumulation of skills and experience cultivates entrepreneurial preparedness, supports future
actions and encourages serendipity, in other words innovations through happy entrepreneurial
accidents (Kingdon 2012). According to Pittaway and Thorpe (2012) such action?based learning
should include inward, outward, backward and forward reflection and interaction within social
communities. Further, an individual’s learning experiences should be integrated in entrepreneurship
education. In keeping with Neck and Greene (2011) experience and a portfolio of practice?based
trainings like starting businesses and practicing entrepreneurial activities coursework will result in
teaching a way of thinking and acting that supports the development of an managerial and
entrepreneurial mindset (Platzek et al. 2014) and a capacity to act entrepreneurially (Fretschner and
Weber 2013).
Beyond understanding and knowing the foundation principles of corporate entrepreneurship (e.g.
opportunity identification and analysis, feasibility analysis, business planning, resource assembling,
assessment and management of risk, performing management roles, evaluation of results) learning
fields for entrepreneurial application are e.g. dealing with complexity and uncertainty, creativity and
innovation, multi?dimensional problem solving and entrepreneurial decision?making, multi?
functional roles and empathy, business design, entrepreneurial culture, social responsibility, and
leveraging failure (Plaschka and Wells 1990, Neck and Greene 2011).
Following this, understanding, doing, learning, and reflection on entrepreneurial thinking and acting
with a holistic perspective (Wunderer 2006) is therefore a fitting method for strengthening a vital
entrepreneurial learning organization in an unpredictable business environment. A practice?based
corporate entrepreneurship education should, as a consequence, integrate reflecting?on?practice
and reflecting?in?practice elements embedded in a continuous cycle of entrepreneurial action,
learning, testing, and experimenting. Senge (2006:186?187) formulates guidelines (fig.8) for
balancing inquiry and advocacy in reflective practice as an imperative for collaborative learning,
opportunity recognition, and to put business ideas into practice. Dialogue, discussions and
structured self?reflection should be part of the entrepreneurial learning process (Ojastu et al. 2011).
Figure 8: Balancing inquiry and advocacy: Skills for effective collaborative learning according to
Senge (2006)
Page 348
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
In the next section we look at the implications from entrepreneurship education theory and the
theoretical concepts of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (VELO) and the personality of
the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (PACE) and present a corresponding modular concept for
holistic entrepreneurial learning.
A MODULAR CONCEPT FOR HOLISTIC CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Classroom?based learning: Understanding context and roles from a multi?level perspective
Module 1 provides a basic understanding of corporate entrepreneurship. The content focus areas for
module 1 are e. g. multi?level perspectives and forms of corporate entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial orientation and intensity, opportunity analysis and entrepreneurial process,
strategic renewal and organizational design elements for holistic corporate entrepreneurship,
developing a business plan and business model innovation. These form a knowledge base for a
better understanding of the international business environment as a playing field for opportunities
and risks (module 2).
The character and elements of the business environment are the focus of module 2. An
understanding of the general macro environment (political and legal, economic and social, natural
and technological environments) and the micro environment (industry, competitors, and markets)
are prerequisites for understanding the interaction between the organization and its environment
(module 3).
Content areas for module 3 are e. g. systems perspectives and systems thinking in entrepreneurial
management, dealing with complexity, understanding formal, informal, and political sub?systems,
system planning and recursive structures of organizations.
Module 4 looks at the building blocks of the vital entrepreneurial learning organization (design
elements of holistic corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial tasks and process model, role
model, framework of the business environment, qualitative systems model, learning elements to
develop and strengthen the vital entrepreneurial learning organisation).
Complementary to the organization perspective in module 4, module 5 considers the personality of
the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur (e. g. behavioural aspects, managerial and
entrepreneurial mind set, entrepreneurial leadership, entrepreneurial preparedness,
entrepreneurial networking and relationship management in alliances and cooperation,
entrepreneurial activity and management?level, general manager roles of the corporate
entrepreneur). For collaboration and collective action it is necessary to channel individual action of
the corporate entrepreneurs (Baghai and Quigley 2011).
To illuminate the general expectations of entrepreneurial managers, modules 6 to 12 reflect on the
theory behind the manager roles: culture manager, change manager, innovation manager, effective
manager, team manager, communication manager, and complexity manager.
Reflecting on practice: Action?based entrepreneurial learning elements
Building upon the entrepreneurship education theory, reflecting on practice makes a significant
contribution in developing analytic and intuitive skills for entrepreneurial action. Modules 13 to 18
can focus on individual study and experience (individual action) followed by presentations and
discussions (group reflection). In module 13 the corporate entrepreneur analyses the general macro
Page 349
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
environment of a country systematically to identify and evaluate opportunities and risks. In module
14 the additional intercultural issues regarding international markets are examined.
Analysing a specific micro environment is the focus of module 15. Corporate entrepreneurs should
identify the industry characteristics, success factors, trends, competitors, opportunities and threats.
In module 16 the internal study reflects on the specific role of the corporate entrepreneur for the
whole organization. The overall organizational architecture is considered (strategy, structure,
culture, competences and resources) to understand and evaluate the organization?environment?fit.
In module 17 corporate entrepreneurs take a backward perspective, write a venture log, and take
conclusions from past experience to use in future entrepreneurial activities (e. g. venture story,
lessons learned). In module 18 corporate entrepreneurs take a forward perspective, reflect on future
entrepreneurial action and write a business plan.
Group reflection on entrepreneurial practice from the perspective of the vital entrepreneurial
organization takes place in a workshop for entrepreneurial shaping of the future (module 19).
Entrepreneurial teams reflect on the practice of opportunity recognition, idea generation and
evaluation, synergy creation and building parallel interests (Mac Donald 2008). Reflection on
practice from the perspective of the individual corporate entrepreneur (e. g. performance in
manager roles, progress in individual action plans, lessons learned to strengthening entrepreneurial
preparedness) is the focus of module 20.
Reflecting in practice: Entrepreneurial work?based learning
Entrepreneurial learning also takes place in managerial and entrepreneurial field work.
Entrepreneurial action is a rich training field to learn about the entrepreneurship process and the
implementation of opportunities. At the individual level, the corporate entrepreneur can reflect in
entrepreneurial action on the manager roles. He/she can write a personal venture log and a personal
competency log to turn theory into practice. Entrepreneurial learning can also take place through
practice communities and supported by coaching by instructors, responding just in time to the needs
and preferences of the corporate entrepreneur (Raelin 2008). In addition to personal action plans,
organizational action plans can be developed and discussed in collaborative learning. Group
reflection in practice can be systematically channeled in workshops with focus on organizational
learning (module 19) or individual and team learning (module 20).
Learning mechanisms: Theory?based and practice?based pedagogies
In combining action and reflection in practice, reflection on practice and class?room based learning
we can design holistic corporate entrepreneurship education (fig. 9). Specific programs can be
derived based on this multi?level perspective together with the entrepreneurial preparedness of the
organization and the individual corporate entrepreneur.
Page 350
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Figure 9: Holistic Corporate Entrepreneurship education: Integrating class?room based learning and
work?based learning
Following the implications from entrepreneurship education a portfolio of theory?based (e. g.
lectures, seminars, workshops, exercises, presentations, simulations, literature studies) and practice?
based pedagogies (e. g. business planning, projects, experiments, reports, venture logs, competency
logs, communities of practice, meetings, networks, discussions, coaching, competency?based
feedback, learning from success and failure in entrepreneurial action, learning from crises and happy
entrepreneurial accidents, interviews, document studies) should be used in entrepreneurial learning.
CONCLUSION
This paper extends the work on holistic corporate entrepreneurship (Platzek et al. 2013, Platzek et
al. 2014) by introducing a concept for a holistic corporate entrepreneurship education. We argued
that today’s dynamic business environment makes a multi?level approach with individual, team and
organizational learning valuable. Further, the entrepreneurial preparedness of organizations and
individuals should additionally be considered in the design of specific corporate entrepreneurship
education. Consequently, we made reference to the concept of the organizational life?cycle and the
dynamic end state of a vital entrepreneurial learning organization. We also looked to the concept of
the personality of the ambidextrous corporate entrepreneur in the vital entrepreneurial learning
organization to derive the basic content for entrepreneurial learning. Following review of existing
entrepreneurship education literature we explored implications for integrated theory?based and
practice?based pedagogies to achieve a holistic entrepreneurial learning.
Page 351
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Our theoretical and conceptual exploration led to the development of a generic entrepreneurial
learning program with twelve class?room based modules and eight practice?based modules. Two of
the practice?based modules represent extensive entrepreneurial learning in practice. Further
conceptual and business research can help to specify the modules and trainings in more detail and
for application in any specific organizational context.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(Competition Advancement through Education: Open Universities).
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. 2
nd
ed. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
Barbosa, S.D., Kickul, J. and Smith, B.R. (2008). The road less intended: Integrating Entrepreneurial
Cognition and Risk in Entrepreneurial Education. Journal of Enterprising Culture 16, no. 4: 411?439.
Baumol, W.J., Litan, R.E. and Schramm, C.J. (2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism and the
Economics of Growth and Prosperity. Yale University Press: New Haven.
Béchard, J.?P. and Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of
Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4, no. 1:22?43.
Belbin, R.M. (2010). Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. Butterworth?Heinemann:
Amsterdam.
Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2011). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2
nd
ed. Wiley: Chichester.
Bhaghai, M. and Quigley, J. (2011). As One: individual action, collective power. Penguin Groupt:
London.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004). Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan
Management Review: Summer.
Block, Z. and MacMillan, I.C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses within the Firm.
Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Bortz, J., Döring, N. (1995). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer
Verlag: Berlin.
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 29, no. 4: 373?397.
Corbett, A.C. (2005). Experiential Learning within the Process of Opportunity Identification and
Exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, July: 473?491.
De Tienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2004). Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the
Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Academy of Management
Learning and Education 3, no. 3: 242?257.
Page 352
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Drucker, P.F. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review: Boston.
Drucker, P.F. (1988). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Heinemann Professional
Publishing: London.
Edelman, L.F., Manolova, T.S. and Brush, C.G. (2008). Entrepreneurship Education: Correspondence
Between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions for Success. Academy of
Management & Education 7, no. 1: 56?70.
Fretschner, M. and Weber, S. (20139. Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Entrepreneurial
Awarness Education. Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 410?428.
Gordon, I., Hamilton, E. and Jack, S. (2012). A study of university?led entrepreneurship education
programme for small business owner/managers. Entrepreneurship & regional Development 24, no.
9?10: 767?805.
Greiner, L.E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review:
Boston.
Griffiths, M., Kickul, J., Bacq, S. and Terjesen, S. (2012). A Dialogue With William J. Baumol on
Entrepreneurship Theory and education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. July: 611?625.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In: Nystrom,P. and Starbuck, W. (ed.):
Handbook of Organizational Design. Oxford University Press. New York: 3?26.
Hisrich, R.D. and Kearney, C. (2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship: How to Create a Thriving
Entrepreneurial Spirit Throughout Your Company. McGraw?Hill: New York.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency?Based Business
Planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, no. 3: 258?273.
Kingdon, M. (2012). The Science of Serendipity: How to Unlock the Promise of Innovation in Large
Organisation. Wiley: Chichester.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Developments, Trends, and
Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. September: 577?597.
Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Hornsby, J.S. (2006). A Model of Middle?level Managers
Entrepreneurial Behavior. Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice, 29 (6): 699?716.
Lans, T., Hulsink, W., Baert, H. and Mulder, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship education and training in a
small business context: Insights from the competence?based approach. Journal of Enterprising
Culture 16, no. 4: 363?383.
MacDonald, R.W. (2008). Beat the system: 11 Secrets to Building an Entrepreneurial Culture in a
Bureaucratic World. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science: 2
(71?87).
Page 353
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
McGrath, R.G. and MacMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continously
Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Morris, M.H. and Hills, G. (1992). The Role of Entrepreneurship in Marketing Education. Marketing
Education Review, vol. 2: 1?10.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation.
Thomson: Mason.
Morris, M.H. and Sexton, D.L. (1996). The Concept of Entrepreneurial Intensity. Journal of Business
Research 36, no. 1: 5?14.
Morris, M.H., Webb, J.W., Fu, J. and Singhal,S. (2013). A Competency?Based Perspective on
Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business
Management 51 (3): 352?369.
Mustar, P. (2009). Technology Management Education: Innovation and Entrepreneurship at MINES
ParisTech, a Leading French Engineering School. Academy of Management Learning & Education 8,
no. 3: 418:425.
Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.
Journal of Small Business Management 49 (1): 55?70.
Neuberger, O. (1995). Mikropolitik: Der alltägliche Aufbau und Einsatz von Macht in Organisationen.
Ferdinand Enke Verlag: Stuttgart.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science 5,
no. 1: 14?37.
Ojastu, D., Chiu, R. and Olsen, P.I. (2011). Cognitive Model of Entrepreneurship and its reflection in
education. Journal of Enterprising Culture 19. No.4 (December): 397?434.
O’Reilly III, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business
Review: Boston.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (19979. The Learning Company: A strategy for sustainable
development. 2
nd
ed. Mc Graw?Hill: Maidenhead
Pittaway, L. and Thorpe, R. (2012). A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to Jason
Cope. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24, no. 9?10: 837?859.
Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990). Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship Education:
Curricular Designs and Strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Spring: 55?71.
Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2010). A role model for entrepreneurial firms in a
global business environment. In: Ginevi?ius, R., Rutkauskas, A.V. and Po?s, R., 2010. Business and
Management – Selected Papers, Volume II, VGTU Publishing House Technika: Vilnius.
Page 354
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2011). Identifying and pursuing business opportunities
in a vital entrepreneurial learning organisation. In: Schutte,C.S.L. and Pretorius, L., 2011. Innovative
Systems Thinking: Unravelling Complexity for Successful Solutions. ISEM 2011 Proceedings:
Stellenbosch.
Platzek, B.P. (2012). The role of intrapreneurship in a globally competitive technology business
environment: a design concept and empirical study. University of Pretoria: Pretoria.
Platzek, B.P., Hohl, E.K. and Pretorius, L. (2013). General Manager Roles in the Vital Entrepreneurial
Learning Organization. In: Innovating in global markets: Challenges for sustainable growth. XXIV
ISPIM Proceedings: Helsinki.
Platzek, B.P., Pretorius, L. and Winzker, D.H. (2014). The Vital Entrepreneurial Learning Organization:
A Corporate Mindset for Entrepreneurial Change Management. International Journal of Innovation
and Technology Management, 11, no. 5: 1?23.
Raelin, J.A. (1993).Theory and Practice: Their Roles, Relationship, and Limitations in Advanced
Management Education. Business Horizons, May?June: 85?89.
Raelin, J.A. (1997). A Model of Work?Based Learning. Organization Science 8, no.6: 563?578.
Raelin, J.A. (2007). Toward an Epistemology of Practice. Academy of Management Learning &
Education 6, no. 4: 495?519.
Raelin, J.A. (2008). Work?Based Learning: Bridging Knowledge and Action in the workplace. John
Wiley & Sons: San Francisco.
Russell, R., Atchison, M. and Brooks, R. (2008). Business plan competitions in tertiary institutions:
encouraging entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30,
no. 2: 123?138.
Sathe, V. (2003). Corporate Entrepreneurship: TOP Managers and New Business Creation. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J.A. (2006). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Duncker und Humblot: Berlin.
Senge, P.M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Random
House: London.
Timmons, J.A. and Spinelli, S. (2007). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21
st
Century.
7
th
Edition. McGraw?Hill: New York.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2007). The Distinctive Challenge of Educationg Social Entrepreneurs: A
Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship Education. Academy of
management Learning & education 6, no. 2: 264?271.
Vanevenhoven, J. (2013). Advances and Challenges in Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small
Business Management 51 (3): 466?470.
Page 355
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2015 Conference Proceedings
P047
Volery, T., Müller, S., Oser, F. Naepflin, C. and Del Rey, N. (2013). The Impact of Entrepreneurship
Education on Human Capital at Upper?Secondary Level. Journal of Small Business Management 51
(3): 429?446.
Wunderer, R. (2001). Employees as Co?Intrapreneurs – A Transformation Concept. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal: 22 (5/6).
Wunderer, R. (2006). Führung und Zusammenarbeit: Eine unternehmerische Führungslehre. 6.
Auflage. Luchterhand. München.
Page 356
doc_394033875.pdf