THE FEASIBILITY AND DESIRABILIITY OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP: UNWRAPPING THE BLACK BOX OF ENTREPRENEURIAL POTENTIAL

Deborah Virginia Brazeal Management and Human Resources Department California State Polytechnic University 3801 West Temple Avenue Pomona, CA 91768 Phone (909) 869-2368; Fax: (909) 869-4353 E-mail: dbrazeal@csupomona.edu

ABSTRACT The study of corporate entrepreneurship has gained considerable credibility as a field of inquiry with notable practical implications. The fields inherent pragmatism hails from concentrated emphasis on infusing traditional, hard-line companies with innovation, imagination and artistry to gain a competitive foothold in times of narrow and often obscured windows of opportunity. The purpose of the manuscript is to aid top management in building organizational cultures that directly impact the decision-making processes of the potential corporate entrepreneur by examining the cognitive processes of the corporate entrepreneur within an intentions-based framework. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This manuscript seeks to delve into the potential corporate entrepreneurs decisionmaking process using an intentions-based framework to ascertain what organizational factors directly affect the feasibility and desirability of entrepreneurial behaviors. Using an intentions-based model that attends to the cognitive roadmap of potential corporate entrepreneurs is practically significant in two contexts: 1) advising the top management team (TMT) in traditional companies how to build organizational systems conducive to imagination, artistry and innovation and 2) advising educators in entrepreneurship programs on the benefits of self-efficacy when teaching entrepreneurial skills. While large, traditional companies have the necessary resources to pursue an innovation stream of new products and services, oft-times, they lack the nimbleness of new ventures and entrepreneurial firms to act on opportunities beyond the existing proficiencies. Further, awareness of cultural elements constituting thriving entrepreneurial cultures and successfully implementing means of capturing creative activities are two different tasks. While considerable research has identified organizational antecedents that advocate and stifle entrepreneurial activities in large organizations (Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995), greater attention to the cognitive infrastructure supporting entrepreneurial thinking is elusive (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002). Investigating the decision-making process of the corporate entrepreneur, and thusly, the genesis of entrepreneurial thinking, is necessary for changing rigid, rulesoriented firms and implementing corporate entrepreneurship programs that create organizational slack. This manuscript offers a framework and propositions organized around a fine-grained examination of cognitive processes of corporate entrepreneurs. Central to the notion of encouraging entrepreneurial behaviors is promoting the feasibility or self-efficacy of creative thought. Increasing the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs is particularly salient in an educational context. When designing entrepreneurship courses and programs, educators might be advised to prepare students in cognitive entrepreneurial skills and belief systems to strengthen self-efficacy (Chen, Greene & Crick, 1988). Entrepreneurship programs in educational systems primarily concentrate on technical skills and fail to address innovation, risk-taking and the philosophy and belief system of the entrepreneur. Conscientious efforts to embrace real-life scenarios for investigation in the classroom environment and projects jointly pursued with start-up ventures in the business community are suggested.

THE NEW ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMY The new entrepreneurial economy operates with the ease and simplicity of a Hollywood set, as new ventures freely form and disband to exploit here-to-fore unacknowledged opportunities. Certainly the tragic events of September 11, 2001 signify the possibility of unprecedented environmental changes with the effects echoed across multiple industries from the clearly devastated entertainment and travel industries to a trickle-down effect on manufacturing, literally labeling some industries obsolete while reshaping the structure of others. While new entrepreneurs are strategically poised to carpe diem, older well established organizations operating with cumbersome structures lack the necessary agility to behave entrepreneurially. Such an orientation gives rise to what Krackhardt (1995) refers to as a growth paradox meaning a new firm seeking growth eventually structures itself for efficiency with respect to all-encompassing organizational systems, e.g., policies and procedures, general decision-making strategies, reward systems, and strategic orientation. Yet ceasing to be small leads to decreased flexibility and hampered response time, not usually the domain for entrepreneurship and innovation. In order to operate with the fluidity of embryonic ventures, some large organizations are periodically restructured. Recently, management at Nokia restructured the organization into twelve autonomous business units in an attempt to re-create and nurture a thriving entrepreneurial culture. Nokias entrepreneurial organizational environment is credited with spawning an innovation stream, thereby cementing its strong competitive edge in a tumultuous industry. Likewise, academic efforts in the field of corporate entrepreneurship tout the effectiveness of an entrepreneurial culture for competing in a rapidly changing marketplace (Burgelman, 1983; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Kanter, 1985; Kuratko, Montagno & Hornsby, 1990; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Sykes, 1989; Zahra, 1991;). Specifically, Covin & Slevin (1991) cite the relevancy of creating an entrepreneurial orientation or stance that adeptly recognizes and behaviorally acts upon opportunities in a proactive manner as a means to dominate competitive markets. Yet, the overwhelming challenge of transitioning organizations burdened with rules and procedures into free-wheeling entities remains troublesome for researchers and practitioners alike. Successfully implementing entrepreneurial strategies requires that individuals across the organizational infrastructure consciously respond to cultural cues encouraging creativity and innovation. While unraveling the black box or the mindset of the potential entrepreneur has been explored in the context of new ventures (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Krueger, 2000), efforts to detail the decision-making process in a corporate entrepreneurship backdrop has not been investigated. Determining the decision-making process of the potential entrepreneur in large, established organizations is more complex, due in part to the powerful influencing factors of organizational culture. Exploring the thinking process of potential entrepreneurs is important because, according to an intentions-based framework, individuals make decisions based on the desirability and feasibility of the behavior (Ajzen, 1985). By modeling and testing the decision-making process of the potential entrepreneur, managers can fine-tune cultural factors, management style and structuring efforts for a direct impact upon entrepreneurial behaviors. Examination of the cognitive

processes of the corporate entrepreneur extends previous research through examining in considerably more depth, the underlying cultural factors that spark interest in and commitment to entrepreneurial actions on behalf of organizational members. The purpose of this manuscript is to delve into the potential corporate entrepreneurs decision-making process using an intentions based framework to ascertain what components of an organizational culture directly affect the feasibility and desirability of entrepreneurial behaviors. The study is grounded in a view of corporate entrepreneurship as strategic entrepreneurship, which recognizes the value of strategic organizational intent for a sustainable infusion of vision and creativity. An intentionsbased model is presented followed by propositions stemming from the component parts and interworkings of the framework. Lastly, implications are discussed regarding managerial abilities to favorably influence the decision-making process of the corporate entrepreneur for profitably creative endeavors. THE BENEFITS AND THE FOLLY OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP The philosophy of enlightened managers has been to modify internal processes developed to direct relatively passive employees in the conduct of their duties. Some of the modifications include giving employees, particularly those at lower levels, a voice in decision-making and channeling their energies into self-directed pursuits closely aligned with overarching strategic plans and directions (Zahra & Covin, 1995; Pearce, Kramer & Robbins, 1997). Often the modifications include re-designing work groups into semiautonomous work groups to instill a sense of social belonging and to encourage group-directed efforts. The strategy can best be summarized as (a) optimizing overall operating performance within the constraints of an existing corporate strategy and structure by (b) creating a loyal, committed employee base which is structured into formalized semiautonomous work groups which are characterized by heightened flexibility and adaptability so that (c) employee ingenuity and task commitment buffer the internal effects of a rapidly changing external environment. Thus, innovations that are deemed strategically and financially consistent with the organizations mission are accepted for commercialization. Here, innovation-minded individuals (potential entrepreneurs) must undergo risky pursuits, often keeping the project shrouded in secrecy while building a coalition of sympathizers to gain legitimization and corporate approval. Quite frequently, the originator of the innovative project must hurdle significant barriers and levels of approval before full support is acknowledged. Conversely, strategic entrepreneurship (Herbert & Brazeal, 1999; Kuratko, Ireland & Hornsby, 2001) is conceptualized as innovative efforts undertaken within existing organizations as the result of corporate strategy defined by the top management team (TMT). Exclusive to the idea of strategic entrepreneurship is the expansion of the role of the TMT to include direct participation in the generation of innovative ideas which opens the door for frame-breaking innovations beyond the delineated strategic context of the organization. The commercialization of discontinuous changes in the innovation process has dramatic impact, including industry-altering change and associated benefits as the originator of the innovation. Strategic entrepreneurship is thought to be a superior means for producing a stream of incremental and radical innovations, since the TMTs participation ensures that the company has a serious

commitment to entrepreneurial endeavors. This commitment underlies a philosophy of orienting the entire organization to facilitate the development, creation and implementation of innovative processes, concepts, products and services. Again, this view is in contrast to traditional corporate entrepreneurial philosophy that advocates a collection of creative individuals steadily persisting in their innovative efforts despite controls, legitimizing procedures and standard operations to the contrary. The folly of strategic entrepreneurship is a failure to frame and analyze the decision-making process of the potential corporate entrepreneur. Instead, assumptions are made that point to a bevy of willing would-be entrepreneurs seeking to display creative talents once managerial reins are loosened. AN INTENTIONS-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE MINDSET OF THE POTENTIAL CORPORATE ENTREPRENEUR Intentions-based frameworks have been remarkably accurate in predicting and explaining individual behavior in the psychology literature (Ajzen, 1987). Tangible behaviors are best explained in a cognitive context through understanding individual perception of the behavior. More specifically, individuals are apt to choose behaviors or actions that are deemed feasible and desirable from their unique viewpoint. Feasibility encompasses a strong element of control on behalf of the individual, meaning one has the talent, skills and resources necessary to bring the activity to fruition. Desirability is conceptualized as the favorableness of the behavior. When applied to a corporate entrepreneurial context, a potential entrepreneur is inclined to engage in entrepreneurial behaviors when creative activities are jointly feasible (management allows time, resources and support) and desirable (compensation is congruent with creative activities). Further, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) assert that perceptions are learned. Consequently, employees can potentially be influenced by organizational culture if managers judiciously pay attention to crafting an environment that increases self-efficacy to innovate and equitably rewards risk-taking, proactivity and innovation. Please refer to Figure 1 for an intentions-based model of corporate entrepreneurship. CRAFTING AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ORANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT The term, entrepreneurial organization, seems to be an oxymoron. Entrepreneurs are imaginative, seek change, and engage in creative destruction, while the term organization connotes order, stableness, and bureaucratic hierarchies. Organizations that retain an entrepreneurial edge are those whose top managers embrace and exhort serious commitments to both incremental and radical innovations as strategically important to the competitiveness of the organization and tactically important to its operations and processes (Brazeal & Azriel, 2002). Consequently, managers are advised to create organizational slack to facilitate new product and/or service ideas within the context of their existing resource bundles as well as learn to reframe their strategies in the face of environmental uncertainty. The hallmark of an effective entrepreneurial environment is its success in encouraging and nurturing creative behaviors. Providing environments that attend to the creative minded individuals need for autonomy, achievement, and a desire for personal

control strongly influence entrepreneurial activities (Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1986). Attention to organizational characteristics such as incentive systems for innovations, organizational structures dedicated to new product ideas and managerial support in the form of product champions and resources are widely acknowledged in the corporate entrepreneurship literature as important antecedents of entrepreneurial behaviors (Sathe, 1985; Hisrich & Peters, 1986; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Kuratko et al, 1990). Based on a comprehensive analysis of studies examining the factors contributing to an entrepreneurial organizational environment, Kuratko, Montagno & Hornsby (1990), established five underlying organizational variables they contend impact managers to behave entrepreneurially. The five factors are Top Management Support, Autonomy/Work Discretion, Rewards/Reinforcement, Time Availability, and Organizational Boundaries. The Corporate Entrepreneurial Assessment Instrument (CEAI) was constructed as a research instrument to measures these five constructs, and has demonstrated sound psychometric properties (Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra, 2002). Due to the CEAIs inherent comprehensive view of the literature and its measurement properties, it will be utilized to investigate perception of an entrepreneurial organizational environment. Therefore, Proposition 1: The perception of an entrepreneurial organization environment as measured by the CEAI is related to entrepreneurial behaviors. For consistency in the frequency of entrepreneurial behaviors to emerge, the potential corporate entrepreneur must perceive creative activities as feasible in terms of organizational support and strategic intent, and desirable or worthy of effort. The corporate entrepreneurs perception of the organizational environment, we believe, can be utilized as a mechanism to communicate 1) the belief that producing a stream of increment and radical innovations is entrenched within the context of organizational competencies (feasibility) and 2) creative efforts rather than old, traditional in the box thinking is desirable and will be justly rewarded (desirability). Therefore, Proposition 2: The relationship between the perception of an entrepreneurial organizational environment and entrepreneurial behaviors is mediated by the feasibility and the desirability of the behavior. Next, attention to cultural cues that might make known and contribute to employee perception of the feasibility and desirability of corporate entrepreneurial behaviors will be addressed. The Feasibility of Corporate Entrepreneurship Individual feasibility or the perceived possibility of a particular course of action can best be understood through illuminating personal self-efficacy. The concept of selfefficacy gains insight into the black box of an individuals cognitive estimate of capabilities to self-motivate, garner resources and exercise autonomy over desired outcomes (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In an entrepreneurial application, it is the extent to which employees believe they have, in their control, blueprints for innovative pursuits,

sanctioned by immediate supervisors and congruent with organizational strategy. Individuals high in self-efficacy exhibiting a strong belief in their capabilities, choose challenging goals, invest significant time in carefully selected activities and, importantly, persevere in the face of insurmountable obstacles (Bandura, 2000; Locke & Lathum, 1990). Through ingenuity and imagination, persons high in self-efficacy create ways of behaving autonomously, even with limited resources. In an entrepreneurial setting, selfefficacy and the degree to which the entrepreneur believes in his/her ability to create a new successful venture, is positively related to the actual start-up activity of the venture (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). When generalized to large, multi-layered organizations, the findings suggest that mangers able to build employee self-efficacy in entrepreneurial skills may contribute to the consistency of sought-after entrepreneurial behaviors. Environmental factors including tangible management support, autonomy to pursue projects of ones own undertaking and organizational structuring across functional boundaries are the building blocks of entrepreneurial capacities in a corporate entrepreneurial environment. Thusly, Proposition 3: Management support, autonomy/work discretion, time availability and flexible organizational boundaries will directly influence the feasibility of entrepreneurial behaviors. In addition to perceiving entrepreneurial behaviors as feasible, the potentially creative employee must find the activity desirable. The Desirability of Corporate Entrepreneurship According to Amabile (1997) organizational leaders may orient themselves to meeting the needs of the creative class through fostering an entrepreneurial environment where managers provide operational autonomy towards achieving innovation goals, and reward accordingly. Structuring wholly self-contained new ventures, nestled within bureaucratic layers requires a reward system that includes equity in the new venture with unlimited boundaries for financial gain (Souder, 1981; Kanter, 1985). Presumably, the risk of leaving ones current position in the organization to pursue risky roles, even within the confines of an established organization signifies rewards should be commiserate with relatively hazardous behaviors. Initially, however, to encourage employees to think outside of the box, appropriate and desirable reward systems from an employee perspective include cash bonuses, stock options, accelerated promotions and salaries, and nonfinancial rewards such as praise and certificates (Block & Ornati, 1987). Ultimately, new, creative ways of behaving are not likely to surface, even when they are deemed feasible, unless personal rewards are perceived as more desirable than old, familiar behavioral patterns (Ford & Gioia, 1995). Thusly, Proposition 4: The reward/reinforcement system will directly influence the desirability of entrepreneurial behaviors.

MIDDLE MANAGERS AS HARBINGERS OF CHANGE Since the 1980s, the philosophy of empowering middle managers is advocated as central to the notion of stimulating corporate entrepreneurial efforts. As brokers of primarily incremental innovations, middle managers are saddled with acting as product champion while garnering organizational resources and top management support (Kanter, 1985; Fulop, 1991). Further, middle managers are typically the first to recognize an opportunity, due to direct customer interface and familiarity with product design (Burgelman, 1983). Thus, middle managers have abilities to not only recognize opportunities, but also can also influence subordinate interest, motivation and commitment to creative endeavors. Hence, our future data collection will target middle managers. PROPOSED RESEARCH DESIGN A random sample of middle managers in large, high-tech organizations in the greater Los Angeles vicinity are targeted for sampling, and data collection will be administered on-site. Multiple linear regression analysis will be utilized to test the overall influence of organizational characteristics on entrepreneurial behaviors, the mediating effects of feasibility and desirability on that relationship and the direct relationship of organizational characteristics on the perceived feasibility and desirability of corporate entrepreneurship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN LARGE ORGANIZATIONS There is a significant and growing interest in determining the derivation of entrepreneurial thinking in traditional organizations. Moving beyond studies that elucidate internal environmental antecedents, associations and outcomes (such as job satisfaction and performance) of corporate entrepreneurship, scholars are encouraged to investigate the how and why of corporate entrepreneurial intent (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002). This manuscript extends the previous research by utilizing an intentionsbased lens for understanding the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. A more finegrained examination of how organizational antecedents influence vision and inventiveness by organizational members in large, established firms is critical to operating in environments beset by turbulence and narrower windows of opportunity. In an entrepreneurial context, an intentions-based model suggests that organizational antecedents to entrepreneurial behaviors are mediated by individual perception of the feasibility and desirability of those behaviors. It is anticipated that managers may deliberately create thriving entrepreneurial cultures that clearly communicate the feasibility of desirability of entrepreneurial behaviors. Fine tuning managerial support, autonomy for creative expression and communication across functional barriers may increase self-efficacy and thereby, feasibility. Organizational environments perceived to be supportive should positively impact personal self-efficacy because individuals assess their capabilities in reference to environmental conditions of resources, training and time availability (Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). The desirability of corporate entrepreneurial behaviors may be associated with compensation bundles that equitably reward creative

behaviors. The presence of the aforementioned relationships has important and practical significance for managers in hard-line, large firms seeking imaginative and creative thought to effectively compete with new, agile entrepreneurial start-ups. The findings have noteworthy potential due to the in-depth investigation of the decision-making processes of corporate entrepreneurs. Future research will test the propositions outlined in the manuscript. The aforementioned concept of self-efficacy also has notable implications for entrepreneurship educators. In an educational context, professors designing entrepreneurship courses might be advised to instruct students on the principles of innovation, risking-taking, and the belief system of the entrepreneur, to increase student perceptions of self-efficacy. Currently, entrepreneurship courses are slanted towards easily taught technical skills and fail to provide conscious efforts for integrating reallife projects and access to entrepreneurial role models in the classroom environment. In conclusion, pursuing answers to the propositions advanced in this manuscript will practically influence both managers in large organizations seeking a competitive edge and entrepreneurship educators. REFERENCES Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (eds.), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior,. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20: 1-63. Amabile, T.M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58. Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. (pp. 120-136). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Block, Z & Ornati, O. 1987. Compensating corporate venture managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 2:41-51. Brazeal, D.V. & Azriel, J.A. 2002. Learning to cruise on internet time: Making the connection between strategic entrepreneurial archetypes and environmental scanning activities. 16th Annual National Conference USASBE Reno, Nevada. Burgelman, R.A. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, December: 1349-1369. Chen, C., Greene, G. & Crick, A. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 295-316. Covin, J.G. & Slevin D.P. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16: 7-15. Dess, G. G. & Lumpkin, G. T. 2003. Strategic Management: Creating Competitive Advantages. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill: Boston. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief attitudes, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.

Ford, C.M. & Gioia, D.A. 1995. Creativity in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fulop, L. 1991. Middle managers: Victims or vanguards of the entrepreneurial movement? Journal of Management Studies, 28:1: 25-44. Herbert, T.T & Brazeal, D.V. 1999. Entrepreneuralizing the organization: Archetypes of commitment to corporate entrepreneurship and implications for strategic entrepreneurship. The Proceedings for the 44th Annual ICSB Conference, Naples, Italy. Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. 2002. Middle managers perception of the internal environment of corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of business Venturing, 17(3): 253-273. Hisrich, R.D. & Peters, M.P. 1986. Establishing a new business venture within a firm. Journal of business Venturing, 1:307-322. Kanter, R. M. 1985. Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 47-60. Krackhardt, D. 1995. Entrepreneurial opportunities in an entrepreneurial firm: A structural approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19: 53-69. Krueger, N.F. 2000. The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity recognition. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24(3): 5-23. Krueger, N. & Brazeal, D.V. 1994. Entrepreneurial Potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(3), 91-104. Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, T.V., & Hornsby, J.S. 1990. Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurship environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 49-58. Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., & Hornsby, J.S. 2001. Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordias corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 92-120. Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J. & Goldsby. M.G. 2002. Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship: A proposed model of perceived implementation/outcome comparisions at the organizations and individual levels. Paper presented at the 2002 Academy of Management Conference, Denver. Lock, E.A. & Lathum, G.P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pearce, J.A., Kramer, T.R. & Robbins, D.K. 1997. Effects of middle managers entrepreneurial behavior on subordinates. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 147160. Sathe, V. 1985. Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: Nurturing entrepreneurship and control in larger corporations. In R. Ronstadt, J.A. Hornaday, R. Peterson, and K.H. Vesper, (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research. Wellesley, MA: Center for Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, pp. 636-656. Sexton, D.L., & Bowman-Upton, N.B. 1986. Validation of personality index: Comparative psychological characteristics analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneurship students and business students. In R. Ronstadt, J.A. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K.H. Vesper (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,Wellesley, Mass: Babson College, 40-51.

10

Shepherd, D. A. & Krueger, N.F. 2002. An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teamssocial cognition. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(2): 167-185. Souder, W. 1981. Encouraging entrepreneurship in large corporations. Research Management, 55: 18-22. Stevenson, H.H. & Jarillo, M.J. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 17-27. Sykes, H.B. 1985. The anatomy of a corporate venturing program: Factors influencing success. Journal of Business Venturing, 1:275-293. Wood, R. & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organiztional management. Academy of Management Review 14:361-384. Zahra, S.A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 259-285. Zahra, S.A. & Covin, J. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurshipperformance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10: 43-58. Figure 1
The CEAI Instrument Measures: Management Support

Autonomy/ Work Discretion

Feasibility of Entrepreneurial Behavior Entrepreneurial Behaviors

Time Availability

Desirability of Entrepreneurial Behavior

Organizational Boundaries

Reward/ Reinforcement

11