مدیریت عملیات و کارآفرینی شرکت های بزرگ : اثر تعدیل عملیات کنترل بر سابقه فعالیت کارآفرینی شرکت های بزرگ در رابطه با عملکرد نوآوری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|7951||2011||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9750 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Operations Management, Volume 29, Issues 1–2, January 2011, Pages 116–127
Research on the topic of corporate entrepreneurship has expanded steadily over the last few decades, in large part due to the increasingly recognized linkages between product-market and technological innovation (i.e., consequences of corporate entrepreneurial activity) and firm success. Likewise, growing evidence suggests that effective operations control is a common quality of successful firms. On the surface the two phenomena—corporate entrepreneurship and operations control—may seem to be inherently at odds. That is, corporate entrepreneurship is aimed at taking the firm in new directions, while operations control is aimed at channeling and often restricting actions. As such, it would be useful to know how operations control variables act in concert with the determinants of corporate entrepreneurial activity to promote the innovation outcomes that facilitate long-term organizational success. In this study of 177 firms operating in a wide variety of industries, we investigate the effect on innovation performance of several commonly-acknowledged antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship, as measured by the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (e.g., Hornsby et al., 2008 and Hornsby et al., 2002); namely, management support, work discretion/autonomy, rewards/reinforcements, time availability, and organizational boundaries. More importantly, we examine the moderating effects of operations control variables – specifically risk control and process control formality – on the relationships between the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance. Results indicate that only two of the five antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship have main effects on innovation performance with moderate significance. However, each of the five antecedents significantly interacts with one or both of the operations control variables and, thereby, influences innovation performance. The implications of these results in relation to operations management and corporate entrepreneurship theory and practice are discussed.
Corporate entrepreneurship refers to the pursuit of entrepreneurial actions and initiatives that transform the established organization through strategic renewal processes and/or extend the firm's scope of operations into new domains, that is, new product-market segments or technological arenas (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Firms that exhibit corporate entrepreneurship are typically viewed as dynamic, flexible entities preparing, or prepared, to take advantage of new business opportunities when they arise (Morris et al., 2008). They explore new business domains as well as new ways of conducting business within existing domains. Among such firms, there is a willingness to deviate from prior routines, strategies, business models, and operating environments, and embrace new resource combinations that hold promise as potential enablers of innovation. In general, corporate entrepreneurship flourishes in established firms when individuals are free to pursue actions and initiatives that are novel to the firm. However, to be successful entrepreneurial activity must be integrated into the organization's strategies (Burgelman, 1983). Operations managers realize that a mixture of formality and discretion is a key to providing both high effectiveness and high efficiency (Naveh, 2007). Yet, the presence of control-related structures, policies, systems, and operating management philosophies in organizations would seem to be a deterrent to the freedoms needed to successfully promote entrepreneurial behavior in established firms. After all, the control function in organizations exists, at least in part, to counteract the adverse effects of uncertainty on the organizational system, ensure conformity to established routines, correct deviations from expected behaviors, and promote efficiency and exploitative learning within the confines of established operations (Boyer and Lewis, 2002, Devaraj et al., 2004 and Krajewski et al., 2010). Nonetheless, those factors that drive entrepreneurial activity in established firms – including, for example, resource support for innovative ideas and high levels of worker discretion in the performance of tasks – may not result in superior innovation performance at the firm level if operations control mechanisms are not in place. This is true because entrepreneurial activity is not inherently focused, cumulative, productive, or strategically relevant. Much has been written over the years about the importance of “unleashing the entrepreneurial potential” of firms by removing constraints on entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., Brandt, 1986 and Pinchot, 2000). However, corporate entrepreneurship's exhibition and its success are two separate matters. In the absence of operations control mechanisms, firms that manifest corporate entrepreneurial activity may “tend to generate an incoherent mass of interesting but unrelated opportunities that may have profit potential, but that do not move [those] firms toward a desirable future” (Getz and Tuttle, 2001: 277). Therefore, the ability of those factors that drive corporate entrepreneurship activity to produce high levels of innovation performance is likely contingent upon a firm's ability to judiciously use operations control mechanisms that select, guide, and possibly terminate entrepreneurial actions and initiatives (Morris et al., 2006). In the current paper, we explore relationships among the antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship, operations control mechanisms, and innovation performance. As conceptualized here, innovation performance refers to the degree of success attained by the firm at achieving its goals pertaining to product-market or technological innovation. A premise of the current research is that operations control mechanisms are not inherently antithetical to the interests of corporate entrepreneurship. Rather, factors that create entrepreneurship in established firms may operate in concert with operations control mechanisms to promote innovation performance. The purpose of this research is to clarify how and why operations control contributes to the innovation performance of firms with entrepreneurship-facilitating organizational qualities. We examine the moderating effect of certain operational control mechanisms on the relationship between the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance. Our preliminary hypothesis is that operational control will have a distinct moderating effect. The proposed model is presented in Fig. 1. The rest of the paper is structured in the following manner. In the next section, the literature on corporate entrepreneurship is examined in order to establish the current view of operational control in this field. We then propose a research model of the relationships examined in the study. The literature on antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship is reviewed, and we link those antecedents through hypothesis development to innovation performance. The possible moderating effects of operations control variables on the linkages between entrepreneurship-facilitating organizational qualities and innovation performance are then presented. The sample, measures, and analytical techniques of the study are discussed in the Methods section. In the Results section, we present our findings. Lastly, Section 7 addresses the implications of our work, limitations of our study, and opportunities for future research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study has explored the relationships between the antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance as well as the moderating effects of two commonly acknowledged operations control variables – risk control and process control formality – on these relationships. An interesting and somewhat unexpected storyline emerging from the observed pattern of results is that the organizational antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship herein explored may not be strong predictors of organizational innovation despite the fact these factors have a long history of theoretical association with innovation. However, when combined with operations control attributes that can facilitate, modify or, potentially, prevent certain innovative behaviors and initiatives, the organizational antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship have, overall, a much more significant influence on innovation performance. Indeed, the R2 for the main effects (of the organizational antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship on innovation performance) equation (i.e., Model 2) is roughly .10, but that jumps to over .30 in the equation where the interaction effects with the operations control variables are included (i.e., Model 4). These results have several important theoretical implications. First, current theory pertaining to the need to “unleash the entrepreneurial hostages” in organizations by removing constraints on their innovative behaviors (e.g., Hamel, 2000 and Pinchot, 2000) is likely under-recognizing or ignoring the importance to innovation performance of variously encouraging, directing, restricting, and prohibiting innovative behaviors and initiatives according to their alignments with the organization's interests. Not all corporate entrepreneurial behavior is good for the organization. Yet the literature in the corporate entrepreneurship area tends to implicitly regard such behavior as inherently virtuous. This is an unfortunate and potentially dangerous bias within the literature. As noted by Kuratko and Goldsby (2004), the encouragement of corporate entrepreneurship can and often does result in counterproductive, rogue behavior by organizational members. Second, and related to the preceding point, the exhibition of operations control is not antithetical to the interests of corporate entrepreneurship; it is inherent to those interests. As such, observations to the effect that control is the enemy of successful innovation are naïve. The bias in the literature pertaining to the possible adverse effects of operations control-related factors on innovation performance seems to largely emanate from those who study innovation and its determinants (for good reviews of this topic see Hage (1999) and Hauser et al. (2006)). By and large, theorists who focus on operations control-related matters have a much more positive and enlightened view of the role of control in promoting successful innovation (e.g., Perez-Freije and Enkel, 2007 and Poskela and Martinsuo, 2009). A third theoretical implication of this study is that the effects of operations control variables on the relationships between factors that theoretically promote innovation and the realization of successful innovation performance outcomes should not be generalized as being either positive or negative. Rather, different directions to the moderating effects will exist according to the operations control variable and organizational antecedent to corporate entrepreneurship in question. As revealed in the current data, for example, risk control has a strongly positive moderating effect on the relationship between organizational boundaries and innovation performance, but a strongly negative moderating effect on the relationship between time availability and innovation performance. Thus, theory pertaining to how operations control variables contribute to innovation performance outcomes should acknowledge the diversity of effects individual operation control variables can have within organizational systems that pursue innovation. Three principal managerial implications can be inferred from this study. First, the deliberate design and development of organizational systems with characteristics reflecting the organizational antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship (i.e., the five CEAI variables) may not yield intended innovation performance outcomes. As such, the manager's task is not simply to build an organization whose core qualities are conducive to innovation. Rather, his or her task is to design and develop innovation-facilitating and control-facilitating mechanisms that complement one another such that the entrepreneurial potential that resides within the organization is leveraged for the highest and best organizational purposes. Second, the current research results suggest that managers should understand and treat innovation as a process that's amenable to the application of structured, disciplined oversight. The successful pursuit of innovation demands that managers approach the innovation challenge with the understanding that the means by which potentially desirable innovation outcomes might be generated can be well understood and deliberately constructed. There are rules, methods, and general process knowledge that can be brought to bear as resources in facilitation of successful innovation efforts. As such, it is often not the absence of rules and well-understood procedures that results in successful innovation (as one might infer from a cursory review of the popular business press), it is their presence. Managers are well advised to recognize this reality. Third and finally, the successful and sustained promotion of innovation via the exhibition of corporate entrepreneurship likely cannot be accomplished by relying on single levers/mechanisms, such as, for example, the adoption of organic organizational structures. As suggested by the variety of factors reflected in the five organizational antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship and the two operations control variables in this study, superior innovation performance is arguably a product of organizational systems in which operations control elements and corporate entrepreneurship elements operate in concert. Thus, managers should adopt a systems perspective with respect to the management of innovation, recognizing the interfaces and interdependencies that exist between forces that facilitate the innovation process and forces that control it.