اقدامات کارآفرینانه مدیران شرکت : بررسی ادراک و موقعیت

Are organizational factors that support entrepreneurial action supportive for all? We use the literatures on corporate entrepreneurship and managerial levels to propose that managers differ in structural ability to make the most of their organizational environment. Using a sample 458 managers and moderated Poisson regression analysis we found that the relationship between managers' perceptions of the organizational environment and the number of entrepreneurial ideas implemented varied across managers of different structural levels. Specifically, (1) the positive relationship between managerial support and entrepreneurial action is more positive for senior and middle level managers than it is for lower- (first) level managers, and (2) the positive relationship between work discretion and entrepreneurial action is more positive for senior and middle level managers than it is for first-level managers. These findings suggest that managerial level provides a structural ability to “make more of” organizational factors that support entrepreneurial action.

In the 21st Century corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has increasingly been recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance (Ireland et al., 2006a, Ireland et al., 2006b and Morris et al., 2008). Although there is a broadly held belief that managers are an important part of this entrepreneurial process (Kuratko et al., 2005a), the CE literature predominantly treats managers as a homogenous group. However, organizational strategy research has acknowledged that managers of different levels have different organizational roles (Floyd and Lane, 2000). Do different managerial levels provide a differential structural ability to capitalize on a supportive organizational environment to act entrepreneurially? By acting entrepreneurially we refer specifically to the number of new ideas implemented (see also Kuratko et al., 2005b). Using a sample 458 managers and moderated Poisson regression analysis we investigated the above research question and found that the relationship between managers' perceptions of the organizational environment and the number of entrepreneurial ideas they implemented varied across managers of different structural levels. This study makes two primary contributions. First, CE research has focused on the factors that promote entrepreneurial action but have relatively ignored the different groups that exist within an organization or have implicitly assumed homogeneity within organizations. We propose and find that managers of different levels have different roles that provide more or less structural ability to implement entrepreneurial ideas. Second, CE strategies have been applied generally to all management levels. Based on our empirical study, it appears that CE strategies need to be more fine-grained focusing on each specific managerial level. Additionally, while not a central focus of this study, the findings related to the empirical validity of the factors of the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI) in explaining entrepreneurial outcomes adds to the growing base of research supporting the construct validity of the CEAI scale. Based on these empirical results, this study also has implications for current literature in entrepreneurship. The few studies that have explored managerial level (primarily conceptual studies) have emphasized the role of first-level managers in a “bottom–up” process of CE (Burgelman, 1983a, Burgelman, 1983b and Burgelman, 1984). We offer a counter-weight to this “bottom–up” process with arguments and empirical support for the notion that given a specific organizational environment more senior managers have greater structural ability to “make more of” the conditions and thus implement more entrepreneurial ideas than do first-level managers.

The focus of this research has been on differences across levels in the relationship between perceived antecedents to entrepreneurial activity and the number of ideas implemented. Our findings complement the research on the differential roles of managers suggested by Floyd and Wooldridge, 1990, Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992 and Floyd and Wooldridge, 1994, Floyd and Lane (2000), Kraut et al. (2005), and others. Specifically, managerial level moderated the relationship between top management support and the number of ideas implemented and moderated the relationship between work discretion and the number of ideas implemented. Managers at higher levels were better able to make the most of top management support and of work discretion. These findings have important implications for scholars of CE. With respect to the first hypothesis, under high levels of perceived managerial support, senior and middle managers, by virtue of their higher ranking positions, were more likely to implement entrepreneurial ideas. First-level managers, however, were relatively unlikely to see their ideas implemented or make unofficial improvements, regardless of the level of managerial support. Hypothesis 2 was also supported, such that the nature of the interaction indicates there was a positive relationship between work discretion and number of ideas implemented for senior and middle-level managers; however, for first-level managers, this relationship was negative. These results indicate that work discretion only results in increased entrepreneurial actions (in the form of number of ideas implemented) for senior and middle-level managers, or those individuals with the experience and personal discipline likely necessary to support autonomy and discretion. An explanation for this finding may be that these lower level managers, even though they perceived an environment of work discretion, did not see the link between it and their own activities. Garvin and Levesque (2006) refer to this as the “two cultures problem” where organizations traditionally focus on incremental improvement through a focus on stability and efficiency. CE requires a “melding” of cultures. If the CE strategy has not been integrated down into lower levels of management, an increase focus on traditional practices could result when a lower manager has more discretion and autonomy. Also, specific control systems that exist in the organization, especially managerial flexibility, may lead the lower level managers to perceive the need to spend more time on standard procedures and activities and not engage in more entrepreneurial behavior (Morris et al., 2006). Based on the full regression model no significant moderator relationships for rewards/reinforcement and time availability were found. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 were not supported. However, when looking at the interactions themselves, there seemed to be some indication that there is a moderating effect between these variables and management level. These ambiguous findings may reflect the fact that if much of the CE activity is viewed as unsanctioned, little formal structure for rewards and resources will be instituted. A recent article by Hayton (2005) argued that for CE to be successful, important human resource practices like adequate rewards for entrepreneurial activities must be in place. His article argued that due to agency theory, lower level managers may be more risk averse and need to be encouraged by tying risk taking to pay outcomes. Therefore, the weak findings for the rewards/reinforcement antecedent and ideas implemented could be that firms struggle with how to implement formal reward structures for corporate entrepreneurs. The findings of this study advance the research in the area of internal antecedents and the viability of the CE process. This study also replicates the assertions made regarding the role of managerial level in strategy implementation in a CE context. The results indicate that perceived internal antecedents (top management support, work discretion, and rewards/reinforcement) are related to entrepreneurial actions (main-effect relationships), but more importantly, managerial level moderates some of these relationships such that senior and middle-level managers are more influenced by the positive perception of these antecedents. Several explanations for the lack of ideas implemented by first-level managers can be offered. These can include: career stage, technology constraints, or removal from the strategy formulation process (e.g., Hales, 2005). The perception that the role of first-line managers has expanded into more autonomous activities was not supported by this research. Suggesting and implementing new and innovative ideas and processes may, at least in the short run, be viewed as an impediment to achieving those metrics. Also, since first-level managers are seen as the “recipients” of initiatives from middle and senior-level managers, they may not perceive that it is their role to initiate any official or unofficial ideas of their own. Corbett and Hmieleski (2007) argue that the corporate context perpetuates the development of expected behavior within individuals (i.e., role schemas) that are in conflict with entrepreneurial behaviors. They contend that managers within large corporations develop role schemas that can make it difficult for them to carry out entrepreneurial actions. One other explanation for the lack of findings for first-level managers is that the entrepreneurial outcomes measured were insufficient in measuring outcomes pertinent to this level of management. These findings do not support the theoretical arguments proposed Burgelman, 1983a, Burgelman, 1983b and Burgelman, 1984, such that autonomous strategic behavior was not shown to be a bottom–up process. First-level managers did not engage in entrepreneurial actions, even when they perceived to have their top manager's support and the necessary discretion to implement new ideas. Perhaps initiatives that enhance better role-goal congruency would be most helpful. For example, if first-line managers were encouraged to generate ideas that better related to their immediate responsibilities then there would be a better opportunity for ideas to surface. 6.1. Limitations and future research This current study has a few limitations that need to be addressed in future research. The sample of managers attending continuing education training on general management development may limit the generalizability of the findings, since those that participate in training and development may be predisposed toward innovation. Future research should be conducted with a broader range of managers. Also, the study utilized single-item dependent variables and self-report data collection methods. Partly in response to these issues, some suggestions for future research include continuing to develop and refine performance measures as they relate to entrepreneurial actions. According to Damanpour (1991, 556) corporate innovation is a very broad concept that includes “...the generation, development and implementation of new ideas or actions. An innovation can be a new product or service, an administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizational members.” this limitation could be addressed in future research by utilizing multiple measures of implementation such as proposing new ideas, receiving funding/approval for new ideas, assembling project teams to develop ideas, and the number of commercialization efforts. Additionally, the dependent variable used in this study, number of new ideas implemented, was likely influenced by factors outside of the manager's control. Different entrepreneurial outcomes should be studied to reflect the different behaviors suggested for managers at different levels. Future research should also consider using multiple sources of data to enhance the ability to generalize the results.