Search

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is commonly understood as a process that allows established companies to extend and reorient profiles of their activities, entering new markets and creating new businesses. One of the most seminal definitions of CE describes it as a process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). The CE process is believed to possess the following specific properties. First, CE is based on new resource combinations and extension of the existing competencies (Birkinshaw, 1997; Burgelman, 1983a; Covin and Miles, 1999). Second, it often requires a departure from the existing practices and the ability of a firm to acquire innovative skills and capabilities (Birkinshaw, 1997; Burgelman, 1983a; Covin and Slevin, 1991; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Hornsby et al., 2002). Finally, while Vesper (1984), Carrier (1996) and Birkinshaw (1997) draw our attention to the role of employee’s initiative, Pinchot (1985) further introduces the notion of responsibility, and Chung and Gibbons (1997) suggest that CE activity is a collective action. Hence, the main characteristics of the process of CE are the use of internal resources (slack, saved or generated), enlargement of the competencies base of the company into new business areas, acquisition of new knowledge and skills to enter these areas, and the initiative of employees (individually or in group) who take responsibility for the project.

Corporate entrepreneurship dispersed throughout an organization and leveraging the entrepreneurial potential of all its employees bears significant benefits for those organizations that embrace it. However, it appears more difficult to instill and requires strong investment in the development of human capital and entrepreneurial mindset among the employees and across the organization. In this chapter, we discuss the essence of corporate entrepreneurship mindset and show that across an organization, there might be different entrepreneurial mindsets that correspond to different people, opportunities, and contexts. Although different, they all lead to enactment of entrepreneurial projects. This chapter, thus, contributes to the discussion regarding the nature of corporate entrepreneurial mindsets, and their development and stimulation within an organization, from both academic and practical view.

The value of Entrepreneurial, Innovative and Sustainable (EIS) ecosystems has seen increasing recognition from policymakers and researchers alike. Policymakers employing New Public Management (NPM) have come to understand that the intricate links between diverse EIS stakeholders play a vital role in advancing sources of local transformation – entrepreneurship and innovation – to enhance citizen wellbeing (e.g. happiness, trust, safety and satisfaction). A persistent challenge to both academic and policy research, however, is uncovering how and why EIS ecosystem stakeholders do or do not interact to produce positive outcomes. In this chapter, we propose and explain a novel framework for analysing and assessing EIS ecosystems: activity system analysis (ASA). This methodological framework, rooted in cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), assists researchers by guiding analyses towards specific tensions and contradictions between stakeholders that prevent EIS ecosystems from developing. ASA does this by moving the analysis from ambiguous framework and systemic conditions (e.g. cultural, social and material attributes) towards the activities and objectives by stakeholders in specific locales. Additionally, it allows researchers to gain insights in the developmental trajectory of EIS ecosystems and to understand the learning actions that transform them. Ultimately, this chapter provides guidelines for performing activity-oriented research on EIS ecosystems so as to uncover the intricacies of an EIS ecosystem’s functioning. Adopting the ASA approach will enable policymakers to better understand how to improve EIS ecosystems and the quality of life for their citizens.