Printer Friendly

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION PERFORMANCE IN ESTABLISHED IRANIAN MEDIA FIRMS/EMPRENDIMIENTO CORPORATIVO Y DESEMPENO INNOVADOR EN EMPRESAS DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION IRANIES ESTABLECIDAS.

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship and business venturing, at both individual and firm levels, are becoming an essential part of any innovation ecosystem (Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). Today, firms are dynamically striving to become more entrepreneurial and are taking different policies to achieve a better business venturing profile (Morris et al., 2010). Maybe it is due to their understanding that there are a lot of benefits associated with corporate entrepreneurship (Khajeheian and Friedrichsen, 2017). Consequently, we are witnessing that in the last three decades a substantial corporate entrepreneurial wave is shaped (Dunlap-Hinkler et al., 2010). This is more important in established firms than in new ventures, since due to their access to resources and capabilities they are more prone to innovate in their products, services, as well as to improve their technologies (Koen and Bertels, 2015).

On the other hand, innovation performance and entrepreneurial activities of the firms are highly interdependent. However, this argument is not supported in the existing literature clearly (Otache and Mahmood, 2015). Also, there are different approaches in investigating corporate entrepreneurship. This approach has led to a variety of definitions by a variety of authors (Kuratko et al., 2015; Bierwerth et al., 2015). In addition to this, the concepts of media corporate entrepreneurship and media entrepreneurial activities of firms are critical issues which are recently becoming a concern in countries with media entrepreneurship potentials (Miles et al., 2009; Khajeheian and Tadayoni, 2016; Jiang et al., 2018). This is also the case in countries with higher potentials in media sector, and mandates to improve the state of small and medium sized media enterprises in Iran (Khajeheian, 2016, 2018b).

The goal of this paper is to investigate a relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and innovative performance in Iranian media firms. We have developed a research instrument based on Morris and Kuratko (2002), Miller (1983), and Ireland, Kuratko and Morris's (2006) in order to measure corporate entrepreneurship; and Wong and Chin's (2007) for measuring innovative performance. Such a relationship is seldom investigated in the media entrepreneurship literature (Gao et al., 2019), which is one of the main theoretical contributions of the present paper. The author focuses on this gap by scrutinizing the interconnectedness and interrelationship between corporate entrepreneurial activities and innovation performance of the Iranian media firms. In order to achieve this goal, the existing literature on the both fields and their connections is reviewed. Then, a framework and its indicators are defined. Findings are presented afterwards, and the paper concludes with some remarks and directions for future studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the present section, the literature about "media entrepreneurship", "corporate entrepreneurship", and "innovation performance" are reviewed in more details in order to provide a better understanding of the mentioned research streams.

Media Entrepreneurship:

Although entrepreneurial activities are conducted in media firms, the concept of media entrepreneurship still remains vague and controversial (Khajeheian, 2013, 2017). Despite the great effort made by scholars such as Achtenhagen (2008), Fulton (2015) and Emami and Khajeheian (2019), there are different concepts which come into one's mind regarding this phenomenon. Moreover, combining corporate entrepreneurial activities with media entrepreneurship in media firms is rarely discussed and scrutinized in the existing literature. Hoag (2008) defines media entrepreneurship as "the creation and ownership of a small enterprise or organization whose activity adds at least one voice or innovation to the media marketplace". Achtenhagen (2008) put some comments on the mentioned definition and defined media entrepreneurship as "how new ventures aimed at bringing into existence future media goods and services are initially conceived of and subsequently developed, by whom, and with what consequences". Definitions have evolved and the concept is becoming clearer for the scholars of the field, however, the connection between media entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship is rarely discussed in the literature (Achtenhagen, 2017; Price Schultz & Jones, 2017; Kahjeheian, 2018a). More recently Hang (2016), in his distinguished book, tried to open new windows of opportunity for researchers of the field in order to combine these two concepts. These efforts lead to emergence of the concept of "media corporate entrepreneurship" which is increasingly drawing the attention of scholars.

Corporate Entrepreneurship:

Over the past decades, corporate entrepreneurship has been broadly followed by senior executives and academics as a valuable means for stimulating companies and increasing productivity, effectiveness and affectivity (Zahra and Covin, 1995). This refers to situations where established companies, rather than individuals or business units, act entrepreneurially (Covin and Miles, 1999). Actually, this issue is inevitable important for established firms to survive and renovate their existing status and to increase their profitability and productivity (Zahra, 1996; Kuratko et al., 2014). Corporate entrepreneurship, which entails a complex process due to the challenges regarding the existing structures and processes of the companies, is- in nature- a behavioral phenomenon. Accordingly, all companies are situated in a continuum that ranges from "highly conservative" to "highly entrepreneurial" companies (see, Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999). This is the case, even, for those companies which are rarely attempting to reveal an entrepreneurial representation, but are acting innovatively (Morris et al., 2010).

Corporate entrepreneurship underwent many changes- both in its nature and definition- during its evolution. In a more recent definition of the concept, it is defined as a process through which employees of established firms commence novel activities, follow innovative blueprints, or value departing from usual processes in order to discover, form, or follow profitable entrepreneurial opportunities (see, Garcia-Morales et al., 2014). In fact, entrepreneurship movement involves development of entrepreneurial behaviors within an established firm (Mason, 2011). However, according to some previous definitions of the concept, corporate entrepreneurship is defined as the ability of a company to discover and make use of entrepreneurial opportunities without being repressed by limitations of inputs, policies and regulations, as well as top managerial decisions (Otache and Mahmood, 2015).

As Verma (2013) argues, it encompasses three types of process, i.e. (i) innovation process, (ii) venturing process, and (iii) strategic renewal process. Furthermore, some scholars propose that due to the interactions among different characteristics of individuals and firms, and according to the contextual factors, the nature of corporate entrepreneurial activities might change over the lifecycle of any company (Fini et al., 2012). In a nutshell, since 1980s, many scholars and professionals have shown great interest in the corporate entrepreneurial activities due to its precious effect on the revitalization, productivity and profitability of established firms (Urbano and Turro, 2013). However, some researchers argued that corporate entrepreneurial activities could not realized in large established companies, yet there are a number of advocates for this issue in the literature. Hence, as one could see, in the last decades, "corporate entrepreneurship" research and applications were emerged (Paunovic, 2012). While some scholars have provided a basis for explaining and predicting how corporate entrepreneurship goes on in some countries, the author finds it necessary to pay attention to this concept in established firms of a developing economy (e.g. see Analoui et al., 2009; Maatoofi and Tajeddini, 2011). In the present paper, three main models of corporate entrepreneurship, i.e. Morris and Kuratko (2002), Miller (1983), and Ireland et al. (2006) are used in order to reach this aim.

Innovation Performance (IP):

As it is mentioned in the existing literature, results of corporate entrepreneurial activities are shown in two types of issues: (i) strategic renewal of the firms, and (ii) the performance/new venture creation activities (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011; Salamzadeh, 2015; Salamzadeh and Kirby, 2017). Although a company's approach toward corporate entrepreneurial activities directly affects its innovation performance, one could develop a more comprehensive explanation, based on the fact that this approach might expand the company's status (Simsek and Heavey, 2011; Salamzadeh and Markovic, 2018). Scholars of this field have conservatively put more stress on ways in which individuals could create positive changes within their own companies (Dunlap-Hinkler et al., 2010). It is important to know that innovation performance is variously defined by several scholars and researchers. For example, it is defined as "the degree to which new products- goods and services- meet their expected goals in the market" (Wang and Lin, 2012), or as "the extent to which new products have attained their share in the market, promoted sales, and increased the rates of asset return, investment return, and respectively met profit goals" (Chen et al., 2014).

In fact, innovation performance which is the outcome of a company's innovative activities and inputs has been extensively a vital issue for state-of-the-art companies (Wang and Lin, 2012). Moreover, improving innovation performance of the companies is important to an overall understanding of different issues such as learning, creativity, and innovation within companies (Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). Nevertheless, one should note that innovation performance varies widely across different industrial segments and established organizations (Lee et al., 2015). Optimistically, there are some measures to determine innovation performance and the economic outcomes of innovative products or services (Guan et al., 2009). There are numerous managerial factors which have been linked with innovation performance in innovative companies, according to the existing literature (Wong and Chin, 2007). In order to be more precise, in this paper, Wong and Chin's (2007) conceptualization of the phenomenon is used, which includes three main groups: (i) Product innovation rate (including: number of changed product/total products, change in sales/total sales; and change in profit/total profit); (ii) Process innovation rate (including: number of process changes/total processes; and change in overall productivity due to product change); (iii) Technology indicators (including: percentage of expenditure on R&D/total sales; number of externally adopted technologies; and number of internally developed patents) (Wong and Chin, 2007). These categories are defined as follows:

Product innovation: without a doubt, product innovation is a vital issue for any established company which competes with its competitors. As new technologies are developed and our knowledge is improved, product innovation turns into a more important concern for established firms that are striving to succeed in this highly competitive world (Chen et al., 2015). Furthermore, nowadays, within established companies which follow corporate entrepreneurial approaches, the importance of new product development is higher, and their employees are usually more prone to follow innovative approaches. Therefore, it is important to gauge product development rates in order to succeed in this competition. On the other hand, the literature suggests that it is a significant part of the most of corporate entrepreneurial approaches (Kuratko et al., 2015; Kuratko and Audretsch, 2013).

Process innovation: process innovation approaches are broadly used in entrepreneurial companies (Kuratko et al., 2014). There are many benefits associated with these approaches. Making radical, substantial, or even gradual improvements in the existing processes in a way those processes become more productive or profitable is the main result of following such an approach in established companies (Alegre and Chiva, 2013). Therefore, process innovation is also a vital subject to be considered in any entrepreneurial established firm (Jayaram et al., 2014). By innovation in processes of a typical established firm, such a company might benefit from new customers, higher customer satisfaction rates, as well as higher returning customers (Adner and Levinthal, 2001).

Technology indicators: Some researchers suppose that innovation performance could be measured by process and product innovation (Hsu et al., 2014), others such as Wong and Chin (2007) and Garcia-Morales et al. (2014) consider technology indicators for such a measurement. Technology indicators include a broad range of factors; however, in order to be more precise, in this study, the author bounded the definition to the above-mentioned indicators (Wong and Chin, 2007).

Innovation system and institutional factors:

Innovation ecosystem is a term which is used in order to describe the large number and diverse nature of participants/resources that are essential for innovation. These entities include entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, researchers, investors, university faculty, as well as business development agents and other technical service providers (Soofi et al., 2018). Each innovation ecosystem is mature to some extent. By the way, several major problems related to the innovation system in Iran, especially in recent decades, are emerging (Mirzadeh et al., 2017). There are a few very large companies, several medium sized firms and a large number of small firms operating in the Iranian innovation ecosystem which deal with each other strongly or loosely (Soofi et al., 2018). The innovation ecosystem is shaped subject to some institutions- rules of the game. Around six thousand new technology based firms have been established in national science parks as well as incubators affiliated to Iran's Ministry of Science, Research and Technology until now (Salamzadeh and Kawamorita Kesim, 2017). While new technology based firms were struggling with a fact that there was not a recognized and structured ecosystem of innovation in the country, more recently some attempts have been made to clarify this ecosystem, especially by policy makers and officials (see, Khajeheian, 2016). One could categorize these elements under the following categories: economic, social, political and technological elements.

For instance, among economic factors, new technology based firms are highly affected by the existence of relevant resources which are scarce in nature, including financial resources, expert human resources, and time limitations (see, Tanha et al., 2011). Regarding social elements, new technology based firms strive to compete with their rivals by absorbing their human resources, internalizing social values, and socializing; at the same time, low social welfare is evident in the ecosystem (see, Mirzadeh et al., 2017). On the other hand, political unrest is vastly evident in the ecosystem, and thus policy makers could do a few things for new technology based firms, such as deregulation. At the same time, political bodies act as facilitators among different players (see, Mirzadeh et al., 2017). Last but not the least, technological elements are of paramount importance, since these elements highly affect the performance of new technology based firms. Especially, technological transitions are very critical (see, Tanha et al., 2011).

RESEARCH METHOD

In this research, a survey is conducted and a questionnaire is employed to collect the required data from the research population of 512 established media firms in seven main provinces of Iran (Tehran, Alborz, Shiraz, Isfahan, North Khorasan, East Azerbaijan, and Semnan) in order to scrutinize the interrelationships of corporate entrepreneurial activities of selected Iranian media firms which is shown in their innovation performance. The conceptual model is developed based on four main models. For CE, 15 items was selected from the questionnaire of Morris and Kuratko (2002), Miller (1983), and Ireland et al. (2006); and for IP, Wong and Chin's (2007) conceptualization of the phenomenon is used. Tables number 1 and 2 shows the indicators.

SPSS 21.0 was used to analyze the data. To test the strength and type of the relationship among dependent and independent variables, linear regression technique is used. Moreover, regression analysis could be used in order to infer causal relationships among independent and dependent variable(s). By the way, since Likert scale is used, this method will be applicable. It should be noted that institutional elements are also included in the model. Also, the institutional factors are integrated in this analysis to show the contextual effects.

The established media firms were selected randomly from the companies registered in the Company Registration Office of Iran under the title of "knowledge based firms". Under random sampling, each member of the list had an equal opportunity of being chosen as a part of the sampling process. One of the main requirements of random sampling is the fact that it requires a complete list of population, which was hopefully available in this study. According to Cochran's formula, at the confidence level of 95 percent, and accuracy of 5 percent, 512 questionnaires were required. Thus, the authors distributed 700 questionnaires, and 512 respondents completely filled out the distributed questionnaires (response rate: 73%). The questionnaires were answered by top managers or chief executives of the firms. Questionnaires were printed and distributed by the researcher among the respondents. As mentioned earlier, the questionnaire of this research was adapted from those of Morris and Kuratko (2002), Miller (1983), and Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2006), Wong and Chin (2007).

Following a pilot test- among 45 established firms, the instrument was modified and refined by three experts before it was used (Expert validity/ Face validity). The reliability of the instruments was analyzed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.758). Hence, the administered questionnaire had enough reliability to proceed for further analysis. Based on the research goals, the following hypotheses are highlighted to be studied.

[H.sub.1]. The rate of product innovation of Iranian media firm is related to the level of corporate entrepreneurial activities in those firms.

[H.sub.2]. The rate of process innovation of Iranian media firm is related to the level of corporate entrepreneurial activities in those firms.

[H.sub.3]. The level of technology indicators of Iranian media firm is related to the level of corporate entrepreneurial activities in those firms.

FINDINGS

Demographic information:

Most of the respondents were male (81%), while a few of them were female (19%) (Chart l). Moreover, about one third of the respondents had 10 to 15 years of experience (41%) (Chart 2), and most of them had a bachelor's degree (54%) (Chart 3). Chart 4 illustrates the demographic information of the firms. As shown in the chart, most of the firms had between 50 to 100 employees and might considered as small businesses. In terms of the experience of the firms, those that have 5-10 years of experience constitute the highest. Most of the firms were in Production field, and the rest were service providers. Most of the firms had 5 to 10 new products/services.

State of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance indexes:

It is important to understand the existing state of studied firms in terms of corporate entrepreneurship (Morris and Kuratko, 2002, Miller, 1983, and Ireland, Kuratko and Morris, 2006) and innovation performance indexes (Wong and Chin, 2007); since it might highlight some important points, such as their weaknesses and strengths. Tables number 3 and 4 shows the mean indexed of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance indexes in the studied firms. Means of means shows that firms are somehow conservative and corporate entrepreneurship policies are moderately followed in these companies (Table 3). According to the three mentioned theories which led to this model (i.e. Morris and Kuratko, 2002, Miller, 1983, and Ireland, Kuratko and Morris, 2006), some propositions might be offered. First of all, high rate of new product/service introduction, compared to competitors is moderately evident as the companies strived to compete vigorously (CE1). Second, a very competitive 'undo-the-competitor' posture is evident in the findings (CE4). Moreover, number of new products/services introduced during the past five years in the studied companies were high (CE12). Finally, it could be noticed that the level of significance of new methods or operational processes implemented during the past five years was high (CE15). At the same time, emphasis on continuous improvement in methods of production and/or service delivery (CE2), seeking of unusual, novel solutions by senior executives to problems, via the use of 'idea people' (CE5), and steady growth and stability as primary concerns (CE11) were low. It might be due to deficiencies in delivery system, lack of innovativeness in senior managers, as well as several institutional concerns that might hamper the growth of the studied companies. According to the data gathered based on Wong and Chin's (2007) model regarding innovation performance indexes, it is evident that the number of product changed to total product (IP1) as well as change in sales (due to product change) to total sales were high (IP2). Moreover, the number of process changes to total processes (IP4) were high, and number of technologies adopted externally (IP7) were increasing. Innovation performance index shows a moderate level of innovation performance in the firms (Table 4).

Correlation analysis:

Before testing the hypotheses, we have to make sure that there is a significant correlation between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance (Product innovation, Process innovation, and Technology indicators). To do so, a correlation analysis was conducted. The following tables show that there is a significant correlation among these two concepts.

Hypotheses testing:

Hypotheses are tested accordingly and results are discussed in the below section. Regression analysis generated an equation to describe the statistical relationship between predictor variables and the response variable. After defining the regression model in SPSS, the fit was verified by checking the residual plots, and the results were interpreted.

[H.sub.1]. The rate of product innovation of Iranian media firm is related to the level of corporate entrepreneurial activities in those firms.

A linear regression was performed. As can be seen, corporate entrepreneurship was a significant predictor of rate of product innovation. According to the table, product innovation rate is significantly dependent on corporate entrepreneurship in the studied established firms. Therefore, the more innovative products are produced by the established firms, the more they would be considered corporate entrepreneurial firms (Kuratko et al., 2015). As Artz et al. (2010) previously mentioned rate of product innovation could significantly affect corporate entrepreneurial performance of the firms, while Zhang (2011) believed that product innovation was not found to be significantly effective on corporate entrepreneurship performance. The findings are in line with the first group of scholars; however, one might propose different hypotheses to examine the probable differences in these findings. The regression equation is as follows:

Rate of product innovation = 59.347 / 0.059 (*) corporate entrepreneurship, [R.sup.2] = .135, F (1, 511) = 7.766, p <.006.

[H.sub.2]. The rate of process innovation of Iranian media firm is related to the level of corporate entrepreneurial activities in those firms.

As it is mentioned in the table, corporate entrepreneurship was a significant predictor of rate of process innovation. Based on the table, rat of process innovation is also significantly affected by corporate entrepreneurial activities. This finding is in line with some scholars such as Kuratko et al. (2015), however, to some scholars, process innovation is not significantly affected by corporate entrepreneurial activities (e.g. see Bigliardi et al, 20ll). It might be due to the differences in range of studies, which is highly affected by firm size and industry type (Damanpour, 2010). In this study, most of the firms had less than a hundred employees and might considered as small businesses. The regression equation is as follows:

Rate of process innovation = 59.213 / 0.052 (*) corporate entrepreneurship, [R.sup.2]= .132, F (1, 511) = 6.133, p<.000.

[H.sub.3]. The level of technology indicators of Iranian media firm is related to the level of corporate entrepreneurial activities in those firms.

As it is mentioned in the table, corporate entrepreneurship was a significant predictor of technology indicators. Table 9 shows a significant relationship between technology indicators and corporate entrepreneurship. Based on the test results, technology indicators could be affected by corporate entrepreneurial firms. It means that if these firms become more entrepreneurial, technology indicators might change significantly. This element is infrequently discussed in the literature, and the findings of this research approve such relationship. In sum, all the hypotheses were accepted according to the results. It shows that corporate entrepreneurship affects innovation performance of the firms. The interesting point is that, although a considerable number of the firms were risk averse in nature, still the relationship exists. The regression equation is as follows:

Technology indicators = 60.125 / 0.052 (*) corporate entrepreneurship, [R.sup.2]= .120, F (1, 511) = 7.723, p<. 002.

The effect of institutional factors- as intervening variables- is also studied. Thus, the results are shown in the following table. The findings are the result of a report of the (standardized) direct, indirect, and total effects, all of which can be obtained from the path coefficients. According to the findings, the institutional factors affect the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance (Product innovation, Process innovation, and Technology indicators).

CONCLUSION

Media corporate entrepreneurship activities are becoming an integral part of any established media business which thrives to succeed (Hang & Van Weezel, 2007). Despite the fact that the concept is an emerging phenomenon, less attention has been paid to this issue in the existing literature. Even, the existing studies have marginally paid attention to this phenomenon (e.g. see Hang, 2016). It should be noted that innovation performance of the firms is also dependent on such activities (Otache and Mahmood, 2015). Thus, this study tried to shed more light on this relationship by studying 512 established Iranian media firms in seven provinces. The three studied hypotheses are tested and accepted based on the findings. Moreover, findings showed that there is a significant relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and the rate of product innovation, rate of process innovation and the technology indicators of the established Iranian media firms. These are in line with the findings of Barringer and Bluedorn (1999), Bharadwaj and Menon (2000), Garcia-Morales et al. (2014), Chen et al. (2014), Hang (2016), and Khajeheian and Salamzadeh, 2013; and in contrast to those of scholars such as Zhao (2005) and Goodale et al. (2011).

Future researchers might focus on industry level innovation performance to see if regions with higher rate of corporate entrepreneurship enjoy higher innovation performance or not. Such efforts would be studied in the field of media firms, as these companies have a broad range of audience who follow them. Thus, researchers might focus on its impact on socio-economic development of the regions. Moreover, media corporate entrepreneurship might be operationalized using other frameworks (e.g. see Zahra, 1996; Garcia-Morales et al., 2014; Kuratko et al., 2014). Using other types of questionnaires might improve the generalizability of the findings. Also, it is suggested that, in future studies, authors pay more attention to institutional factors using North's (1971, 1986) definition of formal and informal institutional factors. Consequently, it is suggested for future scholars to use other operational definitions as well.

By the way, policy makers might improve media corporate entrepreneurship ecosystem in order to enhance innovation performance of the established media firms, and to improve the socio-economic state of the regions. Managers could also give attention to media corporate entrepreneurial activities in order to make their organization more innovative, and to get more audience and to expand their business. There were some limitations as well in conducting this research. For instance, there was no scale for measuring media corporate entrepreneurship, and thus one of the most commonly used models was used in this research. Moreover, data gathering was time consuming and findings the experts were also a difficult task. By the way, most of the respondents were not completely aware of the concept of media corporate entrepreneurship; however, they have already been involved in such activities.

REFERENCES

Achtenhagen, L. (2008). Understanding entrepreneurship in traditional media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 5(1), 123-142.

Achtenhagen, L. (2017). Media entrepreneurship--Taking stock and moving forward. International Journal on Media Management, 19(1), 1-8.

Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. (2001). Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: implications for product and process innovation. Management science, 47(5), 611-628.

Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 491-507.

Analoui, F., Mohmmad Moghimi, S., & Khanifar, H. (2009). Public sector managers and entrepreneurship in Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of management development, 28(6), 522-532.

Artz, K. W., Norman, P. M., Hatfield, D. E., & Cardinal, L. B. (2010). A longitudinal study of the impact of R&D, patents, and product innovation on firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 725-740.

Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 421-444.

Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both?. Journal of product innovation management, 17(6), 424-434.

Bigliardi, B., Colacino, P., & Dormio, A. I. (2011). Innovative characteristics of small and medium enterprises. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(2), 83-93.

Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., & Li, J. (2014). CEOs' transformational leadership and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1), 2-17.

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Benitez-Amado, J., & Kou, G. (2015). IT capabilities and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and competitive intensity. Information & Management, 52(6), 643-657.

Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, 23(3), 47-47.

Damanpour, F. (2010). An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 996-1010.

Dunlap[] Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. (2010). A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2), 106-127.

Emami, A., & Khajeheian, D. (2019). Social Norms and Entrepreneurial Action: The Mediating Role of Opportunity Confidence. Sustainability, 11(1), 158.

Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 387-414.

Fulton, J. (2015). Are you a journalist? New media entrepreneurs and journalists in the digital space. Javnost-The Public, 22(4), 362-374.

Garcia-Morales, V. J., Bolivar-Ramos, M. T., & Martin-Rojas, R. (2014). Technological variables and absorptive capacity's influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1468-1477.

Gomez-Haro, S., Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677-1693

Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1), 116-127.

Guan, J. C., Richard, C. M., Tang, E. P., & Lau, A. K. (2009). Innovation strategy and performance during economic transition: Evidences in Beijing, China. Research Policy, 38(5), 802-812.

Hang, M. (2016). Media corporate entrepreneurship: Theories and cases. Springer.

Hang, M., & Van Weezel, A. (2007). Media and entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature relating both concepts. Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(1), 51-70.

Hoag, A. (2008). Measuring Media Entrepreneurship 1. The International Journal on Media Management, 10(2), 74-80.

Hsu, C. C., Tan, K. C., Jayaram, J., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). Corporate entrepreneurship, operations core competency and innovation in emerging economies. International Journal of Production Research, 52(18), 5467-5483.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. (2006). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels--part 1, Journal of Business Strategy, 27(1), 10-17.

Jayaram, J., Oke, A., & Prajogo, D. (2014). The antecedents and consequences of product and process innovation strategy implementation in Australian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research, 52(15), 4424-4439.

Khajeheian, D. (2013). New venture creation in social media platform; Towards a framework for media entrepreneurship. In Handbook of social media management (pp. 125-142). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Khajeheian, D. (2016). Telecommunication Policy: Communication Act Update. Global Media Journal-Canadian Edition, 9(1), 135-141.

Khajeheian, D. (2017). Media entrepreneurship: A consensual definition. AD-minister, 30, 91-113.

Khajeheian, D. (2018a). Market Analysis, Opportunity Recognition and Strategy Diagnosis in Toy Industry. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 33(2), 220-240.

Khajeheian, D. (2018b). Enterprise Social Media: Ethnographic Research on Communication in Entrepreneurial Teams. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, 10(1), 34-46.

Khajeheian, D., & Friedrichsen, M. (2017). Innovation inventory as a source of creativity for interactive television. In Digital transformation in journalism and news media (pp. 341-349). Springer, Cham.

Khajeheian, D., & Tadayoni, R. (2016). User innovation in public service broadcasts: creating public value by media entrepreneurship. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 14(2), 117-131.

Khajeheian, D., & Salamzadeh, A. (2013). The Media Policy for Promotion of Entrepreneurship In Digital Game Industry. The 2nd Annual International Conference on Employment, Education, and Entrepreneurship, Belgrade, Serbia.

Koen, P. A., & Bertels, H. M. (2015). The Front End of Innovation in Large Established Firms. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 323-335.

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm's internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 37-47.

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: the innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 245-253.

Lee, H. H., Zhou, J., & Hsu, P. H. (2015). The role of innovation in inventory turnover performance. Decision Support Systems, 76, 35-44.

Maatoofi, A. R., & Tajeddini, K. (2011). Effect of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovation: evidence from auto parts manufacturing in Iran. Journal of Management Research, 11(1), 1-20.

Mason, C. (2011). Entrepreneurship education and research: emerging trends and concerns. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 13-25.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms, Management Science, 29(3), 770-791.

Mirzadeh, M. S., Salamzadeh, Y., & Salamzadeh, A. (2017). Identification of factors affecting individual industries. Economia y Sociedad, 22(52), 67-87.

Morris, M. H. and Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship, South-Western College Publishers, Mason, Ohio.

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. Cengage Learning.

North, D. C. (1971). Institutional change and economic growth. The Journal of Economic History, 31(1), 118-125.

North, D. C. (1986). The new institutional economics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 142(1), 230-237.

Otache, I., & Mahmood, R. (2015). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Business Performance: The Role of External Environment and Organizational Culture: A Proposed Framework. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 524-539.

Paunovic, B. (2012). The role of corporate entrepreneurship in solving the competitiveness crisis of large companies. Ekonomika preduzeca, 60(7-8), 343-354.

Price Schultz, C. J., & Jones, M. (2017). You can't do that! A case study of rural and urban media entrepreneur experience. International Journal on Media Management, 19(1), 11-28.

Salamzadeh, A. (2015). New venture creation: Controversial perspectives and theories. Economic Analysis, 48(3-4), 101-109.

Salamzadeh, A., & Kawamorita Kesim, H. (2017). The enterprising communities and startup ecosystem in Iran. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(4), 456-479.

Salamzadeh, A., & Kirby, D. A. (2017). New venture creation: How start-ups grow?. AD-minister, (30), 9-29.

Salamzadeh, A., & Markovic, M. R. (2018). Shortening the learning curve of media start-ups in accelerators: Case of a developing country. In Evaluating media richness in organizational learning (pp. 36-48). IGI Global.

Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge-based capital for corporate entrepreneurship effects on performance: A study of small-to medium-sized firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 81-100.

Soofi, A. S., Ghazinoory, S., & Farnoodi, S. (2018). The National Innovation System of Iran. Science and Innovations in Iran.

Urbano, D., & Turro, A. (2013). Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: an in (ex) ternal approach. International entrepreneurship and management journal, 9(3), 379-396.

Varma, S. (2013). International entrepreneurial capability as a driver of the born global firm--a case study from India. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 6(1-2), 42-61.

Wang, R. T., & Lin, C. P. (2012). Understanding innovation performance and its antecedents: A socio-cognitive model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(2), 210-225.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 14(4), 490-495.

Wong, S. Y., & Chin, K. S. (2007). Organizational innovation management: An organization-wide perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(9), 1290-1315.

Zahra, S. A. (1996). Goverance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of management journal, 39(6), 1713-1735.

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58.

Zhang, M. J. (2011). Firm-level performance impact of IS support for product innovation. European Journal o Innovation Management, 14(1), 118-132.

Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(1), 25-41.

APPENDIX

I- Questionnaire

Part A:

Gender: Male[]? Female[]?

Experience: less than 5 years[] 5 to ten years[]? 10 to 15 years[]? more than 15 years[]?

Education: High school diploma[]? BSC[]? MSC[]? PhD or higher[]?

Industry type: Production[]? Service provider[]?

Years of experience: 3 to 5 years[]? 5 to 10 years[]? more than 10 years[]?

No. of new products/services: Less than 5[]? 5 to 10[]? more than 10[]?

No. of employees: Less than 50 [] 50 to 100[]? more than 100[]?

Part B:

Please determine the state of your company, based on the Likert scale (1: very low, 2: low, 3: moderate, 4: high, 5: very high).

1. High rate of new product/service introduction, compared to competitors

2. Emphasis on continuous improvement in methods of production and/or service delivery

3. Risk-taking by key executives in seizing and exploring growth opportunities

4. A very competitive 'undo-the-competitor' posture

5. Seeking of unusual, novel solutions by senior executives to problems, via the use of 'idea people'

6. A strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership, and innovation

7. A bold, aggressive posture, in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential when faced with uncertainty

8. Active search for big opportunities

9. Rapid growth as the dominant goal

10. Large, bold decisions, despite uncertainties of the outcome

11. Steady growth and stability as primary concerns

12. Number of new products introduced during the past five years

13. Number of product improvement or revisions introduced during the past five years

14. Comparison of new product introductions with those of major competitors

15. Level of significance of new methods or operational processes implemented during the past five years

Part C:

Please determine the state of your company, based on the Likert scale (1: very low, 2: low, 3: moderate, 4: high, 5: very high).

1. number of product changed to total product

2. change in sales (due to product change) to total sales

3. change in profit (due to product change) to total profit

4. number of process changes to total processes

5. change in overall productivity due to product change

6. percentage of expenditure on R&D to total sales

7. number of technologies adopted externally

8. number of patents developed internally

ZAHRA MINAFAM (1)

JEL: M00, M30, O30

Received: 18/11/2018

Modified: 12/01/2019

Accepted: 16/04/2019

(1) PhD candidate in Islamic Azad University in Iran. Her main areas of interest are entrepreneurial studies, corporate entrepreneurship, media management, and intrapreneurship. She has taught entrepreneurship courses. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6948-5144. Email: zahra.minafam@mail.com

DOI: 10.17230/ad-minister.34.4
Table 1. Indicators of corporate entrepreneurship

                  Code  Indicators

Corporate         CE1   High rate of new product/service
Entrepreneurship        introduction, compared to competitors
                  CE2   Emphasis on continuous improvement in
                        methods of production and/or service delivery
                  CE3   Risk-taking by key executives in seizing
                        and exploring growth opportunities
                  CE4   A very competitive 'undo-the-competitor'
                        posture
                  CE5   Seeking of unusual, novel solutions by
                        senior executives to problems, via the
                        use of 'idea people'
                  CE6   A strong emphasis on R&D, technological
                        leadership, and innovation
                  CE7   A bold, aggressive posture, in order to
                        maximize the probability of exploiting
                        potential when faced with uncertainty
                  CE8   Active search for big opportunities
                  CE9   Rapid growth as the dominant goal
                  CE10  Large, bold decisions, despite
                        uncertainties of the outcome
                  CE11  Steady growth and stability as primary
                        concerns
                  CE12  Number of new products introduced
                        during the past five years
                  CE13  Number of product improvement or
                        revisions introduced during the
                        past five years
                  CE14  Comparison of new product introductions
                        with those of major competitors
                  CE15  Level of significance of new methods
                        or operational processes implemented
                        during the past five years

Source: Morris and Kuratko (2002), Miller (1983), and Ireland, Kuratko
and Morris (2006)

Table 2. Indicators of innovation performance

             Code  Indicators

Innovation   IP1   number of product changed to total product
Performance  IP2   change in sales (due to product change) to total
                   sales
             IP3   change in profit (due to product change) to total
                   profit
             IP4   number of process changes to total processes
             IP5   change in overall productivity due to product
                   change
             IP6   percentage of expenditure on R&D to total sales
             IP7   number of technologies adopted externally
             IP8   number of patents developed internally

Source: Wong and Chin (2007)

Table 3. Corporate entrepreneurship indexes

                            Code  Frequency  Average
                                             weight

Corporate Entrepreneurship  CE1   512        3.57
Indicators                  CE2   512        2.89
                            CE3   512        3.25
                            CE4   512        4.01
                            CE5   512        2.57
                            CE6   512        3.96
                            CE7   512        3.23
                            CE8   512        3.92
                            CE9   512        3.87
                            CE10  512        3.14
                            CE11  512        2.57
                            CE12  512        4.18
                            CE13  512        3.79
                            CE14  512        3.85
                            CE15  512        4.02
Mean of means (CE)                           3.52

Table 4. Innovation performance indexes

                        Code  Frequency  Average
                                         weight

Innovation Performance  IP1   512        3.78
Indicators              IP2   512        4.01
                        IP3   512        3.57
                        IP4   512        3.84
                        IP5   512        3.12
                        IP6   512        3.37
                        IP7   512        3.93
                        IP8   512        2.98
Mean of means (IP)                       3.57

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics

    Mean    Std. Deviation  N

CE  2.7427  1.16487         512
IP  2.8118  2.59492         512

Table 6. Correlations

                                       CSI00001      CSI00002

CE  Pearson Correlation                  1               .641 (**)
    Sig. (2-tailed)                                      .000
    Sum of Squares and Cross-products  230.678        173.237
    Covariance                           1.357          1.031
    N                                  171            169
IP  Pearson Correlation                   .641 (**)     1
    Sig. (2-tailed)                       .000
    Sum of Squares and Cross-products  173.237       1137.976
    Covariance                           1.031          6.734
    N                                  169            170

(**). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7. Model summary and parameter estimates

Dependent Variable: rate of product innovation

Equation          Model Summary                  Parameter
                                                 Estimates
          R       F              df1  df2  Sig.  Constant   b1
          Square

Linear    .135    7.766          1    511  .006  59.347     .059

The independent variable is corporate entrepreneurship.

Table 8. Model summary and parameter estimates

Dependent Variable: rate of process innovation

Equation          Model Summary                  Parameter
                                                 Estimates
          R       F              df1  df2  Sig.  Constant   b1
          Square

Linear    .132    6.133          1    511  .000  59.213     .052

The independent variable is corporate entrepreneurship.

Table 9. Model summary and parameter estimates

Dependent Variable: technology indicators

Equation          Model Summary                  Parameter
                                                 Estimates
          R       F              df1  df2  Sig.  Constant   b1
          Square

Linear    .120    7.723          1    511  .002  60.125     .052

The independent variable is corporate entrepreneurship.

Table 10. The moderating/mediating role of institutional factors

Independent       Intervening    Dependent   Direct  Indirect  Total
variable          variable       variable    effect  effect    effect

Corporate         Institutional  Product     0.337   0.124     0.461
entrepreneurship  factors        innovation
Corporate         Institutional  Process     0.321   0.10 8    0.429
entrepreneurship  factors        innovation
Corporate         Institutional  Technology  0.345   0.112     0.457
entrepreneurship  factors        indicators
COPYRIGHT 2019 Universidad EAFIT
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Minafam, Zahra
Publication:AD-minister
Date:Jan 1, 2019
Words:7065
Previous Article:THE EFFECT OF MEDIA CONVERGENCE ON EXPLOITATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITIES/EL EFECTO DE LA CONVERGENCIA DE LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIONENEL...
Next Article:CORPORATE MEDIA ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF IRIB USE OF EXTERNAL INNOVATIONS/EMPRENDIMIENTO CORPORATIVO DE...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters