Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance: Slovenia and Romania
boštjan antonCic University of Primorska, Slovenia
cezar scarlat
University Politechnica of Bucharest, Romania
Entrepreneurship development is an imperative agenda for the improvement of competitiveness of current and future eu member countries. Corporate entrepreneurship activities and orientations can be considered important predictors of organizational performance. Hypotheses on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship (organizational-level entrepreneurial behaviors) and performance elements and between alliance and corporate entrepreneurship elements were developed and tested. The analyses were done by using questionnaire data collected in two countries: Slovenia and Romania. Findings indicated very minor differences in corporate entrepreneurship and alliance item means between the two countries. Innovation in products and services can be considered crucial for performance of firms and economic growth. Strategic alliance relationships can be important for corporate entrepreneurship development.
Key words: corporate entrepreneurship, performance, alliances, Slovenia, Romania
Introduction
Entrepreneurship development is an imperative agenda for the improvement of competitiveness of current and future European Union (eu) member countries. The focus of this study is corporate entrepreneurship (i.e. entrepreneurship at the level of an existing firm). Corporate entrepreneurship activities and orientations can be considered important predictors of organizational performance. While past corporate entrepreneurship research in North America (for example, Covin and Slevin 1986; Covin 1991; Zahra 1991; 1993;
A previous version of this paper was published in Managing the Process of Globalisation in New and Upcoming eu Members: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, 71-89 (Koper: Faculty of Management, 2006).
Zahra and Covin 1995) provided substantial evidence on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship, empirical research on this relationship in new or future eu accession countries has been rare and is mainly concentrated in works of Antoncic and associates (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004; Antoncic and Zorn 2004) in Slovenia - a relatively newer eu country (a new eu country at the time of the study). This study extends the study of corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship to a new eu member country (a prospective eu member country at the time of the study) - Romania, by making a comparison with Slovenia. This study is exploiting a research opportunity to assess the role of entrepreneurship - in this case corporate entrepreneurship - in firm performances that were brought with the shift from socialism to market-based systems in Central and Eastern Europe, as advocated by Hills and LaForge (1992).
A significant amount of research has been conducted including two groups of corporate entrepreneurship antecedents: factors of the firm's external environment (e.g., Miller 1983; Khandwalla 1987; Covin and Slevin 1991; Zahra 1991; 1993; Badguerahanian and Abetti 1995; Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004) and organizational-level internal factors (e.g., Souder 1981; Schollhammer 1982; Kanter 1984, Pinchot 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby 1987; Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004). This research, with the exception of Antoncic and Hisrich (2004), failed to recognize that corporate entrepreneurship may also be influenced by the firm's engagement in inter-organizational alliances. The present study remedies this weakness of past research by examining the relationship between alliance elements and corporate entrepreneurship.
In what follows, hypotheses on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance elements and between alliance and corporate entrepreneurship elements are developed, research methods are described, findings are presented and discussed.
Theory and Hypotheses
In this paper, corporate entrepreneurship is defined as entrepreneur-ship within an existing organization, including emergent behavioral intentions and behaviors of an organization related to departures from the customary (Antoncic and Hisrich 2003). Even if corporate entrepreneurship can have several characteristic dimensions, such as new business venturing, product/service innovation, process innovation, self-renewal, risk taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness, this paper focuses only on the most evident cor-
porate entrepreneurship activities: new businesses, new ventures, and product and service innovation. These activities are defined as: (1) new businesses - pursuit of and entering into new businesses related to current products or markets (Rule and Irvin 1988; Zahra 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Antoncic and Hisrich 2003); (2) new ventures - creation of new autonomous or semi-autonomous units or firms (Schollhammer 1981; Hisrich and Peters 1984; MacMillan et al. 1984; Vesper 1984; Kanter and Richardson 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller 1994; Sharma and Chrisman 1999; Antoncic and Hisrich 2003); (3) product/service innovation - creation of new products and services (Schollhammer 1982; Covin and Slevin 1991; Zahra 1993; Damanpour 1996; Burgelman and Rosen-blom 1997; Knight 1997; Tushman and Anderson 1997; Antoncic and Hisrich 2003). Corporate entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship) can be differentiated from other similar concepts in management and business research, such as diversification strategy, capabilities, organizational learning and organizational innovation (a more precise description of this differentiation and the corporate entrepreneur-ship definition is provided in Antoncic and Hisrich 2003).
corporate entrepreneurship and performance
Growth and profitability are performance elements that can be considered important consequences of corporate entrepreneurship. In general, corporate entrepreneurship has been regarded an important element of successful organizations (Peters and Waterman 1982; Kanter 1984; Pinchot 1985). On the one hand, the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and growth has received wide support in past research. Corporate entrepreneurship was found predictive of the growth of small firms (Covin 1991) and large firms (Covin and Slevin 1986; Zahra 1991; 1993; Zahra and Covin 1995). A positive corporate entrepreneurship-growth relationship was discovered for Slovenian (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; 2004) and us established firms (Morris and Sexton 1996; Antoncic and Hisrich 2001) and health care firms (Stetz et al. 1998). On the other hand, past research on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and profitability produced mixed support. Corporate entrepreneurship was found to be related to the profitability of large firms (Covin and Slevin 1986; Zahra 1991; 1993; Zahra and Covin 1995), and small, medium-sized, and large firms from various industries in Slovenia, but not in the us (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001). Morris and Sexton (1996) also did not find a significant positive relationship between entrepreneurial intensity and profitability of us firms. One explana-
tion for such mixed results is that 'firms in the us are more growth oriented and value growth more than profitability than do the firms in Slovenia that may be still more survival and profit rather than growth oriented' (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001, 523). A similar positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance may be expected also for other similar countries referred to as transition economies, such as Romania. For firms in transition economies it maybe particularly beneficial to exercise corporate entrepreneurship in order to ensure change and growth (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000). Romania has been going through the transition towards a market-based economic system in a similar period to that of Slovenia. When taking into consideration the economic development model based on corporate entrepreneurship (Douglas et al. 2003), Romania may be at the medium levels of economic development (gdp per capita), where strong efforts need to be made to increase all dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. In contrast, Slovenia may be at the medium-high, where among entrepreneurial activities innovativeness becomes a key for improved performance. Hence, we would expect a general positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance in terms of profitability and growth, with a distinction in more positive and significant relationships of innovativeness items to performance than the impact of other elements on performance in Slovenia, while in Romania we may find a more balanced impact of different corporate entrepreneurship elements on performance. This research forms the basis of the following hypotheses:
hypothesis 1: The extent of corporate entrepreneurship (new businesses, new ventures, product/service innovation) will be positively related to organizational performance in terms of growth and profitability in Slovenia and Romania. hypothesis 2: Positive and significant relationships of corporate entrepreneurship to performance will have the following properties: (2a) product/service innovation will be the most important among corporate entrepreneurship elements in Slovenia, and (2b) the importance of new businesses, new ventures, and product/service innovation will be balanced in Romania.
alliance elements and corporate entrepreneurship
Inter-organizational relationships have received limited research attention in the context of corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic 1999). Firms participate in alliances in order to learn know-how and
capabilities from their alliance partners (Kale et al. 2000). Interfirm elements that reside in networks and strategic alliances and can be beneficial for corporate entrepreneurship, as conceptually elaborated by Antoncic (2001), are: inter-firm communication, trust, external-relationship oriented support, value congruence, and the number of external relationships. First, the frequency and quality of inter-firm communication can have a positive impact on corporate entrepreneurship. Past research that supports this notion has emphasized the following: face-to-face interaction (Saxenian 1991), communication quality and participation (Mohr and Spekman 1994), information sharing (Jones et al. 1997; Uzzi 1997), open and prompt communication (Das and Teng 1998), and frequency of communication (Deeds and Hill 1998). Second, inter-firm trust can have a positive impact on corporate entrepreneurship. Past research has stressed the importance of trust in alliances (Pruitt 1981; Parkhe 1993; Das and Teng 1998; Weaver and Dickson 1998) and networks (Saxenian 1991). Third, the inter-firm level organizational support can be seen as a crucial element for corporate entrepreneurship. The support elements can be found in discussions about: commitment in inter-firm relationships (Porter et al. 1974; Mohr and Spekman 1994) and permeability of network boundaries (Jones et al. 1997). Fourth, congruence of organizational values across alliance or network partner firms can be an important predictor of corporate entrepreneurship development. Values in general can serve as social control mechanisms that encourage desirable behavior in alliances (Das and Teng 1998), sharing values can improve alliance success (Parkhe 1991), and, in addition, values can even be a byproduct of joint networking (Jones et al. 1997). Fifth, the number of interfirm relationships of a firm can have a positive impact on corporate entrepreneurship development, particularly on product innovation (Saxenian 1991); Deeds and Hill 1996; 1998; Powell et al. 1996), as well as on corporate entrepreneurship as a construct (Antoncic and Hisrich 2004).
hypothesis 3: The extent of alliance elements (communication, trust, support, value congruence, number of alliances) will be positively related to corporate entrepreneurship in terms of new businesses, new ventures, and product/service innovation in Slovenia and Romania.
Methods
The methodology will be discussed in terms of measurement instrument, data collection, samples, and data analysis.
measurement instrument
In this research, corporate entrepreneurship, alliance characteristics, and performance elements were measured mostly through scales previously tested and used by other researchers. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated into Slovenian and Romanian. Perceptual measures were selected based on their congruence with the concepts under examination. Five point scales (Likert-type scales and semantic differentials) were used to keep the questionnaire as simple as possible. In some cases longer scales were needed to capture the information. Companies reported answers for the past three-year period.
Corporate entrepreneurship was measured by selected items of new businesses, new ventures, and product/service innovation (see table 1) from the corporate entrepreneurship scale used by Antoncic and Hisrich (2004). The number of alliances was measured as the number of strategic alliances of the focal firm (Antoncic and Hisrich 2004) and was assessed across different alliance types: customer-supplier relationships, licensing, technology sharing, joint development, and equity joint ventures (Mowery et al. 1996), and at the overall level.
Dependent variables - performance - were measured in terms of growth and profitability in absolute and relative terms (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001): absolute growth items are the average annual growth in number of employees in the last three years and the average annual growth in sales in the last three years, while the relative growth item is growth in market share (Chandler and Hanks 1993) in the last three years; absolute profitability items are average annual return on sales (ros), average return on assets (roa), and average annual return on equity (roe), in the last three years, while relative profitability items are a subjective measure of firm performance relative to competitors (Chandler and Hanks 1993) and its extension (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; 2004): the company's profitability in comparison to all competitors, as well as to competitors that are at about the same age and stage of development. Control variables included firm age, size, and industry.
data collection, samples, and data analysis
Questionnaire data were collected from top executives of selected firms in Slovenia and Romania. For analysis 477 usable responses were obtained from Slovenia (a representative random sample) and 30 responses were obtained from Romania.
The average firm in the Slovenian sample had 100 to 249 employ-
ees (full time equivalent), had $5 Million to up to $10 Million sales, was 21 to 50 years old, and operated in manufacturing, trade and services sectors. The average firm in the Romanian sample had 50 to 99 employees (full time equivalent), had $1 Million to up to $5 Million sales, was 11 to 20 years old, and operated in trade, services, and manufacturing sectors. In both countries also other industries were well represented. The samples were not ideally matched, but past research (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; 2001; 2004) mostly confirmed the stability of corporate entrepreneurship models across control variables.
Data were analyzed by using the spss statistical analytical software. Item means were compared in absolute and statistical terms (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). The hypotheses were tested with the analysis of correlations. These simple analytical methods were used because of the small size of the Romanian sample.
Findings
Research findings will be discussed in terms of comparisons of corporate entrepreneurship and alliance mean values between Slovenia and Romania, and hypotheses testing findings on corporate entrepreneurship-performance and alliance-corporate entrepre-neurship relationships.
comparisons of means
Means for all corporate entrepreneurship and alliance items are shown in table 1. Most differences in item means were found not to be statistically significant (at 0.05 levels). Significant differences were found only for few items: only one among 17 corporate en-trepreneurship items (the number of products introduced by the company lower in Slovenia - mean 2.65 - than in Romania - mean 3.40); three among 28 alliance items (the congruence of organizational values was found higher in Romania than in Slovenia for two items: in technology sharing - Slovenia 2.64, Romania 3.80 - and in joint development - Slovenia 2.58, Romania 3.50; the number of strategic alliances in the equity joint ventures type was found higher in Slovenia than in Romania: mean value 1.91 is close to one alliance of this type in Slovenia and mean 1.13 is close to zero alliances in Romania).
corporate entrepreneurship-performance
relationships
Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance. Correlations for the Slovenian
table i Mean comparisons between Slovenia and Romania Questionnaire item
Stimulating your new demand on your existing products in your current markets through aggressive advertising and marketing Broadening your business lines in your current industries Pursuing new businesses in new industries that are related to your current business
Finding new niches for your products in your current markets Entering new businesses by offering new lines and products Creating new semi-autonomous units Creating new autonomous units Creating new firms
Creating new totally independent firms
Your company's emphasis on developing new products
Rate of new product introduction into the market
Your company's spending on new product development activities
The number of new products added by your company
The number of new products introduced by your company
Please estimate the percent of the company's revenue generated from
products that did not exist three years earlier (1 = 0-9% ... 7 = 70%
or more)
How many new lines of products or services has your firm marketed in last three years (5 = very many new lines of products or services) How many new lines of products or services has your firm marketed in last three years (5 = changes in product or service lines have usually been quite dramatic)
Dimension
Code Slovenia Romania (1) (2) (1) (2)
New businesses
New businesses New businesses
New businesses New businesses New ventures New ventures New ventures New ventures Product/service innovation Product/service innovation Product/service innovation Product/service innovation Product/service innovation Product/service innovation
Product/service innovation Product/service innovation
iinbol	2.71
11nb02	3.13
hnb03	3.14
hnb04	3.50
hnb05	3.00
hnb06	2.24 hnb07 1.97
hnb08	1.84
hnb09	1.44
12p101	3.45
i2pi02	3.16
i2pi03	3.2o
i2pi04	3.22
i2pi05	2.65
i2pi05	2.65
i2pio6	3.11
i2pi07	3.o3
o.o5 2.97 o.24
o.o5 3.5o 0.20 o.o5 2.83 o.24
0.05	3.07	0.21
0.06	2.80	0.22
0.05	2.47	0.25
0.05	2.07	0.22
0.05	1.97	0.26
0.04	1.50	0.20
0.05	3.40	0.19
0.04	3.20	0.20
0.05	3.17	0.21
0.04	3.27	0.23
0.05	3.40	0.21'
0.05	3.40	0.21
0.08	3-53	0.36
o.o5 2.79 0.21
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = timely)
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = accurate)
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = adequate)
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = complete)
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = credible)
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = frequent)
Please rate the extent of communication with your strategic alliance partners in general in last three years (r; i = high quality) We trust that the alliance partners' decisions will be beneficial to our business
We feel that we do not get fair deals from our alliance partners (r) Relationships with our alliance partners are marked by a high degree of harmony
Our alliance partners provide us with a truthful picture of their businesses Our alliance partners carry out duties even if we do not check up on them Our alliance partners have sometimes promised to do things without actually doing them later (r)
The management structure itself encourages employees to believe that collaboration with partner companies is part of the role set for all members of the organization
Rewards and reinforcement enhance the motivation of individuals to collaborate with partner companies
Alliance communication
Alliance communication
Alliance communication
Alliance communication
Alliance communication
Alliance communication
Alliance communication
Alliance trust
Alliance trust Alliance trust
Alliance trust Alliance trust Alliance trust
Alliance support
n1c003 nico04 nico05 nicoo6 nico07
n2te02 n2tr03
n2tr04 n2tr05 n2tr06
2.34	o.o4
2.49	o.o4
2.57	o.o4
2.78	o.o3
2.34	o.o4
2.53	o.o4
2.63	o.o4
3.34	o.o4
2.38	o.o4
3.19	o.o4
3.09	o.o4
3.14	o.o4
2.97	o.o5
2.42 0.22
2.38 0.22
2.35 o.25
2.62 o.24
2.38 0.21
2.62 0.20
2.46 o.19
3.62 o.19
2.38 0.22 3.19 0.22
3.oo 0.22 3.oo o.24 2.85 o.24
n3es0 1 3.34 o.o5 3.60 o.23
Alliance support
n3es02 3.09 0.05 3.13 0.23
Alliance support
Boundaries (real and imagined) that prevent people from looking at problems outside our company do not exist
Our company has a minimal commitment to strategic alliance partners (r) Please rate the level of congruence of organizational values between your company and your alliance partners by alliance type (customer-supplier relationships)
Please rate the level of congruence of organizational values between your company and your alliance partners by alliance type (licensing) Please rate the level of congruence of organizational values between your company and your alliance partners by alliance type (technology sharing) Please rate the level of congruence of organizational values between your company and your alliance partners by alliance type (joint development) Please rate the level of congruence of organizational values between your company and your alliance partners by alliance type (equity joint ventures)
Please estimate the overall number of strategic alliances of your company with other companies in last three years
Please estimate the number of strategic alliances in last three years by the Alliance number following alliance types (customer-supplier relationships)
Please estimate the number of strategic alliances in last three years by the Alliance number following alliance types (licensing)
Please estimate the number of strategic alliances in last three years by the Alliance number following alliance types (technology sharing)
Please estimate the number of strategic alliances in last three years by the Alliance number following alliance types (joint development)
Please estimate the number of strategic alliances in last three years by the Alliance number following alliance types (equity joint ventures)
notes Column headings are as follows: (1) mean, (2) standard error. * Difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
n3es03 3.01 0.05 3.07 0.22
Alliance support Alliance value congruence
Alliance value congruence
Alliance value congruence
Alliance value congruence
Alliance value congruence
Alliance number
n3es04 n4vc01
n4vc02 n4vc03 n4vc04 n4vc05
n5de01 n5de02 n5de03 n5de04 n5de05 n5de06
2.88	0.05 3.48	0.04
2.27	0.06 2.64	0.05 2.58	0.06 2.26	0.06
3.89	0.08 4.56	0.09 1.69	0.06 2.38	0.07
2.28	0.07 1.91	0.06
2.75	0.26
3.92	0.16
3.36	0.28
3.80	0.29*
3.50	0.15*
3.50	0.65
4.77	0.43
4.38	0.43
1.79	0.22
2.03	0.34
1.87	0.25
1.13	0.08*
sample are shown in table 2. The majority of correlations between corporate entrepreneurship and growth items (44 out of 51 correlations, 86%) and corporate entrepreneurship and profitability items (60 out of 85 correlations, 71%) were found positive and significant. For one item - creating new totally independent firms - no significant relationship to profitability was found.
Correlations for the Romanian sample are shown in table 3. Corporate entrepreneurship and growth items were found not to be predominantly significantly correlated (31 out of 51 correlations were not significant, 61%), but three corporate entrepreneurship items (broadening business lines in current industries, the percent of company revenue generated from newer products, dramatic changes in lines of products or services) stand out with strong and positive relationships to all growth items. Similar results were found for correlations between corporate entrepreneurship and profitability items (65 out of 85 correlations were not significant, 76%), but with two items strongly correlated to absolute profitability (broadening business lines in current industries, the percent of company revenue generated from newer products) and two items with strong correlation to relative profitability (broadening business lines in current industries, marketing of many new lines of products or services).
However, when we move over the significance levels and look at the coefficient size, we can see that the results are not that different between the two samples. For instance, many correlations below 0.2 values are significant for the Slovenian sample, while many correlations above 0.2 are not significant in the Romanian sample. This is due to the difference in sample sizes and measurement items' coding properties. Overall, Hypothesis 1 received mixed support.
Hypothesis 2 postulated that product/service innovation may be the most important in the relationship to performance in Slovenia, while the relationship to performance of new businesses, new ventures, and product/service innovation may be balanced in Romania. Significant correlations to growth in Slovenia were found as follows (see table 2): new businesses-9 out of 15, 60%; new ventures -12 out of 12, 100%; product/service innovation - 23 out of 24, 96%. Significant correlations to profitability in Slovenia were found as follows: new businesses - 12 out of 25, 48%; new ventures - 11 out of 20, 55%; product/service innovation - 38 out of 40, 95%. These findings are in general in support of Hypothesis 2a, with the notion that new venture formation is also very important for growth in Slovenia.
In Romania, significant correlations to growth were found as follows (see table 3): new businesses - 9 out of 15, 60%; new ventures -
table 2 Pearson correlation coefficients between corporate entrepreneurship and performance items: Slovenia
Code
Performance items
	p igro 1	p1gr02	pigr03	p2pr01	p2pr02	p2pr03	p2pr04	p2pr05
ilnbol	.085	.161**	.168**	.089	.067	.059	.142**	.154**
i1nb02	.079	.168**	.198**	.147**	.178**	.165**	.153**	.181**
iinbo3	.075	.143**	.217**	.075	.117*	.083	.019	.042
iinbo4	.016	.089	.129**	.085	.091	.050	.056	.097*
iinbo5	.118*	.202**	.229**	.130**	.106*	.098*	.066	.086
iinb06	.163**	.171**	.194**	.075	.083	.082	.137**	.150**
iinbo7	.188**	.203**	.167**	.108*	.106*	.096*	.091	.120*
iinb08	.092*	.179**	.120**	.137**	.150**	.158**	.144**	.139**
iinbo9	.137**	.135**	.105*	.038	.043	.027	.032	.063
i2pi01	.088	.190**	.243**	.148**	.167**	.157**	.157**	.151**
i2pi02	.113*	.193**	.203**	.148**	.177**	.189**	.185**	.177**
i2pi03	.103*	.134**	.181**	.088	.139**	.149**	.089	.110*
i2pi04	.122**	.164**	.217**	.148**	.168**	.197**	.139**	.139**
i2pi05	.103*	.144**	.197**	.153**	.166**	.146**	.132**	.132**
i2pio6	.301**	.340**	.312**	.215**	.235**	.216**	.151**	.175**
i2pi07	.209**	.242**	.277**	.270**	.263**	.240**	.104*	.147**
i2pio8	.175**	.209**	.253**	.238**	.261**	.260**	.137**	.194**
to ON
notes "Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ""Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
performance items pigroi - average annual growth in number of employees in last three years; p igro 2 - average annual growth in sales in last three years; p igro3 - growth in market share in last three years; p2pr01 - average annual return on sales in last three years; p2pr0 2 -average annual return on assets in last three years; p2pr03 - average annual return on equity in last three years; p2pr04 - profitability of your company in last three years in comparison to all competitors that you are aware of; p2pr05 - profitability of your company in last three years in comparison to competitors at about same age and stage of development.
table 3 Pearson correlation coefficients between corporate entrepreneurship and performance items: Romania
Code
Performance items
	P IGRO 1	p 1GR02	pigr03	P2PR01	P2PR02	P2PR03	p2pr04	P2PR05
IlNBOl	.272	.212	•404*	.260	.221	.256	.051	.119
I1NB02	.470**	•413*	.600**	•430*	•579**	.578**	.350	•407*
iinbo3	.471**	.351	•453*	.253	.177	.232	-.057	.158
iinbo4	.177	.529**	.406*	.265	.294	.291	.163	.258
iinbo5	.021	•343	•378*	.361*	.304	.311	.195	.305
iinb06	.091	.267	.137	.158	-.033	-.032	.296	•405*
iinbo7	-.126	.039	-.104	.142	-.016	-.018	.270	.145
iinb08	.089	-.139	-.064	.014	-.126	-.140	-.031	-.182
iinbo9	.024	-.048	-.026	.037	.062	.062	-.078	-.024
I2PI01	.097	.290	.384*	.250	.231	.171	.369*	.340
I2PI02	.138	.185	.348	•347	.312	.284	.525**	.530**
I2PI03	.258	.336	•413*	.183	.138	.113	.317	.411*
I2PI04	.121	.280	.360	.418*	.257	.229	.245	.308
I2PI05	•379*	.321	•475**	.415*	.388*	•353	.310	•404*
i2pio6	.621**	.643**	.664**	.540**	.591**	.590**	.198	•379*
I2PI07	.269	.157	.460*	.336	.352	.360	.388*	•436*
i2pio8	.368*	•407*	•517**	•343	.285	.243	.198	.316
TJ »
3
o
W O O 00
to
notes "Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ""Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
performance items pigroi - average annual growth in number of employees in last three years; pigr02 - average annual growth in sales in last three years; pigr03 - growth in market share in last three years; P2PR01 - average annual return on sales in last three years; p2pr0 2 -average annual return on assets in last three years; p2pr03 - average annual return on equity in last three years; p2pr04 - profitability of your company in last three years in comparison to all competitors that you are aware of; p2pr05 - profitability of your company in last three years in comparison to competitors at about same age and stage of development.
table 4 Pearson correlation coefficients between alliance and new businesses/ventures items: Slovenia
Code	i1nb01	i1nb02	IINBO3	IINBO4	IINBO5	IINB06	IINBO7	IINB08	IINBO9
n1coo1	-.178**	-.116*	-.010	-.122**	-.081	-.064	.014	.000	.045
n1c002	-.166**	-.106*	-.058	-.115*	-.098*	-.056	.015	.024	.036
NICOO3	-.109*	-.065	-.067	-.064	-.055	-.061	.019	.041	.046
NICOO4	-.047	.003	-.007	-.040	-.093*	-.040	.007	-.011	.031
NICOO5	-.104*	-.040	-.010	-.042	-.009	-.014	.059	.029	.110*
NICOO6	-.161**	-.118*	-.033	-.125**	-.047	-.026	.045	.064	.101*
NICOO7	-.137**	-.063	-.038	-.098*	-.034	-.071	.017	.038	.043
n2te01	.143**	.174**	.116*	.194**	.179**	.105*	.030	.094*	.029
n2te02	-.063	-.048	-.014	-.014	-.120*	-.073	.000	.030	.116*
n2tr03	.119*	.131**	.029	.104*	.173**	.154**	.118*	.076	-.001
n2tr04	.098*	.070	.040	.045	.091	.083	.112*	.120**	-.009
n2tr05	.156**	.128**	.036	.024	.072	.065	.025	.126**	.009
n2tr06	.006	-.007	-.028	.032	-.031	.029	.036	.009	.037
N3ESO1	.184**	.194**	.132**	.150**	.090	.181**	.137**	.101*	.051
n3es02	.220**	.197**	.192**	.212**	.175**	.160**	.136**	.078	.058
N3ESO3	.032	.003	.025	.039	-.027	.105*	.169**	.118*	.126**
N3ESO4	-.009	-.109*	-.078	-.082	-.081	-.053	-.003	-.030	.036
N4VCO1	.134**	.203**	.161**	.248**	.145**	.045	.012	.074	.026
N4VCO2	.215**	.219**	.093	.097	.089	.130*	.162**	.245**	.168**
N4VCO3	.206**	.205**	.121*	.106*	.154**	.172**	.161**	.230**	.094
N4VCO4	.205**	.258**	.136**	.124*	.165**	.173**	.120*	.207**	.075
N4VCO5	.202**	.201**	.055	.106*	.106*	.212**	.139**	.278**	.135**
n5de01	.177**	.188**	.227**	.143**	.157**	.157**	.127**	.106*	.122**
n5de02	.151**	.141**	.212**	.138**	.193**	.118*	.146**	.065	.100*
N5DE03	.137**	.107*	.064	.039	.107*	.146**	.187**	.180**	.224**
N5DE04	.136**	.163**	.142**	.148**	.144**	.185**	.179**	.125**	.100*
N5DE05	.123**	.190**	.146**	.103*	.151**	.148**	.171**	.163**	.148**
N5DE06	.096*	.096*	.054	.042	.083	.191**	.190**	.258**	.187**
notes *	Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).			** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).					
table 5	Pearson correlation coefficients between alliance and product/service innovation items: Slovenia								
Code	i2pi01	i2pi02	i2pi03	12P104	12P105	12P106	12P107	12P108	
n1 coo 1	-.155**	-.123**	-.120**	-.116*	-.088	-.075	-.148**	-.167**	
n1 coo 2	-.142**	-.106*	-.131**	-.115*	-.064	-.090	-.097*	-.173**	
NICOO3	-.073	-.083	-.126**	-.065	-.055	-.034	-.028	-.102*	
NICOO4	-.109*	-.066	-.161**	-.074	-.098*	-.024	-.059	-.169**	
NICOO5	-.066	-.070	-.134**	-.106*	-.076	.026	-.054	-. 100*	
NICOO6	-.107*	-.147**	-.149**	-.116*	-.101*	-.060	-.085	-.118*	
NICOO7	-.111*	-.124**	-.234**	-.117*	-.166**	-.050	-.089	-.134**	
n2te01	.155**	.195**	.099*	.138**	.104*	.163**	.216**	.260**	
n2te02	-.131**	-.148**	-.151**	-.180**	-.127**	-.164**	-.100*	-.114*	
n2tr03	.178**	.166**	.127**	.128**	.078	.161**	.144**	.184**	
n2te04	.039	.114*	.074	.060	.077	.026	.089	.104*	
n2tr05	.117*	.162**	.052	.124**	.119*	.146**	.152**	.139**	
n2te06	-.062	-.071	-.075	-.074	-.080	-.060	-.073	-.090	
N3ESO1	.183**	.123**	.163**	.124**	.107*	.101*	.162**	.207**	
n3es02	.182**	.117*	.199**	.112*	.134**	.169**	.125**	.218**	
N3ESO3	.025	-.020	.053	-.025	.019	.020	.043	.087	
OJ
o
N4VC01	.186**	.200**	.245**	.195**	.116*	.172**	.214**	.217**	
N4VC02	.045	.100	.109*	.153**	.213**	.124*	.163**	.101	
N4VC03	.161**	.108*	.197**	.159**	.221**	.139**	.213**	.136**	
N4VC04	.185**	.119*	.237**	.146**	.260**	.141**	.152**	.232**	
N4VC05	.138**	.084	.190**	.136**	.247**	.121*	.143**	.127*	
n5de01	.216**	.219**	.183**	.169**	.168**	.145**	.157**	.224**	
n5de02	.158**	.204**	.120*	.118*	.178**	.181**	.174**	.231**	
N5DE03	-.005	.062	.036	.015	.125**	.202**	.138**	.114*	
N5DE04	.159**	.123**	.135**	.130**	.164**	.178**	.182**	.172**	
N5DE05	.158**	.163**	.162**	.160**	.218**	.212**	.168**	.218**	
N5DE06	.022	.014	.052	.030	.125**	.156**	.062	.081	
notes *	Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).			""Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).					
table 6	Pearson correlation coefficients between alliance and new businesses/ventures items: Romania								
Code	ilnbol	11NB02	HNB03	HNB04	HNB05	HNB06	HNB07	HNB08	HNB09
n1c oo1	.016	.214	.184	-.059	.236	.075	.137	.125	.480*
n1c oo 2	.073	.198	.424*	.072	.230	.112	.198	.103	.467*
NICOO3	-.008	.072	.273	-.019	.137	.086	.277	.112	.532**
NICOO4	.034	.264	.364	-.093	.120	-.009	.170	-.005	.380
NICOO5	.104	.410*	•355	.008	.307	.090	.236	.031	.417*
NICOO6	.041	.283	.180	-.008	.288	.072	.238	.046	.425*
NICOO7	.140	•439*	.326	.039	.380	.269	.317	.083	.409*
n2te01	-.081	.037	.007	-.044	•374	.132	.080	.266	-.058
n2te02	-.279	-.032	.098	-.087	.223	.109	.221	.076	.267
n2tr03	.076	-.272	.193	.082	-.001	.092	-.209	.062	.041
n2te04	.135	-.064	.078	-.063	-.065	-.124	-.262	-.118	.279
p > £
o p
oj
P p.
O
n2tr05	-.025	-.441*	.024	.000	-.207	.046	-.080	.065	.000
n2tr06	-.296	-.030	.234	.212	•455*	.181	.112	.116	.263
n3es01	.140	.154	.329	.237	.218	.292	.179	.302	.385*
n3es02	.065	.201	•435*	.041	.173	.042	-.141	.362*	.150
n3eso3	.090	-.160	.007	.022	-.274	-.289	-.027	-.180	.000
n3eso4	-.016	-•333	-.151	-.226	-.367	-.043	.000	-.018	.012
n4vco1	-.041	-.211	.123	.274	.244	.242	.255	.113	.152
n4vco2	.086	.053	-.607*	-.461	-•345	-.228	.489	-.298	-.404
n4vco3	-.157	.124	-.440	.135	•355	.000	-.022	.017	-.058
n4vco4	-.064	-.290	.000	-.097	-.329	-.116	-.271	.212	•374
n4vco5	-.378	-.258	-.103	.086	"•775	-.614	-.405	-•939	-•775
n5de01	.299	.155	•453*	.095	-.029	-.018	-.188	-.084	.034
n5de02	.260	-.001	.356	.078	-.128	-.064	-.170	-.043	.102
n5deo3	.104	.065	.323	-.032	.265	.195	-.083	-.077	.075
n5deo4	.158	.165	.336	-.083	.126	.075	-.110	-.157	.043
n5deo5	.095	-.095	•404*	.028	.130	.071	-.121	.051	.095
n5deo6	.130	.296	.099	-.019	-.013	-.050	.115	.007	.000
notes *	Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).			** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).					
table 7	Pearson correlation coefficients between alliance and product/service innovation items: Romania								
Code	i2pi01	i2pi02	12p103	12p104	12pi05	12pi06	12pi07	12p108	
n1 coo 1	.385	.059	.257	.136	.281	.128	.210	.230	
n1c002	.432*	-.060	•354	.171	.114	.161	.124	.330	
nicoo3	.416*	.007	.336	.226	.084	.216	.104	.261	
nicoo4	•535**	.220	.372	.378	.248	.317	.235	.223	
n1c005	•555**	.229	•433*
n1c006	•573**	.266	•449*
n1c007	.415*	.128	•393*
n2te01	.133	-.142	.000
n2te02	.218	-.300	.031
n2tr03	.009	.031	-.125
n2tr04	-.100	.061	-.188
n2tr05	-.276	-.306	-•373
n2tr06	.322	-.147	.173
n3eso1	.501**	•464**	.422*
n3es02	.478**	.226	.466**
n3eso3	-.216	-.141	-.081
n3eso4	-.118	-.185	.067
n4vco1	.085	-.027	.042
n4vco2	-•459	-.086	-.141
n4vco3	.251	.249	.466
n4vco4	-•354	-.267	-.420
n4vco5	-.316	.894	-.674
n5deo1	.025	.178	-.146
n5de02	-.097	.094	-.246
n5deo3	.182	.086	.100
n5deo4	•335	.218	.204
n5deo5	.260	-.028	.079
n5deo6	.260	.160	.225
notes * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
430*	.430*	•357	.4131
311	.299	.145	.085
204	•333	.415*	.228
233	.278	.172	.230
008	-.036	-.023	-.192
044	-.091	-.066	.001
158	-.176	.000	.000
169	-.404*	-.214	-.204
026	.073	-.001	-.146
422*	.410*	.407*	.507
363*	•343	.282	.406'
149	-.350	-.073	-.282
057	-.236	-.261	-.213
183	.035	.013	.145
076	-.038	.073	-.045
131	•433	.280	-.065
603*	-.412	-.297	-.408
316	-.800	.000	-.756
091	.062	.420*	.352
049	-.075	.310	.238
270	.141	.221	.358
382*	.175	.257	.320
304	.081	.104	.288
248	.098	.273	-.073
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
408*
131
433*
388*
007
019
188 259 328 513** 586** 368*
189 160 310 256
374
602
188
018
280
237
396*
207
bd
P >
£
o P
OJ p
p. o
0 out of 12, 0%; product/service innovation - 11 out of 24, 46%. Significant correlations to profitability in Slovenia were found as follows: new businesses - 5 out of 25, 20%; new ventures - 1 out of 20, 5%; product/service innovation - 15 out of 40, 37%. These findings are not in support of Hypothesis 2b. New businesses and product/service innovation can be considered important for growth, and product/service innovation can be important for profitability in Romania.
alliance-corporate entrepreneurship relationships
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the extent of alliance elements (communication, trust, support, value congruence, number of alliances) would be positively related to corporate entrepreneurship. Correlations for the Slovenian sample are shown in tables 4 and 5. Significant correlations in the proposed direction were found as follows: for the alliance-new businesses relationship - 15 out of 35 (43%) for alliance communication items, 13 out of 30 (43%) for alliance trust items, 9 out of 20 (45%) for alliance support items, 21 out of 25 (84%) for value congruence items, 25 out of 30 (83%) for alliance number items; for the alliance-new ventures relationship - 2 out of 28 (7%) for alliance communication items, 8 out of 24 (33%) for alliance trust items, 9 out of 16 (56%) for alliance support items, 14 out of 20 (70%) for value congruence items, 23 out of 24 (96%) for alliance number items; for the alliance-product/service innovation relationship - 33 out of 56 (59%) for alliance communication items, 31 out of 48 (65%) for alliance trust items, 24 out of 32 (75%) for alliance support items, 21 out of 25 (84%) for shared values items, 38 out of 48 (79%) for alliance number items.
Correlations for the Romanian sample are shown in tables 6 and 7. Significant correlations in the proposed direction were found as follows: for the alliance-new businesses relationship - 0 out of 35 (0%) for alliance communication items, 0 out of 30 (0%) for alliance trust items, 1 out of 20 (5%) for alliance support items, 0 out of 25 (0%) for value congruence items, 2 out of 30 (7%) for alliance number items; for the alliance-new ventures relationship - 0 out of 28 (0%) for alliance communication items, 0 out of 24 (0%) for alliance trust items, 2 out of 16 (12%) for alliance support items, 0 out of 20 (0%) for shared values items, 0 out of 24 (0%) for alliance number items; for the alliance-product/service innovation relationship - 0 out of 56 (0%) for alliance communication items, 1 out of 48 (2%) for alliance trust items, 12 out of 32 (75%) for alliance support items, 0 out of 25 (0%) for shared values items, 3 out of 48 (6%) for alliance number
items. The results based on the Romanian sample should be inferred with caution because of the low number of responses.
Overall, Hypothesis 3 did not receive enough support. Some findings were supportive only for Slovenia, particularly between alliances (value congruence and number) and new businesses, between alliances (support, value congruence, and number) and new ventures, and between alliances (communication, trust, support, value congruence, and number) and product/service innovation.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study provided some new evidence on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance, as well as alliance characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship in two countries -Slovenia and Romania. The analysis indicated very minor differences in corporate entrepreneurship and alliance item means between the two countries. This similarity in levels of corporate en-trepreneurship and alliance characteristics may be due to the fact that the transition to the market-based economy has followed similar paths in past the two decades (democracy, private ownership, competition, efforts to join the eu, etc.). Even though the overall hypothesis on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship received mixed support, we are confident that recommendations for Slovenia from past research (Antoncic and Hisrich 2000; Douglas et al. 2003) can be equally or even more relevant for Romania: increase corporate entrepreneurship in order to increase firm performance in terms of growth and profitability.
We discovered that in Slovenia innovation in products and services represents a driving force for improvements in growth and profitability of firms, with the addition that new venture formation can be also important for growth. In Romania, on the other hand, new businesses and product/service innovation can be very important for growth of firms, while product/service innovation can be related to profitability. Therefore, innovation in products and services can be considered a crucial element in the performance of firms and consequently in the economic growth of the two countries. Development of an innovation friendly environment should become a top priority of practitioners and policy makers in Slovenia and Romania, and probably also in other countries that have followed similar paths of economic development.
The study provided also some insights on the relationship between alliance characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship. On the basis of the findings for Slovenia, we can claim that firms can achieve
beneficial results in their product and service innovation activities by taking good care of their strategic alliance relationships, which includes: developing a good communication with alliance partners; developing trust between partners; supporting collaboration activities with appropriate encouragements, commitments, structures, and rewards; developing value congruence between partners; and entering a higher number of strategic alliances.
The study has some limitations. Measures were based on perceptions of managers. The Romanian sample was small, so only limited analysis techniques could be used and the results based on the Romanian sample need to be inferred with caution. The study was limited to item by item correlation analysis that resulted in rather small correlation coefficients. Testing relationships between constructs by using structural equation modelling would provide better results. The study was conducted in two countries; future research may further validate the results of this study in other countries. Despite the limitations, we believe we have provided some interesting evidence on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance and on the relationship between alliance characteristics and corporate entrepreneurship.
References
Antoncic, B. 1999. Entrepreneurship networks: A review and future research directions. Slovenian Economic Review 50 (3): 195-221.
-. 2001. Organizational processes in intrapreneurship: A conceptual integration. Journal of Enterprising Culture 9 (2): 221-235.
Antoncic, B., and R. D. Hisrich. 2000. Intrapreneurship modeling in transition economies: A comparison of Slovenia and the United States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 5 (1): 21-40.
-. 2001. Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation. Journal of Business Venturing 16 (5): 495-527.
. 2003. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10 (1): 7-24.
. 2004. Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational wealth creation. Journal of Management Development 23 (6): 518-550.
Antoncic, B., and O. Zorn. 2004. The mediating role of corporate en-trepreneurship in the organizational support-performance relationship: An empirical examination. Managing Global Transitions 2 (1):
5-14.
Badguerahanian, L., and P. A. Abetti. 1995. The rise and fall of the Merin-Gerin Foundry business: A case study in French corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 10 (6): 477-493.
Burgelman, R. A., and R. S. Rosenbloom. 1997. Technology strategy: An evolutionary process perspective. In Managing strategic innovation and change: A collection of readings, ed. M. L. Tushman and P. Anderson, 273-286. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chandler, G. N., and S. H. Hanks. 1993. Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing 8 (5): 391-408.
Covin, J. G. 1991. Entrepreneurial vs. conservative firms: A comparison of strategies and performance. Journal of Management Studies 25 (5): 439-462.
Covin, J. G., and D. P. Slevin. 1986. The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. In Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1986, ed. R. Ronstadt, R. Peterson, and K. Vasper, 628-639. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.
-. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (1): 7-25.
Damanpour, F. 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science 42 (5): 693-716.
Das, T. K., and B. Teng. 1998. Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy ofManage-ment Review 23 (3): 491-512.
Deeds, D. L., and C. W. L. Hill. 1996. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing 11 (1): 41-55.
-. 1998. An examination of opportunistic action within research alliances: Evidence from the biotechnology industry Journal of Business Venturing 14 (2): 141-163.
Douglas, E. J., B. Antoncic, R. D. Hisrich, and T. A. McLaughlin. 2003. Intrapreneurship in Australian, us, and Slovenian firms. Paper presented at Babson College/Kauffman Foundation Research Conference, Wellesley, ma.
Hills, G., and R. LaForge. 1992. Research at the marketing interface to advance entrepreneurship theory. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16 (3): 33-59.
Hisrich, R. D., and M. P. Peters. 1984. Internal venturing in large corporations. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1984, ed. J. A. Hornaday, F. A. Tarpley, jr., J. A. Timmons, and K. H. Vesper, 321346. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.
Jones, C., W. S. Hesterly, and S. P. Borgatti. 1997. A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 911-945.
Kale, P., H. Singh, and H. Perlmutter. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 217-237.
Kanter, R. M. 1984. The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kanter, R. M., and L. Richardson. 1991. Engines of progress: Designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies - The Enter-Prize Program at Ohio Bell, 1985-1990. Journal of Business Venturing 6 (3): 209-229.
Khandwalla, P. N. 1987. Generators of pioneering-innovative management: Some Indian evidence. Organization Studies 8 (1): 39-59.
Knight, G. A. 1997. Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing 12 (3): 213-225.
Luchsinger, V, and D. R. Bagby. 1987. Entrepreneurship and intraprene-urship. sam Advanced Management Journal 52 (3): 10-13.
MacMillan, I. C., Z. Block, and P. N. S. Narasimha. 1984. Obstacles and experience in corporate ventures. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1984, ed. J. A. Hornaday, F. A. Tarpley, jr., J. A. Timmons, and K. H. Vesper, 280-293. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.
Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29:770-791.
Mohr, J., and R. Spekman. 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal 15 (2): 135-152.
Morris, M. H., and D. L. Sexton. 1996. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for company performance. Journal of Business Research 36 (1): 5-13.
Mowery, D. C., J. E. Oxley, and B. S. Silverman. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Special issue, Strategic Management Journal 17:77-91.
Parkhe, A. 1991. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies 22 (4): 579-601.
Parkhe, A. 1993. Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal 36 (4): 794-829.
Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman. 1982. In search of excellence. New York: Harper and Row.
Pinchot, G. III. 1985. Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper and Row.
Porter, L., R. Steers, R. Mowday, P. and Boulian. 1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59:603-609.
Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput, and L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganiza-tional collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): 116-
Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.
145.
Rule, E. G., and D. W. Irwin. 1988. Fostering intrapreneurship: The new competitive edge. Journal of Business Strategy 9 (3): 44-47.
Saxenian, A. 1991. The origins and dynamics of production networks in Sillicon Valley. Research Policy 20 (5): 423-437.
Schollhammer, H. 1981. The efficacy of internal corporate entrepreneur-ship strategies. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1981, ed. K. H. Vesper, 451-456. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.
. 1982. Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, ed. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper, 209-229. Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice-Hall.
Sharma, P., and J. J. Chrisman. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23 (3): 11-27.
Souder, W. E. 1981. Encouraging entrepreneurship in the large corporations. Research Management 14 (3): 18-22.
Stetz, P. E., A. Stewart, R. Howell, J. D. Blair, and M. D. Fottler. 1998. Dimensionality of the entrepreneurial posture/orientation construct: A structural equation study. Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Academy of Management Meeting, San Diego, ca.
Stopford, J. M., and C. W. F. Baden-Fuller. 1994. Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 15 (7): 521-536.
Tushman, M. L., and P. Anderson, P., eds. 1997. Managing strategic innovation and change: A collection of readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42
(1): 35-67.
Vesper, K. H. 1984. Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1984, ed. J. A. Hornaday, F. A. Tarpley, jr., J. A. Timmons, and K. H. Vesper, 294-320. Wellesley, ma: Babson College.
Weaver, K. M., and P. H. Dickson. 1998. Outcome quality of small- to medium-sized enterprise-based alliances: The role of perceived partner behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing 13 (6): 505-522.
Zahra, S. A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate en-trepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal ofBusiness Venturing
6 (4): 259-285.
. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing
8 (4): 319-340.
Zahra, S. A., and J. G. Covin. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 10 (1): 43-58.