Understanding Intrapreneurship: A Process Model for the Logic of Action Used by Intrapreneurs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT This empirical study explores logic of action used by intrapreneurs when undertaking internal ventures. The design of this qualitative study includes identification of a sample of 59 internal ventures undertaken by 39 middle managers in 35 complex multidivisional organizations in Canada. The findings of this exploratory study indicate that intrapreneurs may indeed employ three different logics-authoritarian, emotional, and conciliatory-in intrapreneurial process. Such logics depend on intrapreneurs' perceptions of their endeavors. Although some intrapreneurs used different logics in different projects, none of them changed applied logic when undertaking a specific project. INTRODUCTION Many researchers have explored decision-making as core of strategy formation process (Chakravarthy & White, 2002; Langley, Mintzberg, Pitcher, Posada, & Saint-Macary, 1995; Simon, 1947). Several models have been developed to describe decision-making, but little is understood about corporate entrepreneurial process. Scholars tend to explain this process in terms of differences in cognitive procedures of intrapreneurs. However, logics behind intrapreneurs' actions remain relatively unexplored (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Mintzberg, 1994). This paper aims to identify intrapreneurs' underlying reasoning for their ventures by focusing on procedures those managers use to develop projects. We will use definition of managerial logic of action as implicit relationship between means and ends that underlie specific actions, policies, and activities of organizational members (Bacharach, Banberger, & McKinney, 2000). In order to explore intrapreneurs' logics, we will first briefly review entrepreneurial processes described in literature. Next, we will present an analysis of qualitative data, explaining how conceptualization of logics can enrich process literature. Finally, we will describe logics of action that emerged from a process model of intrapreneurs' interactions. LITERATURE REVIEW The Entrepreneurial Process Few writers use a strategic approach to notion of entrepreneurship whereas many scholars advocate an integration of strategic and entrepreneurial thinking (Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001, p. 480). Launching a new activity within an existing firm is an entrepreneurial attitude insofar as it involves innovation, proactiveness and risk-taking. These three dimensions allow one to assess a firm's entrepreneurial orientation (Miller, 1983). Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) suggested a definition that allows one to take into account these different behaviors and to highlight strategic dimension of entrepreneurship. They define entrepreneurship as the process by which individuals-either on their own or inside organizations-pursue opportunities without regards to resources they currently control (p. 23). The entrepreneurial process includes all cognitive and behavioral steps from initial conception of a rough business idea, or first behavior towards realization of a new business activity, until process is either terminated or has led to a business venture with regular sales. Towards Understanding Logics that Underpin Entrepreneurial Processes According to Cunningham and Lischeron (1991), An understanding of entrepreneurs and their ventures require criteria from each facet of overall process: entrepreneurs' personal perspective, their ways of identifying opportunities, their methods of acting and managing, their mechanisms for adapting and reassessing (p. 58). This means that, in order to understand entrepreneurial process, scholars should understand decision-making process that entrepreneurs use from first idea (autonomous or mandated) until assessment of implementation of new venture. First of all, Barnard (1938) defined a decision as a matter of purpose, discrimination, and rational reasoning of strategic factors that regulate relationship between organization and environment. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».