Read the short paper and answer the following questions. You should write out the answer directly and clearly. Then use
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:03 pm
Read the short paper and answer the following questions.
You should write out the answer directly and clearly. Then use one sentence in your own words to briefly explain your answer.
1. Corporate entrepreneurship is a construct or a concept? (2%)
2. Identify IV, DV and mediating variable in this study. (3%)
3. Structural differentiation is a mediating variable or a moderating variable? It mediates (or moderates) which two variables’ relationship? The mediating (or moderating) effect is positive or negative? (4%)
4. The initial sample included 700 enterprises selected from seven provinces in the database of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC). What is the sampling method? (2%)
5. In this research, how did they do survey? That is, which communication approach they adopted? (2%)
6. What is the measurement scale for CEOs’ founder position? (2%)
7. In firm-level control variables, besides firm age and firm size, propose two other control variables and give out the operation definition of each variable. (4%)
8. Choose any 6 descriptors of research design to identify the type of research for this paper (6%)Theoretical argument
The linkages between leadership and corporate entrepreneurship (CE hereafter) have attracted much attention in both public discourse (e.g., Dyer & Gregersen, 2013) and academic studies (e.g., Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney, & Lane, 2003). Corporate entrepreneurship refers to ‘the pursuit of entrepreneurial actions and initiatives that transform the established organization through strategic renewal processes and/or extend the firm’s scope of operations into new domains, that is, new product-market segments or technological arenas’ (Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2011: 116). As corporate entrepreneurship activities are critical to create new businesses and build competitive advantage (Zahra, 1996), scholars have paid significant attention to promoting opportunity recognition and exploitation in established firms (e.g., Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002).
Given the significant influence of executives on firm-level strategies, the concept of leadership, especially transformational leadership (TFL), has been highlighted as a major source of CE (e.g., Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008). Effective transformational leaders supposedly articulate a shared vision of their firm’s future and motivate organizational members to respond to the changing environment (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). More indirectly (but perhaps more importantly, in large firms), they can also promote an entrepreneurial context that will facilitate creative efforts in the organization.
In this article, we propose that any organizational system, with soft (tacit) and formal components, would necessarily need to allow achieving adaptability and alignment simultaneously, in order to act as the conduit for a positive TFL–CE linkage. Adaptability provides the freedom to respond to a changing environment, while alignment facilitates integration with established organizational systems. One influential framework that actually addresses this duality is Gibson and Birkinshaw’s (2004) conceptualization of organizational ambidexterity, as a set of characteristics of the organization that facilitate the requisite balance between adaptability and alignment. Building upon the organizational ambidexterity concept (see below), we try to answer our main research question, namely whether organizational ambidexterity functions as a critical contextual pathway through which TFL will influence CE.
Various authors have identified structural differentiation as an important determinant of organizational innovation/entrepreneurship (e.g., Burgers, Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009). Structural differentiation refers to ‘the state of segmentation of the organizational system into subsystems, each of which tends to develop particular attributes in relation to the requirements posed by its relevant external environment’ (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967: 3–4). Structural differentiation can facilitate CE, e.g., as exemplified by the multidivisional company as compared to a conventional unitary form. It creates differences
across organizational units with respect to product/market domains, mindsets, goal orientations, and functions. The boundaries created by structural differentiation may: (a) give independence to subunits in their operational functioning; (b) allow subunits to adapt their activities to fit their task environments; (c) give various levels of flexibility as to the strategic options managers can pursue; and (d) generate entrepreneurial activities (Simsek, Heavey, Veiga, & Souder, 2009).
When organizations are more structurally differentiated already, organizational ambidexterity is unlikely to affect CE further. As the major advantages of structural differentiation are spatial separation to allow for experimental activities and local adaptation in different units, additional levels of flexibility from the adaptation component of organizational ambidexterity are unlikely to add anything to existing levels of independence and flexibility of work for employees. On the other hand, the alignment component of organizational ambidexterity may benefit CE by creating concerted efforts across highly differentiated units, but such alignment may then, in turn, hinder the flourishing of multiple mindsets across units, create role conflicts, and lessen the advantages of structural differentiation (Burgers et al., 2009). On balance, we propose that high levels of structural differentiation will eliminate any positive impact of organizational ambidexterity on CE.
In contrast, if an organization has low structural differentiation, a positive effect of organizational ambidexterity on CE may materialize. Because of the absence of structural differentiation, subunits and lower-level employees have less flexibility in their operations, and employees may not feel empowered at the outset to experiment or pursue risky projects. Organizational ambidexterity, meaning a supportive behavioral context, where failure is viewed as a learning opportunity, and employees are assumed reliable, may then more than compensate for this. Moreover, employees in a highly integrated organization that lacks structural differentiation may better understand organizational goals, find it easier to connect organizational visions to their tasks, and incorporate organizational aspirations (Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2012; Vera & Crossan, 2004;). As a final point, the alignment component may not matter much, given existing high levels of integration across units.
Methods
The empirical setting for the study is a large sample of privately-owned companies in mainland China. The initial sample included 700 enterprises selected from seven provinces in the database of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC), the largest association of privately-owned firms in mainland China. ACFIC supported this study and encouraged its members to participate in the survey conducted in 2010. The data came from three sources, namely the CEO, the other TMT (top management team) members, and middle-level managers.
We designed three sets of questionnaires, namely for the CEO, the other TMT members, and middle managers, respectively, with all constructs measured with established multi-item scales from prior research. We applied the back translation method and pre-tested the questionnaires with 20 EMBA students and 56 MBA students from the Institute of Psychology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a leading research institution located in Beijing.
In order to gain the cooperation of the respondents, we emphasized that none of the information provided would be released to their firm. We noted that the project was endorsed by ACFIC. We also hired three research assistants in each of the seven provincial branches of ACFIC to work on the project. For the firms that agreed to participate, the CEOs and the research assistants jointly identified a coordinator (typically the CEO’s assistant or an HR manager) and sent the questionnaires to this coordinator. Each CEO (or Chairman) provided the names of their TMT members and middle managers to the designated coordinator, who then distributed the survey to them. Each participant returned the survey in a sealed envelope to the coordinator, who then mailed responses to the research assistants.
As our survey included measures to be rated separately by the CEO, TMT members and middle managers, we only included firms in our analysis if there were responses from the CEO, at least two other TMT members, and representatives of middle-level management, leaving a final sample of 145 firms out of 700, i.e., a response rate of 20.7%. The firms in this sample operate in multiple industries. On average, these firms had been in business for 15 years, employ 2,023 individuals.
We controlled for the CEO-level, firm-level, and TMT-level demographic variables. As founders may imprint new ventures (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011), we control CEOs’ founder position (1 = founder, 0 = others). Small firms may allow for more discretion (Wei & Ling, 2015), and firm scales pose various challenges to new business creation (Sathe, 2003), so we control firm age and size. Firm size was measured with the logarithm of the number of
employees, and firm age as the number of years since the establishment of the firm. As the skills, knowledge, and background of TMTs influence strategic decisions and CE, we follow existing literature (Srivastava & Lee, 2005) and control major TMT demographic variables.
You should write out the answer directly and clearly. Then use one sentence in your own words to briefly explain your answer.
1. Corporate entrepreneurship is a construct or a concept? (2%)
2. Identify IV, DV and mediating variable in this study. (3%)
3. Structural differentiation is a mediating variable or a moderating variable? It mediates (or moderates) which two variables’ relationship? The mediating (or moderating) effect is positive or negative? (4%)
4. The initial sample included 700 enterprises selected from seven provinces in the database of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC). What is the sampling method? (2%)
5. In this research, how did they do survey? That is, which communication approach they adopted? (2%)
6. What is the measurement scale for CEOs’ founder position? (2%)
7. In firm-level control variables, besides firm age and firm size, propose two other control variables and give out the operation definition of each variable. (4%)
8. Choose any 6 descriptors of research design to identify the type of research for this paper (6%)Theoretical argument
The linkages between leadership and corporate entrepreneurship (CE hereafter) have attracted much attention in both public discourse (e.g., Dyer & Gregersen, 2013) and academic studies (e.g., Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney, & Lane, 2003). Corporate entrepreneurship refers to ‘the pursuit of entrepreneurial actions and initiatives that transform the established organization through strategic renewal processes and/or extend the firm’s scope of operations into new domains, that is, new product-market segments or technological arenas’ (Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2011: 116). As corporate entrepreneurship activities are critical to create new businesses and build competitive advantage (Zahra, 1996), scholars have paid significant attention to promoting opportunity recognition and exploitation in established firms (e.g., Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002).
Given the significant influence of executives on firm-level strategies, the concept of leadership, especially transformational leadership (TFL), has been highlighted as a major source of CE (e.g., Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008). Effective transformational leaders supposedly articulate a shared vision of their firm’s future and motivate organizational members to respond to the changing environment (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). More indirectly (but perhaps more importantly, in large firms), they can also promote an entrepreneurial context that will facilitate creative efforts in the organization.
In this article, we propose that any organizational system, with soft (tacit) and formal components, would necessarily need to allow achieving adaptability and alignment simultaneously, in order to act as the conduit for a positive TFL–CE linkage. Adaptability provides the freedom to respond to a changing environment, while alignment facilitates integration with established organizational systems. One influential framework that actually addresses this duality is Gibson and Birkinshaw’s (2004) conceptualization of organizational ambidexterity, as a set of characteristics of the organization that facilitate the requisite balance between adaptability and alignment. Building upon the organizational ambidexterity concept (see below), we try to answer our main research question, namely whether organizational ambidexterity functions as a critical contextual pathway through which TFL will influence CE.
Various authors have identified structural differentiation as an important determinant of organizational innovation/entrepreneurship (e.g., Burgers, Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009). Structural differentiation refers to ‘the state of segmentation of the organizational system into subsystems, each of which tends to develop particular attributes in relation to the requirements posed by its relevant external environment’ (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967: 3–4). Structural differentiation can facilitate CE, e.g., as exemplified by the multidivisional company as compared to a conventional unitary form. It creates differences
across organizational units with respect to product/market domains, mindsets, goal orientations, and functions. The boundaries created by structural differentiation may: (a) give independence to subunits in their operational functioning; (b) allow subunits to adapt their activities to fit their task environments; (c) give various levels of flexibility as to the strategic options managers can pursue; and (d) generate entrepreneurial activities (Simsek, Heavey, Veiga, & Souder, 2009).
When organizations are more structurally differentiated already, organizational ambidexterity is unlikely to affect CE further. As the major advantages of structural differentiation are spatial separation to allow for experimental activities and local adaptation in different units, additional levels of flexibility from the adaptation component of organizational ambidexterity are unlikely to add anything to existing levels of independence and flexibility of work for employees. On the other hand, the alignment component of organizational ambidexterity may benefit CE by creating concerted efforts across highly differentiated units, but such alignment may then, in turn, hinder the flourishing of multiple mindsets across units, create role conflicts, and lessen the advantages of structural differentiation (Burgers et al., 2009). On balance, we propose that high levels of structural differentiation will eliminate any positive impact of organizational ambidexterity on CE.
In contrast, if an organization has low structural differentiation, a positive effect of organizational ambidexterity on CE may materialize. Because of the absence of structural differentiation, subunits and lower-level employees have less flexibility in their operations, and employees may not feel empowered at the outset to experiment or pursue risky projects. Organizational ambidexterity, meaning a supportive behavioral context, where failure is viewed as a learning opportunity, and employees are assumed reliable, may then more than compensate for this. Moreover, employees in a highly integrated organization that lacks structural differentiation may better understand organizational goals, find it easier to connect organizational visions to their tasks, and incorporate organizational aspirations (Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2012; Vera & Crossan, 2004;). As a final point, the alignment component may not matter much, given existing high levels of integration across units.
Methods
The empirical setting for the study is a large sample of privately-owned companies in mainland China. The initial sample included 700 enterprises selected from seven provinces in the database of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC), the largest association of privately-owned firms in mainland China. ACFIC supported this study and encouraged its members to participate in the survey conducted in 2010. The data came from three sources, namely the CEO, the other TMT (top management team) members, and middle-level managers.
We designed three sets of questionnaires, namely for the CEO, the other TMT members, and middle managers, respectively, with all constructs measured with established multi-item scales from prior research. We applied the back translation method and pre-tested the questionnaires with 20 EMBA students and 56 MBA students from the Institute of Psychology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a leading research institution located in Beijing.
In order to gain the cooperation of the respondents, we emphasized that none of the information provided would be released to their firm. We noted that the project was endorsed by ACFIC. We also hired three research assistants in each of the seven provincial branches of ACFIC to work on the project. For the firms that agreed to participate, the CEOs and the research assistants jointly identified a coordinator (typically the CEO’s assistant or an HR manager) and sent the questionnaires to this coordinator. Each CEO (or Chairman) provided the names of their TMT members and middle managers to the designated coordinator, who then distributed the survey to them. Each participant returned the survey in a sealed envelope to the coordinator, who then mailed responses to the research assistants.
As our survey included measures to be rated separately by the CEO, TMT members and middle managers, we only included firms in our analysis if there were responses from the CEO, at least two other TMT members, and representatives of middle-level management, leaving a final sample of 145 firms out of 700, i.e., a response rate of 20.7%. The firms in this sample operate in multiple industries. On average, these firms had been in business for 15 years, employ 2,023 individuals.
We controlled for the CEO-level, firm-level, and TMT-level demographic variables. As founders may imprint new ventures (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011), we control CEOs’ founder position (1 = founder, 0 = others). Small firms may allow for more discretion (Wei & Ling, 2015), and firm scales pose various challenges to new business creation (Sathe, 2003), so we control firm age and size. Firm size was measured with the logarithm of the number of
employees, and firm age as the number of years since the establishment of the firm. As the skills, knowledge, and background of TMTs influence strategic decisions and CE, we follow existing literature (Srivastava & Lee, 2005) and control major TMT demographic variables.