No abstract

Firm growth is almost universally portrayed as a good thing, and is commonly used as a measure of success. Applying resource-based reasoning, we argue that growth is often not a sign of sound development. Specifically, we hypothesize that firms which grow without first securing high levels of profitability tend to be less successful compared to firms that first secure high profitability at low growth. Empirical tests using two large, longitudinal data sets confirm that the profitable low growth firms are both more likely to reach the desirable state of high growth and high profitability and have a decreased risk of ending up performing poorly on both performance dimensions. The results suggest that academics, managers, investors and policymakers may benefit by adopting a more nuanced view of firm growth that explicitly incorporates its intricate relationship with profitability.

We posit that entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are distinct entrepreneurial behaviors that differ in terms of their salient outcomes for the individual. Since individuals are likely to differ in their attitudes to these salient outcomes, and in their entrepreneurial self-efficacy, we hypothesize that different strength of intention for entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship will be due to individual differences in self-efficacy and in their attitudes to the outcomes from entrepreneurial, as compared to intrapreneurial, behaviour. We find that while self-efficacy is significantly related to both entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions, attitudes to income, ownership, and autonomy relate only to entrepreneurial intentions, while attitude to risk relates only to intrapreneurial intentions.

No abstract

No abstract