A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA

Abstract

Firms in turbulent or fast-changing environments must continually innovate to remain competitive. This study examined how a ® rm' s strategic management practices in¯uence its entrepreneurial behaviour as compared to an international competitor. Four ® rms in the Netherlands were each matched with a key competitor in the USA. Several survey measures related to the strategic management process were used along with an instrument related to corporate entrepreneurship practices. Both managers and employees participated in the study.Results revealed signi® cant diÚ erences between the Netherlands ® rms and the US competitors in entrepreneurial orientation. Results also supported these comparative diÚ erences along three key dimensions of strategic management as they relate to corporate entrepreneurship. The ® nal set of data revealed a relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and three measures of ® rm performance.The implications focus upon the key role that culture may play in facilitating corporate entrepreneurship and adaptable organizational practices. Suggestions for further research are also made.

International entrepreneurial orientation and regional expansion

“…The literature implies that firms' overall orientation towards international entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation provide positive benefits for firms to expand overseas (e.g., Kropp et al, 2006), and studies have shown that suitable levels of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking proclivities can be useful drivers of international expansion (e.g., Dai et al, 2014). However, empirical findings on the utility of a broader conceptualization of IEO subdimensions remain unsettled (e.g., Hughes & Morgan, 2007;Kemelgor, 2002), leading to recent suggestions that managers need to be advised about how they can manage these sub-dimensions for greater returns (Lumpkin et al, 2011). This study addresses this challenge by showing the circumstances that help boost the value of the IEO sub-dimensions.…”

“…Accordingly, researchers adopting the unidimensional approach operationalize the construct as an aggregate composite comprising of the averages of the individual dimensions that underpin the international entrepreneurial orientation construct, namely innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness. Here, a composite IEO construct may be argued to have a universal positive effect on relevant outcome variables (e.g., Kemelgor, 2002).…”

Kobi̇'lerde Gi̇ri̇şi̇mci̇li̇k Yöneli̇mi̇: Mani̇sa Maki̇ne Ve Kalip İmalatçilari Üzeri̇ne Bi̇

“…Bu sayede şirketler güçlenerek, rakipleri karşısında rekabet avantajları yaratacak, büyümeyi destekleyecek, yeni iş alanlarının yaratılmasını sağlayacak ve böylelikle sermayeyi artıracaktır (Hayton ve Kelley, 2006). Kemelgor (2002) (Ağca ve Kurt, 2007). En basit tanımıyla bir işletmenin çetin pazar koşulları karşısında rekabet edebilmek ve pazardan pay alabilmek adına gerekli gördüğü durumlarda, hatta genel olarak "rakibi yok etme" eğiliminde olmasıdır.…”

Homo Nationis: The Psychosocial Infrastructure of the Nation-State Order

“…Salter and Sharp (2001) show that even apparently minor cultural differences in management control and accounting such as those between Canada and the United States can be the source of serious coordination problems. Other studies address the importance of nationality in behavioural attributes of executives (Hitt 1997), entrepreneurial orientation (Kemelgor 2002), and investment conduct (Thomas and Waring 1999). The global scale of many firms' activities has led to a search for "best practices," though as Hope and Muhlemann (2001) argue with respect to production and operations management, these practices are often not transferable from one national context to another.…”