A Competency-based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship

There is a growing consensus in the lit-erature that established firms need tonurture entrepreneurship throughouttheir operations in order to competesuccessfully in changing environ-

ments (Sathe, 2003). Corporate entrepre-neurship is a set of firmwide activities thatcenters on the discovery and pursuit of newopportunities through innovation, new busi-ness creation, or the introduction of newbusiness models. Successful corporate entre-

preneurship involves simultaneous attentionto both innovation and exploitation (e.g.,Zahra, 1996) and therefore involves an arrayof activities and processes. These innovationsrenew companies, enhance their competitiveadvantage, spur growth, create new employ-ment opportunities, and generate wealth.

Corporate entrepreneurship requires theongoing acquisition and development ofnew resources and new ways of reconfigur-ing resources, enabling the firm to pursue

A COMPETENCY-BASED

FRAMEWORK FOR PROMOTING

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP

J A M E S C . H AY T O N A N D D O N N A J . K E L L E Y

Corporate entrepreneurship, the discovery and pursuit of new opportunitiesthrough innovation and venturing, is an important source of competitive ad-vantage. Corporate entrepreneurship involves a diverse set of activities such asinnovation in products and processes; the development of internal and externalcorporate ventures; and the development of new business models, which re-quire an array of roles, behaviors, and individual competencies. In this article,we define individual competencies and distinguish them from other individualdifference constructs. We argue that given the unique requirements of corpo-rate entrepreneurship, a competency-based approach to assessing organiza-tional human capital needs is superior to more traditional job-analytic methods.Drawing on existing literature, we outline a competency framework for sup-porting corporate entrepreneurship and infer the underlying, measurableknowledge, skills, and abilities that contribute to these competencies. We con-clude with a discussion of the implications of this framework for the staffing,training and development, and performance-appraisal practices of firms seek-ing to promote corporate entrepreneurship. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: James C. Hayton, Bocconi University–IOSI, Viale Isonzo, 23, 20135 Milano, Italy, Phone: +395836 2628, Fax: +39 5836 2634, E-mail: [email protected]

Human Resource Management, Fall 2006, Vol. 45, No. 3, Pp. 407–427

© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20118

408 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2006

new business opportunities (Zahra, Nielsen, &Bogner, 1999).1 Firms may engage in internalinnovation in order to introduce new prod-ucts or services, or to enter new markets; theymay rejuvenate themselves by innovating andaltering internal processes, structures, or capa-bilities; they may identify and adapt new

ways of competing in existingmarkets; or they may proactivelycreate entirely new product mar-kets that other companies havenot recognized or actively ex-ploited (Covin & Miles, 1999).Companies vary significantly intheir ability to foster entrepreneur-ship and exploit new opportuni-ties. Empirical research has identi-fied a variety of sources of thisdifference across firms: for exam-ple, the firm’s external environ-ment (Covin & Slevin, 1989;Miller, 1983); organizational cul-ture (Zahra, 1991); and structure(Miller, 1983).

This article is founded on theassumption that the competen-cies of individual employees, spe-cific to the pursuit of corporateentrepreneurship, are fundamen-tal to companies’ ability to nur-

ture and sustain innovation and new ven-ture creation. There is empirical evidence tosupport the influence of human capital char-acteristics, of which individual competenciesare one class, on entrepreneurship at boththe individual level (e.g., Baum & Locke,2004; Chandler & Hanks, 1998) and the or-ganizational level (e.g., Bantel & Jackson,1989; Chandler, Honig, & Wiklund, 2005).At the level of the individual entrepreneur,researchers have examined individual char-acteristics associated with identification ofentrepreneurial opportunities and the will-ingness to start a new venture (e.g., McClel-land, 1961). For example, Markman, Baron,and Balkin (2005) identify self-efficacy andperseverance as important correlates of en-trepreneurship. Others have identified cog-nitive biases such as an inflated illusion ofcontrol (Simon, Houghton, & Aquino, 2000)and overconfidence (Busenitz & Barney,

1997) as being associated with entrepreneur-ship at the individual. Some of these indi-vidual characteristics, such as traits of opti-mism and self-efficacy, and social skills(Baron, 1998, 2000; Baron & Markman,2000) may translate to the context of corpo-rate entrepreneurship.

When it comes to examining the role ofhuman capital in promoting corporate en-trepreneurship, however, most research hasfocused on quantity rather than quality.That is, most frequently the research exam-ining human capital in the context of cor-porate entrepreneurship has looked at thenumber of qualifications (e.g., first andgraduate degrees; Hayton, 2005a), the diver-sity of qualifications and experience (e.g.,Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Hayton, 2005a), theproductivity of key research personnel (e.g.,Deeds, DeCarolis, & Coombs, 1998), and theeducation and experience of top manage-ment teams (e.g., Chandler et al., 2005). Amajor gap in the current literature on theconnection between human capital and cor-porate entrepreneurship is a definition ofthe characteristics of desirable human capi-tal that goes beyond “a deep and diverse setof education and experience,” which islargely the conclusion of existing research(Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Chandler et al.,2005; Deeds et al., 1998; Hayton, 2005a). Weinvoke the concept of individual competen-cies specific to corporate entrepreneurshipas an aspect of human capital that can pro-vide a richer description of these humancapital needs.

We acknowledge that in addition to anorganization’s resources, human or other-wise, dynamic and hostile external environ-ments (Zahra, 1996) and internal organiza-tional structure and culture (e.g., Miller,1983) are significant influences of the levelof corporate entrepreneurship. However, ourperspective is that even when organizationsattempt to create formal structures or sys-tems to facilitate corporate entrepreneur-ship, the role of individuals remains para-mount (Arrow, 1962).

Corporate entrepreneurship involves or-ganizational learning (e.g., Zahra et al.,1999), an organizational process that is re-

…our perspective is

that even when

organizations

attempt to create

formal structures or

systems to facilitate

corporate

entrepreneurship,

the role of

individuals remains

paramount

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

A Competency-Based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship 409

liant upon individual contributions (DeNisi,Hitt, & Jackson, 2003; Itami, 1987). There-fore, employees in firms seeking to promotecorporate entrepreneurship need specific in-dividual competencies in order to integrate ex-isting and new knowledge and recognize,evaluate, and capture entrepreneurial oppor-tunities. In this article, we highlight the fourcompetencies that, while residing in individ-uals, support the organizational goal ofrecognizing, evaluating, and capturing entre-preneurial opportunities. We define individ-ual competencies such as underlying indi-vidual characteristics involving specificcombinations of knowledge, skills, and per-sonality characteristics that are described inaggregate behavioral terms such as teamplayer, boundary spanner, or simply leader. Inaddition to knowledge, competencies incor-porate skills and personality characteristics(McEvoy et al., 2005). Spencer and Spencer(1993, p. 9) define competency as “an un-derlying characteristic of an individual thatis causally related to . . . superior perform-ance in a job or situation.” Others have sug-gested that competency is “who an individ-ual is and what an individual knows anddoes” (Brockbank, Ulrich, & Beatty, 1999, p.111). Who a person “is” reflects their indi-vidual traits and motives (Spencer & Spencer,1993). Thus, the concept of competence maybe defined as ”what a person is, knows, anddoes that is causally related to superior per-formance” (McEvoy et al., 2005).

Implicit in the concept of competence isa socially and situationally defined perform-ance criterion (Schippmann et al., 2000).That is, given a specific context, a personmay or may not possess ”sufficient amounts”of a given competency (i.e., she is a very ef-fective leader; he is a very poor boundaryspanner). When defined as underlying char-acteristics of people, competencies them-selves can only be inferred from observablebehaviors. That is, like personality, compe-tence is a latent characteristic, and the “true”level of a specific competence is only indi-cated by observable behaviors in the relevantperformance domain (e.g., leadership), occu-pation (e.g., civil engineer), or activity (e.g.,parenting). The specific behaviors that are

observed are not themselves “competen-cies,” but only indicators of this underlyingcharacteristic of the person.

The use of competencies enables firms tomore parsimoniously describe complex setsof desired individual characteristics and per-formance criteria. Parsimony is achieved as aresult of the aggregation of a larger set ofknowledge, skills, and personality character-istics in a smaller set of key competencies. Acommon goal is to identify links betweenthese desirable individual characteristics andfirm strategic drivers and/or goals (e.g.,Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001).Although prior research has iden-tified a number of individualcharacteristics of entrepreneurs(e.g., Baum & Locke, 2004; Mark-man et al., 2005), corporate entre-preneurs (sometimes referred to asintrapreneurs) face distinct organi-zational and external environ-ments leading to very differentchallenges, opportunities, andconstraints. To date, although re-search has identified organiza-tional characteristics (e.g., Miller,1983), environmental characteris-tics (e.g., Zahra, 1996), and thegeneral importance of humancapital (e.g., Hayton, 2005a) tocorporate entrepreneurship, andeven several important social rolesin the process (e.g., Maidique,1980; Rothwell et al., 1974; Shane,1994), the specific individual-levelcompetencies of corporate entre-preneurs have not been clearly described in acoherent and complete framework. In addi-tion to filling a gap in our conceptual under-standing of the association between humanresources and corporate entrepreneurship,such a framework has benefits for HR practicethat we will identify in this article.

Individual Competence

A firm’s intellectual capital is a key, and rich,source of the knowledge flows required topromote corporate entrepreneurship (Chan-dler et al., 2005; Zahra et al., 1999). Individ-

The use of

competencies

enables firms to

more

parsimoniously

describe complex

sets of desired

individual

characteristics and

performance

criteria.



ual competencies involve the knowledge re-quired to achieve a given outcome, the skillsto implement that knowledge, and the per-sonality characteristics required to motivatethe implementation of the knowledge andskills to achieving a desired outcome. Thelabel given to a specific competency reflects

the particular outcome or processinvolved (e.g., leadership compe-tence, boundary-spanning com-petence, teaching competence,etc.).

There has been considerableconfusion in the literature regard-ing the meaning and definitionof competence at the individuallevel. Here we take the view thatit is not useful to define compe-tence as only knowledge, or onlyskill, or only personality. Definedloosely in this way, the term doesnot add anything unique. There-fore, we propose that situation-ally specific individual competen-cies involve identifiable sets orcombinations of individual char-acteristics, specifically knowl-edge, skills, and personality char-acteristics. Competencies, asaggregates of knowledge, skills,and personality characteristics,are focused on specific activities,

processes, or outcomes (i.e., leadership,teaching, teamwork, etc.). The term as de-fined here represents a continuum of compe-tence along which an individual may beplaced. At the low end, we would describe aperson as incompetent with respect to agiven activity. At the other end of the con-tinuum, possession of a specific competence(i.e., leadership) implies superior perform-ance in that activity, process, or role (e.g., ahighly competent leader).

Two features further distinguish compe-tencies from their component elements(knowledge, skills, and abilities). First, com-petent behavior implies the possession ofspecific examples of all three elements (e.g.,teaching competence requires knowledge ofclassroom strategies, communications skills,and a motivation to influence others). Sec-

ond, it is possible that the elements are com-pensatory to some extent (i.e., a low knowl-edge of classroom strategies can be compen-sated for by strong communication skills).

While competence is typically consid-ered to be synonymous with satisfactory orsuperior performance (Schippmann et al.,2000), the definition of performance itself isspecific to a particular situation and out-come. There is a conceptual congruence be-tween the notion of the behavioral indicatorsof competence and that of social role behav-iors. Roles refer to expected sets of behaviorsthat are socially defined, and are describablein terms of both the quality and quantity ofthose behaviors (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991).Roles provide the context and the criteria forassessing whether behaviors meet expecta-tions. Evaluation requires the observation ofa set of behaviors and comparison with ex-pectations. Effective role behavior impliescompetence to perform that role.

Specific competencies are indicated byeffective observable behaviors in the contextof a role. In the case of corporate entrepre-neurship competencies, these are indicatedby effective observable behaviors in knowncorporate entrepreneurial roles such as op-portunity identification, knowledge broker-ing, and idea championing. This premiseforms the basis for the competence frame-work that we present in this article. First, weaddress the general benefits of a competencyapproach and the specific benefits of this ap-proach with respect to the promotion of cor-porate entrepreneurship.

Advantages of a Competency-BasedApproach

We propose that, due to the unique organi-zational requirements of corporate entrepre-neurship (e.g., employee and organizationalflexibility, environmental responsiveness,and a high emphasis on employee discre-tionary contributions), a competency-basedapproach is superior to more traditional job-analysis methods such as task analysis andworker or behavior analysis. A competency-based approach to understanding and de-scribing an organization’s human capital

…we propose that

situationally specific

individual

competencies

involve identifiable

sets or combinations

of individual

characteristics,

specifically

knowledge, skills,

and personality

characteristics.



(and human capital requirements) can serveas either an alternative or a supplement tothe more typical, and more well-established,models of job analysis and person specifica-tion.

The task-based approach to job analysisidentifies the tasks, duties, and responsibili-ties of a given job, and from this both a jobdescription and person specification are de-rived through inference. Typically, the re-sults of task-oriented job-analytic tools arehighly specific to a given job, and differencesrather than commonalities across jobs areemphasized (e.g., Harvey, 1991). Once thejob has been described in terms of its task el-ements, the analyst(s) must infer the neces-sary characteristics of the ideal job incum-bent, typically in terms of credentials,qualifications, experience, knowledge, skills,and abilities.

In contrast to the task-based approach,worker-based approaches (e.g., the Fleish-man Job Analysis System) emphasize thegeneric work behaviors required rather thanthe tasks and technologies involved. Com-monly used worker-oriented methods ofanalysis provide a generic and quantifiabledescription of the job in terms of abstractworker behaviors rather than specific tasks(Harvey, 1991). Regardless of method, theoutcomes of both forms of job analysis havein common the identification and descrip-tion of the characteristics of effective job in-cumbents in terms of a list of knowledge,skills, abilities, and occasionally traits. Thisinformation serves as an input into a multi-tude of HR decisions including staffing,training, compensation, and performanceappraisal.

A competency-based approach has onekey feature that fundamentally differentiatesit from traditional methods of analyzinghuman capital requirements of organiza-tions. The effective incumbents (or desiredcharacteristics) are described in broaderterms—competencies—that themselves rep-resent aggregates of individual knowledge,skills, and personality characteristics. There-fore, in terms of behavioral/technologicalspecificity (Harvey, 1991), while task analysisis highly specific, worker analysis is moder-

ately specific, and a competency approach isthe least specific, facilitating a broad applica-tion of the same model throughout an or-ganization.

A number of benefits are derived fromthe aggregate term of competence. First,competencies as aggregates of specific knowl-edge, skills, and personality characteristicsprovide useful summaries for a potentiallylarge and diverse set of characteristics. Sec-ond, while traditional forms of job analysisare always based in a given job context, thecompetency-based approach is more broadlylinked to the organizational con-text. A third advantage of thecompetency approach is that itcan be expected to result in a bet-ter match in terms of person-or-ganization fit than more tradi-tional models (Bowen, Ledford, &Nathan, 1991).

Using a panel of expert indus-trial-organizational psychologists,representing both practitionersand academics, Schippmann et al.(2000) identify a number of di-mensions that differentiate a com-petency approach from work- andworker-oriented job analysis. Theyreport that competency modelingapproaches are more closelylinked to the strategic goals of theorganization, focus on core com-petencies, are less focused on job-specific technical skills, emphasizeorganizational fit rather than job fit, are morelikely to include values and personality orien-tations, and focus on training and develop-ment rather than driving selection decisions(Schippmann et al., 2000).

There are several advantages to a compe-tency-based approach to assessing humancapital needs that are specific to the promo-tion of corporate entrepreneurship. First, thebreadth and flexibility built into this ap-proach are consistent with the need forstrategic flexibility (Sanchez, 1995), particu-larly for organizations facing dynamic envi-ronments (e.g., Bowen et al., 1991; Lawler,1994; Schippmann et al., 2000). Strategicflexibility and adaptability are important el-

…while traditional

forms of job

analysis are always

based in a given job

context, the

competency-based

approach is more

broadly linked to the

organizational

context.



ements of corporate entrepreneurship activ-ity (e.g., Burgelman & Sayles, 1986). Sup-portive of this, competencies tend to bebroadly defined and therefore more respon-sive to changes in organizational conditions.

Second, at the individual level, the taskvariety and autonomy that result from de-

signing work around competen-cies provides support for more en-riched and satisfying work,increasing the likelihood of in-trinsic motivation (Hackman &Oldham, 1976). Involvement incorporate entrepreneurship oftenemerges spontaneously, with roleoccupants akin to volunteers. Infact, formal assignment of suchresponsibilities may have nega-tive consequences upon motiva-tion (e.g., Von Hippel, 1977). Inaddition, the specific task-levelcontent of these roles is hard toidentify in advance (Kanter,1985). Therefore, it is not possibleto capture the human capital re-quirements of corporate entrepre-neurship in a prespecified list oftasks (Lawler, 1994). However, itis possible to identify a set of cen-tral roles that are performed by

individuals or teams of individuals in theprocess of corporate entrepreneurship. Weidentify these roles in our literature review inthe next section.

Third, the inherently open-ended natureof competency frameworks increases the dis-cretionary and self-managing nature of work.This open-ended nature occurs because pre-cise task behaviors are not specified; rather,the capability to perform well (competently)a range of equivalent behaviors (e.g., innova-tion or knowledge brokering) in a variety ofsituations is the focus of the competency-based approach. This approach promotesrather than constrains individual discretion.At the level of the workgroup, allowing self-management and individual discretion in-creases the likelihood of consistency acrosssocial and technical systems (Emery & Trist,1960). Early research on sociotechnical sys-tems reveals how the reduction in individual

autonomy leads to a breakdown in coordina-tion that was previously achieved throughmutual adjustment (Emery & Trist, 1960). Re-search into the effects of trust and the build-ing of social capital provides evidence thatcoordination is strengthened when individu-als are perceived to be making discretionarycontributions (rather than following proce-dure) by their counterparts (Perrone, Zaheer,& McEvily, 2003).

Entrepreneurs will need to access and in-tegrate different sources of knowledge fromacross the organization (Galbraith, 1982;Kanter, 1989; Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Acompetency approach is consistent withprocesses requiring knowledge sharing andcollaborative behaviors underlying corporateentrepreneurship (e.g., Hornsby, Naffziger,Kuratko, & Montagno, 1993). It is consistentbecause corporate entrepreneurship is less re-liant on specific processes with universal ap-plication and more reliant on flexibleprocesses, allowing for the building of situa-tion-specific knowledge (Eisenhardt & Mar-tin, 2000) and relying more heavily on judg-ment and adaptation.

Employees develop competenciesthrough education and training, by sharingexperiences with others, while learning bydoing, and when learning vicariously by ob-serving others’ trials and errors. They employtheir knowledge as they perform and mastervarious tasks, developing unique competen-cies. Competence building, therefore, com-bines formal education with tacit knowledgeacquired through experience in the industryand unique personal experience outside andwithin an organization.

The challenge for managers in organiza-tions seeking to promote corporate entrepre-neurship lies in selecting and developing em-ployees with the appropriate knowledge,skills, and personality characteristics to pro-mote, persist, think creatively, adapt, andtake risks. It is therefore useful to identify theset of competencies required to support thisstrategic goal. Prior literature provides a greatdeal of assistance in identification of key cor-porate entrepreneurial roles (e.g., Block &MacMillan, 1993; Maidique, 1980; Schon,1963; Shane, 1994). To date, this literature

Employees develop

competencies

through education

and training, by

sharing experiences

with others, while

learning by doing,

and when learning

vicariously by

observing others’

trials and errors.



on corporate entrepreneurship has not beenwell integrated with the literature on humanresource management (Hayton, 2005b). Bylinking the concept of competencies withthe corporate entrepreneurial roles, it is pos-sible to make both theoretical propositionsand practical recommendations.

We next develop a competency frame-work that outlines the key competencies andthe knowledge, skills, and personality char-acteristics that underlie them. We follow thiswith a discussion of how a competencyframework such as this can influence HRpractices in staffing, development, and per-formance appraisal in firms seeking to pro-mote corporate entrepreneurship.

Four Entrepreneurial Competencies

Earlier, we proposed that the behavioral in-dicators of underlying competencies are con-sistent with the concept of successful role be-haviors. To be competent means to be able tobehave effectively in a particular perform-ance domain, occupation, or activity. Simi-larly, social roles are expected sets of behav-iors that are socially defined and may bedescribed in terms of quality and quantity ofthose behaviors (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991).Therefore, identification of the key roles re-quired to support corporate entrepreneur-ship will suggest the sets of desirable behav-iors. This serves as a useful first step indetermining the requisite competencies.

A role represents a particular domainwithin which the effectiveness of behaviorswill be assessed. Several important roles havebeen associated with the success of corporateentrepreneurship. Key roles identified in theliterature include: the technical innovator(Block & MacMillan, 1993; Maidique, 1980),the innovation champion (e.g., Maidique,1980; Schon, 1963; Shane, 1994), the execu-tive champion or sponsor (Maidique, 1980;Rothwell et al., 1974), and the knowledgebroker (Hargadon, 1998, 2002; Hargadon &Sutton, 2000).

These roles overlap, and a single individ-ual may play more than one—or all—ofthese roles, particularly in smaller organiza-tions. As an organization grows large and

complex, however, it is less likely a single in-dividual would play all these different roles,and would therefore need competence in allareas (Maidique, 1980). Further, role occu-pants may or may not be formally assigned(e.g., Von Hippel, 1977) or compensated onspecific roles (Sykes, 1992). Individuals mayalso assume different roles as needed.

We propose that all these roles need to beperformed by one or more individuals inorder for corporate entrepreneurship to occur(Block & MacMillan, 1993; Burgelman, 1983;Maidique, 1980). These ideas lead to the fol-lowing propositions:

Proposition 1a: Corporate entrepre-neurship will be promoted by thesimultaneous presence of compe-tence in the four roles of inno-vating, brokering, championing,and sponsoring.

Proposition 1b: In small firms, thefour competencies may be colo-cated within a single individ-ual. As firms increase in size,the corporate entrepreneurshipcompetencies will become dis-persed vertically and horizon-tally across individual employ-ees and functions.

We next identify and discuss the fourcompetencies specific to corporate entrepre-neurship—innovating, brokering, champi-oning, and sponsoring—and identify criticalunderlying knowledge, skill, and personalityelements for each. In order to identify theunderlying knowledge, skill, and personalityelements for each competency in this model,we have thoroughly examined the descrip-tions of the roles and their antecedents (e.g.,Block & MacMillan, 1993; Garud & Van deVen, 1992; Hargadon, 1998, 2002; Hargadon& Sutton, 2000; Howell & Higgins, 1990;Katz & Tushman, 1979; Maidique, 1980;Rothwell et al., 1974; Schon, 1963; Shane,1994; Shane & Venkataraman, 1996; Tush-man & Nadler, 1986). It is important to notethat to date there has not been a singlemodel or framework that has drawn theseroles together with a view to identifying the

To be competent

means to be able to

behave effectively

in a particular

performance

domain, occupation,

or activity.



necessary human capital characteristics. Ourreview revealed the specific behaviors in-volved for each competency.

We then searched the relevant manage-ment, psychology, and human resourcemanagement literatures to find evidence ofindividual difference variables that are sup-portive of the relevant behaviors (e.g., Ama-bile, 1983; Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Bass,1985; Baum & Locke, 2004; Burt, 1992, 2000;Goleman, 1995; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003;House, 1977; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Kos-tova & Roth, 2003; Leifer et al., 2000;Nochur & Allen, 1992; Rogers & Shoemaker,1971; Rothwell et al., 1974; Taggar, 2002).Therefore, our contribution is to piece to-gether many diverse literatures in order tomore completely describe the nature of thecompetencies and link these with empiri-cally described behaviors required for corpo-rate entrepreneurship to occur. We used twocriteria in judging which knowledge, skills,

and personality characteristics to include inthe framework. First, there was a direct, oreasily inferred, link between the underlyingcharacteristic and competence mentioned inthe literature and for which there was someempirical support (e.g., between analogicreasoning and brokering: see Hargadon,1998; between openness, conscientiousness,creativity and innovation: see Taggar, 2002).Second, we have only emphasized connec-tions that we consider to be necessary com-ponents of competence in a given role. TableI summarizes the links between specific un-derlying knowledge, skill, and personalitycomponents and each of the four corporateentrepreneurship competencies.

Innovating

The innovating role involves opportunityrecognition, defined as having the creativeinsight about particular knowledge and in-


Innovating Brokering Championing Sponsoring

Knowledge

Specialized core x xMultidisciplinary x x x xOrganizational x x x

Skills

Cognitive ability x xCreativity x xAnalogic reasoning x xInfluencing x xTransformational leadership x xEmotional intelligence x xNetworking x

Personality

Conscientiousness x xOpenness to experience x xConfidence x xCredibility x xRisk tolerance x xTenacity x x x x

Passion x x x x

T A B L E I Matrixing Entrepreneurial Competencies with Underlying Knowledge, Skills, and PersonalityCharacteristics


formation combinations and what they canmean for users—and the company seekingto serve these customers. Opportunitiesoften arise as an individual works in a par-ticular domain (Shane, 2000). The innova-tor should therefore be alert and ready torecognize opportunities. Casson (1982) de-scribes this role in terms of a person whosees herself as having superior judgment,through which she is able to see opportuni-ties when others don’t. This is consistentwith Kirzner (1973, 1985), who highlightsthe characteristic of entrepreneurial alert-ness, defined as the ability to respond togaps or problems left by shifts in the eco-nomic environment.

While combinations of knowledge pro-vide the underlying foundation of an oppor-tunity, the innovator views and valuesknowledge as a resource to be deployed(Kirzner, 1985). Innovating frequently re-quires defining an innovation in technicalterms (Maidique, 1980) and thus demands ahigh degree of specialized knowledge—thespecific nature of which depends on the par-ticular business and industry. In addition, in-dividuals who have more resources to drawupon—in the form of cognitive ability, edu-cation, training, and practical experience—are more likely to be innovative. Greater cog-nitive resources aid in problemidentification, formulation, exploration, andproblem solving (e.g., Bantel & Jackson,1989). A broad cognitive base increases therange of alternative problem definitions,possible solutions, and the combination ofinformation.

Empirical research supports the proposi-tion that individual characteristics such aseducation, intelligence, and cognitive styleare associated with receptivity to innovativeideas (e.g., Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) andcreativity (e.g., Amabile, 1983). Amabile(1983, 1996) suggests that creativity itself in-volves domain-relevant skills and knowledge,a high degree of intrinsic motivation, andskillfulness with respect to creativity-relevantprocesses such as goal setting and response tochallenges (Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile,1998). Several individual antecedents to cre-ativity have been identified, highlighting two

personality characteristics: conscientiousnessand openness to new experiences, in additionto general cognitive ability (Taggar, 2002).The mediating processes through which con-scientiousness and openness to new experi-ences influence creativity include increasingintrinsic motivation and the promotion of di-vergent and generative thinking, respectively(Taggar, 2002).

Building on this literature, we view in-novative competence as a key element inthe network of entrepreneurial roles (Maid-ique, 1980). The innovator rolerequires an ability to identifynew market, organizational, ortechnological opportunities andcombine new or existing re-sources in unique and creativeways. Competence in this rolewill be positively related to thedegree of domain-specific knowl-edge, cognitive ability, creativity,conscientiousness, and opennessto new experience. Conscien-tiousness is associated with in-trinsic motivation and persist-ence, while openness to newexperience is associated with thewillingness to seek new knowl-edge from diverse sources. Thesetwo personality characteristicsare contributing factors to indi-vidual creativity that, when com-bined with high levels of cogni-tive ability and domain-specificknowledge, can be expected to provide thefoundation for innovative competence.

Proposition 2: Innovative competence is afunction of domain-specific knowledge,cognitive ability, and creativity (throughconscientiousness and openness to new ex-perience).

Brokering

A second key competence in promotingcorporate entrepreneurship is brokering.The primary role of the broker is to accessnew sources of information and knowl-edge, transferring this knowledge and com-

The innovator role

requires an ability

to identify new

market,

organizational, or

technological

opportunities and

combine new or

existing resources

in unique and

creative ways.



bining different sources, both existing andnew. This is similar to the process describedmore specifically as knowledge brokering(Hargadon, 2002). New opportunities oftenarise out of this process from linking di-verse perspectives and even contradictory

ideas; therefore, there is a dy-namic relationship between bro-kering and innovative compe-tence, where the brokering roleserves to deliver new informa-tion to the innovator and todraw information for use else-where in the broker’s network.

Breakthrough ideas may arisefrom basic research exploringnew science and technology.They may emerge from previoustechnology development and im-plementation efforts (Schon,1967). They may also result fromcombinations of previously unre-lated technologies. Innovationand new venture development re-quires the knowledge broker toaccess and combine diversesources of knowledge, both exist-ing and new, often with a highdegree of unfamiliarity (Gal-braith, 1982; Hargadon, 2002;

Kanter, 1989; Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Even though an organization may hire

and develop people with diverse skills andthe ability to innovate, it is unlikely an in-dividual will possess all the knowledgeneeded for the complexities of this process(Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Transformingan idea into a viable business requires sev-eral skills that go beyond the expertise ofone person (Day, 1994). It is therefore ad-vantageous to exchange knowledge and in-formation among multiple contributors,who collectively provide a range of experi-ences and deep knowledge (Tushman &Nadler, 1986).

In project-based work, teams typicallyreach outside the project and engage in amix of communications with various indi-viduals and groups within the organization(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). This is particu-larly important for projects demanding a

greater breadth of knowledge and involvinghighly complex tasks (Katz & Tushman1979). Brokers identify organizational mem-bers with needed knowledge and gain timelyaccess to that knowledge (Tushman &Nadler, 1986).

Brokering is consistent with the gate-keeping role identified in the innovationliterature. Gatekeeping involves bringingoutside information in or integrating infor-mation from various internal sources. Exter-nal gatekeepers acquire, translate, and dis-seminate information (Tushman & Nadler,1986). They keep abreast of external techni-cal and market developments and link thisinformation to those within the organiza-tion. Internal gatekeepers act as a go-be-tween to coordinate the efforts of the proj-ect team and the operating units theydepend on. Nochur and Allen (1992) addthat communication networks are formedand cultivated over time, and the organiza-tion should look to those already known tobe gatekeepers and leverage their strengths.

Four behaviors are associated with bro-kering competence: exploration of diverseknowledge domains; learning from thesemultiple knowledge domains; linking knowl-edge from diverse domains to solve novelproblems; and implementing ideas (Har-gadon, 1998, 2002; Hargadon & Sutton,2000). Several individual characteristics canenhance effective brokering competence(Table I). First, analogical reasoning capabili-ties contribute to the ability to link knowl-edge from one domain to a problem to besolved in a distinct domain. Analogical rea-soning is a key skill in scientific and techno-logical discovery (Hargadon, 1998). Second,brokering competence requires confidenceand credibility, and the ability to build socialcapital necessary for both acquiring and dis-seminating new ideas (e.g., Kostova & Roth,2003). Third, curiosity, creativity, and intrin-sic motivation (passion) stimulate the searchfor new knowledge that may serve to solvefuture problems (Hargadon & Sutton, 2000).

Proposition 3: Brokering competence is the resultof a combination of analogical reasoningskills, personal confidence, credibility, net-

Even though an

organization may

hire and develop

people with diverse

skills and the ability

to innovate, it is

unlikely an

individual will

possess all the

knowledge needed

for the complexities

of this process.



working skills, curiosity, creativity and in-trinsic motivation.

Championing

A third competence in promoting corporateentrepreneurship is championing. Champi-ons identify with the project, and not onlydo they take responsibility for its success(Schon, 1963, 1967), but success is often de-pendent on champions (Burgelman, 1983).Champions “inspire and enthuse others withtheir vision of the potential of an innovation. . . show extraordinary confidence in them-selves and their mission, and . . . gain thecommitment of others to support the inno-vation” (Howell & Higgins, 1990, p. 320).

To a certain extent, championing over-laps the other three competencies. For exam-ple, championing can include providing theunderlying creative insight about an innova-tion’s potential (Day, 1994). On the otherhand, there is often a distinction betweenthe inventors or discovers of opportunities,and those who recognize their value andtake responsibility for moving it forward(Leifer et al., 2000). We can therefore assumethis role can be played by an individual whois not the innovator or broker (e.g., Maid-ique, 1980) and consider it a distinct compe-tence. Champions, in our model, represent a“catalyst for increased sponsorship or impe-tus” behind an innovation (Maidique, 1980,p. 32). They create a vision around an op-portunity and ensure continuance of theproject—seeing it through to commercializa-tion (Leifer et al., 2000).

The specific observable behaviors neededfor successful championing are often cultur-ally bound (e.g., Shane, 1995; Shane &Venkataraman, 1996). Therefore, descrip-tions of these behaviors should be context-specific. In the United States, there is a pref-erence for organizational mavericks,renegades, and buffers who bypass organiza-tional procedures in order to garner support(Shane & Venkataraman, 1996). Particularlywhen innovation projects are highly riskyand costly, champions will use their powerand authority to get their projects supported(Day, 1994). This is in contrast to collectivist

cultures, where champions who appeal togroup norms are preferred (Shane, 1994).When uncertainty avoidance dominates na-tional cultures, adherence to organizationalrules and procedures and a rational style arepreferred. But regardless of the means, theoutcome is the same; the champion ensuresthere is support for the project.

Several individual characteristics sup-port competent championing (Table I).Transformational leadership skills (e.g.,Bass, 1985; House, 1977) are important andconsistent with competence in champi-oning (Howell & Higgins, 1990;Vecchio, 2003). Transforma-tional leadership skills includearticulating a vision, fosteringacceptance of group goals, andproviding individualized supportand intellectual stimulation(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moor-man, & Fetter, 1990). Howell andHiggins (1990) observe thatchampioning involves a willing-ness and ability to influence oth-ers. Competence in champi-oning also requires an ability tonegotiate a complex sociopoliti-cal environment. Therefore, wecan expect emotional intelli-gence (Goleman, 1995) to bepositively associated with cham-pioning.

Champions rely on informalnetwork relationships (Howell &Higgins, 1990). Those with broad experienceand long tenure within an organization willhave a greater opportunity to form expan-sive informal networks through which theycan exercise the necessary influence (Nochur& Allen, 1992). They can leverage the trustthey have built in their relationships withothers and their high credibility in the or-ganization (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003) tocompel others to participate in their projects(Burt, 1992, 2000; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003).In a role dominated by the creation andmaintenance of diverse formal and informalorganizational ties, a champion’s compe-tence therefore includes social or emotionalintelligence, transformational leadership

In the United States,

there is a

preference for

organizational

mavericks,

renegades, and

buffers who bypass

organizational

procedures in order

to garner support.



skills, organizational knowledge, credibility,and trustworthiness.

Proposition 4: Underlying championing compe-tence are individual characteristics of emo-tional intelligence, transformational leader-ship skills, broad organizational experience,credibility, and trustworthiness.

Sponsoring

A fourth competence important for promot-ing corporate entrepreneurship is sponsor-ing. Sponsors help entrepreneurs gain access

to the resources they need fortheir ventures (Day, 1994; Garud& Van de Ven, 1992; Tushman &Nadler, 1986). They ensure thereis legitimacy and support for theproject (Day, 1994; Galbraith,1982; Roberts & Fusfeld, 1981;Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Theyalso provide advice and guidanceto the venture on how to bestproceed (Garud & Van de Ven,1992). Higher-level sponsors canuse their power and control overresources to get the support nec-essary for the projects they value(Day, 1994).

Sponsors differ from champi-ons. While a champion identifies

and selects projects deserving support, asponsor ensures that resources become avail-able. Indeed, Maidique (1980, p. 64) distin-guishes between the product champion andthe executive champion—the latter is the in-dividual who has “direct or indirect influ-ence over the resource allocation process andwho uses this power to channel resources toa new technological innovation.” In increas-ingly diversified businesses, he adds, it be-comes less likely that a single person canlead the resource-allocation process. Spon-sors effectively absorb some of the risk byproviding necessary organizational resources(Maidique, 1980). They are typically higherup in the organizational hierarchy, are likelyto have access to a greater range of informa-tion about markets, competitors, and oppor-tunities (Cross & Cummings, 2004), and can

better locate specific resources (Lin, 1982).This is particularly important for venturesthat are costly and represent new strategic di-rections (Day, 1994).

As Table I indicates, several individualcharacteristics can enhance the sponsor’scompetence. These relate to their diversity ofexperience, their power and status in the or-ganization, and their responsibility and en-thusiasm (Rothwell et al., 1974). At the heartof sponsoring competence is the deep tech-nological and business knowledge (Maid-ique, 1980) required to support the businessinsight necessary for making risky or evenuncertain investments. A willingness to ac-cept risk can also enhance the sponsorshipcompetence.

In general, entrepreneurial role behav-iors in organizations are the result of dis-cretionary actions by employees. Since it ishard to specify entrepreneurial contribu-tions in standard job descriptions, theytend to emerge as extrarole behaviors (Hay-ton, 2005b). Therefore, in order to encour-age corporate entrepreneurship, the abilityof executive sponsors to promote discre-tionary behaviors is of central importance.Podsakoff et al. (1990) note that transfor-mational leadership, mediated by subordi-nate trust in their supervisor, promotes ex-trarole citizenship behaviors. Therefore, weexpect that sponsoring competence will beenhanced by transformational leadershipskills.2

Executive sponsors bridge the techno-logical innovator and the firm’s owner/founders. Therefore, as Table 1 indicates,these sponsors must also possess persist-ence and passion for new venture develop-ment (Baum & Locke, 2004). Persistenceand passion increase tenacity in the pursuitof highly uncertain and resource-consum-ing activities. Persistence is necessary whencompeting for scarce resources within thediversified corporation, particularly whenpursuing new markets or perhaps definingthem.

Proposition 5: The characteristics underlyingsponsoring competence include deep techno-logical and business knowledge, risk toler-

Sponsors differ from

champions. While a

champion identifies

and selects projects

deserving support, a

sponsor ensures

that resources

become available.



ance, persistence and passion, and transfor-mational leadership skills.

Moderators of the Impact ofIndividual Competence on CorporateEntrepreneurship

The likelihood that these roles will be dis-tributed across distinct individuals withinthe organization leaves open the possibilitythat without some effort at integration, eventhe presence of needed competencies willnot result in increased corporate entrepre-neurship. Therefore, we consider these indi-vidual competencies to be necessary but notsufficient to achieve increased innovation,venturing, and/or strategic renewal. It isworthwhile considering the factors thatwould promote integration of the four com-petencies within organizations.

Organizational structure, communica-tions networks, leadership, teamwork, cul-ture, and formal and informal integrationmechanisms are all possible factors that mayinfluence the necessary integration of theroles and competencies. For example, organi-zational cultures that exhibit a balance be-tween individualism and collectivism, ac-ceptance of decentralization of decisionmaking, a long-term orientation, and an ex-ternal orientation have been found to be sup-portive of corporate entrepreneurship (e.g.,Morris, Davis, & Allen, 1993; Zahra, Hayton,& Salvato, 2004). Therefore, we expect thatthe presence of a supportive culture will pos-itively moderate the effect of entrepreneurialcompetencies on corporate entrepreneurship.Similarly, organizational structures that facil-itate environmental responsiveness and en-trepreneurial alertness (Kirzner, 1973) and, atthe same time, promote high levels of inter-nal communication, coordination, and inte-gration are likely to facilitate corporate entre-preneurship (e.g., Morris, 1998). Therefore,flatter, organic organizational structures, ex-tensive use of teams and project-based organ-ization, the presence of formal internal inte-grating roles, and formal externalboundary-spanning roles will all positivelymoderate the impact of entrepreneurial com-petencies on corporate entrepreneurship.

Proposition 6a: A supportive organizational cul-ture will positively moderate the effect of in-dividual competencies on corporate entrepre-neurship.

Proposition 6b: The presence of an organiza-tional structure that is organic, has fewer hi-erarchical levels, and has extensive integra-tion mechanisms will positively moderatethe effect of individual competencies on cor-porate entrepreneurship.

Implications for Practice

The perspective offered in this article isthat corporate entrepreneurship will be fa-cilitated by taking a competency-based ap-proach (rather than a task- or worker-basedjob analysis) to the specification of humancapital needs. To reiterate the ra-tionale for this, the major bene-fits will include enhanced per-son-organization fit, enhancedflexibility within the HR system,positive effects on intrinsic mo-tivation, and also greater consis-tency with the strategic realitythat the HR function cannotplan the voluntary, sponta-neous, and improvised activitiesthat are central to corporate en-trepreneurship.

This framework raises someinteresting questions for the HRarchitecture. First, with respectto staffing, it is important to ex-amine where these competen-cies reside in the organizationand which employees or groupspossess them. Next is the issue of whetherstaffing should be internal or external andhow organizations can select for the com-petencies in this framework. With respectto training and career development, thereis the question of how these competenciesshould be developed over time in an inter-nal career ladder. With respect to perform-ance management, there is the question ofhow this competency framework can beused effectively in promoting corporate en-trepreneurship. In this section, we addressthese issues.

…we expect that

the presence of a

supportive culture

will positively

moderate the effect

of entrepreneurial

competencies on

corporate

entrepreneurship.



First is the question of where shouldthese competencies reside in the organiza-tion and which employees or groups shouldpossess them? For the purpose of this discus-sion, we assume an organization that is largeand complex, and therefore the corporateentrepreneurial roles are dispersed across ac-

tors in the system. We also as-sume that corporate entrepre-neurship relies on spontaneous,voluntary contributions and im-provisation in response to newopportunities.

Innovation, brokering, cham-pioning, and sponsoring compe-tencies can be expected to belinked to certain organizationalpositions. Therefore, the need forsponsoring competence is mostlikely to be observed at higherlevels in organizations in posi-tions with greater control overnecessary resources (Maidique,1980). The demand for innova-tion competence is more likely tooccur at lower levels within theorganization, either at the techni-

cal core or in the interface with customers orother environmental elements. The need forbrokering competence is most likely to arisein formal linking positions—for example,task-force memberships (Hargadon, 1998,2002). Championing and brokering compe-tencies, being supported by credibility, per-sonal power, and broad organizationalprocess knowledge, are also most likely toarise in the middle layers of organizations—hence, the common association of these cor-porate entrepreneurial activities with middlemanagement (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Ku-ratko, Ireland, Covin, & Hornsby, 2005).

Interestingly, the types of knowledge re-quired as we move up the hierarchy of cor-porate entrepreneurial roles reflects a patternsimilar to that observed in managerial roles,from an emphasis on technical knowledge inlower-level roles such as innovation,through an emphasis on social knowledge atmiddle levels of the hierarchy, to an empha-sis on conceptual organizational knowledgeat high levels within the organization. This

awareness of the broad hierarchical distribu-tion of corporate entrepreneurial rolesshould guide efforts at development of re-quired competencies. Knowledge of wherecompetent behaviors are most likely to arisewill aid in locating where assessment and de-velopment activities should be targeted. Thisalso leads to the following theoretical propo-sition:

Proposition 7: Across organizations that are ef-fectively pursuing corporate entrepreneur-ship, there will be a positive correlation be-tween the ordering of innovation, brokering,championing and sponsoring competencies,and formal hierarchical position.

We suggest that the potential for corpo-rate entrepreneurship to occur will be en-hanced when the appropriate competenciesare also widespread within the relevant levelof the organization (e.g., more brokeringcompetencies in task forces, more champi-oning competencies among middle man-agers, etc.). These competencies should bedeveloped in anticipation of the possibility ofentrepreneurial opportunities faced by orga-nizational members. When opportunitiesarise, the presence of these underlying char-acteristics will increase the probability of ap-propriate action.

Proposition 8: The more widespread the compe-tencies of innovation, brokering, champi-oning, and sponsoring within the relevantlevel of an organization, the greater the prob-ability for behaviors supporting corporate en-trepreneurship in response to entrepreneurialopportunities.

The second major question relates to theissue of make versus buy. Can organizationshope to buy these competencies on the ex-ternal labor market or must they be devel-oped internally? Because social networks,credibility, and organizational knowledge areimportant to the boundary-spanning andchampioning competencies, internal devel-opment of these roles becomes more impor-tant. Organizational tenure is likely to en-hance the creation of needed internal

Knowledge of where

competent

behaviors are most

likely to arise will

aid in locating

where assessment

and development

activities should be

targeted.



networks, credibility, trust, and knowledgeof “who knows what” within the organiza-tion (Burt, 1992, 2000; Hoang & Antoncic,2003; Nochur & Allen, 1992). Therefore, it isimportant to consider planning the develop-ment of these competencies internally ratherthan trying to acquire them from the exter-nal market.

Given the high levels of knowledge re-quired for innovative competence, it is likelythat this will be a point of entry into a possi-ble “corporate entrepreneurship career lad-der.” That is, since deep and broad technicalknowledge is necessary, but not sufficient,for subsequent competence in brokering andchampioning, technical innovators maylater be encouraged to develop the addi-tional organizational knowledge and socialcapital–building skills (e.g., emotional intel-ligence, influencing) required for competen-cies in these roles.

However, because the framework identi-fies competent behavior as resulting from acombination of specific personality charac-teristics and skills, in addition to knowledge,these should be considered as important ele-ments in the staffing decision. In particular,if consideration is being given to the long-term development of a supply of “corporateentrepreneurs,” the various personality char-acteristics identified in each of the compe-tencies should be considered in early staffingdecisions.

Whether internal or external staffingpolicies are being considered, the compe-tency framework allows for measurement attwo levels of analysis. At the level of thecompetencies themselves, it is possible to di-rectly assess behaviors indicating competentrole performance. The descriptions of com-petencies already presented should give areasonable indication of the types of behav-iors to be expected. The specific behavioralexamples will necessarily be context-driven.The second level of measurement can occurat the element level (i.e., the knowledge,skills, and personality characteristics thathave been identified in the framework).

The advantage of the competencyframework outlined here is that it reducesthe “inferential leap” from individual dif-

ferences to job performance (Gatewood &Feild, 1998). This is because competencies,while being underlying individual charac-teristics, are observed only through behav-iors, and the definition of competenciesprovides a direct basis for identification ofthe behaviors to be observed. For example,competent innovators will demonstrate (sit-uationally specific) examples of innovativeactivity; competent boundary spanners willbe observed bridging diverse knowledgeacross known organizational and interorga-nizational domains.

The inclusion of personalitycharacteristics within compe-tency frameworks such as thisalso raises some important issues.The first is, since personalitycharacteristics are relatively stablecharacteristics, while many as-pects of knowledge and skill canbe developed by an organization,it is important to include person-ality measurement in staffing de-cisions. If personality characteris-tics are ignored, according to ourframework, competent role be-haviors may not be observed. Fur-ther, it is unlikely that neededpersonality characteristics will beeasily developed within an organ-ization. A second issue that arisesfrom the inclusion of personalitycharacteristics is the observationthat unless reliable and validmeasures are used, these personal character-istics should not be used in personnel deci-sion making.

This last point leads to another majorissue in the application of a competencyframework. Competencies, by definition, re-flect underlying characteristics of people. Ina sense, competencies represent the poten-tial for action. Furthermore, a competencyframework implies that in addition toknowledge and skills, personality character-istics are an important element of individualcapability to perform. However, personalitycharacteristics are not an appropriate basisfor performance evaluation, as the inclusionof such measures tends to lead to bias, dis-

…a competency

framework implies

that in addition to

knowledge and

skills, personality

characteristics are

an important

element of

individual capability

to perform.



satisfaction of rater and rate, and ineffectivefeedback (e.g., Tziner & Kopelman, 2002;Wiersma & Latham, 1986). Therefore, if acompetency framework such as the one pro-posed here is used to guide performance ap-praisal, it will be most effective to focus uponspecific behaviors derived from the descrip-tion of the relevant competency. These spe-cific observable behaviors can be inferred di-

rectly from the framework. Thus,a competence framework can beused to directly derive behav-iorally based performance-ap-praisal mechanisms, which areexpected to be more valid, reli-able, and acceptable to raters andratees (e.g., Tziner & Kopelman,2002; Wiersma & Latham, 1986).

Conclusions

In this article, we have proposed acompetency-based approach toidentifying the human capital re-quired to support corporate entre-preneurship. We believe that acompetency-based approach issuperior to the alternative tradi-tional job-analytic approach forseveral reasons. First, only the

broad behavioral requirements for corporateentrepreneurship are knowable in advance.Second, it is difficult to anticipate who in anorganization will identify new opportunitiesor who will champion and sponsor new ini-tiatives. Third, entrepreneurial activities mayoccur infrequently and erratically and arelikely to be missed by more traditional meth-ods of job analysis. Fourth, corporate entre-preneurship activities are most likely to beentered into voluntarily, and any specifica-tion of entrepreneurial responsibilities couldjust as likely inhibit as promote desired be-haviors (Von Hippel, 1977).

Rather than building these “tasks” intoformal job descriptions, it may be more ap-propriate to ensure that salient employeegroups have the desired competencies—thepotential to engage in corporate entrepre-neurship roles should the opportunity arise.Competency frameworks enhance employ-

ees’ understanding of the challenges facingtheir companies and how their behaviorcontributes to firm success.

There are two clear implications for ourproposed competency-based model for cor-porate entrepreneurship. First, these compe-tencies need to be developed across the or-ganization. The model suggests that broadorganizational knowledge and connectionswith social networks are central to each ofthe entrepreneurial roles. This implies thatentrepreneurial capabilities must be nur-tured over time and cannot easily be bought.The analogy here is that there must be an in-ternal “corporate entrepreneurship ladder”for individuals to participate, gain experi-ence, and be rewarded for entrepreneurialcontributions as innovators, brokers, cham-pions, and sponsors.

A second implication of this compe-tency model is that management should beproactive in nurturing these competenciesand honing them through careful integra-tion to develop an organizationwide entre-preneurial capability. Since only some ele-ments of the competencies can be bought,and some must be developed in-house, asystematic approach that links staffing withdevelopment must be established. Such anapproach would start with the identifica-tion of the areas in the organization whereinnovation is desired or most likely tooccur. The person specifications of candi-dates would then include individual charac-teristics that are expected to predict successin entrepreneurial roles in addition to moreimmediately desirable job-specific charac-teristics. The development plan for such in-dividuals would include cross-organiza-tional experiences and the opportunity toacquire cross-functional and perhaps eveninterorganizational experiences that helpbuild the necessary stocks of knowledgethat support entrepreneurial competenciesas identified in the framework. In additionto a comprehensive approach to the acqui-sition and development of the componentsof competence, the competency-basedframework helps to establish support sys-tems such as performance-assessment, in-centive, and communication programs that

Competency

frameworks

enhance

employees’

understanding of the

challenges facing

their companies and

how their behavior

contributes to firm

success.



are necessary to reinforce the exercise ofcompetent behavior.

To date, the direct link between indi-vidual employee characteristics and corpo-rate entrepreneurship has received limitedattention (e.g., Bantel & Jackson, 1989;Chandler et al., 2005; Deeds et al., 1998;Hayton, 2005a). Our proposed compe-tency-based model suggests the specific,

measurable individual characteristics thatare anticipated to be supportive of organi-zational-level outcomes. The propositionsoffered in this article should be empiricallytested. However, we hope our proposedcompetency-based model serves as a usefulfirst step in future studies of the micro-processes associated with nurturing corpo-rate entrepreneurship.


JAMES C. HAYTON is an assistant professor at Bocconi University in Milan, Italy. He re-ceived his PhD from Georgia State University in 2002. His research focuses on the linksbetween human capital, human resource management systems, and corporate entre-preneurship and has been published in Human Resource Management, the Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Organizational ResearchMethods, Human Resource Management Review, R&D Management, the EuropeanManagement Journal, the International Journal of Technology Management, and theJournal of Management Education. He also serves on the editorial boards of Human Re-source Management Review and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and is an activemember of the Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management.

DONNA J. KELLEY is an assistant professor of entrepreneurship at Babson College. Shereceived her PhD from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She also has an MBA and a BA inchemistry. Prior to joining Babson, she worked as a chemist for James River Graphics andfor Stanley Home Products. Dr. Kelley’s publications include research on the patent, al-liance, and product innovation activities of technology-based startups, focusing on com-puter hardware and telecommunications firms. She has also published research on man-agement practices for innovation and corporate entrepreneurship in large, establishedorganizations. Her current research streams include: (1) the characteristics of break-through patents, (2) innovation and entrepreneurship in new ventures and established or-ganizations in Korea, and (3) the corporate entrepreneurship process in large, establishedorganizations, with a special interest in how organizations develop practices for manag-ing entrepreneurial projects. Dr. Kelley teaches courses on entrepreneurship, corporateentrepreneurship, managing growing businesses, and developing business plans.

NOTES

1. Corporate entrepreneurship is the process ofsearching for and exploiting the entrepreneurial op-portunities that arise from asymmetries of marketor technological knowledge. Exploitation of newopportunities occurs through starting new venturesinside or outside of the existing organization, ortransforming the organization through strategic re-newal (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990). Corporate entrepre-neurship requires that firms take risks and be inno-vative and proactive (Miller, 1983). The reward issuperior product market and financial performance

(Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Chandler, Keller, & Lyon,2000; Loof & Heshmati, 2002; Zahra & Covin, 1995).

2. Champions must be able to build networks andexert their influence upward and downward in theorganization. However, the majority of a sponsor’sinfluence will be exerted downward. Further, be-cause sponsors may use formal resource controland authority to influence the division of re-sources needed to support entrepreneurial proj-ects, emotional intelligence and influence becomeless salient for this role. Therefore, we only em-phasize these characteristics as being importantfor the competence of champions.


REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativ-ity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging theboundary: External activity and performance in or-ganizational teams. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 37, 634–665.

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship:Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation.Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 495–527.

Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the alloca-tion of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson(Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity(pp. 609–625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top manage-ment and innovations in banking: Does the compo-sition of the top team make a difference? StrategicManagement Journal, 10, 107–125.

Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entre-preneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs thinkdifferently than other people. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 13, 275–294.

Baron, R. A. (2000). Counterfactual thinking and ven-ture formation: The potential effects of thinkingabout what might have been. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 15, 79–91.

Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond socialcapital: How social skills can enhance entrepre-neurs’ success. Academy of Management Execu-tive, 14(1), 106–116.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance be-yond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship ofentrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to sub-sequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 89, 587–598.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). TheHR scorecard: Linking people, strategy, and per-formance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Block, Z., & MacMillan, I. (1993). Corporate venturing.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991).Hiring for the organization, not the job. Academyof Management Executive, 5(4), 35–51.

Brockbank, W., Ulrich, D., & Beatty, R. W. (1999). HRprofessional development: Creating the future cre-

ators at the University of Michigan BusinessSchool. Human Resource Management, 38,111–118.

Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internalcorporate venturing in the diversified major firm.Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–245.

Burgelman, R. A., & Sayles, L. R. (1986). Inside corpo-rate innovation. New York: Free Press.

Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition.In N. Nohria & R. C. Eccles (Eds.), Networks andorganizations: Structure, form, and action (pp.57–91). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capi-tal. In B. M. Staw & B. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior (pp. 345–423). New York:Elsevier.

Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences be-tween entrepreneurs and managers in large organ-izations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decisionmaking. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9–30.

Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur. Totowa, NJ:Barnes & Noble Books.

Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1998). An examina-tion of the substitutability of founders’ human andfinancial capital in emerging business ventures.Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 353–369.

Chandler, G. N., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. (2005). An-tecedents, moderators, and performance conse-quences of membership change in new ventureteams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 705–725.

Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. W. (2000). Un-raveling the determinants and consequences of aninnovation supportive culture. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 25(1), 59–76.

Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepre-neurship and the pursuit of competitive advan-tage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3),47–63.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic manage-ment of small firms in hostile and benign environ-ments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1),75–88.

Cross, R., & Cummings, J. (2004). Tie and networkcorrelates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal,47, 928–937.

Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals. Organization Sci-ence, 5(2), 148–172.

Deeds, D. L., DeCarolis, D., & Coombs, J. E. (1998).Firm-specific resources and wealth creation inhigh-technology ventures: Evidence from newly



public biotechnology firms. Entrepreneurship The-ory and Practice, 22(3), 55–73.

DeNisi, A. S., Hitt, M. A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Theknowledge-based approach to sustainable compet-itive advantage. In S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt, & A. S.DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustainedcompetitive advantage: Designing strategies for ef-fective human resource management (pp. 3–33).San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic ca-pabilities: What are they? Strategic ManagementJournal, 21, 1105–1121.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-technical sys-tems. In C. W. Churchman & M. Verhulst (Eds.),Management sciences models and techniques (Vol.2; pp. 83–97). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Galbraith, J. R. (1982). Designing the innovating or-ganization. Organizational Dynamics, 10(3), 4–25.

Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). An empiricalevaluation of the internal corporate venturingprocess. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Spe-cial Issue), 93–109.

Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (1998). Human re-source selection. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it canmatter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ in-troduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. StrategicManagement Journal, 11(Special Issue), 5–15.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivationthrough the design of work: Test of a theory. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,250–279.

Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers:Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. Cali-fornia Management Review, 40(3), 209–227.

Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linkinglearning and innovation. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 24, 41–85.

Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an inno-vation factory. Harvard Business Review, 78(3),157–166.

Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and orga-nizational psychology (Volume II; pp. 71–163). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hayton, J. C. (2005a). Competing in the new econ-omy: The effect of intellectual capital on corporateentrepreneurship in high technology new ventures.R&D Management, 35(2), 137–155.

Hayton, J. C. (2005b). Promoting corporate entrepre-

neurship through human resource managementpractices: A review of empirical research. HumanResource Management Review, 15(1), 21–41.

Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based re-search in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 18, 165–187.

Hornsby, J. S., Naffziger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Mon-tagno, R. V. (1993). An interactive model of the cor-porate entrepreneurship process. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37.

House, R. J. (1977). A theory of charismatic leader-ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leader-ship: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). The championsof technological innovation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35, 317–341.

Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure ofwork: Job design and roles. In M. Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-tional psychology (Volume II; pp. 165–207). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Itami, H. (1987). Mobilizing invisible assets. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1985). Supporting innovation and ven-ture development in established companies. Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 1, 47–61.

Kanter, R. M. (1989). Swimming in newstreams: Mas-tering innovation dilemmas. California Manage-ment Review, 31(4), 45–69.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1979). Communication pat-terns, project performance, and task characteris-tics: An empirical evaluation and integration in anR&D setting. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 23, 139–162.

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneur-ship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kirzner, I. M. (1985). Discovery and the capitalistprocess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social capital in multi-national corporations and a micro-macro model ofits formation. Academy of Management Review,28, 297–317.

Kuratko, D., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J.S. (2005). A model of middle level managers’ en-trepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 29, 699–716.

Lawler, E. E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 15(1), 3–15.

Leifer, R., McDermott, C., O’Connor, G., Peters, L.,



Rice, M., & Veryzer, R. (2000). Radical innovation:How mature companies can outsmart upstarts.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lin, N. (1982). Social resources and instrumental ac-tion. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structureand network analysis (pp. 131–145). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Loof, H., & Heshmati, A. (2002). Knowledge capitaland performance heterogeneity: A firm level inno-vation study. International Journal of ProductionEconomics, 76, 61–85.

Maidique, M. A. (1980). Entrepreneurs, champions,and technological innovation. Sloan ManagementReview, 21(2), 59–76.

Markman, G. D., Baron, R. D., & Balkin, D. B. (2005).Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? As-sessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 26(1), 1–19.

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Prince-ton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

McEvoy, G. M., Hayton, J. C., Warnick, A. P., Mumford,T., Hanks, S. H., & Blahna, M.J. (2005). A compe-tency-based model for developing human resourceprofessionals. Journal of Management Education,29, 383–402.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship inthree types of firms. Management Science, 29,770–792.

Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity. West-port, CT: Quorum Books.

Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1993). Fos-tering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-culturalcomparisons of the importance of individualismversus collectivism. Journal of International Busi-ness Studies, 25(1), 65–89.

Nochur, K., & Allen, T. (1992). Do nominated boundaryspanners become effective technological gatekeep-ers? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-ment, 39, 265–269.

Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free tobe trusted? Organizational constraints on trust inboundary spanners. Organization Science, 14,422–439.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., &Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviorsand their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satis-faction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

Roberts, E. B., & Fusfeld, A. R. (1981). Staffing the in-novative technology-based organization. SloanManagement Review, 22(3), 19–33.

Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communica-tion of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. NewYork: Free Press.

Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V. T. P.,Robertson, A. B., & Townsend, J. (1974). SAPPHOupdated—Project SAPPHO phase II. Research Pol-icy, 3, 258–291.

Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Thefishbowl of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,11, 243–263.

Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in productcompetition. Strategic Management Journal, 16,135–159.

Sathe, V. (2003) Corporate entrepreneurship: Top man-agers and new business creation. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L.,Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000). The practiceof competency modeling. Personnel Psychology,53, 703–740.

Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inven-tions. Harvard Business Review, 41(2), 77–86.

Schon, D. A. (1967). Technology and change. New York:Delacorte.

Shane, S. (1994). Cultural values and the championingprocess. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(1),25–41.

Shane, S. (1995). Uncertainty avoidance and the pref-erence for innovation championing roles. Journalof International Business Studies, 26(1), 47–67.

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discoveryof entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Sci-ence, 11, 448–469.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (1996). Renegade andrational championing strategies. OrganizationStudies, 17, 751–777.

Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000).Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture for-mation: How individuals decide to start compa-nies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 113–134.

Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Compe-tency at work: Models for superior performance.New York: Wiley.

Sykes, H. B. (1992). Incentive compensation for corpo-rate venture personnel. Journal of Business Ven-turing, 7, 253–265.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group abil-ity to utilize individual creative resources: A multi-level model. Academy of Management Journal, 45,315–330.



Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for in-novation. California Management Review, 28(3),74–92.

Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. E. (2002). Is there a pre-ferred performance rating format? A non psycho-metric perspective. Applied Psychology, 51,479–503.

Vecchio, R. B. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leader-ship: Common trends and common threads.Human Resource Management Review, 13,303–327.

Von Hippel, E. (1977). Successful and failing internalcorporate ventures: An empirical analysis. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 6, 163–174.

Wiersma, V. C., & Latham, G. P. (1986). The practicalityof behavioral observation scales, behavioral ex-pectation scales and trait scales. Personnel Psy-chology, 39, 619–628.

Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes

of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratorystudy. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259–285.

Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and cor-porate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact ofindustry technological opportunities. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 1713–1735.

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influ-ences on the corporate entrepreneurship-perform-ance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journalof Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.

Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entre-preneurship in family versus non-family firms: Aresource-based analysis of the effect of organiza-tional culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-tice, 28, 363–381.

Zahra, S. Z., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999).Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and com-petence development. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 23(3), 169–189.


Date post:	18-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chakkravarthi-ilangovan
View:	106 times
Download:	2 times

A Competency-based Framework for Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship

Documents