CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DYNAMIC ......Corporate Entrepreneurship And Dynamic Capabilities In...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 121 [email protected]

International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 121-135, Article ID: IJM_06_09_013

Available online at

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=6&IType=9

ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510

© IAEME Publication

___________________________________________________________________________

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND

DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES IN SELECTED

PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS IN NIGERIA

OYEDOKUN AKINTUNDE JONATHAN

Department of Management and Accounting,

Ladoke Akintola University of Technology,

Ogbomoso, Nigeria.

ABSTRACT

The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and dynamic

capability in selected pharmaceutical firms in Lagos, Nigeria was

investigated. Specifically, the relationship between employee’s innovative

prowess, and the learning, reconfiguration, coordination and integration of

the firm’s resources was examined.

A total of 420 questionnaires were administered among selected

pharmaceutical firms. Stratified random sampling technique was adopted to

ensure proportional representation of the selected firms in the industry.

Random sampling technique was also adopted in each functional unit to

enable employees have equal chances of being selected. The data for the study

were analysed with Structural Equation Model (SEM). The findings revealed a

strong strategic relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and

dynamic capabilities (0.68).

The study concluded that Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) stimulated the

development of Dynamic Capabilities (DC). Thus, it is the bedrock of strategic

change in the pharmaceutical firms. Innovative, proactive and risk taking

skills embedded in employees stimulated the firm’s ability to identify and

exploit opportunities.

Key words: Dynamic Capabilities, Corporate Entrepreneurship, Learning,

Reconfiguration, Coordination, Integration.

Cite this Article: Oyedokun Akintunde Jonathan. Corporate Entrepreneurship

And Dynamic Capabilities In Selected Pharmaceutical Firms In Nigeria,

International Journal of Management, 6(9), 2015, pp. 121-135.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=6&IType=9

1. INTRODUCTION

The challenge to capture and study the resources that critically underpin competitive

advantage has become imperative. Competitive advantage as explained by Filley and

Oyedokun Akintunde Jonathan


Aldag (2005) forms the basis of firm’s outstanding performance and growth as they

are the product of effective strategic management. Hence, managers should focus on

building sustainable competitive advantage by implementing unique value and

creative strategies based on the combination of internal organizational resources and

capabilities stimulated by corporate entrepreneurship (CE). While acknowledging the

resource based view (RBV) concept of Barney (1991) that a firm is a collection of

unique resources and capabilities that provide basis for its strategy and returns; the

idea that the firm must strategize to innovate and build competitive advantage is no

longer new. What is worrisome is how the managers will achieve such intent, bearing

the nature of the volatile environment they operate. These therefore call for the

nurturing of effective corporate entrepreneurship within the firm processes to

stimulate employees innovative, proactive and risk taking behaviours geared towards

ensuring proper opportunity identification and exploitation that may result to strategic

renewal. Sharma and Chrisman (1999) viewed corporate entrepreneurship (CE) as the

process by which an individual or a group of individuals in association with an

existing organisation, creates a new organisation or adds to the renewal or innovation

of an existing organisation. Similar view by Burgelman (1983) observed that CE

allows the revitalisation and improvement of corporate performance, and it allows for

the transformation of organisation through a process of strategic renewal, based on the

acquisition of new capabilities (Guth and Ginsberg 1990). This suggests that strategy

must be dynamic, innovative and proactive to accommodate anticipated change that

characterizes a turbulent environment.

The persistent increase in environmental turbulence necessitates the role of

dynamic capabilities (DC). Johnson, Scholes and Whittington (2008) viewed dynamic

capabilities as an organisation’s ability to renew and recreate its strategic capabilities

to meet the needs of the changing environment. Supporting this view, Pavlou (2004)

observed that dynamic capabilities are firm’s ability to reconfigure resources and

renew functional competence that addresses the changing environment. This suggests

that the development of DC is inevitable for firm’s sustenance given a volatile

environment. The renewal and reconfiguration of firm’s resources do not occur by

chance, but are predicated on the innovative, proactive and risk taking behaviour of

firms that constitute corporate entrepreneurship (CE). McDougall and Oviatt (2000)

viewed CE as the combination of innovative, proactive and risk taking behaviour

intended to create value in organisations. Related view by Johnson (1998) perceived

CE as opportunity seeking with determination. Studies by Schaltegger and Wagner

(2010) posit CE as the catalyst that brings together people, money and ideas to

establish value creating networks. Wiklund (1999) also noted that CE linked invention

with market success. The trend in these views confirm the fact that today’s firm must

not only strategize on existing resources and capabilities, but must also strive to

develop dynamic capabilities that can accommodate change, innovate and facilitate

the development of new organization capabilities, through corporate entrepreneurship.

The study therefore posits that innovative, proactive and risk taking attitudes of

employees that constitutes CE, stimulates the development of DC (learning,

reconfiguration, coordination and integration) that is purposefully geared towards

sustaining firms’ competitive position in the turbulent environment.

Corporate Entrepreneurship And Dynamic Capabilities In Selected Pharmaceutical Firms In

Nigeria


2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Entrepreneurial behaviour

Entrepreneurial behaviour is any newly fashioned set of actions through which

companies seek to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities rivals have not noticed or

exploited. Entrepreneurial opportunities are external environmental conditions

suggesting the viability of introducing and selling new products, services, raw

materials and organizing methods at prices exceeded their production costs (Casson,

1982; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). In complex environments, entrepreneurial

opportunities often surface unexpectedly; because these opportunities are short-lived

and subject to capture or appropriation by rivals, a firm must move quickly to pursue a

desired opportunity once it has been identified (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001). Three key

dimensions – innovativeness (the seeking of creative solutions to problems or needs),

risk-taking (the willingness to commit significant levels of resources to pursue

entrepreneurial opportunities with a reasonable chance of failure), and proactiveness

(doing what is necessary to bring pursuit of an entrepreneurial opportunity to

completion) – underlie entrepreneurial behaviour (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin

and Dess, 1996; Morris and Kuratko, 2002). Entrepreneurial behaviour is the conduit

through which entrepreneurship is practiced in companies of all types. Increasingly,

organizations are committing to the position that entrepreneurial behaviour is essential

if they are to first survive and then achieve competitive success in a world that is

being driven by accelerating change (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999; Ireland et al.,

2001; Lyon, Lumpkin and Dess, 2000). In essence, entrepreneurship is concerned

with discovering and exploiting value creating entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane

and Venkataraman, 2000). The behavioural component “...includes the set of

activities required to move a concept or idea through the key stages in the

entrepreneurial process to implementation” (Morris and Kuratko, 2002).

Entrepreneurship’s willingness component “refers to the willingness of an individual

or organization to embrace new opportunities and take responsibility for effecting

creative change” (Morris and Kuratko, 2002). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) call this

attitude or willingness entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial behaviour,

displayed within the context of an existing organization, is linked to corporate

entrepreneurship and is differentiated from its relationship with independent

entrepreneurship (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999. In the instance of corporate

entrepreneurship, the process of entrepreneurial actions encompasses a set of

organization-wide activities rather than any single one (Vozikis et al., 1999).

2.2. Dynamic Capability - a routine within processes

The concept of dynamic capabilities was introduced by Teece and Pisano, (1994).

Zollo and winter, (2002) found that dynamic capabilities result from complicated

organizational and strategic routines through which the managers reconfigure and

renew a firm’s resource base to generate economically value-creating strategies. This

implies that dynamic capabilities can be perceived as the routines that guide and

facilitate the development of firm’s (organizational) capabilities. Eisenhardt and

Martin (2000) extended the definition to include the ability of firms to initiate change.

Dynamic capabilities are not simply processes, but embedded in processes; processes

are often explicit or codifiable structuring and combination of resources and can be

transferred more easily within firm or across firms. More recently, Helfat et al. (2007)

defined dynamic capabilities as “the capacity of an organization to purposefully

create, extend or modify its resource base. Winter (2003) observed that dynamic



capabilities enable firm to react to changing market conditions by developing and

renewing its organizational capabilities thereby achieving and sustaining a

competitive advantage. This suggests that the development of dynamic capabilities is

inevitable for firm’s sustenance given a volatile environment. The renewal and

reconfiguration of firm’s resources do not occur by chance, but are predicated on the

innovative, proactive and risk taking behaviour of firms that constitute corporate

entrepreneurship (CE). The study seeks to examine relationship between corporate

entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities in selected registered Pharmaceutical firms

in Nigeria.

This was premised on the belief that an understanding of the nature and

influences of CE on DC by managers and policy makers, will aid in shaping their

strategic choices and as such offer a road map for the sustenance of the firm

competitive position. Hence the identification and understanding of the influences of

CE on DC would give managers and organizations the instrument to rationally

improve their chances of success and durably sustain their competitive advantage.

Dynamic capabilities (DC) emerged as a component of resource based view in an

attempt at explaining the competitive advantage in a rapidly changing environment.

They are referred to as the capacity of an organisation to purposefully create, extend

or modify its resource base (Helfat et al, .2007). Similar view by Winter (2003)

opined that dynamic capabilities are capabilities that operate to extend, modify or

create ordinary capabilities, they are essential capacities for coping with market needs

(Teece et al., 1997). Related view by Zollo and Winter (2002) described dynamic

capability as the learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the

organisation systematically generates and modifies its routines in pursuit of improved

effectiveness. The word capacity referred to the firm’s ability to perform a task in a

satisfactory manner to achieve congruence with the changing environment. However

the corporate entrepreneurship (CE) should premise the alteration or modification of a

firm resource base. The perception is based on the innovative, proactive and risk

taking qualities of corporate entrepreneurship exhibited in the identification and

exploitation of opportunities that necessitated resource modification or alteration.

Thus CE could trigger successful DC in firms since the aim is to identify and exploit

opportunities for new growth platforms through entrepreneurship leading to resource

modification if need be. Moreover the present day characteristics of the turbulent

business environment which reflect innovative product development, shorter

technology life cycle and speed of market entry are anchored on entrepreneurial

prowess of firms. Thus the influence of CE on the DC purposefully deployed by firm

gives the firm a sense of direction towards the identification and exploitation of

opportunities which may be the game changer for the firm in the industry.

Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) is the process by which individuals or groups

inside organisations pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they

currently control (Stevenson, Roberts, and Grousbeck, 1999). CE encompasses three

types of phenomena (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999) these are innovativeness, pro-

activeness and risk seeking. This process leads to the birth of new businesses and to

the transformation of companies through a renewal of their key ideas (Guth and

Ginsberg, 1990). These by implication suggest entrepreneurial behaviour are reflected

in the innovative and risk taking attitude of employees in the firms.

The motive for corporate entrepreneurship lies in the urge to identify sources of

existing and emerging opportunities (Ramachandran, 2003) leading to strategic

renewal that may result to significant changes in an organisation’s business or


Nigeria


corporate level strategy for successful exploitation and growth. These changes alter

pre-existing relationships within the organisation or between the organisation and its

external environment and in most cases involve some sort of innovation.

It is therefore pertinent to examine the relationship between CE and DC since the

sustenance of firm’s competitive advantage in a turbulent environment requires CE

and DC that seeks the renewal, reconfiguration and development of organisation

capabilities having been complemented by corporate entrepreneurship. This is

premised on the fact that CE allows the revitalisation and improvement of corporate

performance (kanter, 1984; Pinchot 1985; Rule and Irwin,1988) and it is the process

by which individual or group of individual identify and exploit opportunities through

the innovative, proactive and risk taking skills that constitute entrepreneurship

(Sapienza et al, 2004 ). Similar view by Chung and Gibbons (1997) affirmed CE as a

process that transforms individual ideas in to collective actions. Acknowledging this

view, Phan et al, (2009) concurred that CE embodies renewal activities that enhances

corporations’ ability to compete and take risk which may and may not involve the

addition of new businesses to corporation. While noting that major aim of renewing

and reconfiguring (DC) existing resources and capabilities is to achieve congruence

with opportunities both within and outside the business environment, CE seeks to

identify and exploit opportunities using the innovative, proactive and risk taking skills

of individual or group of people as such CE actions should precede DC actions and

strategy to give guidance and minimize risk in an uncertain environment

Hence to generate an economically value-creating strategy, opportunity

identification and recognition must precede resource reconfiguration and renewal in

the course of exploiting such opportunities to achieve strategic fit between the

organisation’s resources and opportunity identified. This will help reduce the risk of

failure and enhance the innovativeness of firms.

The following hypotheses were formulated for the study:

Corporate entrepreneurship has no significant effect on the dynamic

capabilities developed by the Nigeria Pharmaceutical firms.

Employee’s innovative prowess has no relationship with the reconfiguration

of the firm’s resources.

Employee’s innovative prowess does not relate with the coordination of the

firm’s resources.

Employee’s innovative prowess has no relationship with the integration of

the firm’s resources

Employee’s innovative prowess does not relate with the learning culture of

the pharmaceutical firms.

Pro-activeness of employee’s has no significant relationship with the

learning culture of firms.


reconfiguration of the firms resources.


coordinating prowess of the firms resources.


integrating skills of the pharmaceutical firms;



Employee’s risk taking culture has no significant relationship with the

reconfiguration of the firms resources.

Employee’s risk taking culture has no significant relationship with the co-

ordination of the firms resources.


integration of the firms resources.


learning prowess of the pharmaceutical firms.

3. METHODOLOGY

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) test was performed with Corporate

Entrepreneurship (CE) as a higher order latent construct, consisting of the three first

order indicators (Innovativeness, Pro-activeness Risk-taking). The first order loadings

ranged from 0.64 to 0.88 with t-values greater than 1.96 and significant at p < 0.001.

The second order loadings ranged from 0.70 to 0.84 at a t-value >1.96 and significant

at p< 0.001. The outcome affirmed the higher order construct explicitly represent the

causal constructs that impact the first order factors. The measurement model fit index

accounted for chi-square ( ) of 80.7771; df 41, p= 0.000,

; GFI = 0.932;

CFI= 0.902. The result indicates an adequate fit.

Beyond the examination of the loadings for each indicator, composite reliability of

every construct in the model was also assessed. The reliability scores for the first

order construct ranged from 0.74 to 0.84, providing a direct assessment of the

construct reliabilities. The overall composite reliability score for the second order

construct corporate entrepreneurship is 0.94 all exceeding the 0.70 rule of thumb,

indicating a good overall reliability of the model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

test was also performed on dynamic capability (DC) as a higher order latent

construct, consisting of the four first order indicators (Learning, Integration,

Coordination, Reconfiguration). The first order loadings ranged from 0.58 to 0.86

with t-values >1.96 and significant at p < 0.001. The second order loadings ranged

from 0.64 to 0.81 at a t-value >1.96 and significant at p< 0.001. The outcome

affirmed the higher order construct explicitly represent the causal constructs that

impact the first order factors.

The measurement model fit index accounted for chi-square = 92.751; df =48;

/df = 1.9323; p= 0.000; CFI =0.962; GFI= 0.971. The result indicates an adequate

fit. The result showed that each item loaded significantly on its respective first order

factor and subsequently the higher order construct without cross-loading to any other

first order factor of the same construct. Following the examination of the loadings for

each indicator in the DC construct and first order loading construct, composite

reliability of every construct in the model was also assessed. The reliability scores for

the first order construct ranged from 0.78 to 0.85, providing a direct assessment of the

construct reliabilities. The overall composite reliability score for the second order

construct dynamic capability is 0.92, all exceeding the 0.70 rule of thumb, indicating

a good overall reliability of the model.

4. ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURAL PATH

Following the examination and validation of the measurement model in a CFA

analysis, the structural relationship to examine the overall relative model fit and the

structural parameter estimate with one headed arrow on a path diagram was estimated.


Nigeria


The fit of the structural model was assessed using the absolute fit, parsimony fit and

incremental fit indices. The fit resulted to a measures of chi-square ( ) of 88, df =37,

p=0.000,

, CFI = 0.914, GFI = 0.943. The chi square statistics is significant

and other relevant indices indicate a good overall fit (Tippins and Sohi, 2003).

The hypotheses specified for the study were tested.

Hypothesis Parameter

H1: CE DC 0.68

H2: INV RC 0.57

H3 INV CD 0.53

H4: INV LE 0.59

H5 : INV INT 0.63

H6: PR LE 0.50

H7: PR RC 0.55

H8: PR CD 0.54

H9: PR INT 0.56

H1O: RK RC 0.61

H11: RK CD 0.31

H12: RK INT 0.42

H13: RK LE 0.12

The loading of CE to DC was significant (0.68, t=7.416, p=0.001). The results

pinpoint the significant effect of corporate entrepreneurship on dynamic capability

developed by the pharmaceutical firms. This affirmed employee’s pro-activeness and

innovativeness in terms of their willingness to adapt quickly to new ways of doing

things and seeking unusual solutions to challenges that necessitated the need to

reconfigure existing resources, integrate new resources and coordinate them in to

productive capacity ahead of competitors to capture the market opportunities,

especially when such opportunities has propensity for high risk with high returns.



This by implication suggests corporate entrepreneurship influences the dynamic

capabilities in the pharmaceutical firms.

The result also examines the influence of employee’s innovative prowess on the

reconfiguration of resources embarked upon by the pharmaceutical firms as expressed

in hypothesis 2. The innovative prowess of employee’s was noted to have a

significant influence on the reconfiguration of the firm’s resources. This was evidence

from the positive correlation of 0.57 exhibited by the innovative prowess of the

employees on reconfiguration of the firm’s resources. The outcome of the result was

based on the zeal by top managers that saw them placed strong emphasis on research

and development and technological leadership. This initiated and boosted the

innovative culture displayed by employees to think and behave in novel ways, leading

to seeking changes to the existing configuration in a timely and appropriate manner to

achieve operational competence to match the changing environment. This innovative

actions enables the firms to effectively and efficiently maximises the emerging

opportunities ahead of competitors.

The influence of the employees’ innovativeness on the co-ordinating skills of the

firms was also noted to have a correlation of 0.53. This suggest that employees

readiness to adapt to new ways of doing things while being encouraged by

management who assigned task to commensurate with the relevant knowledge and

skills of the employees promotes effective co-ordination resources and capabilities.

The result is the effective management of dependencies among task, resources and

work which ensures output in one unit is available and useful to other units when

needed.

Innovativeness of employees was also observed to have significant impact at

promoting learning culture in the firms. The correlation of 0.59 attested to this.

Attempt at trying to achieve new ways of doing things seeking unusual solutions

endeared the employees to seek access to expert and knowledgeable co-workers for

proper brainstorming and quality decision making. The senior knowledgeable mentors

were equally motivated by the willingness of the employees to think and behave in

original ways as such learning was seen by all as a key commodity to guarantee

organisational survival since the motive is to enhance a culture of knowledge sharing

leading to the sustainability of the firms’ competitive position.

The innovative attitude of employees was also noted to have a strong positive

correlation of 0.63 with the integration skills of the firms. This was evidenced from

the fact that employees willingness to have seeking new ways of doing things led to a

shared awareness among employees and a thorough understanding of their group task.

Their collective decision to be innovative stimulated actions that are interrelated and

geared towards managing rapidly changing conditions. Individuals are then

forthcoming in contributing their input to the group.

Employee’s pro-activeness was equally found to have 0.50 positive correlations

with the pharmaceutical firms learning culture. This affirmed the fact that top

managers tendencies to be ahead of competitors in introducing novel ideas initiated

and catalyst the learning culture that was identified as a key commodity to guarantee

organisation survival. Their pro-activeness was perceived in their desire to promptly

access expert, knowledgeable co-workers and senior knowledgeable mentors in their

firms. Their pro-activeness was confirmed in the management ability to promptly

equip their firms with facilities and a culture that enhances knowledge sharing. Hence

pro-activeness was found to have stimulated a virile leaning culture in the

pharmaceutical firms.


Nigeria


Pro–activeness of employees was also noted to have a 0.55 relationship with the

reconfiguration of the pharmaceutical firms’ resources. This was based on the fact

that initiated actions by the employees are promptly implemented especially when it

requires the reconfiguration of resources to come up with new productive assets. The

top management desire to be ahead of others at introducing novel ideas promptly led

to an efficient and effective resource reconfiguration to address and capture shifting

market opportunities. The zeal to be the first at introducing new product, services,

administrative techniques and technology stimulated the reconfiguration of resources

in timely, appropriate and efficient manner whenever the need arises. This actions

most times have been the game changer required to sustain the firms’ competitive

positions.

Also observed was the relationship between the employee’s pro-activeness and

the co-ordination of the firm’s resources and capabilities. A relationship of 0.54 was

exhibited. This was perceived to be the result of the firms’ capabilities that ensures

dependencies among task, work and resources fit together very well. While ensuring

that pharmaceutical firms are the first at introducing new product, services and

administrative skills, assigned task are done to commensurate relevant knowledge and

skills of employees. These affirmed the fact that employees are posted to units based

on their core areas of competence and this practice brings out the best pro-activeness

in the employees.

The relationship between the employees’ pro-activeness and the integrating skills

of the firms was observed to have a correlation of 0.56. This was based on the

perception that top managers actions initiated ahead of competitors were supported by

employees with shared awareness and understanding of the motive. The employee’s

group task allows for synchronisation of their works with the works of others to

manage rapidly changing conditions.

The risk taking by employees in the pharmaceutical firms was found to have

significant (0.61) positive relationship on the reconfiguration of the firms resources

and capabilities. This was evidence from the fact that decision making on the need to

reconfigure existing resources to capture the emerging opportunities is not only

capital intensive but also strategic because of the competitive position of the firms

which must be sustained. The pharmaceutical firm’s response to exploring risky and

unknown alternatives leading to the renewal of existing resources and capabilities

attested to the determination of the firms to maximise its profit and sustain its

competitive position through huge investment in the reconfiguration of firm’s

resources. The act of reconfiguring existing resources and capabilities is risky and

requires caution bearing in mind that failure may spell doom for firms.

Risk taking by employees was also observed to have a weak correlation (0.31)

with the coordination of the firm’s resources and capabilities. This conceivably was

because the organisation willingness to commit resources to risky project is taken

with great caution by effective management of dependencies among task, resources

and works, as such the level of risk is minimize through proper monitoring of the

implementation process. Also noted is the fact that assigned task are matched to the

relevant knowledge and skills of the employees and this has minimise the risk of

failure because expertise and employees core areas of competence are given priority

and this has placed the duties of the firms in safe and capable hands.

Also observed is the weak relationship (0.42) between the risk-taking by

employees and the integration of works and contributions of individuals or group to

the organisation. This is based on the assumption that despite the firm’s strong



propensity for high risk project and the shared awareness and understanding displayed

by group in the firms. Group task and actions are screened and implemented with

caution at every stage. The firm’s commitment of resources to identified opportunities

by an individual or group is also done carefully following a thorough screening and

evaluation because of the rapidly changing business environment and shorter product

lifecycle.

The risk-taking by employees to learn and acquire knowledge is small. This is the

result of 0.12 relationship exhibited. This by implication means that employees in the

firms do not attached meaningful risk to learning and seeking knowledge to advance

the firms competitive position. They were also encouraged by the firm’s facilities and

a culture that enhances knowledge sharing and this gives no room to any fear or risk

to learn especially when access to expert, knowledgeable co-workers and senior

knowledgeable mentor is guaranteed. This confirmed the fact that employee’s ability

to learn is at low risk, making learning a key commodity for organisation survival.

Figure 1 Measurement Theory Model (CFA) For Corporate Entrepreneurship


Nigeria


Figure 2 Measurement Theory Model (CFA) Dynamic capability



5. CONCLUSION

Following the findings and discussion, the following under listed conclusion were

derived:

Corporate entrepreneurship has significant effect on the dynamic capabilities

developed by the pharmaceutical firms.

The innovative prowess of employees significantly encouraged the reconfiguration of

the firm’s resources thereby maximizing the emerging opportunities ahead of

competitors.

Employees’ innovativeness boosted the coordinating skills of the pharmaceutical

firms.

Employees’ innovativeness positively stimulated the learning culture in the

pharmaceutical firms.

The innovative attitudes of employees acted as catalyst that enables individual

employees to have a shared awareness among their groups.

The pro-activeness of employees encourages easy access to learn from expert,

knowledgeable coworkers, and senior knowledgeable mentors.

Employee’s pro-activeness ensures and secures the timely, efficient and effective

reconfiguration of the firms’ resources and capabilities to match the changing

environment.

The pro-activeness of employees helps identify the employee’s skills and core area of

competence that task to be assigned on expertise for easy discharge of duties.

5.2. Recommendation

Based on the findings and conclusion of the study the following recommendations

were made:

Contemporary managers should pay attention to corporate entrepreneurship effect on

the dynamic capabilities of firms based on its significance on the sustainability of

firm’s competitive positions in a turbulent environment.

Organization should promote innovative culture in their employees to safe guard the

reconfiguration of the firm’s resources for easy maximization of emerging

opportunities ahead of competitors.

Stimulating Employee’s innovativeness is imperative by top management based on its

positive influence on firms coordinating skills, learning culture and shared awareness

among groups and individuals.

The cordial relationship between senior knowledgeable mentor and the other

employees should be sustained through consistent improvement in the learning

environment. This will promote brainstorming among employees, gives them a sense

of belonging, build learning culture that ginger innovativeness and pro-activeness

among employees.

The firms should further improve on the machinery put in place to screen activities

and ideas relating to new opportunity identification and exploration since there might

be reasons to reconfigure the firm’s resources in the process. Decision such as these

comes with high risk and huge commitment of resources and requires caution.


Nigeria


REFERENCES

[1] Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent.

Strategic Management Journal, 14 (1), 33-46

[2] Balakrishnan G.B. and Wernerfelt M.H, (1986) “Organizing successful new

service development: a literature review”. Management Decision, 41(9): 844-858.

[3] Barney J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17, 1:99-120.

[4] Burgelman, R.A. (1983). A model of the interaction of strategic behaviour,

corporate context and the concept of strategy, Academy of Management Review,

8(1), pp 61-70.

[5] Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur.Totowa, N.J.: Barnes& Noble Books.

[6] Collis, D. J. (1994). Research note: how valuable are organizational capabilities?

Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Winter Special Issue), 143-152.

[7] Covin, J.G and D.P Slevin (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as

firm behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp 7-25

[8] David J Teece, Gary Pisano, Amy Shuen (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and

Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7) 509-533

[9] Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martins, M. (2000).Dynamic capabilities: What are they?

Strategic Management Journal. Vol 21, 10/11:1105-1121.

[10] Eisenhardt, K. M., and Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard

Business Review, 79(1), 107–116.

[11] Filley, A. C., and Aldag, R. J. (1980). Organization growth and types: Lessons

from small institutions. In: B. Shaw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in

Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

[12] Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing

middle management’s strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4):

47–57.

[13] Grant, R. (1991). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques,

Applications. New York: Basil Blackwell.

[14] Guth, W., and Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editor's introduction: corporate

entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 11 (special issue):5-16.

[15] Helfat, C.E, Finkelstein S, Mitchell W, Peteraf M.A, Singh H. Teece D.J, Winter

S.G.(2007).Dynamic capabilities: Foundations. In Dynamic Capabilities:

Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations DJ, Winter SG. (eds).

Blackwell Publishing: MaldenMA; 1-18.

[16] Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role

experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services.

Management Science, 55(1): 85-100.

[17] Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Integrating

entrepreneurship actions and strategic management actions to create firm wealth.

Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49–63.

[18] Kanter, R.M. (1984), Managing transition in organization culture: The case of

participative management at Honeywell. In J. R. Kimberly and R. E. Quinn (Eds),

Managing organizational transitions (pp. 195-217). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

[19] Lee, H., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C., and Schomburg, (2002). A, Timing, order, and

durability of new product advantages with imitation, Strategic Management

Journal (21), pp. 23-30.

[20] Lopez, S. (2005). competitive advantage and strategy formulation. The key role

of dynamic capabilities management decision 43 (5/6) 661.



[21] Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial construct and

linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review. 21:135-172 Doi:

10.2307/258632

[22] Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial

decision-making process. Journal of Management, 26, 1055–1085.

[23] Mac Kenzie, Donald and Spinardi, Graham, (1995). Tacit Knowledge, Weapons

Design, and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons’, American Journal of

Sociology, Vol.101, No.1, July, pp.44-99.

[24] Mahoney, J. T. and Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the

conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-

380.

[25] Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-

capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387-401

[26] March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Cambridge,

MA:Blackwell

[27] Markides, C. C. (1995). Diversification, restructuring and economic performance.

Strategic Management Journal, 16, 101–118.

[28] Matthews, J. A. 2003. Competitive dynamics and economic learning: An

extended resource based view. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (1): 115-145.

[29] McDougal,P.P., and Oviatt, B.M.(2000). International entrepreneurship the

intersection of two paths. Academy of Management Journal. 43(5):902-906.

[30] Menon, G.A (2008). Revisiting dynamic capability (Award winning student essay

reprint no 08102) IIMB Management Review. 20(1) 22-33.

[31] Menon, G.A. and Mohanty, B. (2008), Towards a Theory of Dynamic

Capabilities for Firms:6th Aims international conference on Management

[32] Morris, M.H. and Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Fort Worth,

TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

[33] Nelson R.R, and Winter S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic

Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

[34] Palby and Carlson (1988). Knowing a Winning Business Idea When You See

One. Harvard Business Review, September – October, 129-137.

[35] Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance, and the entropy

measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 239–255.

[36] Pavlou, H. (2004) IT- enabled Dynamic capabilities in the new product

development: building a competitive advantage in a turbulent environment.

Doctoral thesis university of southern California.

[37] Phan, P.H., M. Wright, D. Ucbasaran & W.-L. Tan. (2009). Corporate

entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business

Venturing, 24(3): 197-205.

[38] Picoli, I.M. and Easterby-Smith, M.(2006).Dynamic capability and the role of

organizational knowledge. An exploration. European Journal of Information

Systems 15(5) 500-510

[39] Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don’t Have to Leave the

Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. New York: Harper and Row.

[40] Ping, R.A. (2004). On Assuring Valid Measurement for Theoretical Models

Using? Survey Data. Journal of Business Research 57: 125-141

[41] Priem, R. L. and Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful

perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management

Review, 26 (1), 22-40.


Nigeria


[42] Ramachandran. K. (2003). Customer Dissatisfaction as a Source of

Entrepreneurial Opportunity. Nanyang Business Review, 2 (2), 21-38.

[43] Rule EG and Irwin DW (1988) Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive

edge, The Journal of Business Strategy 9(3), 44-47.

[44] Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2010). Sustainable Entrepreneurship and

Sustainability Innovation: Categories and Interactions. Business Strategy and the

Environment vol. 20, 222–237

[45] Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In: C. Kent, D.

Sexton & K. Vesper (Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[46] Schumpeter , J.A.(1960) The Theory of Economic Development, New York:

Oxford university Press

[47] Shane S. and Venkataraman S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field

of research.Academy of Management Review 25(1): 217-226. doi:

10.2307/259271

[48] Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional

issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entreprenership: Theory and

Practice, 23(3):11-27

[49] Teece, D. J., G. Pisano. 1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms. Industrial and

Corporate Change, 3 (3): 537-556.

[50] Vozikis, G. S., Bruton, G. D., Prasad, D., & Merikas, A. A. (1999). Linking

corporate entrepreneurship to financial theory through additional value creation.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 33–43.

[51] Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004) The resource-based view and information

systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Q

28:107–142

[52] Dr. C. Vijaya, Dr. Manjula Das and Ms. Mitrabindha Das. Entrepreneurship

Competencies and Competitive Advantage of Small and Medium Enterprises of

Odisha – A Statistical Analysis, International Journal of Management, 6(1), 2015,

pp. 1 - 5.

[53] Wang, C. L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: a review and

research agenda. The international journal of management Reviews, 9(1): 31-51.

[54] Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management

Journal 5(2): 171–180.

[55] Dr. Simran Kaur and Mr. Vikas Arya. Current Role of Entrepreneurship in

Global Green Market, International Journal of Management, 4(5), 2013, pp. 1 - 5.

[56] Wiklund, J. 1999 The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation –

performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24: 37-48.

[57] Winter, S. G. (2003). “The satisficing principle in capability learning.” Strategic

Management Journal 21 (Oct-Nov (special issue)): 981-996.

[58] Winter S.G. (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management

Journal 24(10): 991–995.

[59] Zollo, M. and Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of

dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13, 339-35

[60] Ejedafiru, Efe Francis (Cln) Toyo, David Oghenevwogaga, Promoting

Entrepreneurship In Library And Information Science For Self-Reliance:

Paradigm Shift For LIS Graduates In Nigeria, International Journal of Library

and Information Science 4(1), 2015, pp. 70 - 77.

Date post:	04-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DYNAMIC ......Corporate Entrepreneurship And Dynamic Capabilities In...

Documents