Title: Keywords: CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITHIN THE PRETORIA EAST HOSPITAL Corporate Entrepreneurship, CEAI, Management Support, Rewards/Reinforcement, Time Availability, and Organisational Boundaries. Author/ Name: Prof JJ van Vuuren & Miss Anje Bouwmeesters Position: Van Vuuren: Chairman: Chair in Entrepreneurship, Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Bouwmeesters: Lecturer in Entrepreneurship, Unit for Entrepreneurship, University of South Africa, South Africa Organization: University of Pretoria Full address: Lynnwood Rd, Pretoria, South Africa Country: South Africa Phone/Fax: (2712) 420-3401/ Fax: (2712) 362-5198 Email: [email protected], [email protected]Website: www.up.ac.za
Transcript
Title: Keywords:
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITHIN THE PRETORIA EAST HOSPITAL
Corporate Entrepreneurship, CEAI, Management
Support, Rewards/Reinforcement, Time Availability,
and Organisational Boundaries.
Author/ Name: Prof JJ van Vuuren & Miss Anje Bouwmeesters
Position:
Van Vuuren: Chairman: Chair in Entrepreneurship, Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Bouwmeesters: Lecturer in Entrepreneurship, Unit for Entrepreneurship, University of South Africa, South Africa
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITHIN THE PRETORIA EAST HOSPITAL
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the level of intensity of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) and the recognition of corporate entrepreneurship by management within the Pretoria East Hospital, (in Gauteng province, South Africa) using five key areas. Kuratko, Hornsby and Montagno’s (2000) Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI) was used as the survey instrument for this study. A sample consisting of 301 respondents within the Pretoria East Hospital was used. The responses of the CEAI results were studied by means of descriptive statistics including the mean, standard deviation, frequencies, variance and ANOVA (Mann-Whitney). The 15 highest values as revealed by the standard deviation were taken and the significance and implications of the questions discussed individually. ANOVA (Mann-Whitney) was then used to determine whether there are significant differences between the ICU theatres and the other units/divisions within the hospital. The study concluded by revealing the Corporate Entrepreneurship dimensions which indicate whether the Pretoria East Hospital may be regarded as an entrepreneurial organisation. Key words: Corporate Entrepreneurship, CEAI, Management Support, Rewards/Reinforcement, Time Availability, and Organisational Boundaries.
2
1. INTRODUCTION Corporate entrepreneurship is an evolving area of research. Business schools and the media are constantly emphasising the need for entrepreneurial management as a way to refresh, revive and strengthen organisations (Block 1983:22). It is an important element in economic and organisational development. Today corporate entrepreneurship is an extremely controversial concept, for which many exponents use various terms, all of which actually refer to the same concept. These terms include intrapreneurship, internal corporate entrepreneurship, venture management, corporate venturing, strategic renewal, and internal corporate venturing (Zahra, Jennings & Kuratko 1999:51; Ferreira 2001:59; Antoncic & Hisrich 2001:497, Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra 2002:254). Intrapreneurship refers to an individual, otherwise known as a champion, who initiates and implements a new product or service within an organisation. When reference is made to the management of an organisation and innovation, an “entrepreneurial philosophy”, strategy, orientation forms part and parcel of the daily activities and outlook that forms part of the organisation. The construct corporate venturing refers to a situation in which an existing and established organisation enters into new business or internal ventures where the emphasis is usually on a process (Covin & Miles 1999:48; Antoncic & Hisrich 2001:497; Ferreira 2001:61). For the purpose of this document corporate entrepreneurship will be used in the context of describing the behaviour in medium sized as well as large organisations which are in the process of acquiring new innovative skills by means of formal and informal activities, strategic renewal and corporate venturing, in order to reenergise and improve the current situation. All organisations need to increase the level and incidence of entrepreneurship in order to survive in the highly competitive, dynamic and globalising business environment. The purpose of this study is to highlight the need for corporate entrepreneurship in an organisation, even in a private hospital, as well as to define the problem existing in the Pretoria East Hospital, and also indicate the scope of the study (Morris & Kuratko 2002:31). 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION The environment in which hospitals operate today is both dynamic and competitive (Bisseker 2002:1). In order to ensure competitive advantage, market dominance and organisational growth private hospitals need to develop a proactive strategy. This strategy should ensure the use and implementation of new and improved products and services, together with better operating technology and methods before any of their competitors, in order to reduce costs and maximise profit. This would require that a private hospital be adaptable, flexible, aggressive and innovative. In other words the organisation has to be entrepreneurial. The one aspect that distinguishes an entrepreneurial hospital from a non-entrepreneurial hospital is the rate of innovation and the new products or services that are being introduced, as this ensures profitability and effectiveness, and will help to ensure that the hospital becomes even more competitive. The importance of documenting the extent to which employees perceive various internal factors is believed to foster an entrepreneurial environment. This can be seen from Figure 1 below.
3
Figure 2.1: Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment conducive to corporate entrepreneurship
Resource availability
Organisational factors Management support Work discretion Rewards / reinforcement Time availability Organisational boundaries
Entrepreneurial strategy (selected by executive management)
Source: Hornsby et al 2002:261 Top management at the Pretoria East Hospital decided on an aggressive policy of pursuing the future and becoming more entrepreneurial. The first step was to carry out an assessment and measure the actual levels of entrepreneurial activities. In the same way as the quality factor of systems and procedures are measured and addressed in order to promote the development of new and better processes, so corporate entrepreneurship needs to infiltrate the entire hospital as a process. This process commences by determining how supportive the corporate environment is. Although literature has identified a variety of corporate entrepreneurial factors, it has been found that there are a few factors that are consistent throughout, namely the appropriate use of rewards, resources and the availability thereof, management support, organisational support, and risk taking (Morris & Kuratko 2002:299). The purpose of this research is to explore and learn how the employees within the organisation perceive their workplace and the organisation in order to help management examine and refine its leadership style. At the organisational level it then becomes possible over time to establish a benchmark and track entrepreneurial performance, assess employee performance variables, entrepreneurial actions, goals, strategies and norms (Morris & Kuratko 2002:290). 3. PROBLEM STATEMENT The main goal of this research is to identify and determine whether it is possible to regard a private hospital, the Pretoria East Hospital, in Gauteng province, South Africa, as an entrepreneurial organisation.
4
4. AIM/IMPORTANCE OF THIS STUDY The importance of this study lies in these four components: • “Companies that are able to take advantage of the competitive advantage they
own today and are at the same time able to use innovation to shape advantages they intend to use tomorrow, increase their chances of long-term survival, growth and financial success" (Kuratko et al. 2001:61). The strategy of an organisation refers to the set of actions and commitments taken by the organisation to develop and exploit a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Covin & Miles 1999:47; Russel 1999:65; Antoncic & Hisrich 2001:523; Morris & Kuratko 2002:157).
• Corporate entrepreneurship enables economic, social and organisational development by increasing productivity, improving international competencies, creating new industries, and improving current ways of operating (Covin & Miles, 1999:50; Kuratko & Welsh 2001:356; Antoncic & Hisrich 2003:518).
• Companies that compete in international markets can, by means of corporate entrepreneurship, innovate constantly and cope with the global economy’s very competitive realities, thus representing an important method of generating value (Kuratko & Welsh 2001:346).
• Corporate entrepreneurship can have an effect on direct as well as indirect wealth creation and also on the performance of an organisation (Covin & Miles 1999:47; Barrett, Balloun & Weinstein 2000:57; Antoncic & Hisrich 2003:518).
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5.1 Sampling design In this research a subjective approach using nonprobability sampling is applied, as this approach meets the sampling objectives satisfactorily. This method of nonprobability is unrestricted, and is thus a convenient method as the researcher has freedom of choice within the sample in order to complete the CEAI. The response rate of 43 percent resulted in a sample of 301 respondents (n=301) out of a population of 700 (N=700) respondents. The respondents were employed at all levels within the Pretoria East Hospital, taking into consideration the fact that the organisation operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 5.2 Propositions
P1: Managerial support contributes significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P2: Organisational boundaries do not contribute significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P3: Work discretion does not contribute significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P4: Rewards do not contribute significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital.
5
P5: The availability of time does not contribute significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital
5.3 Research design According to Cooper and Schindler (2003:146-150) the degree to which the research question has been crystallised indicates that this is a formal study as the study begins with a research question, and involves precise procedures and data source specifications with the goal of testing the propositions. In this case study design an experimental pre-test, post-test experimental design was used:
O X O The above indicates the observation or measurement of the dependant variable (corporate entrepreneurship) followed by the treatment or manipulation of the independent variables (five constructs as measured by the CEAI) followed in turn by a further observation or measurement of the dependant variable (corporate entrepreneurship). For the purposes of this research the results reported are based on the data generated by the pre-test, the effect of the manipulation will then be measured after a period of twelve months and, in this way, the experimental design will be executed. Research environment and application of the case study were carried out in the actual organisational environmental conditions within the Pretoria East Hospital. The purpose of the study was to discover whether and to what extent the Pretoria East Hospital may be regarded as an entrepreneurial organisation. The time dimension is cross-sectional, as the research was carried out only once and represents a snapshot of what was happening at a particular point in time within the Pretoria East Hospital. The researcher’s control over the variables reveals an ex post fact design, as the researcher had in fact no control over the variables. There was no possible way to manipulate the variables. It was possible only to report what was happening and what had happened. The topical scope was designed for breadth rather that depth, as the characteristics of the sample will attempt to make inferences regarding the characteristics of the population – thus there was use made of a statistical study. The propositions were therefore tested quantitatively. The strength of this particular method of research is revealed in the fact that it is possible to generalise the findings to the entire population from which the sample was drawn, as an appropriate sampling design was implemented. Measurement reliability and high construct validity is present due to proper questionnaire construction and proper controls being implemented. Snyman (2005) reveals that this measuring tool is indeed reliable and valid as the Cronbach’s Alpha values reported were very high (above 0.7), indicating that the various constructs correlate strongly with what was measured.
6
5.4 Data collection Data collection was carried out by means of communication as the researcher questioned the subjects and collected their responses by means of the CEAI in November 2004. This method of data collection is empirical in nature. The design also makes use of numeric data with medium control or structure. The parameter of interest and type of data used consists of nominal and ordinal data. Nominal data will be used in respect of the geographic information, and ordinal data (strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, strongly agree) used in respect of the 48 statements or questions contained in the questionnaire. 5.5 Data analysis For the purpose of this study the descriptive statistics used to describe the captured data include frequencies, means and standard deviations. In order to measure the spread of the score dispersion about the mean, the variance was calculated. Inferential statistics involving the analysis of variance (ANOVA, Mann-Whitney) were used in order to determine whether distinct differences exist between ICU theatres and other units/divisions within the hospital. 5.6 Measurement instrument Kuratko, Hornsby and Montagno (1990) developed a structured questionnaire, the CEAI (Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument), specifically to measure entrepreneurial activity within the manufacturing industry. The instrument contains 84 Likert-style questions that address all issues in order to be able to assess the entrepreneurial environment within the firm. The purpose was to determine the way in which the individual perceives his/her current workplace. This is very useful for organisations that wish to embark on strategic renewal by means of corporate entrepreneurship. Factor analysis and a reliability assessment were carried out in order to determine the properties of the instrument (Hornsby et al 2002:254). The instrument was designed to measure five constructs/independent variables in an organisation over which management exercises some form of control. These include
• management support for corporate entrepreneurship • work discretion • rewards/reinforcement • time availability • organisational boundaries
The construction of the instrument which enables us to assess these five constructs is done by means of a five-point Likert scale. At times the values that were too significant to interpret were combined to a four-point Likert scale. The desired outcome of the CEAI is to determine the level of corporate entrepreneurship intensity (dependant variable) and recognition by management within an organisation. The demographic variables included in the study were division/department/unit, gender, age, ethnicity and number of years’ service.
7
5.7 Limitations Certain limitations of the study design used might be the lack of depth and insider perspective. Possible sources of error could be due to questionnaire error, interviewer effects, data capturing errors, and analysis (Mouton 2001:153). The high level of uncertainty reported might be due to the fact that the respondents did not fully understand the questions posed, or perhaps because they felt uncertain about possible implications resulting from their answers. Thus in some cases it became necessary to combine “strongly agree” and “agree” responses as well as “strongly disagree” and “disagree” responses in order to obtain a better visual indication of all the responses. 6. FINDINGS In this section the objective is to state the findings, but not to draw any conclusions or make any interpretations. Descriptive and inferential data will be indicated in tabular format, indicating the differences and relationships between the variables within the sample. Histograms will indicate the responses to the questions as calculated using the CEAI. 6.1 Constructs discussion (dependant variables)
6.1.1 Managerial support This construct pertains to the receptiveness of managers to accommodate entrepreneurial activities, in other words, their readiness to create an environment that allows for entrepreneurship and innovation. Innovation may take various forms within a company. Management must ensure that they communicate clearly as to what they want and from whom, and also emphasise that innovations of higher and lower risk need to be pursued simultaneously. An example of management support would be if management actually recognised, supported and quickly approved employees who brought ideas and small experimental projects to the table, and at the same time, provided them with the funds necessary to embark upon the project (Hornsby et al 1993:30-32; Morris & Kuratko 2002:291).
6.1.2 Autonomy/work discretion This refers to the degree of freedom employees enjoy in carrying out their work, and includes permission to show initiative as management is prepared to support innovation and risk taking while at the same time avoiding criticism in cases where mistakes might occur (Hornsby et al 1993:32; Morris & Kuratko 2002:236).
6.1.3 Reward system In order for a reward system to be effective, in other words, to serve as a means of motivation and reinforcement, clear goals should be stated, individual responsibility emphasised, feedback received, and the reward based upon results (Hornsby et al 1993:30). An organisation with policies consistent with entrepreneurial behaviour will
8
ensure, firstly, that the emphasis is on long-term performance, secondly, that it is customised at divisional or departmental level, and thirdly, that it is tailored specifically to individuals with the emphasis on individual performance together with incentives for group efforts. Fourthly, the organisation must ensure rewards are merit and incentive based. fifthly that there is significant financial reward, and, lastly, that rewards will be based on external equity and challenge while at the same time increasing responsibility (Morris & Kuratko 2002:242).
6.1.4 Time availability
Of all the resources available, time is the most precious yet most limited resource as it is perishable. Time cannot be stored, rented, hired or bought, and yet it is critical during all the stages of a venture (Hisrich & Peters 2002:512). Time as a resource should be perceived as a resource to be used for innovative purposes. Organisations should ensure that workload allows time for innovation, avoids deadlines, and facilitates being able to work in a team while focusing on long-term problem solving (Hornsby et al 1993:32).
6.1.5 Organisational boundaries
This construct seeks to address the chain of command, the span of control, and the empowerment of teams that replace departments. Not only does the construct include the way in which an employee perceives the organisation, it also breaks down organisational boundaries and hierarchical structures, and at the same time puts into place the most entrepreneurial strategy and structures turning them into entrepreneurial practices, processes and procedures (Hisrich & Peters 2002:96). Organisations should therefore avoid standard operating procedures, constricted job descriptions and unyielding standards of performance (Hornsby et al 1993:32). 6.2 Demographic Information (independent variables)
6.2.1 Department/division/unit distribution The sample covered a wide range of the hospital units. Three hundred and one questionnaires were received back after issuing the questionnaires by hand. The best response rate – a response rate of 34 percent – was received from Group 1 (theatres, general wards, orthopaedic, gynaecology, ICU, day care, neonatal). Group 7 (kitchen and students) had the lowest response rate, namely 2 percent, of the total number of questionnaires handed out. Other departments, such as Group 2 (labour, postnatal, children and paediatrics) and Group 5 (management, administration and maintenance) had a cumulative response rate of 35 percent.
9
TABLE 6.1: DIVISION/DEPARTMENT/UNIT DISTRIBUTION
Division/department/unit Response %
Group 1: Theatres – general, orthopaedic, gynaecology, ICU
(Ward M), daycare (Ward A), neonatal
34%
Group 2: (Wards E, F), labour, postnatal, children’s ward,
Paediatrics
18%
Group 3: General wards (Wards B, C, D1, D2) 6%
Group 4: Orthopaedic (Wards J, K, L) 13%
Group 5: Management, administration, maintenance 17%
Group 6: Pharmacy 9%
Group 7: Kitchen and students 2%
Total number of questionnaires received 301
The sample consisted of a skew distribution of women (87%) and men (13%) (Table.2). The respondents fell into three distinctive age groups: 27 percent between 20-29 years of age; 33 percent between 30-39 years of age; and 26 percent between 40-49 years of age (Table 3).
TABLE 6.2: GENDER DISTRIBUTION
Gender Percent
Male 13%
Female 87%
10
TABLE 6.3: AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age group Percent 20-29 27%
30-39 33%
40-49 26%
50-59 10%
60-69 4%
Total 100%
The distribution of ethnic groups within the hospital (table 4) indicated that the largest group of employees are Caucasian (63%) and the smallest group Asian (2%).
TABLE 6.4: ETHNICITY DISTRIBUTION
Ethnicity Percent Caucasian 63%
African 31%
Coloured 4%
Asian 2%
Total 100%
6.5 NUMBER OF YEARS SERVICE IN THE HOSPITAL It is interesting to note in terms of the age distribution that the largest group falls within the lowest age segment 20-39, while the number of years’ service decreases progressively (figure 1) as the length of service increases. The average number of years’ service is slightly above four years, indicating a frequent change in work environment for personnel. The reason for the sudden increase in years’ service that can be seen at eight years’ services is due to the fact that the hospital was officially opened eight years ago and those staff members with eight years’ service have been employed at the hospital since it opened. Could this be a factor influencing the level of entrepreneurship within the hospital?
11
FIGURE 6.1: NUMBER OF YEARS’ SERVICE
Number of years in service
23.13
14.6312.93
9.527.82 7.14 6.12
11.22
5.44
2.06
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Years in service
Perc
enta
ge
Summary Mean Standard deviation Years’ service 4.2040816 2.9901745
12
6.6 CONSTRUCTS The 15 most significant variables as revealed by the highest standard deviations will be discussed individually, and will be illustrated by the answers given by the respondents. Table 6.5: Summary of the most significant variables
Variable Mean Standard deviation
I feel that I am my own boss and do not have to double-check all of my decisions with someone else.
2.5117 1.2250
Harsh criticism and punishment result from mistakes made on the job.
2.9689 1.1508
This organisation provides the opportunity to be creative and try out my own methods of doing the job.
3.0982 1.0819
I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job. 2.7642 1.1382 It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done.
3.4436 1.1412
I almost always get to decide what I do on my job. 2.8310 1.1172 I have autonomy on my job and am left on my own to do my own work.
3.4197 1.0523
I seldom have to follow the same work methods or steps for doing my major tasks from day to day.
2.8737
1.1679
My manager helps me get my work done by removing obstacles and roadblocks.
3.5904 1.0450
The rewards I receive are dependant upon my work on the job.
3.0641 1.1814
During the past three months, my workload has kept me from spending time developing new ideas.
3.4203 1.0940
I always have plenty of time to get everything done. 2.4560 1.1099 I have just enough time and workload to do everything well.
2.8225 1.1479
There is little uncertainty in my job. 3.2777 1.0784 During the past year my immediate supervisor discussed my work performance with me frequently.
3.2822 1.1858
13
Figure 6.2:
“I feel that I am my own boss and do not have to double-check all of my decisions with someone else.”
Question 20
9
23
39
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
It was revealed that 39 percent of respondents are unsure as to whether they are their own bosses, and have to double-check all decisions made with someone else. However when combining the values an astounding 71 percent indicate that they are unsure of or disagree with this statement. This is a possible indication of areas where time is being wasted – time that could be used more effectively for the development of new ideas and innovation. Figure 6.3:
“Harsh criticism and punishment result from mistakes made on the job.”
Question 21
9
33 31 27
010203040
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
Here it is revealed that 71 percent of the respondents disagree with or are unsure of this statement, indicating an awareness that mistakes are bound to happen within the workplace. The decision as to what happens after a mistake has been made is in the
14
hands of management. This contributes positively to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the hospital. Figure 6.4:
“This organisation provides the chance to be creative and try my own methods of doing the job.”
Question 22
7
26
42
25
05
1015202530354045
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
It is interesting to note that this statement indicates one of the highest percentages (42%) of uncertainty of all the statements discussed. When combining the binominal responses to this question we are able to draw another conclusion as to why the level of entrepreneurial intensity is so low. Seventy-five percent of respondents revealed that they are not given the opportunity to be creative and try out their own methods of doing their job. Providing the chance to be creative is a factor which would definitely enhance the entrepreneurial process within the hospital.
15
Figure 6.5:
“I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job”
Question 25
7
2530
38
0
10
20
30
40
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
Although 38 percent of the respondents indicated that they agree with this statement it should be noted that 62 percent indicated that they do not have the freedom to decide what they do in their specific positions. Having the freedom to decide what needs to be done in a certain position alone would make the hospital an outstanding entrepreneurial organisation, as this freedom should go hand in hand with creativity and innovation. This is what would be needed to take the hospital to a new and higher level. Figure 6.6:
“It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done”
Question 26
23
38
7
32
0
10
20
30
40
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
More than 61 percent of the respondents indicated that it is not their responsibility to decide how the work should be done. Very little (7%) uncertainty was reported. This is a sure indication of the hierarchy present within the organisation. Unfortunately there are proven methods and procedures that need to be followed in the daily
16
activities and responsibilities of the hospital staff, leaving little space for creativity and innovation. However surely there must be some ways for doing things more efficiently and effectively. Figure 6.7:
“I almost always get to decide what I do on my job”
Question 27
8
37
12
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
No clear answer to this question emerged as 43 percent agree and 57 percent either disagree or are unsure. This is due to the fact that top and middle management make decisions as to what they do in their positions, while those working at lower levels in the hospital are told what to do and they regard it as compulsory to comply with these instructions.
17
Figure 6.8:
“I have autonomy on my job and am left on my own to do my own work.”
Question 28
7
2718
43
5
01020304050
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Stronlgly Agree
Perc
enta
gee
A factor that could be promoting entrepreneurship is the fact that 43 percent of the employees agree that they are given the autonomy to do their work on their own, although 62 percent disagreed and were unsure. The implication here is that the hospital should encourage group effort and an integrative job design. Figure 6.9:
“I seldom have to follow the same work methods or steps for doing my tasks from day to day”
Question 29
7
2616
51
0102030405060
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
Perc
enta
gee
The fact that 51 percent agreed with the statement that they seldom have to follow the same work methods or steps for major day-to-day tasks indicates that there is not too much consistency within the hospital. This could indirectly affect the time spent on various tasks, as either time may be wasted or else spare time may not be used to be creative and innovative, and work on new and better methods and ideas. This may also be an indication of freedom within the workplace, which, if present, could
18
make a positive contribution to the organisational boundaries which in turn ontributes to the level of corporate entrepreneurial intensity within the hospital. c
Figure
My manager helps me get my work done by removing obstacles and roadblocks.”
6.10:
“
Question 30
616 18
56
40
102030405060
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Perc
enta
gee
It is interesting to note that 60 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that their managers help with the removal of obstacles and roadblocks within the work environment. An essential aspect of the entrepreneurial process is the removal of
bstacles, as this contributes to the development of ideas which can then be ansformed into opportunities.
Figure
“The rewards I receive are dependant upon my work on the job”
onse is present. The respondents indicated that 62 percent of them do
otr
6.11:
Question 31
12
39
11
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
Perc
enta
gee
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure (Strongly) Agree
When considering the rewards that are received it becomes clear that another binominal resp
19
not receive rewards based upon the standard of their work. One of the most
ividual remains motivated to be entrepreneurial in his work is a nction of the effort spent on entrepreneurial activities that will in turn lead to a
uccessful performance evaluation which will, in its turn, lead to a reward (Morris & 244).
Fig
“During the past three months my workload kept me from spending time in developing new ideas.”
influential factors ensuring entrepreneurial activity is a reward and compensation programme. Ensuring that the indfusKuratko 2002:
ure 6.12:
Question 36
4
1610
57
13
0102030405060
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Stronlgly Agree
Perc
enta
gee
It is very significant that 70 percent of the respondents indicated that their workload of the past three months has prevented them from spending time developing new
eas. As with finance the availability of time is a very sensitive area in corporate entrepreneurship. Management should decide how to make time available for staff to develop new ideas and processes.
id
20
Figure 6.13:
“I always have plenty of time to get everything done”
Question 37
12
24
14
44
6
05
101520253035404550
Strongly disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Stronlgly Agree
Perc
enta
gee
In response to question 38, 50 percent of the respondents revealed that they have plenty of time in which to complete their work. Figure 6.14:
“I have just enough time and workload to do everything well.”
Question 38
1218
61
9
010203040506070
(Strongly) Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Perc
enta
gee
Here the emphasis is on the resource “time”. It is significant that 70 percent of the respondents indicated that there is just enough time to complete what needs to be done as well as possible. Time is the resource that is the least “budgeted” and this
21
can lead to a lack of innovation and information, and, in time, a decline in entrepreneurial motivation. Figure 6.15:
“There is little uncertainty in my job.”
Question 45
3
2519
47
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Stronlgle Agree
Perc
enta
gee
When the results are combined they reveal that 72 percent either agree with the statement or are unsure about the ramifications of their specific job. Practices that encourage entrepreneurship should reveal an integrative job design with significant job discretion that is less structured. Uncertainty as regards a job will mean little or no risk taking.
22
Figure 6.16:
“During the past year my immediate supervisor has frequently discussed my work performance with me.”
Question 46
20
12
57
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
(Strongly) Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Perc
enta
gee
Sixty-eight percent of the respondents agreed that performance reviews within the last year took place on a regular basis, thus ensuring that employees comply with the necessary standards, emphasising effectiveness over efficiency, and high employee involvement. This could be a positive factor in entrepreneurial intensity if it reflects a tolerance of failure, includes innovation and emphasises long-term performance. Table 6.6: Summary of constructs
Construct Scale mean Standard deviations
Variance
Managerial support 2.9414 1.0079 0.3427
Work discretion 3.0434 1.1117 0.3670
Rewards 3.5324 1.0137 0.2870
Time availability 3.0301 1.0575 0.3490
Organisational boundaries
3.6531 0.9566 0.2619
The information presented above reveals that the various means for the constructs range between 2.9 to 3.7. This indicates that virtually all the respondents either disagreed with and/or were uncertain about the various questions posed to them. We use the variance in order to measure the score dispersion around the mean. If all the scores are identical then the variance would be 0; the greater the dispersion of
23
the scores, the greater the variance. As indicated in Table 6, work discretion indicated the highest variance (0.3670), while organisational boundaries indicated the lowest variance (0.2619). In the following section certain inferential statistics will be discussed. The analysis of variance (Mann-Whitney) will be used to indicate whether there are significant differences between the ICU theatres and other units/divisions within the Pretoria East Hospital. Table 6.7: Summary of variables indicating significant differences between ICU theatres and other units/divisions in the hospital
Variable F P Use of quick and improved work methods Upper managements awareness and receptiveness of ideas and suggestions The “doers” of the projects are allowed to make decisions without going through elaborate justification and approval procedures Successful innovative individuals receive additional rewards and compensation that is beyond the standard reward system Feeling of being own boss and not having to double-check all decisions with someone else Provision of the chance to be creative and try personal methods of doing the job Autonomy on the job, left to do work alone A lot of challenge on the job The past three months standard operating procedures have been followed in order to complete tasks Many rules and procedures exist for major tasks
4.61
4.21
4.31
7.35
1.26
0.37
23.28
9.01
5.33
13.33
0.0326*
0.0411*
0.0388*
0.0071*
0.0060*
0.0213*
0.0093*
0.0010*
0.0499*
0.0230*
* (Alpha = 0,05) Table 7 is a summary of the inferential statistics that were determined in the research. ANOVA (Mann-Whitney) was used to determine whether significant differences exist between ICU and the other units or divisions within the hospital. An Alpha value of 0.05 was used, which clearly indicates that, in some instances, as can be seen in the table, we are able to conclude and say with 95 percent certainty that there are definitely distinct differences between specifically ICU and the other units/divisions in the hospital.
24
The most significant differences revealed were, inter alia, the use of quick and improved work methods, top management’s awareness of employees’ new ideas and suggestions, decision making, rewards and compensation for innovation, creativity and own work methods, autonomy, supervision, standard operating procedures, and rules and procedures for major tasks. The distinct differences are in actual fact reporting the significance and purpose of the responsibilities of the duties as it should be portrait. ICU and the other units/divisions in a hospital differ, as intensive care units follow distinct rules and procedures owing to the life-or-death nature of the situations they deal with. These rules and procedures, which have proved successful to date, have to be followed and adhered to. 7. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS The objective of this section is state the findings, and not to draw any conclusions or interpretations. Descriptive and inferential data will be indicated in tabular format, indicating differences and relationships between various variables within the sample. Histograms will indicate to us the response upon the questions stated as calculated from the CEAI. 7.1 Summary of the findings Figure 7.1: Corporate entrepreneurship dimensions within Pretoria East Hospital
Percentage of CE within Pretoria East Hospital
24.31%
13.67%
14.31% 11.83%
11.08%0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%Managerial Support
OrganisationalBoundaries
Work DiscretionRewards
Time Availability
25
Research conducted demonstrates the importance of measuring entrepreneurial intensity, as it could be used to determine the training and development needs and the strategic issues to be addressed within an organisation. The percentages in Figure 5.1 indicate the level of corporate entrepreneurship in the Pretoria East Hospital, which was deduced from the responses to the questionnaires issued. Taking the percentages and the various means for the constructs into consideration, the level of entrepreneurship is very low. The results of the study strongly suggest that not all the dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship are included in the mindset of management at the Pretoria East Hospital, accepting all propositions that state:
P1: Managerial support does contribute significantly to level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P2: Organisational boundaries do not contribute significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P3: Work discretion does not contribute significantly to level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P4: Rewards do not contribute significantly to level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital. P5: The availability of time does not contribute significantly to the level of entrepreneurial intensity within the Pretoria East Hospital.
For example, the construct “organisational boundaries” had the lowest percentage (11.08%), while “managerial support” indicated the highest (24.31%), 80–100 percent higher than the rest. If the means of the constructs are examined, the indications are that respondents were mostly unsure about their responses with regard to the questions presented to them for the various constructs. From Figure 5.1 it can clearly be seen that organisational boundaries, a construct that is most definitely influenced by formal controls, is the weakest dimension on the entrepreneurial grid. The most important factor in corporate entrepreneurship, that is, organisational support, which encompasses to a huge degree the encouragement of management, is revealed to be the strongest dimension contributing to corporate entrepreneurial intensity in the Pretoria East Hospital. Evidence thus suggests that the Pretoria East Hospital is not an entrepreneurial organisation. 7.2 Contributions and implications A number of managerial implications can be drawn from the research, which are supported by the findings by Antoncic and Hisrich (2001:519-521) and Morris and Jones (1993:873-896). The findings of Antoncic and Hisrich (2004: 539-544, 2001:519-521) on the environmental and the organisational elements that significantly influence corporate
26
entrepreneurship, and the results of the research conducted at the Pretoria East Hospital, reveal the following: Organisational growth and wealth creation may be subject to the following industry growth characteristics:
• the demand for new products and services • technological opportunities • formal controls • organisational support • communication • competition-related values
The Pretoria East Hospital is part of a very competitive and dynamic environment that is subject to industry growth and technological changes. Thus, demand for new products and services are the order of the day. Some of the strongest findings regarding the relationship between the environment and corporate entrepreneurship indicate that there is a positive relationship between a dynamic environment and frequency of innovation, as well as an increase in financial performance and a higher success rate. In contrast, there is a negative relationship between entrepreneurial strategies and increase in performance in an organisation when stable environments are the order of the day. Although entrepreneurial ventures are thought to occur in all types of environment, they are actually “concentrated in dynamic, heterogeneous and hostile contexts” where not all organisations react in an entrepreneurial manner even if they are in the same environmental situation (Russel 1999:70). The relationship between the organisation and corporate entrepreneurship indicates that an effective method for implementing entrepreneurship is to introduce venture teams. By combining an organic structure with a strategic entrepreneurial stance, increased levels of performance are experienced (Russel 1999:66). Setting clear goals, increasing autonomy, allowing freedom over resources in order to develop more creative ideas, exchanging information, increasing communication, and facilitating feedback, participation and decentralised structures will increase commitment and participation for innovations and informal ad hoc problem solving (Russel 1999:77-79; McGrath, 2001:121). Paradoxes that may hinder success include (Simon et al 1999:146-147) a lack of entrepreneurial empowerment and flexibility, freedom, learning through experimentation, whereas the awareness and acceptance that mistakes are bound to happen will add to an environment that nurtures the development of an entrepreneurial attitude. It should be understood that the development of creative ideas into innovation requires a lot more than the efforts of just one individual. Organisational backing, where it ensures the provision of resources, support and autonomy, should be present. This type of organisational context will influence and motivate the development of ideas from members of the organisation (Russel 1999:69). Environmental and organisational influences may restrict or facilitate the materialisation of entrepreneurial ventures. The employees of an organisation should be aware of precipitating events and perceive them as opportunities to create new entrepreneurial ventures (Russel 1999:78).
27
7.3 Limitations of the research Great care needs to be taken to attend to concerns of the reliability, validity and generalisability of the research to other organisations and industries. Applying a four-point Likert scale to the CEAI may eliminate the high level of uncertainty reported. Objective versus subjective responses to questionnaires should be emphasised. Obtaining results of training needs, strategies and goals is a process that takes a considerable amount of time and requires a great deal of patience in order to reveal progression and an increase in the entrepreneurial intensity of an organisation. 7.4 Future research The following seven areas might be considered for future research into the theory of corporate entrepreneurship. In the Pretoria East Hospital in particular it would, firstly, be interesting to compare these findings with the critical performance indicators (CPIs) of the organisation. Secondly, it would be interesting to do an intervention measuring the effect of corporate venturing after 12-18 months. Thirdly, to compare the findings of the intervention, on the levels of Corporate Entrepreneurship and the CPI’s and wealth creation.in the Pretoria East Hospital. The fourth possible area of research is to compare the findings to other private hospitals in South Africa. Fifthly, a study could be made of the relationship between the number of ideas generated, the time spent on entrepreneurial ideas, and the willingness of employees to break entrepreneurial boundaries. Sixthly, firms that score high on the five factors of the CEAI could be compared to those that score low. A seventh and final area of potential research would be to do a comparison between different industries with regard to their entrepreneurial intensity.
7.5 Conclusion The findings demonstrate the purpose and measurement of corporate entrepreneurship and the way in which the CEAI can be used as a tool for assessing and evaluating the corporate training needs that should be addressed to increase entrepreneurial intensity. This should enable strategies and goals to be formulated that allow organisations, specifically the Pretoria East Hospital, to become organisations that are able to compete in a dynamic environment. In view of the recognised importance of entrepreneurship for reviving and re-energising an organisation, the research conducted contributes to a better understanding of corporate entrepreneurship and the environmental, organisational and individual contributions it makes as a strategy for wealth creation.
28
REFERENCES
Antoncic, B & Hisrich, RD. 2001. Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 495-527. Antoncic, B & Hisrich, RD 2001. Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organisational wealth creation. Journal of Management Development 23 (6): 518-548. Barrett, H, Balloun, JL & Weinstein, A. 2000. Marketing mix factors as moderators of the corporate entrepreneurship: business performance relationship – a multistage, multivariate analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Spring 8(2):50-62. Bisseker, C. 2002. Taking medical aid to the masses. Available online at: http://hst.org.za/news/20020806 (Downloaded: 2005-11-02). Block, Z. 1983. Can corporate venturing succeed? Journal of Business Strategy 3(2):22-33. Block, Z & MacMillan, IC. 1993. Corporate venturing: creating new business within the firm. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School. Burgelman, AR. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a process study. Management Science December 29(12):1349-1363. Cooper, RD & Schindler, PS. 2003. Business research methods, Eighth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Covin, JG & Miles, MP. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Spring: 47-63. Covin, JG & Slevin, DP. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Fall 16(1):7-26. Dess, GG, Lumpkin, GT & McGee, JE. 1999. Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Spring:85-101. Dollinger, MJ. 1999. Entrepreneurship: strategies and resources. Second edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fatal, T. 2003. Intrapreneurship at work. CMA Management November 77(7):14. Ferreira, J. 2001. Corporate entrepreneurship: a strategic structural perspective. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship Fall 4(2):59. Gerber et al. 2001. Human Resource Management. Oxford: Southern Africa. Grobler, PA; Warnich, S; Carrell, MR; Elbert, NF; & Hatfield, RD. 2002. Human Resource Management. Second edition. Thomson: Great Britain. Gundling, E. 2000. The 3M way to innovation: balancing people and profit:Japan: Kodansha International.
Guth, WD & Ginsberg, A. 1990. Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal 11 (Summer):5-15. Hornsby, SJ; Kuratko, DF & Zahra, SA. 2002. Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale.” Journal of Business Venturing 17:253-273. Hornsby, JS, Naffziger, DW, Kuratko, DF & Montagno, RV. 1993. An integrative model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Spring 17(2):31. Hisrich, RD & Peters, M. 2004. Entrepreneurship. Sixth edition.McGraw Hill Kanter, RM. 1983. The change masters. New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster. Kotze, T. 2005. Study guide for referencing in academic documents: official guidelines of the Department of Business Management. Pretoria: Department of Marketing and Communication Management, University of Pretoria. Kuratko, DF & Hodgetts, RM. 1998. Entrepreneurship a contemporary approach: Fourth edition. Dryden Press Harcourt Brace. Kuratko, DF, Hornsby, DW & Montagno, RV. 1990. Developing an intrapreneurial assessment for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Journal of Strategic Management. 11:49-59. Kuratko, DF, Hornsby, JS, Naffziger, DW & Montagno, RV. 1993. Implementing entrepreneurial thinking in established organisations. SAM Advanced Management Journal Winter:28-33.
Kuratko, DF; Ireland RD & Hornsby JS.. 2001. Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management November 15(4):60-71. Kuratko, DF & Welsch, HP. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurial growth: Harcourt College Publishers. MacMillan, IC. 1986. Progress in research on corporate venturing. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Ballinger Publishing Company Cambridge: 241-263. . McGrath, RG. 2001. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal 44(1):118-131. Morris, MH & Kuratko, DF. 2002. Corporate entrepreneurship. United States of America:Harcourt College Publishers. Morris, MP, Lewis I, & Sexton, D. 1994. Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship: an input-output perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal Winter 59(1):21-31. Morris, MP & Jones FF. 1993. Human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical assessment from the USA. International Journal of Human Resource Management December 4(4):873-896.
30
Morrow, JL. 2002. Someone old or someone new? The effects of CEO change on corporate entrepreneurship. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship Fall 5(2):21-33. Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your master’s and doctoral studies. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Naffziger, DW, Hornsby, SJ & Kuratko, DF. 1994. A proposed research model of entrepreneurship motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Spring:33 Nieman, G & Hough, J. 2003. Entrepreneurship: a South African perspective. Edited by Niewenhuizen C. Pretoria: Van Schaick. Pinchot, G. III. 1985. Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Row. Rule, EG & Irwin, DW. 1988. Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive edge. Journal of Business Strategy May/June 9(3):44-47. Russel, RD. 1999. Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: a cognitive mapping approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Spring 23(3):65-84. Shane, S. 1993. Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing 8(1): 59-73. Shays, EM & Chambeau, F. 1984. Harnessing entrepreneurial energy within the corporation. Management Review September:17-20. Schindehutte, M, Morris, HM & Kuratko, DF. 2000. Triggering events: corporate entrepreneurship and the marketing function. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Spring 8(2):18-30. Schundler, RS. 1986. Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organisations: implications for organisation structure and human resource management practices. Human Resource Management Winter 24(4):607-629. Simon M, Houghton SM, Gurney J. 1999. Succeeding at internal corporate venturing: roles needed to balance autonomy and control. Journal of Applied Management Studies December 8(2):145-159. Snyman AE, 2005. Establishing the level of corporate entrepreneurship within the faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the University of Pretoria. MPHIL Dissertation. University of Pretoria. Taylor, B. 2001. From corporate governance to corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Change Management December, 2:128-147. Zahra, SA. 1986. A canonical analysis of corporate entrepreneurship antecedents and impact on performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Management, 46:71-75.
31
Zahra, SA. 1991. Predictors of financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 259-258. Zahra, SA. 1993a. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing 8(4):319-340. Zahra, SA. 1993b. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour: a critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 17(4):5-22. Zarhra, SA. 1995. Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing 10:225-247. Zahra, SA & Covin, G. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 10:43-58. Zahra, SA; Jennings DF & Kuratko DF. 1999. The Antecedents and Consequences of Firm-Level Entrepreneurship: The State of the Field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Winter: 45-65. Zahra, SA & Garvis, DM. 2000. International corporate entrepreneurship and company performance: the moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing 15:469-492.
