Instant Download Corporate Volunteering Responsibility and Employee Entrepreneurship 1st Edition Aldona Glińska-Neweś PDF All Chapters

Visit https://ebookgate.
com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks
Corporate Volunteering Responsibility and Employee

Entrepreneurship 1st Edition Aldona Gli■ska-Newe■
_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookgate.com/product/corporate-volunteering-
responsibility-and-employee-entrepreneurship-1st-
edition-aldona-glinska-newes/
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookgate.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!
Pareto s 80 20 Rule for Corporate Accountants 1st Edition

David Parmenter
https://ebookgate.com/product/pareto-s-80-20-rule-for-corporate-
accountants-1st-edition-david-parmenter/
ebookgate.com
Commercial Electrical Inspector ICC E2 Exam Prep 2018th

Edition Cliff Burger
https://ebookgate.com/product/commercial-electrical-inspector-
icc-e2-exam-prep-2018th-edition-cliff-burger/
ebookgate.com
Plastid Genome Evolution Volume 85 1st Edition Shu-Miaw

Chaw
https://ebookgate.com/product/plastid-genome-evolution-volume-85-1st-
edition-shu-miaw-chaw/
ebookgate.com
Advances in Agronomy 80 1st Edition Donald L. Sparks
https://ebookgate.com/product/advances-in-agronomy-80-1st-edition-
donald-l-sparks/
ebookgate.com
Harmony of Colour 80 Teddies and Toys 1st Edition Nuclear
Media
https://ebookgate.com/product/harmony-of-colour-80-teddies-and-
toys-1st-edition-nuclear-media/
ebookgate.com
Frommer s Paris from 85 a day 9th ed Edition Haas Mroue
https://ebookgate.com/product/frommer-s-paris-from-85-a-day-9th-ed-
edition-haas-mroue/
ebookgate.com
The Art of BMW 85 Years of Motorcycling Excellence 1st

Edition Peter Gantriis
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-art-of-bmw-85-years-of-motorcycling-
excellence-1st-edition-peter-gantriis/
ebookgate.com
Entrepreneurship Values and Responsibility 1st Edition

Wojciech Gasparek
https://ebookgate.com/product/entrepreneurship-values-and-
responsibility-1st-edition-wojciech-gasparek/
ebookgate.com
Advances in Cancer Research 80 1st Edition George F. Vande

Woude (Editor)
https://ebookgate.com/product/advances-in-cancer-research-80-1st-
edition-george-f-vande-woude-editor/
ebookgate.com
i
Corporate Volunteering, Responsibility,

and Employee Entrepreneurship
Supporting employee entrepreneurship is among the major challenges

contemporary organisations face. Many facets of corporate entrepreneur-
ship are investigated, and the body of knowledge in the field is growing
rapidly; nevertheless, there are still knowledge and research gaps to be
filled. Notably, while there are studies linking HRM with corporate entre-
preneurship, studies on connections between corporate social responsi-
bility (CSR)-oriented practices and corporate/employee entrepreneurship
are to be developed.
The main goal of this book is to explain relationships between cor-
porate volunteering and employee entrepreneurship in organisations.
The book combines two extremely vivid fields of research: entrepreneur-
ship and CSR. Based on their own research, the authors present how
participation in corporate volunteering, as one of the CSR practices in
organisations, leads to strengthening employee entrepreneurial behav-
iour. The book offers a framework showing the role of CSR practices in
shaping entrepreneurial and innovative employees’ behaviour.
This book is aimed mainly at post- graduates, researchers, and
academics in the fields of entrepreneurship and corporate volunteering.
As it touches vital fields of managerial education and management, it
will also be of interest to master-level students at universities or business
schools as well as business practitioners.
Aldona Glińska-Neweś is Professor and Head of The Scientific Discipline

Council of Management and Quality Studies, as well as Head of the
Department of Organizational Behavior and Marketing at the Faculty of
Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in
Toruń, Poland.
Beata Glinka is Professor and Head of the Chair of Entrepreneurship

and Management Systems at the Faculty of Management, University of
Warsaw, Poland.
ii
Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship and Small Business

Edited by Robert Blackburn,
University of Liverpool, UK
Information Technology and Competitive Advantage in Small Firms

Brian Webb and Frank Schlemmer
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development in Post-Socialist

Economies
David Smallbone and Friederike Welter
The Management of Small and Medium Enterprises

Matthias Fink and Sascha Kraus
Small Business and Effective ICT: Stories and Practical Insights

Carmine Sellitto, Scott Bingley, David A. Banks, and Stephen Burgess
Motivating SMEs to Cooperate and Internationalize

A Dynamic Perspective
George Tesar and Zsuzsanna Vincze
How Small to Medium Enterprises Thrive and Survive in Turbulent

Times: From Deconstructing to Synthesizing Organizational Resilience
Capabilities
Yiu Hia Chu and Kosmas Smyrnios
Managing People in Small and Medium Enterprises in Turbulent Contexts

Alexandros Psychogios and Rea Prouska
Business Transfers, Family Firms and Entrepreneurship

Edited by Bérangère Deschamps, Audrey Missonier, Catherine
Thévenard-Puthod, Paulette Robic and Dominique Barbelivien
The Persistence of Entrepreneurship Myths: Reclaiming Enterprise

Simon Bridge
Corporate Volunteering, Responsibility, and Employee Entrepreneurship

Aldona Glińska-Neweś and Beata Glinka
iii
Corporate Volunteering,
Responsibility, and Employee
Entrepreneurship
Aldona Glińska-Neweś and

Beata Glinka
iv
First published 2021

by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Aldona Glińska-Neweś and Beata Glinka
The right of Aldona Glińska-Neweś and Beata Glinka to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-032-04811-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-04812-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-19475-0 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003194750
Typeset in Sabon
by Newgen Publishing UK
v
Contents
List of Figures viii

List of Boxes ix
About the Authors x
Acknowledgements xi
Introduction 1
Opening Remarks 1
Structure of the Book 3
1 Corporate Entrepreneurship 7
1.1 The Phenomenon of Corporate Entrepreneurship 8
1.1.1 The Understanding of Corporate Entrepreneurship 8
1.1.2 The Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship 10
1.2 Different Facets of Corporate Entrepreneurship 13
1.3 Measuring Corporate Entrepreneurship: Corporate
Entrepreneurship as a Construct 17
2 Who Becomes a Corporate Entrepreneur, and How? 22

2.1 Between Individual and Corporate Entrepreneurship 23
2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurs in Organisations 28
3 Designing the Entrepreneurial Environment 38

3.1 External Context of Corporate Entrepreneurship 38
3.2 Organisational Architecture: The Internal Context of
Corporate Entrepreneurship 41
3.2.1 Culture 42
3.2.2 Resources 45
3.2.3 Structure, Processes, and Procedures 47
3.2.4 Leadership, Management, and HR Practices 50
3.3 Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy: Best Practices and
Pitfalls in Corporate Entrepreneurship 52
vi
vi Contents
4 Corporate Social Responsibility as a Booster of
Employee Entrepreneurial Activities 59
4.1 Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Effects on
Companies 60
4.2 Corporate Social Responsibility and Work
Meaningfulness 62
4.3 Corporate Social Responsibility and Organisational
Commitment 63
4.4 Corporate Social Responsibility and Work Engagement 64
4.5 Corporate Social Responsibility and Relationships
at Work 65
4.6 Behavioural Effects of CSR and Corporate
Entrepreneurship 65
5 Nature, Types, and Outcomes of Corporate

Volunteering 74
5.1 Types of Corporate Volunteering 75
5.2 The Effects of Corporate Volunteering 78
5.3 Corporate Volunteering and Positive Relationships
at Work 81
5.4 Corporate Volunteering and Work Meaningfulness 82
5.5 Corporate Volunteering and Organisational
Commitment 84
6 Corporate Volunteering and Employee Competency

Development 89
6.1 Employee Competencies Developed Through Corporate
Volunteering 90
6.2 Characteristics of Volunteer Work and Work
Meaningfulness 92
6.3 Corporate Volunteering, Connectedness, and
Competency Development 93
6.4 Volunteer Contact with Beneficiaries 95
6.5 Logics of Competency Development Through Volunteer
Contact with Different Types of Beneficiaries 99
7 Volunteering and Entrepreneurship: Case Studies 105

7.1 Corporate Volunteering in Poland 106
7.2 The Study 107
7.2.1 Citi Handlowy Bank 108
7.2.2 Grupa Żywiec 112
7.2.3 PZU Group and PZU Foundation 115
7.3 Volunteer–Entrepreneurs: Final Remarks 122
vi
Contents vii
8 Concluding Remarks 124
8.1 Summary of Findings: The Framework of Corporate
Volunteering Contribution to Corporate
Entrepreneurship 124
8.2 Contributions and Practical Implications 126
8.3 Limitations and Further Research 127
Index 129
vi
Figures
1.1 Corporate entrepreneurship: the essence of the phenomenon 9

3.1 Entrepreneurial and bureaucratic cultures 42
6.1 Work-related skills and abilities developed due to
participation in corporate volunteering. 90
6.2 Who would you like to help in the coming year? 96
6.3 Four logics of employee competency development through
corporate volunteering 100
8.1 The process of corporate volunteering contribution to
corporate entrepreneurship 126
xi
Boxes
1.1 Entrepreneurial Approach 12

1.2 Internal and External Corporate Ventures 14
1.3 Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Part of Corporate Strategy 16
2.1 Individual and Corporate Entrepreneurs 27
2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurial Teams as
Drivers of Change and Innovation 30
3.1 External Context of Corporate Entrepreneurship 40
3.2 Internal Obstacles to Corporate Entrepreneurship 44
3.3 Resources and Corporate Entrepreneurship 45
5.1 ‘Yes! I Help’ as an Example of a Corporate Volunteering
Programme 75
5.2 Intra-organisational Volunteering in Unum Życie TUiR SA 77
6.1 Lever Basic: The Competency Test for Volunteers 90
6.2 Examples of Corporate Volunteering Projects 97
7.1 The Charter of Principles of Employee Volunteering 106
x
About the Authors
Aldona Glińska-Neweś is Professor and Head of The Scientific Discipline

Council of Management and Quality Studies, as well as the head of
the Department of Organizational Behavior and Marketing at the
Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus
University in Toruń, Poland. She is also a member of the council of the
University Centre of Excellence IMSErt—Interacting Minds, Societies,
Environments—at the same university. She is a member of various
communities, including the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee of
Management Sciences and the European Academy of Management. Her
research focus is on organisational behaviour and responsible business.
Specific areas of her recent research include interpersonal relationships
at work, employee green behaviours, and corporate volunteering.
She authored and co-authored articles published in such journals as
Nonprofit Leadership and Management, Social Responsibility Journal,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, and Baltic Journal of
Management.
Beata Glinka is Professor and Head of Chair of Entrepreneurship and
Management Systems at the Faculty of Management, University of
Warsaw, Poland. She is a member of Polish and international scientific
communities (including the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee of
Management Sciences and the European Academy of Management),
as well as advisory/evaluation bodies in Poland. Her research focus is
on entrepreneurship, immigrant entrepreneurship, and cultural con-
text of management and entrepreneurship. Recently she published a
book: Immigrant Entrepreneurship. Cases from contemporary Poland
(Routledge). She authored and co-authored numerous publications in
renowned journals (including Journal of Business Research, Management
Decision, and Journal of Organizational Change Management).
xi
newgenprepdf
Acknowledgements
This book is based on results of the project funded by the National

Science Centre, Poland (DEC-2017/25/B/HS4/01113).
We would like to thank all who helped us develop this project. First
of all, we would like to thank our colleagues at Nicolaus Copernicus
University in Toruń, the University of Oulu, and the University of Warsaw,
who inspired us to look for new opportunities in joint publications. We
would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers, whose valu-
able comments allowed us to improve this publication.
We also want to thank our co- operators in business and among
students, who made us realise that both corporate entrepreneurship and
corporate volunteering are topics of great practical importance.
xi
1
Introduction
The phenomena of organisational survival and (sustainable) development

have consistently attracted the attention and efforts of researchers. Multiple
aspects of these phenomena are being addressed from the perspectives of
many disciplines and on many ontological levels (individual, organisa-
tional, environmental). Within management studies, scholars specialising
in strategic management, human resources (HR) management, corporate
social responsibility (CSR), organisation design, performance manage-
ment, and many other fields investigate these phenomena. Their studies
provide diverse results and significantly contribute to the development of
management science, as well as managerial practice.
In our book, we contribute to this diversity and show how, in established
organisations, employees’ entrepreneurial behaviours, which are assumed
to be key factors in these organisations’ survival, are reinforced through
employee participation in one practice related to CSR— namely, cor-
porate volunteering.
Opening Remarks
A focus on entrepreneurship within established organisations is not new,
and many scholars have discussed the phenomenon of what is known as
corporate entrepreneurship (CE) (see e.g. Morris et al., 2010), pointing
out its importance in a changing, uncertain environment.
After Sharma and Chrisman (1999, p. 18), we apply a broad definition
of CE as ‘the process whereby an individual or group of individuals, in
association with an existing organisation, create a new organization or
instigate renewal or innovation within that organization’. We treat CE
as a processual phenomenon resulting from the perceptions, attitudes,
and behaviours of individuals (supported by colleagues) within certain
organisational and environmental contexts. CE is a multi-dimensional,
complex, and context-sensitive phenomenon that can be analysed on
three major levels: individual, team, and organisational (see Chapter 1
for more details).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003194750-1
2
2 Introduction
Concepts connected with CE have been developed by scholars for the
last 50 years (see e.g. Arz, 2017; Burger & Blažková, 2020). CE can
be perceived as a goal in itself, or as a tool for survival, for building a
learning organisation, or for developing a strategy of survival and devel-
opment in highly competitive markets. CE, after 50 years of development,
can be considered not a managerial fad but rather a lasting and poten-
tially promising tendency. Many scholars stress that the overreliance on
stability and procedures may lead to bureaucracy and a lack of competi-
tiveness in a rapidly changing environment (Morris & Kuratko, 2002).
Such a bureaucratic setting often supports strategic myopia among man-
agers (or to be more precise, its negative side), often leading to opportun-
ities being missed in different aspects of organisational functioning (see
e.g. Czakon & Kawa, 2018). Entrepreneurial organisations are opposed
to those dominated by bureaucracy that supports the myopic managerial
perceptions that can hinder opportunity recognition.
The assumption that CE is a fundamental way to support the develop-
ment of companies, and sustaining their competitive advantage is quite
visible in studies, as well as textbooks and publications for managers
(Burns, 2020). We would like to follow this path, but we intend to show
CE from a new perspective. Specifically, we aim to present CE as a pro-
cess that may be related with, and result from, CSR and its practices,
such as corporate volunteering. Thus, we want to combine in our frame-
work selected elements of different disciplines: entrepreneurship, CSR,
and organisational behaviour. We believe that such an approach sheds
new light on CE, and particularly on the antecedents of entrepreneurial
behaviours of employees.
The inspiration for this book came from a conversation we had in
late 2020 on possible common research projects. It is important to note
that we represent two distinct subdisciplines of management studies—
entrepreneurship and organisational behaviour—and at first sight we
thought that these two fields were quite distant. However, when diving
into the details, we realised that these ‘distant fields’ do have many things
in common, and quite often we simply approach similar problems from
different perspectives. Hence, we decided to combine our perspectives
in this publication and propose an approach that shows corporate
volunteering as a factor that can promote entrepreneurship among
employees. More specifically, we argue that employee perceptions of
CSR, as well as their participation in CSR-related initiatives such as cor-
porate volunteering, are capable of boosting CE through building an
environment that enhances employee entrepreneurial behaviours.
Both activities— volunteering and entrepreneuring— require (and
develop) similar competencies; they include a more active approach and
an ability to recognise opportunities and build differentiated networks of
relations. However, in this book we go far beyond the problem of com-
petency development alone and focus our attention on a larger set of
employee attitudes and behaviours.
3
Introduction 3
Studies conducted so far show that corporate volunteering generates a
multitude of employee attitudes, behaviours, and competencies that are
important for both organisations and individuals (Dreesbach-Bundy &
Scheck, 2017; Rodell et al., 2016). In our approach, we argue that, based
on the aforementioned effects, corporate volunteering develops affects,
perceptions, and mindsets that support employee initiative and entrepre-
neurial behaviour and, in consequence, contribute to CE. The most sig-
nificant effects of volunteering in this regard include strengthened work
meaningfulness, relationships, open cross- functional communication,
and organisational commitment.
In our theoretical considerations, as well as in case studies, we dem-
onstrate the relationship between employee participation in corporate
volunteering projects and their entrepreneurial behaviours. As we
mentioned, both issues have already been presented separately. We com-
bine them in a single framework that locates the aforementioned relations
in an organisational context, stimulating both kinds of activities, i.e.
entrepreneuring and corporate volunteering.
The book contributes to management studies in the subdisciplines of
entrepreneurship, CSR, and organisational behaviour. Its main contri-
bution lies in including CSR in the discourse regarding antecedents of
CE. Moreover, the book builds a better business case for CSR, delivering
rationales for business engagement in socially responsible initiatives as
being supportive of company survival and development.
Structure of the Book

The first chapter reviews concepts connected with CE. Basing on existing
entrepreneurship scholarship (Burns, 2020; Kuratko et al., 2019; Morris
et al., 2010), we discuss different approaches to CE and corporate innov-
ation (including corporate venturing and other concepts). We show how
these different strands are interconnected and address the challenge to
organisations in building and sustaining competitive advantage.
This opening chapter concludes with a strict definition of our focus:
we show that we are most interested in entrepreneurship performed on
the individual level—employees who innovate use their creative capaci-
ties to spot and create opportunities important to the whole organisation.
This choice is explained in a detailed way and directs the analyses in the
subsequent part of the book.
Chapter 2 is devoted to the entrepreneurial individual within the
organisation. The concept of entrepreneurial competencies is discussed,
as well as differences between individual and corporate entrepreneurs.
Some differences and challenges connected with the position of an indi-
vidual within an organisation (e.g. managerial or not) are also depicted.
We offer a complex approach to individual-level entrepreneurship and
link it to internal cooperation, as well as to the organisational context
(discussed in Chapter 3).
4
4 Introduction
Chapter 3 introduces the individual employee working in an organ-
isational context. Here, we analyse factors influencing the entrepre-
neurship of employees and concentrate on the organisational level.
Elements connected with strategy, organisational design and job design,
HR practices, and organisational culture are presented. We show some
barriers that block employee entrepreneurial behaviour and contrast
them with best practices that foster such behaviour. In the last part of the
chapter, we open a discussion on the role of HR and CSR in employee
entrepreneurship.
Chapter 4 builds on the discussion commenced in Chapter 3. We focus
specifically on employee perceptions of CSR and explain the process
by which they boost employee entrepreneurial activities. We argue that
working for a socially responsible company that contributes towards the
greater good gives employees a sense of purpose and adds meaningful-
ness to their work. Perceived CSR also enhances employee relationships
with both the company and peers, contributing to employee commitment
and work engagement. In turn, the experienced meaningfulness, posi-
tive relationships at work, commitment, and work engagement combine
to make employees feel confident in their generative competencies and
encourage them to engage in solving problems creatively. As a result,
these behavioural effects play a mediating role between CSR and CE.
In Chapter 5, we present the essence of corporate volunteering and
its various forms, as implemented in contemporary companies, including
inter-
, intra-, and extra- organisational volunteering, followed by
examples of volunteer projects obtained from companies operating in
Poland. This chapter also depicts the state of the art in regard to organ-
isational outcomes of employee participation in corporate volunteering.
We focus particularly on positive relationships at work, work meaning-
fulness, and organisational commitment, arguing these to be the primary
effects of employee participation in corporate volunteering.
Chapter 6 refers back to the concept of entrepreneurial competen-
cies introduced in Chapter 2 to discuss the mechanisms for developing
employee competencies through corporate volunteering. We present the
role of volunteer work characteristics in the process and again discuss
the mediating role of work meaningfulness and relationships with others;
this time, though, we treat them as mediators between volunteer work
characteristics and employee competency development. We focus spe-
cifically on the type of beneficiaries and the intensity of employee con-
tact with them as the key characteristics of volunteer work. The chapter
presents a framework of four logics of volunteer competency develop-
ment, explaining how combinations of beneficiary type and intensity of
contact with beneficiaries strengthen specific aspects of the cognitive,
emotional, and social intelligence competencies of employee-volunteers.
Chapter 7 is designed to exemplify the relations between corporate
volunteering and employees’ entrepreneurship. Based on our research,
we present three case studies from the Polish economy. We used a case
5
Introduction 5
study method based on qualitative investigation (interviews) and ana-
lysis of documents (provided by the companies or available on official
company websites). It is important to emphasise that the Polish economy
is characterised by a particularly high increase in the scale of corporate
volunteering implemented in companies (Responsible Business Forum,
2020). To illustrate this phenomenon, we used the cases of:
1 Citi Handlowy Bank (a bank created from the merger of Citibank

and Bank Handlowy in 2001), and the Citi Handlowy Kronenberg
Foundation (established by the bank to support its philanthropy
mission),
2 Grupa Żywiec (one of the leading beer producers in Poland, associated
with Heineken Group), and
3 PZU Group (a Polish insurance group) and PZU Foundation (which
supports volunteering activities in PZU Group).
These three companies represent various sectors and organisational

settings, which allows us to discuss employee volunteering and its impact
on CE in different contexts.
In the concluding chapter, we wrap up analyses from the book and
offer a short summary of the issues we have investigated. We summarise
our findings regarding the actual and potential role that CSR practices,
like corporate volunteering, play in fostering CE. The chapter presents
a framework explaining the process through which employee participa-
tion in corporate volunteering contributes to CE. We stress the theoret-
ical contributions and practical applications of the issues discussed in
the book. The chapter concludes with the limitations of our study and
sketches out some avenues for future research in the field.
Bibliography
Arz, C. (2017). Mechanisms of organizational culture for fostering corporate
entrepreneurship: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 25(4), 361–409.
Burger, L., & Blažková, I. (2020). Internal determinants promoting corporate
entrepreneurship in established organizations: A systematic literature review.
Central European Business Review, 9(2), 19–45.
Burns, P. (2020). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (4th ed.).
Macmillan.
Czakon, W., & Kawa, A. (2018). Network myopia: An empirical study of net-
work perception. Industrial Marketing Management, 73, 116–124.
Dreesbach-Bundy, S., & Scheck, B. (2017). Corporate volunteering: A biblio-
metric analysis from 1990 to 2015. Business Ethics, 26(3), 240–256.
Kuratko, D. F., Goldsby, M. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2019). Corporate innovation:
Disruptive thinking in organizations. Routledge.
Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. South-
Western/Harcourt College.
6
6 Introduction
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2010). Corporate entrepreneur-
ship & innovation (3rd ed.). South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee
volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of
Management, 42(1), 55–84.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional
issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
Internet Source
Responsible Business Forum (2020) http://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/english
7
1
Corporate Entrepreneurship
This first chapter offers a review of concepts associated with corporate

entrepreneurship (CE). Basing on existing entrepreneurship scholarship
(e.g. Burns, 2020; Kuratko et al., 2019; Morris et al., 2010), we dis-
cuss different approaches to CE and different forms of CE (including
corporate venturing and strategic entrepreneurship). We show how these
different strands interconnect and address the challenge of building and
sustaining competitive advantage by organisations. We treat CE as an
important answer to the great managerial challenge of securing survival
and sustainable development of companies.
Traditionally, the concept of entrepreneurship was attributed to newly
created ventures, and entrepreneurs were addressed as individuals who
spot opportunities and turn them into ventures. Thus, for many years
entrepreneurship concepts and studies did not address existing com-
panies. As Gartner et al. (1992, p. 15) claim, ‘entrepreneurial behavior is
“different” from organizational behavior’. People in existing organisations
do differ in goals, mindsets, and access to resources. Moreover, many
definitions of entrepreneurship stress that it is the quest for opportunity
recognition (creation) and exploitation, regardless of current resources—
against this background, CE may seem, at least partly, a contradiction
and ‘one could question the entire premise of the concept of “corporate
entrepreneurship” ’ (Phan et al., 2009, p. 198). In existing organisations,
people usually have access to resources. However, the quest for opportun-
ities is important for both emerging and existing companies, and novelty
connected with opportunity recognition is always associated with risk.
Thus entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation, and entrepreneurial
behaviour are increasingly associated with existing companies, where it
has a significant role to play in building sustainable competitive advan-
tage. For example, Paul Burns (2020), in his book on CE and innovation,
entitled one chapter ‘Can big companies survive?’ and claimed that big
organisations were finding it more and more difficult to deal with the
new age of uncertainty and ‘super-competition’ (Burns, 2020, p. 9). The
author claims that CE, innovations, and an entrepreneurial mindset can
help to address the challenges companies face.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003194750-2
8
8 Corporate Entrepreneurship
This opening chapter concludes with a strict definition of our focus:
we show that we are interested most in the micro-foundations of entre-
preneurship within established organisations. This individual level—
employees who innovate, use their creative capacities to spot, and create
opportunities important for the whole organisation—directs our analyses
within the whole volume.
1.1 The Phenomenon of Corporate Entrepreneurship

As we mentioned above, most scholars do agree that CE is a legitimate
field of studies, and the concept of entrepreneurship refers also to existing,
often large and mature companies. The phenomenon of CE is multi-
faceted and may be perceived and defined in many different ways. This
diversity influences both scientific efforts and the practical implications
of these efforts.
1.1.1 The Understanding of Corporate Entrepreneurship

The concept of CE evolved in the late 20th century at the crossroads
of many fields within organisation and management studies: strategic
management, organisational development, entrepreneurship, and others.
It applies certain concepts from the field of ‘classical entrepreneurship’
to existing (often mature and large) organisations. Many scholars stress
that even though there are numerous differences between entrepreneur-
ship and CE, there are also many quite fundamental similarities—for
example, both entrepreneurship and CE refer to opportunity-oriented
activities (Vanacker et al., 2021). Such blending has proven quite fruitful
and durable.
CE is not perceived as a fad but rather as a lasting and potentially
promising tendency. Scholars have been developing concepts connected
with CE for the last 50 years (see e.g. Arz, 2017; Burger & Blažková,
2020; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013). Over 30 years ago, Guth and
Ginsberg (1990) were right in claiming that research that contributes to
increasing the frequency and success of CE will be highly valued in the
academic (and practitioner) communities. As some scholars claim, it was
not until the turn of the century that the literature on CE became less
anecdotal and testimonial in nature (Hornsby et al., 2002).
Early publications on CE can be traced back to the 1970s (see e.g.
Hanan, 1976; Peterson & Berger, 1972). These early works focused
on the ways entrepreneurship could be developed inside existing
organisations, as well as on venture teams (Kuratko & Audretsch,
2013). Kuratko and Audretsch (2013, p. 325) analyse the changing
approaches of researchers towards CE. The authors claimed that, after
early works (from the 1970s) that concentrated on developing CE in
organisations, researchers turned towards entrepreneurial behaviour as
a key factor that could lead to developing different types of innovations.
9
Also, a concept of intrapreneurship was introduced that extended the
focus of CE to embrace individuals within organisations (Arz, 2017;
Pinchot, 1985). At the same time, researchers discussed whether CE can
be developed within bureaucratic structures and how entrepreneurial
behaviour can and should be encouraged. As Kuratko and Audretsch
claim, during the 1990s, researchers focused on CE as re-energising and
enhancing companies’ ability to develop the skills to create innovations;
also, more comprehensive definitions of CE began to take shape. In
the 21st century, the concept of entrepreneurial behaviour has been
developed further and in more detail (encompassing dimensions like
pro-activeness, innovativeness, and risk-taking). Also, numerous studies
linking CE to sustainable competitive advantage and growth have been
published.
All these developments demonstrate that CE is a multi-dimensional,
complex, and context-sensitive phenomenon that can be analysed on
three major levels: individual, team, and organisational. Figure 1.1 below
illustrates the concept of CE.
In this book, we apply a broad, classical definition of CE proposed by
Sharma and Chrisman (1999, p. 18), according to which CE is ‘the pro-
cess whereby an individual or group of individuals, in association with an
existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or
innovation within that organization’. We treat CE as a process resulting
from perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours of individuals within a cer-
tain organisational and external context. In other words, we agree with
Kuratko and Morris (2018), who claim that CE describes entrepreneurial
behaviour inside established organisations and that the value of CE lies
External and organisational context
Individual
Strategic entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship
Corporate
Corporate venturing
Individual perceptions, competencies, behaviours
Figure 1.1 Corporate entrepreneurship: the essence of the phenomenon. Source:

own elaboration based on Burns (2020, p. 34), Kuratko & Audretsch
(2013, p. 329), Sharma & Chrisman (1999, p. 20).
01
in the extent to which it becomes a strategy to engage in entrepreneurial
actions to achieve a competitive advantage.
CE, as we preliminarily demonstrated above, may refer to many
different activities within existing organisations. We will discuss this
diversity in Section 1.2.
1.1.2 The Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Existing mature organisations face the challenge of survival and building
and sustaining competitive advantage. Moreover, in times of uncertainty
and growing competition, such challenges are more and more difficult
to address (see e.g. Burns, 2020). In time, organisations not only grow
but also become more formalised, which often means less responsiveness
to external and internal changes, threats, and opportunities. Very often,
they also lose at least some of their initial innovative spirit.
The issue of survival and development is a crucial managerial challenge
and can be addressed in many different ways. Contemporary management
scholarship offers many ideas that can help to cope with this challenge.
Many of them are just temporary fashions and fads that offer quick and
easy fixes to problems that are deep rooted within organisations. More
than 20 years ago, Russell Ackoff claimed that such popular panaceas
(and the gurus who produce and promote them) seldom deliver all they
promise (Ackoff, 1999). Ackoff himself proposes transformational leader-
ship as a way to tackle complex problems. We believe that Ackoff touched
upon a problem that is vital in the 21st century, too, years after his pub-
lication on recreating corporations. Discussions and studies devoted to
supporting companies’ development in a way that is effective, durable,
and universal enough to be applied across countries and industries do not
stop. We believe that there are multiple ways to address crucial organ-
isational challenges, but it is not always the solutions and concepts that
are most durable and best for organisations that diffuse fastest (see e.g.
Abrahamson, 1991; Staw & Epstein, 2000). Thus, managers should be
careful in implementation, as only certain concepts may work well in the
specific context of their organisations (Birkinshaw, 2014).
CE constitutes one potentially fruitful pathway in coping with building
the sustainable competitive advantage and developmental capabilities of
a company. This is not an easy way or a ‘quick fix’, as it requires building
an appropriate context inside organisations.
Such a context requires openness to change, which ‘for an existing
organization is a movement towards equivocality, that is, away from sin-
gular interpretations for events and behaviors towards multiple meanings
and a repertoire of actions’ (Gartner et al., 1992, p. 26). Such openness
is one of the foundations of entrepreneurial behaviour. As Gartner and
Brush (2007) claim, entrepreneurship is most often found in the transi-
tional states; ‘transformation is the way that an organization changes
its established routines through enactment. Transformation involves
1
a metamorphosis from an existing vision that produces changes in the
products and services, customers/ clients, channels, skills, margins,
competitive advantage, and people’ (Gartner & Brush, 2007, p. 5).
Therefore, CE is dynamic and requires changes that bring some novelty
to internal processes and/or relations with the environment and external
stakeholders. As such, CE requires companies to engage in a learning
process, exploration followed by the exploitation of resulting discoveries
(of opportunities).
CE requires changes, but it also may help organisations to cope with
environmental changes. This, however, requires of existing companies a
certain initial potential. A study by Yuan, Bau, and Olson (2017, p. 313)
shows that this is particularly visible in companies with strong market
capabilities, that ‘tend to adopt CE activities to cope with ambivalent
changes’, while companies with weak market capabilities would ‘actually
reduce their CE activities in highly ambivalent environment’. In other
words, the application of CE activities is not a natural choice for every
organisation, as it requires certain internal capabilities. A lack of such
capabilities may support existing routines rather than triggering efforts
to change them.
Many studies demonstrate that CE may actually help in increasing
companies’ performance; firms with a higher degree of CE perform better
(Arz, 2017; Rauch et al., 2009). The effects of CE on firm performance
have been examined in a variety of organisational forms, including family
firms (Soleimanof et al., 2019). Vanacker et al. (2021) stress that the rela-
tionship between CE and firm performance attracted attention, resulting
in many important studies, most of which show that CE is positively
related to firm performance, albeit with very different effect sizes. The
same authors demonstrate that the literature on the relationship between
CE and firm performance has some limitations that require attention;
scholars have not been systematic in investigating relationships that
different types and forms of CE have with firm performance. Also, the
environment influences relations between CE and performance. To tackle
this challenge, those authors proposed that home country intellectual
property and employee protection institutions moderate the relationship
between CE and firm performance (Vanacker et al., 2021).
Numerous studies have been devoted to analysing the relations between
CE and organisations’ innovativeness. The clear assumption is that one
of the most important reasons for introducing CE practices is to foster
innovations and, consequently, to sustain (or build) competitive advan-
tage. Cooper et al. (2000) claim that corporate entrepreneurial strat-
egies show ways to revitalise existing organisations and make them more
innovative. As Kuratko et al. (2014, p. 38) put it, ‘corporate entrepre-
neurship […] is envisioned to be a process that can facilitate firms’ efforts
to innovate constantly and cope effectively with the competitive realities
companies encounter when competing in world markets’. The authors
claim that companies implementing CE are actually ‘innovation-minded
21
companies’ and that ‘corporate entrepreneurship flourishes in established
firms when individuals are free to pursue actions and initiatives, regard-
less of the “rules” ’ (Kuratko et al., 2014, p. 38). Prior routines may be
abandoned and substituted by new ways of thinking and acting.
Positive relations between CE and companies’ performance and
innovative capabilities influence the abilities required to build competi-
tive advantage. As Ireland et al. (2009, p. 35) put it, the exploitation of
entrepreneurial opportunities is positively related both to the strength of
the organisation’s competitive capability and to the realisation of stra-
tegic repositioning.
Just like almost every organisational phenomenon, CE, too, can have
its limitations and dark side. It is quite obvious that not every potential
opportunity and initiative is worth undertaking. Organisations need to
have a selection system that, on the one hand, helps to avoid too many
costly failures and, on the other, does not discourage people by the early
elimination of too many projects. Also, there are different factors that
motivate people to take entrepreneurial actions. Not all are fully com-
pliant with an organisation’s long-term development. We further discuss
and develop these issues in Chapter 3.
To sum up, CE can be perceived as a potentially promising answer
to vital practical challenges in managerial processes. It can serve as a
factor that:
• fosters innovations;
• enhances the creation of an open- to-
changes environment within
organisations;
• facilitates learning;
• improves performance;
• enhances competitive capabilities of a company; and
• ensures sustainable development.
BOX 1.1 Entrepreneurial Approach

One of the icons of applying entrepreneurial approach to established
business is the British company Virgin Group, with its founder,
Richard Branson. This company officially claims that an entrepre-
neurial approach allowed them to remain competitive. For about
50 years in the market, they have been trying to spot or create
opportunities; some new initiatives failed: many succeeded. Virgin
directly refers to their entrepreneurial spirit as a core of the business:
Virgin’s restless spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation and
market disruption has built up a diverse group of companies,
which underpins the Virgin Group’s 50 years of growth. At
31
Virgin, we’re known for challenging the status quo and shaking
up markets, while championing people and the planet.
Virgin’s purpose is to change business for good and it is the
very reason we exist. It is the lens through which we make all
our decisions.
Our values are what keep our people, products and part-
ners on the right path to achieve our purpose while providing
incredible experiences.
[source: www.virgin.com/about-virgin/our-story]
Also importantly, CE is based on employees’ initiatives and thus can

help to develop individual competencies in a way beneficial to both
employees and the organisation. We will discuss this individual level and
the twofold relations between CE and individual capabilities in subse-
quent chapters of the book.
1.2 Different Facets of Corporate Entrepreneurship

CE, as a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon, has attracted the
attention of many researchers. As we described above, many facets and
exemplifications of this phenomenon have been presented. In fact, many
definitions of CE directly refer to this diversity. For example, Chen and
Nadkarni (2017, p. 33), in defining CE, say that it is ‘the sum of a firm’s
innovation, corporate venturing, and strategic renewal activities’ and that
it ‘serves as the primary vehicle through which firms adapt to the external
environment, gain competitive advantages, and perform effectively’. In
this part, we will address this multi-dimensionality and show the major
dimensions and types of CE.
The first typology of CE activity that we want to present was proposed
30 years ago by Zahra (Vanacker et al., 2021; Zahra, 1991) and included
internal and external CE.
Internal CE focuses on using firms’ resources and capabilities to spot
new opportunities and take advantage of them, foster innovation, improve
operations, and create new products and services (Vanacker et al., 2021).
Such activities manifest in pro-activeness and greater risk-taking inside
established organisations.
External CE involves new ventures— venturing into new products
and/or geographic markets. It frequently manifests in the establishment
or acquisition of new subsidiaries by existing companies (Vanacker
et al., 2021).
The second and probably most popular typology is to at least some
extent similar. According to it, CE in companies can be manifested
through corporate venturing or strategic entrepreneurship (see e.g.
Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013; Morris et al., 2010; Phan et al., 2009).
41
These manifestations correspond to external and internal CE, though
they are defined slightly differently.
Corporate venturing is concerned with company involvement in the
creation of new businesses or new ventures (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999).
It may include three types of activities (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013,
p. 330; Morris et al., 2010):
1 Innovative ventures created within the firm, internal corporate

ventures (ICVs): such new businesses are created and owned by the
existing company and typically reside within its current structure; in
the case of ICV, a company usually has to decide whether to keep
new ventures inside or to externalise them (Moschieri & Mair, 2017);
2 Cooperative/collaborative corporate ventures: new businesses are
created and owned by the corporation together with one or more
external partners; such ventures typically exist as external entities
that operate beyond the organisational boundaries of all the founding
partners;
3 Innovation that is created outside of the firm (external corporate
ventures, ECVs): such venturing involves new businesses that are
created by parties outside the corporation and subsequently invested
in or acquired by the corporation; this could also include joint
ventures created in partnership with another company/companies.
Kuratko and Audretsch (2013, p. 330–331), referring also to some

previous studies, demonstrate that there may be numerous reasons and
motives to engage in venturing activities. First, companies may want to
exploit existing corporate resources and competencies in new arenas.
Second, firms may want to acquire new competencies—knowledge and
skills that may be useful in existing (or new) product or market arenas.
The third possible motive may be financial in nature—companies may
want to use new ventures as a way to generate quick financial returns.
BOX 1.2 Internal and External Corporate Ventures

Universities all over the world are increasingly constructing special
programmes to encourage venturing.
Internal venturing may take place via the creation of separate
entities aimed at special forms of education, e.g. corporate edu-
cation. Centres for executive training or post-graduate education
are usually formed within existing organisational structures, often
having a certain degree of independency. Research centres are
another form of ICVs.
Also, new ventures are created in a cooperative/ collaborative
mode or supported as ECV. Many educational institutions use these
51
modes to support spin- offs and spin- outs. In some, universities

remain shareholders while some are in time fully externalised.
For example, the University of Warsaw supports spin-offs in the
processes of commercialisation and finding investors or business
partners. There are many interesting start-ups in the portfolio, e.g.
a company aimed at medical diagnostics of cancer (Wahaf Pharma)
that is working on innovative equipment that allows a simple diag-
nosis of diseases like lung cancer by detecting biomarkers in exhaled
air. One of the former spin-offs, now an independent company,
WarsawGenomics, is among the leaders in developing highly sen-
sitive and accurate genetic tests. These tests, thanks to cutting-edge
genetic analysis tools and the company’s proprietary algorithms,
can search for genetic errors responsible for human diseases.
[sources: www.warsawgenomics.pl;
http://uwrc.pl/spolki-spin-off/obecne-spolki/]
Strategic entrepreneurship corresponds to a broader array of entrepre-

neurial initiatives that do not necessarily involve the creation (or acqui-
sition) of new businesses. ‘All forms of strategic entrepreneurship have
one thing in common: they all involve the exhibition of organizationally
consequential innovations that are adopted in the pursuit of competitive
advantage’ (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013, p. 330), and they do not have
to result in new businesses. Strategic entrepreneurship involves two types
of behaviour: opportunity seeking and advantage seeking.
As Kuratko and Audretsch (2013, p. 332) claim, there are two major
reference points that can be considered when a firm exhibits strategic
entrepreneurship:
1 how much the company is transforming itself relative to a previous

state, and
2 how much the company is transforming itself relative to industry
standards.
Typically, strategic entrepreneurship may be connected with strategy,

products and markets, structure and processes, or business models. Thus,
strategic entrepreneurship can take on the following forms (Covin &
Miles, 1999; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013):
1 strategic renewal: typically defined as an adoption of a new strategy

within an existing company;
2 sustained regeneration: refers to products and is usually based on the
introduction of a new product or service into an existing category;
3 domain redefinition: requires reconfiguration of an existing product
or market categories;
61
4 organisational rejuvenation: refers to the way a company is organised;
this is an internally focused innovation for strategy improvement; and
5 business model reconstruction: requires redesign and redefinition of
an existing business model.
BOX 1.3 Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Part of

Corporate Strategy
Many companies directly or indirectly stress their commitment to
development through differentiated CE practices. For example, a
major Polish insurance company, PZU, in its 2021–2024 strategy
(presented in March 2021), stated:
We will continue to be the industry leader in cooperation with
innovative start-ups and in the implementation of modern tech-
nologies to streamline the operation of the PZU Group, support
our employees and agents and make it easier for our clients to
manoeuvre the green world of finance. Among other things,
we want to raise considerably the share of claims handling and
the payment of claims done without involving any people at
PZU. We will utilize artificial intelligence (AI) and roboticized
algorithms to a greater extent to automate processes
[source: www.pzu.pl/en/investor-relations/
about-the-group/strategy]
The company looks for effective use of opportunities. It clearly states

that venturing (via cooperation with external start-ups) and stra-
tegic entrepreneurship actions aimed at organisational rejuvenation
are part of their corporate strategy. Moreover, PZU employees are
now encouraged to take part in rejuvenation processes and propose
improvements to internal processes.
More info on the PZU case can be found in Chapter 7.
As we have demonstrated above, the variety of actions and behaviours

connected with CE is quite impressive. CE can take many different forms
and, consequently, lead to differentiated results—in some cases, revolu-
tionary changes in strategy or company portfolio.
Moreover, apart from the most popular typologies and exemplifications,
scholars also propose other forms of CE. For example, Wang et al. (2021)
discuss international CE defined as the international entrepreneurial
activity of existing firms. In one recent Harvard Business Review (HBR)
publication, Holt (2020) discusses the role of culture in building innova-
tive organisations, introducing the concept ‘cultural entrepreneur’. He
claims that cultural innovation is based on ‘qualitative ambitions’ to
71
change the understanding of what is considered valuable. Thus, cultural
innovations may be embodied not only in products or services but also in
founders’ speeches, media coverage, packaging, ingredients, retail design,
and even philanthropy.
Also, the concept of corporate social entrepreneurship— important
from the point of view of this monograph—is gaining significant popu-
larity among scholars (Austin et al., 2006, Hemingway, 2012, 2013;
Kuratko et al., 2017). Corporate social entrepreneurship refers to actions
that focus on ways to turn a company into a better place—one can con-
tribute to sustainable development while solving environmental and
social problems.
The variety of approaches is impressive, but all the CE- related
concepts and categories are supposed to add some value to a company.
As Kuratko and Morris (2018) claim, the value of CE lies in the extent to
which it becomes a strategy to engage in an ongoing process of entrepre-
neurial actions to achieve a competitive advantage. Thus, the challenge
of building a corporate entrepreneurship strategy (CES) to foster different
types of CE seems to be crucial. Moreover, as the same authors stress,
a lack of innovative actions in today’s economy could be a recipe for
failure. The processes of building appropriate context for CE activities
are discussed in Chapter 3. Here we just want to state that the diversity of
forms of CE suggests that the task of creating a favourable environment
is indeed a complex and difficult challenge.
1.3 Measuring Corporate Entrepreneurship: Corporate

Entrepreneurship as a Construct
As we demonstrated in the previous sections, CE is a multi-faceted phe-
nomenon that can be perceived in many different ways. As such, the
operationalisation of CE as a construct may also differ and focus on
various aspects and dimensions.
One of the classical operationalisations of CE was used by Zahra
(1996) in his paper on governance, ownership, and CE. He used a scale
composed of 14 items in three categories: innovation (five items), ven-
turing (five items), and strategic renewal (four items). A company’s
commitment to innovation was reflected in items covering the creation
and introduction of products, emphasis on R&D investments, and
commitment to patenting. The second category (venturing activities)
referred to entry into new fields by sponsoring new ventures and creating
new businesses. The last factor (strategic renewal) addressed revitalising
a company’s ability to compete, redefine the business domain (eliminating
unprofitable operations), and improve internal efficiencies (see Zahra,
1996, pp. 1723–1724).
Another stream in CE measurement efforts is connected with assessing
the entrepreneurial climate within existing organisations. Kuratko
et al. (1990) developed an instrument—the Intrapreneurial Assessment
81
Instrument (IAI)— that included management support, organisational
structure, availability of resources, risk management, and reward systems
as important elements shaping the environment for CE. This instru-
ment was later developed into a tool called the corporate entrepreneur-
ship assessment instrument (CEAI) (see Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko
et al., 2014). The CEAI can be used to assess the entrepreneurial climate
for CE (and perception of the internal environment). In a 2014 paper,
Kuratko, Hornsby, and Covin claim that there are five major components
(dimensions) of the CEAI. These dimensions are crucial to creating an
entrepreneurial and innovative environment in organisations, and CEAI
is a diagnostic tool used for assessing managers’ perceptions of the five
key dimensions. The CEAI consists of 48 items divided into 5 dimensions.
These dimensions are (Kuratko et al., 2014):
• Top management support (19 items): the extent to which one

perceives that top managers support, facilitate, and promote entre-
preneurial behaviour within a company; this includes supporting
innovative ideas (including by providing resources when needed);
• Work discretion/ autonomy (10 items): the extent to which one
perceives that the organisation tolerates failure and encourages
experimentation, provides decision-making possibilities and freedom
from excessive control, and delegates authority and responsibility
(both to lower-level managers and other workers);
• Rewards/reinforcement (6 items): the extent to which one perceives
that the organisation uses rewards based on entrepreneurial activities
and systems that encourage risk-taking and innovation;
• Time availability (6 items): the extent to which one perceives that
workload schedules ensure time for people to pursue innovations and
improvements; and
• Organisational boundaries (7 items): the extent to which one perceives
there are flexible organisational boundaries that enhance the flow
of information (between the external environment and the organisa-
tion, as well as between departments within the organisation).
The five-point Likert scale (from ‘1—strongly disagree’ to ‘5—strongly

agree’) is used to measure certain dimensions in CEAI.
Quite recently, Kuratko et al. (2017) proposed a modified tool that
allows the creation of social value within companies to be examined—
the social corporate entrepreneurship scale (SCES). This new instrument
measures organisational antecedents for social CE to assess whether
the perceived environment is supportive of corporate entrepreneurial
behaviours intended to create social as well as financial value. The CEAI
was a starting point for this new scale; the authors ‘incorporated a set
of new dimensions from the research literature to form a new instru-
ment […] capable of measuring the antecedents to CE as it relates to the
91
creation of social value’ (Kuratko et al., 2017, p. 274). They added four
dimensions: (1) stakeholder salience, (2) social pro-activeness, (3) cor-
porate governance, and (4) transparency (disclosure); together with the
previous dimensions, the scale is composed of 61 items.
The CEAI (and its modifications, like SCES) seems to be one of the
most widespread tools within the CE domain. However, there are also
other instruments that help to measure CE and/or related phenomena.
Another approach, proposed by Kreiser et al. (2021), is referred to
as CES. The authors focus on external fit (with environmental hostility
and technological sophistication) and internal fit (in three dimensions: (1)
entrepreneurial climate—architecture, (2) entrepreneurial orientation—
behaviour, and (3) strategic intentionality—vision) in CES.
To sum up, there are numerous existing possibilities to evaluate both CE

and its context. We will continue the discussion on factors influencing CE
and CES in Chapter 3.
Bibliography
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejec-
tion of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 16(3), 586–612.
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-creating the corporation. A design of organizations for
the 21st century. Oxford University Press.
Arz, C. (2017). Mechanisms of organizational culture for fostering corporate
entrepreneurship: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 25(4), 361–409.
Austin, J., Leonard, H., Reficco, E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social entrepre-
neurship: It is for corporations too. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepre-
neurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 169–181). Oxford
University Press.
Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Beware the next big thing. Harvard Business Review,
92(5), 50–57.
Burger, L., & Blažková, I. (2020). Internal determinants promoting corporate
entrepreneurship in established organizations: A systematic literature review.
Central European Business Review, 9(2), 19–45.
Burns, P. (2020). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (4th ed.). Macmillan.
Chen, J., & Nadkarni, S. (2017). It’s about time! CEOs’ temporal dispositions,
temporal leadership, and corporate entrepreneurship. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 62(1), 31–66.
Cooper, A. C., Markman, G. D., & Niss, G. (2000). The evolution of the field of
entrepreneurship. In G. D. Meyer & K. A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship
as strategy (pp. 115–133). SAGE.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit
of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 47–64.
Gartner, W. B., Bird, B., & Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entre-
preneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 16(3), 13–31.
02
Gartner, W. B., & Brush, C. G. (2007). Entrepreneurship as organizing:
Emergence, newness, and transformation. In M. P. Rice & T. G. Habbershon
(Eds.), Entrepreneurship: The engine of growth (Vol. 2). Praeger.
Guth, W., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entre-
preneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15.
Hanan, M. (1976). Venturing corporations –think small to stay strong. Harvard
Business Review, 54(3), 139–149.
Hemingway, C. A. (2012) Corporate social entrepreneurship. In S. O. Idowu, N.
Capaldi, L. Zu, & A. Das Gupta (Eds), The encyclopedia of corporate social
responsibility. Springer.
Hemingway, C. A. (2013). Corporate social entrepreneurship: Integrity within.
Cambridge University Press.
Holt, D. (2020). Cultural innovation. The secret to building breakthrough
businesses. Harvard Business Review, 5, 106–115.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ percep-
tion of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a
measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate
entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 19–46.
Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2021).
Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending our knowledge boundaries
through configuration theory. Small Business Economics, 56, 739–758.
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
9, 323–335.
Kuratko, D. F., Goldsby, M. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2019). Corporate innovation:
disruptive thinking in organizations. Routledge.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm’s internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 37–47.
Kuratko, D. F., McMullen, J. S., Hornsby, J. S., & Jackson, C. (2017). Is your
organization conducive to the continuous creation of social value? Toward a
social corporate entrepreneurship scale. Business Horizons, 60(3), 271–283.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S. (1990). Developing an
intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepre-
neurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(SI), 49–58.
Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Corporate entrepreneurship: A crit-
ical challenge for educators and researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and
Pedagogy, 1(1), 42–60.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2010). Corporate Entrepreneurship
& Innovation (3rd ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.
Moschieri, C., & Mair, J. (2017). Corporate entrepreneurship: Partial divestitures
as a real option. European Management Review, 14(1), 67–82.
Peterson, R. A., & Berger, D. G. (1972). Entrepreneurship in organizations:
Evidence from the popular music industry. Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 97–106.
Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W.-L. (2009). Corporate entre-
preneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(3), 197–205.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation
to become an entrepreneur. Harper & Row.
12
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial
orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and
suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33, 761–787.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional
issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
Soleimanof, S., Singh, K., & Holt, D. T. (2019). Micro- foundations of cor-
porate entrepreneurship in family firms: An institution- based perspective.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 43(2), 274–281.
Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular
management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 523–556.
Vanacker, T., Zahra, S. A., & Holmes, R. M. (2021). Corporate entrepreneur-
ship, country institutions and firm financial performance. Journal of World
Business (Preprints).
Wang, Y.-K., Chung, C. C., & Lim, D. S. K. (2021). The drivers of international
corporate entrepreneurship: CEO incentive and CEO monitoring mechanisms.
Journal of World Business (Preprints).
Yuan, W., Bao, Y., & Olson, B. J. (2017). CEOs’ ambivalent interpretations,
organizational market capabilities, and corporate entrepreneurship as
responses to strategic issues. Journal of World Business, 52(2), 312– 326.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.12.009
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneur-
ship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship:
The moderating impact for industry technological opportunities. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(6), 1713–1735.
2
2
Who Becomes a Corporate
Entrepreneur, and How?
Corporate entrepreneurship is not possible without individuals who are

willing to spot opportunities, experiment, calculate risk, and find a way
to implement new ideas within existing organisations. Individual entre-
preneurial behaviour is one of the key antecedents of corporate entre-
preneurship. Organisational factors are foundations of intrapreneurship
and vice versa; both organisational factors and the individual behaviour
of employees are necessary to enable an entrepreneurial environment in
a company.
Entrepreneurial individuals—corporate entrepreneurs—may be located
in different places within a company, on different hierarchical levels, and
potentially within every department, office, team, or production site.
Moreover, the practice of corporate entrepreneurs can be undertaken on
many levels—from the most general (company level), through the level of
function or division, to the level of concrete projects or even tasks.
The discussion on corporate entrepreneurs and their role in expiating
opportunities and introducing innovation is not new. Gifford Pinchot was
one of the pioneers when, in his 1985 book, he defined intrapreneurs
(whom he had formerly called intra-corporate entrepreneurs) as those
who take responsibility for creating innovation (of any kind) within
organisations. Pinchot labelled them dreamers who may or may not be
inventors but who figure out how to turn ideas into a profitable reality.
Even with this long tradition, the concept of employee entrepreneur-
ship and employee entrepreneurial behaviour is still an emergent field
of research. As Mustafa et al. (2018) point out, traditionally, studies of
entrepreneurship in existing companies have focused on the organisa-
tional antecedents of such activities.
The second chapter is devoted to the micro-foundations of corporate
entrepreneurship, to entrepreneurial individuals within organisations.
The concept of entrepreneurial competencies is discussed, as well as
differences between the individual entrepreneur and the corporate. Some
differences and challenges connected with the position of an individual
within the organisation (e.g. managerial or not) are also depicted. We
offer a complex approach to individual-level entrepreneurship and link
DOI: 10.4324/9781003194750-3
32
Who Becomes a Corporate Entrepreneur? 23

it to internal cooperation, as well as the organisational context that is
discussed in subsequent parts of this book.
2.1 Between Individual and Corporate Entrepreneurship

In this part we discuss the characteristics of entrepreneurs and corporate
entrepreneurs. Even though in some studies scholars distinguish between
intrapreneurs and corporate entrepreneurs, we will use both labels inter-
changeably in this book and compare them with the phenomenon of
individual entrepreneurship. We start with a general concept of entre-
preneurial competencies and then move to specific characteristics of
intrapreneurs.
As Burns (2020, p. 15) claims, entrepreneurship requires a spe-
cific mindset that he defines as ‘character traits and […] approach to
making decision in a risky, uncertain environment’. In discussing the
characteristics of entrepreneurs (and intrapreneurs), we apply well-
established behavioural approaches that show entrepreneurs and entre-
preneurship as a set of activities involved in creation (e.g. venture
creation) (see e.g. Gartner, 1988). This is contrasted with narrower trait
approaches that depict entrepreneurs as sets of personality traits and
characteristics. Thus, after Barbara Bird, we broadly define entrepre-
neurial competencies as ‘underlying characteristics such as generic and spe-
cific knowledge, motives, traits, self-images, social roles and skills which
result in venture birth, survival, and (or) growth’ (Bird, 1995, p. 51). All
these competencies are the basis and essence of entrepreneurial actions,
and most of them can actually be learnt and formed through different
experiences.
Personality traits and other individual characteristics are usu-
ally depicted as a base against which decisions are made and actions
performed. The most popular model to examine traits is called ‘the big
five’ and has been being developed in psychology since the 1980s (see
e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1985, 2008). This model stresses five dimensions
of personality: openness, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness,
and neuroticism. There are many studies showing connections between
these general traits and entrepreneurship (Burns, 2020). It has to be
noted, however, that the results are not clear and depend on culture,
group characteristics, and other factors. Thus, most of the big five per-
sonality traits are not strong predictors of entrepreneurship. It may be
noted, however, that entrepreneurial people are usually more open and
conscientious, less neurotic, and agreeable; openness and conscientious-
ness are the best predictors.
As the big five model (and trait approach) is not enough to explain
entrepreneurship, scholars tend to decompose the general dimensions
and, at the same time, look for other factors connected with entrepre-
neurship, like motives, knowledge, skills, and perceptions.
42
24 Who Becomes a Corporate Entrepreneur?

Studies show that there are some characteristics that are quite strongly
related to entrepreneurship (see e.g. Burns, 2020, Glinka & Gudkova,
2011), among which are:
• Need for achievement: as McClelland (1961) claimed 60 years ago,

entrepreneurial people differ from others in terms of their need for
achievement; it is defined as people’s desire for accomplishments,
mastering of skills, and high standards;
• Acceptance of calculated risk: risk is inseparably connected with
entrepreneurship, as new projects and ventures do not guarantee
success and pay-off; entrepreneurs accept different types of risk, but
they are not gamblers who are driven by risk—rather, entrepreneurs
carefully calculate risk before making decisions;
• Internal locus of control: the individuals’ belief that their destiny and
future can be controlled by themselves; such internal drive means that
entrepreneurial individuals do not believe in fate and are convinced
that they can shape not only their life but also—at least to some
extent—their environment;
• Creativity and out- of-
the-
box thinking: the creative approach of
entrepreneurs is the foundation of their innovativeness; it also means
focus on opportunities and finding ways to do things differently; and
• Determination and drive: as Burns (2020, p. 16) puts it, ‘entrepreneurs
have enormous drive and determination, motivated by their need for
achievement and underpinned by internal locus of control, which
gives them self-confidence in their ability to complete tasks success-
fully’; drive and determination also mean pro-activeness and con-
sistent actions.
As far as other individual-level factors are concerned, studies show

close links between entrepreneurship and self-efficacy, motives, know-
ledge and skills, and cognitive mechanisms.
Self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1997), is the belief in the
individual’s own capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action
required to manage certain situations. It means the belief in one’s ability
to succeed in a particular situation; low self-efficacy may, however, stop
people from starting certain actions and projects.
Entrepreneurial motives play a vital role at two stages: (1) the planning
and starting of a new venture (motivation to begin) and (2) implementa-
tion (motivation to continue). In both cases, internal and external factors
of different natures may play an important role (in case of individual
entrepreneurs, internal factors are usually more significant). Motives
may be connected with independency, social needs, personal devel-
opment, financial needs, and many other factors (see e.g. Robichaud
et al., 2001).
Knowledge and skills, as well as individuals’ ability to learn from
experiences, play an important role at every stage of the entrepreneurial
52

process. The ability to transform action on the basis of experiential
learning is as important as the ability to reflect on one’s assumptions
(see e.g. Argyris, 1999). General and specific knowledge refer to many
different fields, like general knowledge about the economy and markets,
knowledge about the environment (legal forces, competition, partners),
knowledge about customers, technical knowledge, management know-
ledge, and knowledge about one’s competencies and limitations.
The last important component of entrepreneurial competencies refers
to cognitive mechanisms, which are strongly connected with entrepre-
neurial knowledge and learning processes. Entrepreneurial cognitions
are generally defined as structures that people use to make assessments,
judgments, or decisions involving opportunity seizing, venture creation,
and development. Cognitions include individuals’ beliefs, attitudes, and
values regarding entrepreneurship; ‘[e]‌ntrepreneurial beliefs are the fun-
damental thoughts one harbors about entrepreneurship. When entre-
preneurial beliefs are about matters for which evaluative judgments are
made, they represent entrepreneurial attitudes. Long lasting, deeply held,
and prescriptive or proscriptive entrepreneurial attitudes denote entre-
preneurial values’ (Ireland et al., 2009, p. 26). Dutta and Crossan (2005)
proposed a framework that provides a justification for linking individual
entrepreneurial cognitions and organisational level entrepreneurial
outcomes. This model consists of four elements: intuition, individual
interpretation, integration, and institutionalisation (4I). The authors
argue that individual intuitions and interpretations of business opportun-
ities can be institutionalised in organisations—for example, in the form
of strategies (Dutta & Crossan, 2005).
The above discussion presents some crucial elements of entrepreneurial
competencies and refers mostly to entrepreneurship in general, with a
strong emphasis on individual entrepreneurship. There are, of course,
many similarities and differences between corporate and individual entre-
preneurship. The similarities are mainly connected with the nature of the
entrepreneurial process and its concentration around opportunities. The
differences are connected with the varying degrees of freedom, as well as
access to resources. It seems, however, that a more detailed comparison
is needed here.
The major similarities between corporate and individual entrepreneurs
are (Burns, 2020; Glinka & Gudkova, 2011):
• The essence of corporate and individual entrepreneurs’ behaviour is

the ability to spot, create, and use opportunities and to create value
(economic, social, etc.).
• Both corporate and individual entrepreneurs are driven by the need
for achievement; the will to succeed is important in both cases.
• Self-efficacy and internal locus of control help both individual and
corporate entrepreneurs to start new projects.
• Determination and drive are a key success factor.
62
• Creativity and ability to find innovation possibilities are important

both for those who create their own venture and those who start new
ventures or question the status quo within existing companies.
• Risk toleration and the ability to take calculated risk are the essence
of entrepreneurial behaviour, though it must be noted that the nature
and types of risk may be different.
• Knowledge about own competencies and limitations, as well as the
ability to learn from experience, matters when new projects are
launched and later managed.
• Finding a balance between passion and pragmatism, vision, and
practical skills is a challenge in a private business, as well as in the
corporate setting.
To some extent, corporate entrepreneurs/intrapreneurs and individual

entrepreneurs have a similar job to do. Thus, we may find many examples
of switching between these two domains, or even simultaneously oper-
ating in both of them (e.g. in the case of some spin-offs). There are, how-
ever, some major differences one needs to take into consideration. The
major three are: risk, resources, and influence/degree of freedom (Glinka
& Gudkova, 2011).
• Both corporate and individual entrepreneurs take risks; the nature of

that risk, as we’ve already mentioned, is quite different. The risk of
the corporate entrepreneur is usually more moderate. Moreover, the
entrepreneur him/herself faces only a part of this risk; most of it is a
company risk. The potential negative consequences of project failure
are the company’s burden. This has its consequences in pay-offs, as
most of the profits stay with the company, not the entrepreneur. The
financial risk of a corporate entrepreneur is almost always limited.
There are, however, other types of risk that the corporate entrepre-
neur must face. Reputational and political risks are among them. The
corporate entrepreneur, in case of failure, may lose her/his position,
both formal and informal. Also, failures may decrease the chances
of an internal career, especially when repeatable, or resulting from
negligence.
• Resources. In one of Timmons’ (1999) textbooks entrepreneurship
was defined as a process of pursuing opportunities regardless of the
resources currently controlled. Indeed, the idea is that opportunity is
crucial to the entrepreneurial process. However, the individual entre-
preneur needs to attract resources that most often already exist in a
corporation (when the corporate entrepreneur is pursuing an oppor-
tunity). For many intrapreneurs, access to resources is one of the
important drivers of decisions and a great motivator. So, the cor-
porate entrepreneur invests her/his time, competencies, and efforts,
while the individual entrepreneur also commits some material
resources. It must be noted that, for many companies, the access to
72

resources is only potential (or theoretical)—long procedures or inef-
fective bureaucracy make it almost impossible to take real advantage
of existing resources. And this brings us to the last difference, which
is connected with influence and decisional freedom.
• Motivation. While both individual and corporate entrepreneurs’
motivation is influenced by external and internal factors, in the case
of individual entrepreneurs, internal factors are crucial, while for cor-
porate entrepreneurs, both groups may be important. Internal factors
play a key role but may be strengthened (or weakened) by external
factors connected with the work context, e.g. motivational system
and relations with colleagues and supervisors/owners.
• Influence and decisional processes. Risk and access to resources poten-
tially put intrapreneurs in a better position, though in many cases only
potentially, as the actual influence of an intrapreneur on his or her
organisation may be limited. The real influence may depend on the
position in organisational structure and the ability to build a network
of supportive colleagues. If the intrapreneur works in a managerial
position, it may be easier, as at least some of the decisional power
lies within his/her scope. Even then, the general influence on the
organisation is always limited (by ownership, governance structures,
internal procedures, and/or organisational culture). To conclude, the
corporate entrepreneur has less power and influence than the indi-
vidual entrepreneur but works within an organisational context that
creates more possibilities thanks to potentially privileged access to
resources.
BOX 2.1 Individual and Corporate Entrepreneurs

A couple of years ago, a student decided to tell his story to one of
the authors after a lecture. He started his professional career at an
international corporation. At that time the company had its pro-
gramme of internal innovations. The new employee found it very
attractive and became extremely active in the field—looking for the
possibilities for advancement within his department, as well as out-
side it. In time, he gained a reputation as a creative person who was
not afraid to speak up and take risks. Most of his projects were
successful, but there were some that failed. For example, after two
months of work the company decided to skip one of his ideas, as it
proved to be quite expensive and risky.
After around five years he realised that he would love to try
running his own business. With so many ideas, and a huge need
for achievement, he considered himself entrepreneurial. He decided
to quit and create his venture. Quite soon, he realised that he
was not used to independently looking for resources. As this was
82
challenging, he decided to look for a business partner. Another sur-

prising challenge was the nature of risk he had to face. Even with
a business partner, after a year or so, he realised that a corporate
setting was actually a much better option for him. He finished his
story with the conclusion: ‘I thought I was prepared to take risk,
but I only theoretically realised that risk had so many faces’.
In summary we can return to Pinchot’s (1985) classical approach to

intrapreneurship. He attributed many differentiated qualities to such indi-
viduals, claiming that they did not fully trust the systems they worked in
but had knowledge of how to move around, build relations, and look for
sponsorship. They need to feel free but also simultaneously to have access
to a corporation’s resources. Intrapreneurs have broad knowledge and
managerial skills, are achievement oriented, and are sensitive to recog-
nition and rewards; willing to take calculated risk, they are courageous,
and—to some extent—also cynical.
Having discussed the general characteristics of entrepreneurial indi-
viduals acting within existing companies and the differences between cor-
porate and individual entrepreneurs, let us now move to the central topic
of these chapters—intrapreneurs.
2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurs in Organisations

Intrapreneurs are certain individuals, who, on the basis of their com-
petencies, undertake entrepreneurial behaviours and spot and execute
opportunities within the context of existing organisations. We under-
stand employee entrepreneurial behaviour as the extent to which they
proactively engage in the creation, presentation, and application of
opportunities at work, taking business-related risk (Mustafa et al., 2018).
Corporate entrepreneurs often question the status quo in an organisa-
tion, sometimes shake the everyday work of their colleagues and divert
routines. That is one of the reasons for the existence of many myths
and stereotypes about corporate entrepreneurship (see e.g. Glinka &
Gudkova, 2011).
1 Intrapreneurs are active mainly for profit. This is one of the most
popular myths that link entrepreneurial behaviour with profit-
seeking. Such a stereotype may suggest certain priorities of indi-
viduals and show that company development is not necessarily
important. As we already mentioned, the need for achievement is a
very common motive of corporate entrepreneurs. Moreover, in many
companies there are easier ways of getting bonuses and profits (like
strict adjustments to the standards of the remuneration system).
92

2 Intrapreneurs strive for power and domination. Such motivation
can result in them taking unethical or irresponsible decisions and
actions in order to succeed. In reality, such motivation is quite rare.
Entrepreneurs want to influence reality around them by introducing
changes, but domination and control are not perceived as the best
way to introduce new ideas. Satisfaction stemming from achievement
is more important.
3 All corporate entrepreneurs are interested in are their own interests.
Egoistic impulses, combined with profit and power- seeking may
suggest that all intrapreneurs want is their own good. Consequently,
companies may not benefit from the actions of such individuals. In
most cases the reality is quite different. Entrepreneurs functioning in
a corporate context most often seek opportunities to improve this
context—for the benefit of the company (and consequently, also their
own satisfaction and benefits).
4 Intrapreneurs are social misfits. Indeed, intrapreneurs can question
the status quo, and sometimes criticise ways the work is done around
them. It means that they often cannot adjust to the existing system.
However, in order to implement ideas, intrapreneurs need to attract
people and build teams. Otherwise, their ideas would most probably
fail or remain only on paper.
On his webpage (pinchot.com), Gifford Pinchot, one of the pioneers of

the analyses of intrapreneurs, and the author of numerous publications in
the field, gathered and published four major definitions of intrapreneurs
in 2017. We will analyse them and treat them as a starting point for the
discussion of intrapreneurs’ functioning and role in organisations.
1 Intrapreneurs are employees who do for corporate innovation what

an entrepreneur does for his or her start-up. The first approach to
corporate entrepreneurs stresses that such individuals play a crucial
role in a company’s innovative activities. They identify (sometimes
also invent) innovations and develop and introduce them. In order to
do so, however, they need to have an appropriate environment enab-
ling them to thrive.
2 Intrapreneurs are dreamers that do. Intrapreneurs are creative people
who are able to come up with many ideas for change and improve-
ment. However, their core role is not only to imagine possibilities and
show them to others but also to turn them into real actions, projects,
or products. Being able to implement ideas is what makes such
entrepreneurial individuals so valuable. Mihály Csíkszentmihályi,
who devoted many studies to creativity, also pointed out this issue,
claiming that creative individuals alternate between imagination
and a rooted sense of reality (see e.g. Csíkszentmihályi, 1996); they
dream, but they can make their dreams real.
03

3 Intrapreneurs are the self-appointed general managers of a new idea.
Turning dreams into reality means doing something to move ideas
forward. Corporate entrepreneurs can very often attract people to
their ideas—they can build a team of volunteers who discuss, test,
and implement ideas, or they can find a way to show the essence of
their idea to colleagues (by visualising, telling a comprehensive story,
making a presentation, or building a prototype). Intrapreneurs are
able to attract the company’s support.
4 Intrapreneurs are drivers of change to make a business a force for
good. Corporate entrepreneurs often focus on ways to turn the
company they work for into a better place that can contribute to
sustainable development. Some focus on innovations that address
environmental challenges, while others find ways to solve social
problems. Pinchot calls them ‘social entrepreneurs’ and claims that
their action is not just doing good—that it often leads to disruptive
innovations (and profitable new businesses).
BOX 2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurial

Teams as Drivers of Change and Innovation
The banking sector all over the world is facing quite rapid changes.
On the one hand, most activities are moving online, and FinTech
instruments (and institutions) are playing a more and more
important role. On the other hand, non-banking institutions are
starting to offer services that were previously only offered by
banking institutions. Such external factors—intense competition,
technological changes, as well as changes in consumer preferences—
enforce innovativeness on those banking institutions that want to
survive and grow.
In the Polish context, the situation in the banking sector is also
very dynamic. Banks—usually huge corporations—need to react
promptly to remain competitive. Such an imperative often leads to
the promotion of corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
behaviour inside organisations. Bank Pekao, one of the major
market players, serving around 5.7 million customers, is one such
institution.
Some innovative ideas, solutions, or products are implemented in
cooperation with external partners. However, some are developed
internally. Bartosz Zborowski— a corporate entrepreneur and
Director of the Innovations and Payments Department, was a key
person supervising the implementation of the bank’s key projects
in 2020. As head of the Digital Transformation Program, Bartosz
Zborowski organised an innovative environment stimulating the
creation of new attractive services. One of these—the PeoPay KIDS
13
app—is a complete financial ecosystem for kids (aged 6–13) and

their parents. This unique solution both promotes financial educa-
tion for younger users and allows them to do banking operations
(like savings, payments, top-ups) using their mobile banking app—
all under the control of the parent.
The intrapreneur may work in any position in the organisation—he

or she may be a line worker, a middle manager, a specialist, or a top
manager. In traditionally structured companies, individuals in man-
agerial positions may have a privileged position due to their access to
information and other resources, decisional competencies, and general
knowledge of the organisation. Increasingly, however, companies are
striving to build environments that also encourage employees from non-
managerial positions to look for opportunities and introduce new ideas.
Entrepreneurial activity can happen not only at all levels throughout the
organisation but may also occur through the activities of individuals that
are performed with or without organisational permission (Mustafa et al.,
2018). As Mustafa et al. (2018) claim intrapreneurship is premised on the
idea that valuable human capital resides in entrepreneurial employees on
all levels of organisation.
Even though corporate entrepreneurs can work on any organisational
level, most of the studies concentrate on those working in managerial
positions. In his seminal book The Nature of Managerial Work, Henry
Mintzberg (1973) defined basic managerial roles; being an entrepreneur
was one of them. At least since then it is taken almost for granted that
managers in existing companies should try to partly think and work like
entrepreneurs. Indeed, many studies show that the role of managers in
fostering corporate entrepreneurship cannot be neglected. First, they do
act as intrapreneurs implementing their own ideas and seeking oppor-
tunities. Second, they serve as role models for non-managers in their
companies. Third, they create or co-create an organisational design/archi-
tecture that serves as a context for employee entrepreneurial behaviour.
Ireland et al. (2009), in their conceptualisation of the corporate entre-
preneurship strategy (CES) model, pointed out that very important
antecedents of CES are connected with the micro-level: top management
and other members of the organisation. Individual entrepreneurial cogni-
tion and strategic vision play a crucial role in that model. As the authors
claim (Ireland et al., 2009, p. 26):
[P]‌
ro-
entrepreneurship cognitions among top level managers are
essential to the emergence of an entrepreneurial strategic vision. The
presence of pro-entrepreneurship cognitions suggests that individ-
uals have broadly favourable thoughts about entrepreneurship as
23

a phenomenon, and that these thoughts are non-context-specific—
that is, they exist as ‘personal’ cognitions rather than as products
of the specific situations in which individuals may find themselves.
Entrepreneurial strategic visions emerge when top-level managers’
broadly favorable thoughts about entrepreneurship collectively
assume a coherent form that has meaning and prescriptive value for
the organization. In other words, the organization becomes the spe-
cific vehicle to which the non-context-specific pro-entrepreneurship
cognitions are applied.
Such assumptions lead to the proposition that the strength of top-level

managers’ pro-entrepreneurship cognitions is positively related to the
emergence of an entrepreneurial strategic vision.
The same authors claim that pro- entrepreneurship is also within
a cognitive domain of non-managerial employees and that when such
cognitions are broadly descriptive of members they are reflected in the
norms of organisational culture. Moreover, the strength of employees’
pro-entrepreneurship cognitions is positively related to the probability
that those individuals will recognise entrepreneurial opportunities and
seek to exploit them (Ireland et al., 2009, p. 27).
There are also numerous studies devoted to middle managers’ role
in corporate entrepreneurship (see e.g. Glaser et al., 2021; Kanter,
2004/1982). Glaser et al. claim that middle managers are key drivers
of corporate entrepreneurship and ‘play a critical role in initiating and
implementing corporate entrepreneurship, as they create linkages across
the hierarchy’ (Glaser et al., 2021) and linkages between business units,
the organisation, and its environment, etc. According to the authors,
middle managers face many challenges in leveraging their role as brokers,
as they depend on the approval of top managers and at the same time care
about their business units’ stability and relationships within their units.
Social capital, as well as the ability to build teams and attract people to
ideas, is very important for intrapreneurs. Glaser, Fourné, Brennecke, and
Elfring support this stance and demonstrate that ‘[r]‌ecognizing that cor-
porate entrepreneurship does not depend on the employee characteristics
alone, a growing stream of literature examines the influence of individuals’
social capital on their creativity and innovative behaviour’ (Glaser et al.,
2021). As we demonstrated above, social networks quite often enable
employees’ entrepreneurial behaviour but sometimes may also serve as a
source of constraint. Glaser’s study of middle managers shows that social
capital gained from top managers—those who are higher in the organ-
isational hierarchy—plays a very important role in shaping middle man-
agers’ willingness to take personal initiative (Glaser et al., 2021). Support
from the top allows middle managers to obtain the legitimacy needed to
protect entrepreneurial activities and to increase the credibility of such
initiatives. This source of social capital must be analysed and assessed
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
Just as he was ready to go, Costes and Rignot, the two French
aviators who were leaving on their eastward trip in an effort to beat
the non-stop record he had established, came over to say good-by
and he wished them Godspeed.
On the way to Cherbourg Lindbergh ran into wind, rain, hail and fog.
He landed there at 11:35 amid what seemed to be the entire
population of the port. He was cordially welcomed by the full staff of
city officials. After lunch at the Mayor’s château he was motored into
the city proper, and at the Gare Maritime a plaque was unveiled
commemorating the spot where he had first flown over France on
his way to Le Bourget.
To avoid pressure of the crowd he jumped upon a Cunard tender at
the dock and reached the fast launch of Admiral Burrage which
carried him to the U.S.S. Memphis, ordered by President Coolidge to
bring the flier home.
IV
WASHINGTON
IT is probable that when Lindbergh reached America he got the

greatest welcome any man in history has ever received; certainly the
greatest when judged by numbers; and by far the greatest in its
freedom from that unkind emotion which in such cases usually
springs from one people’s triumph over another.
Lindbergh’s victory was all victory; for it was not internecine, but
that of our human species over the elements against which for
thousands of centuries man’s weakness has been pitted.
The striking part of it all was that a composite picture of past
homecoming heroes wouldn’t look any more like Charles Lindbergh
did that day of his arrival in Washington than a hitching post looks
like a green bay tree.
Caesar was glum when he came back from Gaul; Napoleon grim;
Paul Jones defiant; Peary blunt; Roosevelt abrupt; Dewey
deferential; Wilson brooding; Pershing imposing. Lindbergh was
none of these. He was a plain citizen dressed in the garments of an
everyday man. He looked thoroughly pleased, just a little surprised,
and about as full of health and spirits as any normal man of his age
should be. If there was any wild emotion or bewilderment in the
occasion it lay in the welcoming crowds, and not in the air pilot they
were saluting.
The cruiser Memphis, on which Lindbergh travelled, passed through
the Virginia Capes on her way to Washington a few minutes after
five p.m. of the afternoon of June 10. Here Lindbergh got the first
taste of what was to come.
A convoy of four destroyers, two army blimps from Langley Field and
forty airplanes of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps accompanied the
vessel as she steamed up Chesapeake Bay. As the night fell they
wheeled toward their various bases and were soon lost to view. They
gave no salute; and, for all the casual observer might have noted,
they were merely investigating this newcomer to their home waters.
But they left an indelible impression upon those in the Memphis that
the morrow was to be extraordinary.
Saturday June 11, 1927, dawned hot and clear in Washington. It was
evident early in the day that something far out of the city’s peaceful
summer routine was going to happen. Streets were being roped off.
Special policemen were going to their posts. Airplanes flew about
overhead. Citizens began gathering in little clumps up and down
Pennsylvania Avenue, many seating themselves on fruit boxes and
baskets as if for a long wait.
The din that greeted the Memphis off Alexandria, suburb of
Washington, began the noisy welcome that lasted for several hours.
Every roof top, window, old ship, wharf and factory floor was filled
with those who simply had to see Lindbergh come home. Factory
whistles, automobiles, church bells and fire sirens all joined in the
pandemonium.
In the air were scores of aircraft. One large squadron of nearly fifty
pursuit planes maneuvered in and out of the heavy vaporous clouds
that hung over the river. Beneath them moved several flights of
slower bombers. The giant dirigible airship, the U.S.S. Los Angeles,
wound back and forth above the course of the oncoming Memphis.
By eleven o’clock the saluting began. Vice Admiral Burrage, also
returning on the Memphis, received his customary fifteen guns from
the Navy yard. The President’s salute of 21 guns was exchanged.
Firing from the cruisers’ battery and from the shore stations lent a
fine rhythmic punctuation to the constantly increasing noise from
other quarters.
Just before noon the Memphis came alongside the Navy Yard dock
and a gangplank was hoisted to her rail. On the shore were collected
a notable group of cabinet officers and high officials. There were the
Secretary of the Navy, Curtis D. Wilbur; the Secretary of War, Dwight
F. Davis; Postmaster General Harry S. New; and former Secretary of
State, Charles Evans Hughes. There were Admiral Edward W. Eberle,
Chief of Naval Operations; Major General Mason W. Patrick and Rear
Admiral William A. Moffett, heads of the Army and Navy air forces.
There was Commander Richard E. Byrd who flew to the North Pole,
and who later followed Lindbergh’s trail to France.
When the gangplank was in place Admiral Burrage came down it and
a moment later returned with a lady on his arm. This lady was Mrs.
Evangeline Lindbergh, the young pilot’s mother.
Instantly a new burst of cheering went up; but many wept—they
knew not just why.
For a few minutes mother and son disappeared into a cabin aboard
the Memphis. It was a nice touch; something more than the brass
bands and cheering. And it somehow symbolized a great deal of
what was being felt and said that hot morning in our country’s great
capital.
Next came brief and a somewhat informal greeting by the
dignitaries. In their glistening high silk hats they surrounded
Lindbergh and for a bit shut him off from the pushing perspiring
crowd still held at bay ashore by the bayonets of the marines.
Suddenly the crowd could hold its patience no longer. With one
frantic push it broke through the ranks of “Devil Dogs” and swarmed
down upon the moored vessel. Trouble was averted by the simple
expedient of getting Lindbergh quickly into one of the waiting cars
and starting for the Navy Yard gate.
The parade escort had been lined up some hours ahead of time.
Now it got under way toward the center of the city, leading the
automobiles that carried the official party. Clattering hoofs of
cavalrymen, blare of bands and a rolling cheer along the ranks of
waiting thousands marked the progress of the young American flier
who had so gloriously come home.
Here for the first time Lindbergh saw the spirit in which his people
were to greet him. They were curious, yes; crowds always are on
such occasions. And they were gay with their handclapping and flag-
waving, shouting and confetti throwing. But there was a note of
enthusiasm everywhere that transcended just a chorus of holiday
seekers witnessing a new form of circus. There was something
deeper and finer in the way people voiced their acclaim. Many of
them wiped their eyes while they laughed; many stood with
expressionless faces, their looks glued upon the face of the lad who
had achieved so great a thing and yet seemed to take it all so
calmly.
When the parade reached the natural amphitheatre of the
Washington Monument the hillsides were jammed with a great
gathering of men, women and children. On the high stand that had
been erected, the President of the United States and Mrs. Coolidge
waited to receive the man who but three weeks and a day before
had been a comparatively unknown adventurer hopping off for Paris
by air.
Ranged about the President were the ambassadors of many foreign
countries, members of the diplomatic corps with their wives and
daughters, and nearly all the high officials of the government.
When Lindbergh mounted the stand the President came forward and
grasped his hand. Those closest to Mr. Coolidge say that rarely has
he shown the unrestrained cordiality he put into that simple
greeting.
The President now moved to the front of the stand and waited for
the applause to be stilled. Presently, when the multitude again was
quiet, he began slowly to speak:
“My Fellow-Countrymen:
“It was in America that the modern art of flying of heavier-than-air
machines was first developed. As the experiments became
successful, the airplane was devoted to practical purposes. It has
been adapted to commerce in the transportation of passengers and
mail and used for national defense by our land and sea forces.
“Beginning with a limited flying radius, its length has been gradually
extended. We have made many flying records. Our Army fliers have
circumnavigated the globe. One of our Navy men started from
California and flew far enough to have reached Hawaii, but being off
his course, landed in the water. Another officer of the Navy has
flown to the North Pole. Our own country has been traversed from
shore to shore in a single flight.
“It had been apparent for some time that the next great feat in the
air would be a continuous flight from the mainland of America to the
mainland of Europe. Two courageous Frenchmen made the reverse
attempt and passed to a fate that is as yet unknown.
“Others were speeding their preparations to make the trial, but it
remained for an unknown youth to attempt the elements and win. It
is the same story of valor and victory by a son of the people that
shines through every page of American history.
“Twenty-five years ago there was born in Detroit, Michigan, a boy
representing the best traditions of this country, of a stock known for
its deeds of adventure and exploration.
“His father, moved with a desire for public service, was a member of
Congress for several years. His mother, who dowered her son with
her own modesty and charm, is with us today. Engaged in the vital
profession of school-teaching, she has permitted neither money nor
fame to interfere with her fidelity to her duties.
“Too young to have enlisted in the World War, her son became a
student at one of the big State universities. His interest in aviation
led him to an Army aviation school, and in 1925 he was graduated
as an airplane pilot. In November, 1926, he had reached the rank of
Captain in the Officers’ Reserve Corps.
© Wide World Photos
NEW YORK CITY—THE PARADE PASSING THROUGH

CENTRAL PARK WHERE OVER 400,000 PEOPLE WERE
GATHERED. A SOLID BANK OF HUMANITY FLANKED OUR
PASSAGE
NEW YORK CITY—PARADE IN CENTRAL PARK AS SEEN

FROM A NEARBY SKYSCRAPER
“Making his home in St. Louis, he had joined the 110th Observation
Squadron of the Missouri National Guard. Some of his qualities noted
by the Army officers who examined him for promotion, as shown by
reports in the files of the Militia Bureau of the War Department, are
as follows:
“‘Intelligent,’ ‘industrious,’ ‘energetic,’ ‘dependable,’ ‘purposeful,’
‘alert,’ ‘quick of reaction,’ ‘serious,’ ‘deliberate,’ ‘stable,’ ‘efficient,’
‘frank,’ ‘modest,’ ‘congenial’ ‘a man of good moral habits and regular
in all his business transactions.’
“One of the officers expressed his belief that the young man ‘would
successfully complete everything he undertakes.’ This reads like a
prophecy.
“Later he became connected with the United States Mail Service,
where he exhibited marked ability, and from which he is now on
leave of absence.
“On a morning just three weeks ago yesterday this wholesome,
earnest, fearless, courageous product of America rose into the air
from Long Island in a monoplane christened ‘The Spirit of St. Louis’
in honor of his home and that of his supporters.
“It was no haphazard adventure. After months of most careful
preparation, supported by a valiant character, driven by an
unconquerable will and inspired by the imagination and the spirit of
his Viking ancestors, this reserve officer set wing across the
dangerous stretches of the North Atlantic.
“He was alone. His destination was Paris.
“Thirty-three hours and thirty minutes later, in the evening of the
second day, he landed at his destination on the French flying field at
Le Bourget. He had traveled over 3,600 miles, and established a new
and remarkable record. The execution of his project was a perfect
exhibition of art.
“This country will always remember the way in which he was
received by the people of France, by their President and by their
Government. It was the more remarkable because they were
mourning the disappearance of their intrepid countrymen, who had
tried to span the Atlantic on a western flight.
“Our messenger of peace and good-will had broken down another
barrier of time and space and brought two great peoples into closer
communion. In less than a day and a half he had crossed the ocean
over which Columbus had traveled for sixty-nine days and the
Pilgrim Fathers for sixty-six days on their way to the New World.
“But, above all, in showering applause and honors upon this genial,
modest American youth, with the naturalness, the simplicity and the
poise of true greatness, France had the opportunity to show clearly
her good-will for America and our people.
“With like acclaim and evidences of cordial friendship our
Ambassador without portfolio was received by the rulers, the
Governments and the peoples of England and Belgium. From other
nations came hearty messages of admiration for him and for his
country. For these manifold evidences of friendship we are
profoundly grateful.
“The absence of self-acclaim, the refusal to become commercialized,
which has marked the conduct of this sincere and genuine exemplar
of fine and noble virtues, has endeared him to every one. He has
returned unspoiled.
“Particularly has it been delightful to have him refer to his airplane
as somehow possessing a personality and being equally entitled to
credit with himself, for we are proud that in every particular this
silent partner represented American genius and industry. I am told
that more than 100 separate companies furnished materials, parts or
service in its construction.
“And now, my fellow-citizens, this young man has returned. He is
here. He has brought his unsullied fame home. It is our great
privilege to welcome back to his native land, on behalf of his own
people, who have a deep affection for him and have been thrilled by
his splendid achievement, a Colonel of the United States Officers’
Reserve Corps, an illustrious citizen of our Republic, a conqueror of
the air and strength for the ties which bind us to our sister nations
across the sea.
“And, as President of the United States, I bestow the Distinguished
Flying Cross, as a symbol of appreciation for what he is and what he
has done, upon Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh.”
Upon completing this address the President then conferred upon
Lindbergh the Distinguished Flying Cross.
A new burst of cheering went up as the medal was being pinned on
by the President. It was at this point in the proceedings that the
Secretary of the Navy, ordinarily most placid of men, is alleged to
have waved his arm in the air like a college cheer leader and
hurrahed as loudly as any. When quiet came again Lindbergh rose
and replied to the President. What he said was brief. But had he
uttered a hundred times as many words, he could scarcely have
conveyed a more important message to those about him.
He said: “On the evening of May 21, I arrived at Le Bourget, France.
I was in Paris for one week, in Belgium for a day and was in London
and in England for several days. Everywhere I went, at every
meeting I attended, I was requested to bring a message home to
you. Always the message was the same.
“‘You have seen,’ the message was, ‘the affection of the people of
France for the people of America demonstrated to you. When you
return to America take back that message to the people of the
United States from the people of France and of Europe.’
“I thank you.”
This is no place to dwell upon the minutiæ of that great day. The
picture must be sketched in with bold strokes and stippled
background. But it is impossible to pass this one short speech of
Lindbergh’s and not cajole the reader to gather something of its
significance. In a sentence it tells the story of the flight; it gives
what the speaker considered his immediate and outstanding
achievement; and it phrases that achievement in words so touching
and so eloquent that France and America, half-estranged through
wretched debt, rang with them for days.
The final touch of the miracle was that this speech was
extemporaneous.
Just as when Lincoln finished his Gettysburg address his listeners sat
stunned at the very brevity of it, so was there a curious silence
immediately following Lindbergh’s utterance. Then came long
applause. Hats were not thrown in the air. But men and women
clapped until their palms were numb. Again many wept. A radio
announcer whose stock-in-trade was routine emotional appeal, broke
down and sobbed.
More and more people were beginning to realize that something was
happening far greater than just the celebration of a mechanical
triumph over the ocean separating Europe from America.
The ceremony ended as simply and quickly as it had begun. The
President’s own car whisked Lindbergh away to the temporary White
House in Dupont Circle. A curious and eager crowd lingered there
behind police lines throughout the afternoon. From time to time their
demanding cheers could be silenced only by Lindbergh’s smiling
presence at the door or balcony.
President and Mrs. Coolidge entertained members of the Cabinet
and their wives that night. Lindbergh sat on Mrs. Coolidge’s right. He
wore conventional evening dress and was distinguished by the ease
and simplicity with which he met both sallies and inquiries of the
imposing guests.
It is one of the cruelties of social lionization that we search for the
peculiarities of our specimen. In Lindbergh’s case his peculiarity lay
in the fact that neither by word, nor look, nor deed was he in any
way grotesque. His eyes were clear, his smile quick; like a practised
diplomat he eluded entangling discussion; and he had a ready reply
for every intelligent inquiry put to him within his range of knowledge
or experience.
It is at risk of dampening the ardor of our narrative that we
repeatedly point to this trait of simplicity that lies in Lindbergh. We
do so because it was from close within the nucleus of this trait that
there sprung the incredible emotional reaction towards his
personality.
After the President’s dinner Lindbergh attended a meeting of the
National Press Club in the Washington Auditorium. This was his first
public appearance “under roof” in America. Six thousand people
risked imminent heat stroke by crowding into every seat and cranny
of the building.
The program opened with an address on behalf of the Press Club by
Richard V. Oulahan. Because this address illuminated the feelings of
the “Fourth Estate,” proverbially cynical toward notoriety, we give it
here in full:
“In your journalistic flight of the past three weeks,” said Mr. Oulahan,
you must have learned that much may be read between the lines of
what is printed in newspapers. So even a novice in newspaperdom
like yourself would have no trouble in reading between the lines of
this journalistic expression an intimate note of sincere affection.
“We of the press rub elbows with all manner of mankind. We see
much of good but we see much of self-seeking, of sordid motive, as
we sit in the wings watching the world’s procession pass across the
stage. If it is true that through our contacts we are sprinkled with a
coating of the dry dust of cynicism, that dust was blown away in a
breath, as it were, when our professional brethren who greeted you
overseas broadcast the news of your peerless exploit. To Americans
it brought a spontaneous feeling of pride that you were of their
nationality.
“The whole world was carried off its feet by an accomplishment so
daring, so masterful in execution, so superb in achievement, by the
picture presented of that onrushing chariot of dauntless youth,
flashing across uncharted heavens straight through the storm’s
barrage.
“But if the press, with such an inspiration, performed its mission
well, it found equal inspiration. It performed as fine a mission in
chronicling the subsequent conduct of our young Ambassador of
Good Will. His words and bearing dissipated vapors of
misunderstanding. He personified, to a Europe amazed at the
revelation, the real spirit of America.
“The press should be proud then, if in telling the story of this later
phase in the career of the American boy, it brought to the peoples of
the world a new realization that clean living, clean thinking, fair play
and sportsmanship, modesty of speech and manner, faith in a
mother’s prayers, have a front page news value intriguing
imagination and inviting emulation, and are still potent as
fundamentals of success.”
Postmaster General New then stepped forward and gave Lindbergh
the first special air mail stamp. As he handed it to the flier he said:
“It is as a pilot in the service of the Air Mail that I greet you. There is
no public service devoted to the peace time of the public whose past
and present are attended by the romance that are attached to the
history of the Post Office Department of the United States.
“From the single couriers of the early days, who followed the
uncertain trails through wood and fen on horseback and on foot, the
picturesque riders of the pony express of a later day, who risked
their lives at the hands of savage foes in the wilderness, the drivers
who serve amid the rigors of the frozen North with dog teams and
sleds, to those intrepid pilots who pierce the night with the air mail
and of whom you are a worthy representative, the whole story is set
in an atmosphere of most engaging romance.
“It has no titles to bestow—no medal it can add to those that have
been given in recognition of your splendid achievement. There is one
thing, however, it can do that will everywhere be regarded as most
appropriate. It has issued a stamp designed for special use with the
air mail which bears your name and a representation of the other
member of that very limited partnership in which you made your
now famous journey across seas. It is the first time a stamp has
been issued in honor of a man still living—a distinction which you
have worthily won.
“It is my great pleasure to be privileged to present to you, and to
the mother who gave you to this service, the first two copies of this
issue as the best evidence of the enduring regard of the Post Office
Department of the United States.”
These speeches are quoted because better than almost any other
capturable entity of those days they reflect the wide scope of the
effect Lindbergh’s success had on both governmental and business
routine. Surely it is difficult to conceive of a military victor shaking so
many foundations, no matter what the might of his mailed fist.
Secretary of State Kellogg next presented Lindbergh with a memorial
volume consisting of a compilation of diplomatic exchanges between
the State Department and the Foreign Offices of the world in
connection with the flight. His words lined in a little more of the
bewildering picture of the world’s admiration enfolding before
Lindbergh’s frankly astonished gaze.
“Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh,” he slowly and ponderously began,
staring hard at the object of his eulogy. “On May 20th and 21st,
1927, the world was electrified by the news of your non-stop flight
from New York to Paris. It was a marvelous accomplishment
requiring the highest courage, skill and self-reliance. Probably no act
of a single individual in our day has ever aroused such universal
enthusiasm and admiration. Your great deed is a mile-stone marking
scientific advancement.
“You have been congratulated by Kings and Presidents. You have
listened to the plaudits of thousands and thousands in Europe and
you know the tributes which have been justly paid to you by millions
more. You do not now realize the thousands who have expressed
their congratulations in letters and telegrams. I have had printed in
this little volume only the official telegrams which passed through
the Department of State and I take pleasure in presenting to you
this volume in commemoration of your epochal achievement.
“Along the highway of human progress, as we look back over the
last half century we marvel at the progress in science, the arts and
invention. Truly this is a marvelous age and your daring feat will
pass into the pages of history.”
Then came Dr. Charles G. Abbott, Acting Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institute who informed Lindbergh that the Institute had
decided to award him the Langley “Medal of Pioneers.” This honor
has in the past been bestowed upon a small but distinguished group
such as Orville Wright, Glenn H. Curtiss and Gustave Eiffel. Thus was
added to the tribute of press and state the commendation of one of
the oldest and finest scientific bodies in the world.
Followed next a medley of messages from special organizations.
Greetings from cities touched by Lindbergh in his historic flight from
San Diego to Paris were read. St. Louis sent a moving reminder that
her people were “waiting for you now impatiently ... waiting since
that gray morning when you launched out over the clouds and the
sea for Paris.”
There was one from the British Government, something almost
without precedent when it is considered that its recipient was a
private citizen on a private enterprise. The official bearer read:
“I have been desired by the British Government to express to
Colonel Lindbergh on this occasion in behalf of all the people of
Great Britain their warm congratulations on the safe return home
after his historic flight across the Atlantic. The British people regard
Colonel Lindbergh with special admiration and affection not only for
his great courage and resource, but also for his equally great
modesty in success and generosity in giving their due to other
aviators who have gone before.”
NEW YORK CITY—SPEAKING AT THE CEREMONIES IN

CENTRAL PARK. GOVERNOR SMITH OF NEW YORK BEHIND
THE “MIKE”
© U. & U.
BROOKLYN, N. Y.—SPEAKING AT THE CEREMONIES IN

PROSPECT PARK
At the end of this bewildering array of orations and gifts the speaker
of the evening was announced. One has only to put oneself in
Lindbergh’s place after reading some of the eloquence listed above
to admire the moral courage it took to face that huge audience and
once more speak with directness and precision of the things nearest
his heart—things often furthest from the burden of the discourse:
“I want to express my appreciation of the reception I’ve met in
America and the welcome I have received here tonight.” It was plain
the flier was going to cover another field than the infinitely delicate
one he had touched earlier in the day. “When I landed at Le Bourget
a few weeks ago, I landed with the expectancy and hope of being
able to see Europe. It was the first time I had ever been abroad. I
had seen a number of interesting things when I flew over Ireland
and Southern England and France. I had only been gone from
America two days or a little less, and I wasn’t in any particular hurry
to get back.
“But by the time I had been in France a week, Belgium a day and
England two or three days—by that time I had opened several
cables from America and talked with three Ambassadors and their
attachés and found that it didn’t make much difference whether I
wanted to stay or not: and while I was informed that it was not
necessarily an order to come back home, there was a battleship
waiting for me.
“The Ambassador said this wasn’t an order, but advice,” the aviator
added.
“So on June 4 I sailed on the Memphis from Cherbourg and this
morning as I came up the Potomac I wasn’t very sorry that I had
listened to it.
“There were several things I saw in Europe that are of interest to
American aviation. All Europe looks on our air mail service with
reverence. There is nothing like it anywhere abroad.
“But, whereas we have airlines, they have passenger lines. All
Europe is covered with a network of lines carrying passengers
between all the big cities. Now it is up to us to create and develop
passenger lines that compare with our mail routes. For this we have
natural advantages in the great distances here that lend themselves
to rapid transportation by air. Moreover, we can make these long
trips without the inconvenience of passing over international
boundaries.
“The question comes up, ‘Why has Europe got ahead of us in
commercial airlines?’ The reason is, of course, that the Governments
over there give subsidies. I don’t think we want any subsidies over
here. Of course, if we had them they would create passenger lines
overnight, so to speak, but in the long run the airlines, the distance
they covered and the routes would be controlled entirely by the
subsidies.
“What we need now more than any other one thing is a series of
airports in every city and town throughout the United States. Given
these airports, in a very few years the nations of Europe would be
looking toward our passenger lines as they now look at our mail
routes.”
Sunday was another full day. Under able guidance of the Chief
Executive, Lindbergh did the things every good American would
expect him to do. And, as one who has seen the lad at close range,
we can say that he did them gladly and with profound appreciation
for the privilege of doing them. After you come to know him you find
out that’s the kind he is.
He went to church with President and Mrs. Coolidge. Accompanied
by his mother he laid a wreath upon the tomb of the Unknown
Soldier in the great memorial amphitheatre in Arlington Cemetery.
He drove to Georgetown and visited the wounded soldiers at Walter
Reed Hospital. He attended a celebration in honor of the 150th
anniversary of the American flag, for which services were held on
the steps of the Capitol and presided over by Charles Evans Hughes.
It was at this last ceremony that Lindbergh received the Cross of
Honor. His response to the honor was brief and typically to the point.
He declared that credit for his flight should “not go to the pilot alone
but to American science and genius which had given years of study
to the advancement of aeronautics.”
“Some things should be taken into consideration in connection with
our flight that have not heretofore been given due weight. That is
just what made this flight possible. It was not the act of a single
pilot. It was the culmination of twenty years of aeronautical research
and the assembling together of all that was practicable and best in
American aviation. It represented American industry.
“In addition to this consideration should be given the scientific
researches that have been in progress for countless centuries. All of
this should have consideration in apportioning credit for the flight.
Credit should go not alone to the pilot, but to the other factors that I
have briefly enumerated. I thank you.”
This was the day well worthy of what Lindbergh had done and what
he stood for. And again, by the spiritual values it comprised, it struck
the inspirational note which had dominated almost everything the
lad has done or said from the moment of his landing at Le Bourget
to the moment of this writing.
Is it any wonder that the populace responded as it did?
V
NEW YORK
ON Monday morning, June 13, Lindbergh rose at dawn and reached

the Mayflower Hotel at 6:45 a.m. for breakfast with the National
Aeronautical Association, which conferred a life membership upon
him.
He reached Bolling Field outside Washington at about 7:30 a.m. Here
rose the only incident to mar his otherwise flawless happiness in the
welcome he had received. His plane refused to “mote.” It didn’t
actually rebel. But there was sufficient irregularity in its engine to
discourage him from risking delay when New York City was almost
every minute voicing its impatience that he hurry to the celebration
awaiting him there. A pursuit plane was quickly obtained from an
army field and he was soon in the air with his escort of more than a
score of ships.
The course of the group led them over Baltimore, Wilmington and
Philadelphia. Eyewitnesses later reported that demonstrations took
place at every one of these places as the air cavalcade went by. Of
course those in the planes, thousands of feet in the air and deafened
by the roar of their motors, heard nothing of the bells and whistles
that saluted them as they passed.
Lindbergh arrived at Mitchel Field about noon. As he had flown in a
land plane and was to be met in the lower harbor by the mayor’s
yacht, he had to make a quick change to an amphibian. This ship
happened to be the San Francisco which had but recently returned
from her “good-will” flight to South America.
She took-off from dry land and a few minutes later volplaned down
to the water just above the Narrows.
Here a sight met Lindbergh’s eyes that old harbor inhabitants
declare was absolutely without precedent in the marine annals of
New York. Even the famous Hudson-Fulton Exposition with its vast
water parades and maneuvers was exceeded.
In the sparkling sunshine of a perfect June morning was gathered
half a thousand vessels of every kind and description. Excursion
boats, yachts, tugs, motor boats, launches, fireboats, even dredges,
formed the spectacular array of shipping gathered to meet the man
who had made the proudest of surface craft, the ocean liner, a back
number on the sea.
A police launch swung up to the San Francisco and took Lindbergh
aboard. He was brought to the Macom, yacht of the Mayor of New
York, amid a deafening chorus of whistles. Indeed, so great was the
din that conversation among the welcoming committees was quite
impossible and remained so throughout the hour’s voyage to the
Battery.
As the Macom moved forward the huge disorderly fleet of crowding
vessels swung into rough column behind her. Massive ocean going
tugs and fireboats clung close aboard to guard her from too curious
craft who sought to wedge their way in toward the yacht for a better
look at the bare-headed boy standing atop her pilot house.
As in Washington, the air was well filled with planes. Their motors’
roar lent a sort of solemn undertone to the shrieking chorus of
whistles and sirens.
There was an interview below decks. It was not very successful. The
whistles made too much noise and Lindbergh very properly refused
to discuss his “feelings”, which are meat and drink to the writing
man.
It was estimated that 300,000 people were massed in the vicinity of
the Battery when the Macom hove alongside. Lining the streets clear
to Central Park was a multitude that was variously estimated from
3,000,000 to 4,500,000. Scores of people were in their places before
eight a.m. on upper Fifth Avenue. Lindbergh did not pass them until
three p.m. Traffic was disrupted. Police control was strained to its
utmost.
As evidence of the almost unanimous turnout for the occasion, the
Police Department of the City issued special instructions to all
citizens about leaving their houses protected against thieves,
something that hadn’t been done for a generation.
When the cavalcade with Lindbergh leading started up Broadway
there came the famous New York “snow storm” consisting of a
myriad paper bits and confetti streamers floating downward from the
skyscrapers. Photographs do scant justice to the spectacle.
At the City Hall Mayor Walker expressed the city’s sentiments with a
felicity that deserves their record here. He spoke more informally
than most had spoken in Washington; by the same token he echoed
through his easily forgivable eloquence much that the inarticulate
thousands waiting without the lines would like to have said.
He struck right at the heart of things when he began:
“Let me dispense with any unnecessary official side or function,
Colonel, by telling you that if you have prepared yourself with any
letters of introduction to New York City they are not necessary.
“Everybody all over the world, in every language, has been telling
you and the world about yourself. You have been told time after time
where you were born, where you went to school, and that you have
done the supernatural thing of an air flight from New York to Paris. I
am satisfied that you have become convinced of it by this time.
“And it is not my purpose to reiterate any of the wonderful things
that have been so beautifully spoken and written about you and your
triumphal ride across the ocean. But while it has become almost
axiomatic, it sometimes seems prosaic to refer to you as a great
diplomat, because after your superhuman adventure, by your
modesty, by your grace, by your gentlemanly American conduct, you
have left no doubt of that. But the one thing that occurs to me that
has been overlooked in all the observations that have been made of
you is that you are a great grammarian, and that you have given
added significance and a deeper definition to the word ‘we.’
“We have heard, and we are familiar with, the editorial ‘we,’ but not
until you arrived in Paris did we learn of the aeronautical ‘we.’ Now
you have given to the world a flying pronoun.
“That ‘we’ that you used was perhaps the only word that would have
suited the occasion and the great accomplishment that was yours.
That all-inclusive word ‘we’ was quite right, because you were not all
alone in the solitude of the sky and the sea, because every American
heart, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was beating for you. Every
American, every soul throughout the world, was riding with you in
spirit, urging you on and cheering you on to the great
accomplishment that is yours.
“That ‘we’ was a vindication of the courage, of the intelligence, of
the confidence and the hopes of Nungesser and Coli, now only alive
in the prayers and the hearts of the people of the entire world. That
‘we’ that you coined was well used, because it gave an added
significance and additional emphasis to the greatest of any and all
ranks, the word of faith, and turned the hearts of all the people of
the civilized world to your glorious mother, whose spirit was your
spirit, whose confidence was your confidence, and whose pride was
your pride; the ‘we’ that includes all that has made the entire world
stand and gasp at your great feat, and that ‘we’ also sent out to the
world another message and brought happiness to the people of
America, and admiration and additional popularity for America and
Americans by all the peoples of the European countries.
“Colonel Lindbergh, on this very platform are the diplomatic corps,
the diplomatic representatives of all the countries of the civilized
world; but before you and around you are the peoples themselves of
all the countries of the civilized world, foregathered in this city, the
greatest cosmopolitan institution in all the world; the peoples who
have come from the forty-eight States of the Union and from every
country of the civilized world; and here today, as Chief Magistrate of
this city, the world city, the gateway to America, the gateway
through which peoples from the world have come in the search for
liberty and freedom—and have found it—here today let it be written
and let it be observed that the Chief Magistrate of this great city, the
son of an immigrant, is here to welcome as the world’s greatest
hero, another son of an immigrant.
“What more need I call to your attention, in view of the busy life
that you have been leading and have the right to expect to lead?
What more can we say as we foregather in the streets of this old
city? And today, not by the words alone of the Mayor, or the
beautifully written words of a scroll, as you stand here I am sure you
hear something even more eloquent and glorious. You can hear the
heart-beats of six millions of people that live in this the City of New
York. And the story they tell is one of pride, is one of admiration for
courage and intelligence; is one that has been born out of and is
predicated upon the fact that as you went over the ocean you
inscribed on the heavens themselves a beautiful rainbow of hope
and courage and confidence in mankind.
“Colonel Lindbergh, New York City is yours—I don’t give it to you;
you won it. New York not only wants me to tell you of the love and
appreciation that it has for your great venture, but is deeply and
profoundly grateful for the fact that again you have controverted all
the old rules and made new ones of your own, and kind of cast
aside temporarily even the weather prophets, and have given us a
beautiful day.
“So, just another word of the happiness, the distinction and the
pride which the City of New York has today to find you outside this
historical building, sitting side by side with your glorious mother,
happy to find you both here, that we might have the opportunity
and a close-up, to tell you that like the rest of the world—but
because we are so much of the world, even with a little greater
enthusiasm than you might find in any other place in the world—I
congratulate you and welcome you into the world city, that you may
look the world in the face.”
Mayor Walker pinned the Medal of Valor upon the lapel of
Lindbergh’s coat. Whereupon Lindbergh for the first time gave in
some detail his sense of the size of the welcome he had received:
“When I was preparing to leave New York, I was warned that if we
landed at Le Bourget we might receive a rather demonstrative
reception. After having an hour of Le Bourget I did not believe that
anyone in New York had the slightest conception of what we did
receive. Again, at Brussels and at London. At London thirteen
hundred of the pride of Scotland Yard were lost in the crowd at
Croydon as though they had been dropped in the middle of the
ocean. With the exception of a few around the car and around the
plane, I never saw more than two at any one time.
“THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS” AFTER HER RETURN

MITCHEL FIELD, L. I.—AFTER THE FLIGHT TO

WASHINGTON
“At Washington I received a marvelous reception. But at New York I

believe that all four put together would be in about just the position
of those London bobbies.
“When I landed at Le Bourget I landed looking forward to the
pleasure of seeing Europe and the British Isles. I learned to speak of
Europe and the British Isles after I landed in London. I had been
away from America a little less than two days. I had been very
interested in the things I saw while passing over southern England
and France, and I was not in any hurry to get back home.
“By the time I had spent about a week in France and a short time in
Belgium and England, and had opened a few cables from the United
States, I found that I did not have much to say about how long I
would stay over there.”
Lindbergh paused for the laughter to subside. This point always
tickled people greatly.
“So I left Europe and the British Isles with the regret that I had been
unable to see either Europe or the British Isles. When I started up
the Potomac from the Memphis I decided that I was not so sorry
that I had taken the Ambassador’s advice. After spending about an
hour in New York I know I am not.”
The parade now formed again and moved up Broadway, through
Lafayette Street, to Ninth and over to Fifth. At Madison Square it
halted at the Shaft of Eternal Light. The ceremony was touching and
impressive. The tall shaft topped by a crystal star, imprisoning light
everlasting, was a fitting memorial to the men who gave up their
lives in the World War. Lindbergh here laid a wreath in their memory.
Fifth Avenue had been packed with people since morning. It was
now mid-afternoon. As in Washington a wave of cheering marked
the progress of the car which held the city’s guest of honor.
At St. Patrick’s Cathedral he stopped, got out of his automobile and
met Cardinal Hayes.
In Central Park the official city welcome ended amid a gathering
estimated at above 300,000 people. Bands were playing and
automobile horns added to the din.
Governor Smith of New York was waiting there with his staff on a
specially built reviewing stand. He pinned on Lindbergh the State
Medal of Honor: adding again to the ever lengthening list of honors.
There was again an exchange of speeches met by salvos of
applause. A sky writer wrote “Hail Lindy” high in the air. Policemen
wrestled with swaying crowds. More than on the avenue it seemed
as if the city were concentrated for a Lindbergh it would never
forget.
Near five the great demonstration came to an end. For a few hours
the center of attraction could escape to the refuge that had been
prepared for him and his mother in a private apartment. But this
escape was qualified by the fact that it took a large guard to hold in
check the many people who sought access to Lindbergh for one
reason or another.
At 8:15 p.m. he rode out on Long Island to the beautiful estate of
Clarence Mackay, head of the Postal Telegraph Company. The place
had been transformed into a fairyland of colored Japanese lanterns,
fountains and illuminated shrubbery. Eighty of New York’s most
prominent people attended the dinner which was kingly in its
appointments. Later several hundred guests came in for dancing.
It would have seemed that this first terrific day might have
exhausted the ardor of the city’s welcome. But there followed a
kaleidoscopic week that was, if anything, more trying. Not only did
Lindbergh move amid a growing chorus of business offers, but his
social engagements jammed tighter and tighter as the hours passed.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
ebookgate.com

Instant Download Corporate Volunteering Responsibility and Employee Entrepreneurship 1st Edition Aldona Glińska-Neweś PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Corporate Volunteering Responsibility and Employee Entrepreneurship 1st Edition Aldona Glińska-Neweś PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Corporate Volunteering Responsibility and Employee Entrepreneurship 1st Edition Aldona Glińska-Neweś PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visit https://ebookgate.

com to download the full version and

Corporate Volunteering Responsibility and Employee

_____ Click the link below to download _____

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookgate.com

Pareto s 80 20 Rule for Corporate Accountants 1st Edition

Commercial Electrical Inspector ICC E2 Exam Prep 2018th

Plastid Genome Evolution Volume 85 1st Edition Shu-Miaw

Advances in Agronomy 80 1st Edition Donald L. Sparks

Frommer s Paris from 85 a day 9th ed Edition Haas Mroue

The Art of BMW 85 Years of Motorcycling Excellence 1st

Entrepreneurship Values and Responsibility 1st Edition

Advances in Cancer Research 80 1st Edition George F. Vande

Corporate Volunteering, Responsibility,

Supporting employee entrepreneurship is among the major challenges

Aldona Glińska-​Neweś is Professor and Head of The Scientific Discipline

Beata Glinka is Professor and Head of the Chair of Entrepreneurship

Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship and Small Business

Information Technology and Competitive Advantage in Small Firms

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development in Post-​Socialist

The Management of Small and Medium Enterprises

Small Business and Effective ICT: Stories and Practical Insights

Motivating SMEs to Cooperate and Internationalize

How Small to Medium Enterprises Thrive and Survive in Turbulent

Managing People in Small and Medium Enterprises in Turbulent Contexts

Business Transfers, Family Firms and Entrepreneurship

The Persistence of Entrepreneurship Myths: Reclaiming Enterprise

Corporate Volunteering, Responsibility, and Employee Entrepreneurship

Aldona Glińska-​Neweś and

First published 2021

List of Figures viii

2 Who Becomes a Corporate Entrepreneur, and How? 22

3 Designing the Entrepreneurial Environment 38

5 Nature, Types, and Outcomes of Corporate

6 Corporate Volunteering and Employee Competency

7 Volunteering and Entrepreneurship: Case Studies 105

1.1 Corporate entrepreneurship: the essence of the phenomenon 9

1.1 Entrepreneurial Approach 12

About the Authors

Aldona Glińska-​Neweś is Professor and Head of The Scientific Discipline

This book is based on results of the project funded by the National

The phenomena of organisational survival and (sustainable) development

Structure of the Book

1 Citi Handlowy Bank (a bank created from the merger of Citibank

These three companies represent various sectors and organisational

This first chapter offers a review of concepts associated with corporate

1.1 The Phenomenon of Corporate Entrepreneurship

1.1.1 The Understanding of Corporate Entrepreneurship

External and organisational context

Individual perceptions, competencies, behaviours

Figure 1.1 Corporate entrepreneurship: the essence of the phenomenon. Source:

1.1.2 The Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship

BOX 1.1 Entrepreneurial Approach

Also importantly, CE is based on employees’ initiatives and thus can

1.2 Different Facets of Corporate Entrepreneurship

1 Innovative ventures created within the firm, internal corporate

Kuratko and Audretsch (2013, p. 330–​331), referring also to some

BOX 1.2 Internal and External Corporate Ventures

modes to support spin-​ offs and spin-​ outs. In some, universities

Strategic entrepreneurship corresponds to a broader array of entrepre-

_ Click the link below to download _

Aldona Glińska-Neweś is Professor and Head of The Scientific Discipline

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development in Post-Socialist

Aldona Glińska-Neweś and

Aldona Glińska-Neweś is Professor and Head of The Scientific Discipline

Figure 1.1 Corporate entrepreneurship: the essence of the phenomenon. Source:

Kuratko and Audretsch (2013, p. 330–331), referring also to some

modes to support spin- offs and spin- outs. In some, universities

The five-point Likert scale (from ‘1—strongly disagree’ to ‘5—strongly

As far as other individual-level factors are concerned, studies show

To some extent, corporate entrepreneurs/intrapreneurs and individual

app—is a complete financial ecosystem for kids (aged 6–13) and

The intrapreneur may work in any position in the organisation—he

Such assumptions lead to the proposition that the strength of top-level