Beyond the Organizational Bounds in CE Research: Exploring Personal and Relational Factors in a Flat Organizational Structure

Introduction"You can't always plan for innovation. The best companies create multidisciplinary cultures where a spark of innovation can occur anywhere in the organization. What's more, those companies react nimbly when the unexpected does happen and turn that momentary spark into something of lasting value. "- Tom Kelley, IDEOA significant body of research in Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) indicates that imbuing organizations with innovation, vision and creativity is a pervasive, effective means to grapple with constant environmental change and create a sustainable competitive advantage (Bettis & Hitt, 1995; Dess, Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002; Ireland, 2001). Relevant findings in the extant CE literature emphasize conditions that support the strategic transformation of rigid and static organizations into more dynamic learning entities, including the identification of pro-entrepreneurial architectures (Ireland, 2001), entrepreneurial organizational cultures (Brazeal, 1993; Hornsby, Kuratko, & Montagno, 1999; Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990) and strategic postures geared towards innovation and creativity (Covin & Slevin, 1989, 1991; Hornsby et al., 1999; Kuratko et al., 1990). Collectively, this work suggests that successful sustained regeneration (Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney, & Lane, 2003) of novel products, processes and technologies is most often a deliberate, strategic choice orchestrated through structural and internal organizational factors such as "free" time for creative pursuits and monetary rewards for innovations (Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990; Marvel, Griffin, Hebda, & Vojak, 2007; Sathe, 1985; Sykes, 1986). Thus, what precipitates individuals to intentionally act on the belief they can contribute to the innovative capacity of their organizations is a key question of interest.The CE literature has largely considered this question through the lens of cultural ubiquity, assuming that management efforts to support innovation through factors such as monetary rewards, time, and decision-making discretion (e.g., Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd, & Bott, 2009; Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002) provide sufficient impetus for all organizational members across multiple structural tiers. Yet why it is some people are likely to engage in innovative behavior whereas others are not remains incomplete at least in part because CE theory has largely been developed in primarily hierarchical, top-down settings. Moreover, approaching the issue of individual innovation by focusing on hierarchy tends to lead to an over-structuralized theoretical view of individuals' intentionality (Hindle, Klyver, & Jennings, 2009) that underplays other potentially important personal and relational influences reflected in their innovative state of mind. We posit that considering CE factors in a flat organizational structure might be useful to the already substantial dearth of CE research through examining personal (creative self-efficacy or CSE) and relational (Leader-Member Exchange or LMX) variables in a context that allows for closer interaction and alignment with the CEO's vision.There is a small, emerging body of empirical evidence to support the conceptual underpinning of our position. Specifically, recent evidence suggests that organizational-level factors are not equally motivating, supportive to all, or effective across corporate infrastructures (Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd & Bott, 2009). Middle managers, for instance, arguably vary in their willingness to endorse, refine, and shepherd entrepreneurial opportunities. Because they play important shepherding (i.e., championing, nurturing, and guiding) roles (Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, & Hornsby, 2005), how they relate to subordinates appears to be a potentially fundamental aspect to generating the necessary individual volition to undertake innovative endeavors. Yet research focusing explicitly on the role and quality of the relationship between leaders and followers in corporate entrepreneurial activity remains relatively sparse (Tierney & Farmer, 2004),Finally, self-efficacy has been widely investigated in the entrepreneurship literature primarily as a person-centric antecedent variable that markedly impacts entrepreneurial intentions either directly or as a proxy for perceived feasibility of start-up activities (Krueger, 1993; Kruger & Reilly, 2000). …