Research Article

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy

Corporate 2018, Vol. 1(1) 42–60

! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Entrepreneurship: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2515127417737291
A Critical Challenge journals.sagepub.com/home/eex

for Educators and

Researchers

Donald F. Kuratko1 and Michael H. Morris2

Abstract
The world is in the midst of a new wave of technological disruption with entrepre-
neurship and innovation as the catalysts. Yet, organizations struggle with the proper
strategies to initiate innovative activity among their people. Corporate entrepreneur-
ship (CE) is a term used to describe entrepreneurial behavior inside established
midsized and large organizations. The value of CE lies in the extent to which it
becomes a strategy to engage in an ongoing process of entrepreneurial actions to
achieve a competitive advantage. Moreover, a lack of innovative (or entrepreneurial)
actions in today’s global economy could be a recipe for failure. Because the next
generation of business students will be focusing on major corporations for initial
positions, this article examines the domain of CE, how pedagogy can be developed
for the classroom, and the emerging future topics that demonstrate the continuing
importance of CE for teaching and research.

Keywords
corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship pedagogy, entrepreneurial learning

1
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
2
Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Donald F. Kuratko, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Kuratko and Morris 43

Introduction
The development, application, and enhancement of new technologies are occur-
ring at a breathtaking pace, and innovation is driving the way business is con-
ducted. As the number of new ventures, products, processes, technologies, and
patents literally explodes worldwide, established companies can either innovate
their future or become victims of innovation. The world is in the midst of a new
wave of technological disruption with entrepreneurship and innovation as the
catalysts. Yet, organizations struggle with the proper strategies to initiate
innovative activity among their people (Kuratko, Covin, & Hornsby, 2014).
For educators and researchers in the entrepreneurship field, this is a critical
component to examine if contemporary students are to be prepared for the
disruptive future they will confront.
It is clear that today’s environment is filled with many contradictions, and
dealing with paradox becomes a critical aspect of managing in the new innova-
tive landscape. Today, we must embrace contradiction by replacing or with and
(McNulty, 2017). For instance, quality can be higher, and operating costs can be
lower. Firms must innovate and operate with less risk. There needs to achieve
greater autonomy and a sense of centrality. The pathway through such para-
doxes involves fostering and promoting entrepreneurial activity. If history is the
true roadmap of the future, then any organizational advancement will always
rise from the energy and passion that define the entrepreneurial spirit within
individuals. Entrepreneurial activity is the result of each individual’s creativity,
passion, and tenacity. The one true strategy that unleashes individual innovators
is corporate entrepreneurship (CE).
CE is a term used to describe entrepreneurial behavior inside established
midsized and large organizations (Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). Other
popular or related terms include organizational entrepreneurship, intrapreneur-
ship, corporate venturing, and strategic entrepreneurship (Morris, Kuratko, &
Covin, 2011; Pinchott, 1985). Regardless of the reason the firm decides to engage
in CE, it has become a major strategy in all types of organizations (Ireland,
Covin, & Kuratko, 2009).
While innovative actions are a phenomenon that have captivated the interest
of executives in many corporate boardrooms as well as university classrooms,
there is a danger in getting too caught up in the excitement of a particular
innovation or inspiring stories of individual corporate innovators. It is easy to
become enamored with the idea of innovation as the word is fast becoming an
overhyped ‘‘buzzword’’ among corporations, universities, and even govern-
ments. One recent article in Wired magazine called it the most important and
overused word in America (O’Bryan, 2013).
A corporate entrepreneurial strategy represents the guiding light and the
motivating force for organizations as they attempt to sustain advantage in the
marketplace. It is therefore an imperative that educators and researchers
44 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

continue to explore and teach the newest concepts of CE to instill a full under-
standing in the next generation of organizational leaders.
To convey a greater understanding of how the CE field has evolved to a point
of such importance, this article begins with a review of the specific domains of
CE, followed by an exploration of pedagogical approaches to teaching CE, and
finally an examination of the emerging future topics that demonstrate the con-
tinuing importance of CE for teaching and research.

Domains of CE
An Evolving Focus
The concept of CE has evolved over the last four decades. Definitions have var-
ied considerably over time. The early research in the 1970’s focused on venture
teams and basic notions of how entrepreneurship could exist inside established
organizations (Hanan, 1976; Hill & Hlavacek, 1972; Peterson & Berger, 1972).
In the 1980’s, researchers conceptualized CE as entrepreneurial behavior
requiring organizational sanctions and resource commitments for the purpose
of developing different types of value-creating innovations. In other words, it
concerned extending the firm’s domain of competence and its opportunity set
through innovation (Alterowitz, 1988; Burgelman, 1983a, 1983b, 1984; Kanter,
1985; Sathe, 1989; Schollhammer, 1982; Sykes & Block, 1989). During this
decade, the term intrapreneurship was introduced (Pinchott, 1985).
By the 1990’s, researchers had adjusted the focus to include reenergizing and
enhancing the firm’s ability to develop the skills through which innovations
could be created (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Birkinshaw, 1997; Borch,
Huse, & Senneseth, 1999; Jennings & Young, 1990; Merrifield, 1993; Zahra,
1991; Zahra, Kuratko, & Jennings, 1999). More comprehensive definitions
began to take shape during this period, such as Guth and Ginsberg’s (1990)
distinction between two major types of phenomena: new venture creation within
existing organizations and the transformation of ongoing organizations through
strategic renewal. Similarly, Sharma and Chrisman (1999) suggested that CE ‘‘is
the process where by an individual or a group of individuals, in association with
an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or
innovation within that organization’’ (p. 18).
By the start of the 21st century, CE had become relatively well defined as a field
of study—thanks in large part due to the work of scholars to reconcile past works
into a holistic viewpoint. The development of innovation competencies through
CE continued to receive attention in this decade, but this innovation was mani-
fested in a variety of ways, as reflected in a series of key articles. Ahuja and
Lambert (2001) used empirical evidence from the chemicals industry to present
a model explaining how large established firms created breakthroughs. Smith and
Kuratko and Morris 45

DiGregorio (2002) offered a theory of discovery and entrepreneurial action and

examined the varying market effects of entrepreneurial actions. They were
addressing what has become known as the strategic entrepreneurship segment
of CE. Schildt, Maula, and Kiel (2005) examined explorative versus exploitative
learning interactions in corporate venturing, indicating that the governance struc-
ture of these external ventures was key in determining the type of learning that
took place. With all of these various perspectives offering new insights, it became
clear that CE is more complex and can take a number of different forms. As a
result, the contemporary approach acknowledges particular domains into which
these corporate entrepreneurial activities can be categorized.
Many of the elements essential to constructing a theoretically grounded
understanding of the domains of CE can now be identified. Based on the
work of Kuratko and Audretsch (2013) and Morris et al. (2011), CE can be
manifested in companies either through corporate venturing or strategic
entrepreneurship.
Corporate venturing is concerned with the launching of new ventures, and
this can be further broken down into two subcategories. The first of these
would be innovative ventures created within the firm, referred to as internal
corporate ventures (ICVs). With internal corporate venturing, new businesses
are created and owned by the corporation and typically reside within the
current corporate structure (Kuratko, Covin, & Garrett, 2009). The second
activity would be any innovation that is created outside of the firm, referred
to as external corporate ventures. External corporate venturing involves new
businesses that are created by parties outside the corporation and subse-
quently invested in or acquired by the corporation. These external businesses
are typically very young ventures or early growth-stage firms (Covin & Miles,
2007; Morris et al., 2011). They could also include joint ventures created in
partnership with another firm.
Strategic entrepreneurship approaches refer to a broad array of significant
entrepreneurial activities or innovations that are adopted in the firm’s pursuit
of competitive advantage. They usually do not result in new businesses for
the corporation. With strategic entrepreneurship, innovation can be found
within any of five areas—the firm’s strategy, product offerings, served mar-
kets, internal organization (i.e., structure, processes, and capabilities), or busi-
ness model (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013). These innovations can constitute a
firm’s fundamental differentiation from its industry rivals. Hence, there are
two possible reference points that can be considered when a firm exhibits
strategic entrepreneurship: (a) how much the firm is transforming itself
relative to where it was before (e.g., transforming its products, markets,
internal processes, etc.) and (b) how much the firm is transforming
itself relative to industry conventions or standards (again, in terms of
product offerings, market definitions, internal processes, and so forth).
46 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Strategic entrepreneurship can take one of five forms—strategic renewal

(adoption of a new strategy), sustained regeneration (introduction of a new
product or service into an existing category), domain redefinition (reconfigur-
ation of existing product or market categories), organizational rejuvenation
(internally focused innovation for strategy improvement), and business
model reconstruction (redesign of existing business model; Covin & Miles,
1999; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003;
Ireland & Webb, 2007; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2009).
Related to these various activities and domains is the question of how
entrepreneurial an organization tends to be. The concept Entrepreneurial
Orientation (EO) was developed by Miller (1983) and formalized in the entre-
preneurship literature by Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991; see also Morris &
Paul, 1987). Here, a continuum of a firm’s strategic behavioral proclivities is
recognized. A firm’s orientation can range more conservative to more entre-
preneurial, with the entrepreneurial end of the spectrum evidenced by innova-
tiveness (the introduction of new products, processes, and business models);
proactiveness (actively entering new product/market spaces and seeking market
leadership positions); and risk-taking (a willingness among strategic decision-
makers to contribute resources to projects with uncertain outcomes). A large
number of scholars subsequently examined the performance implications of a
firm’s EO (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Morris & Sexton, 1996; Rauch,
Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Stam & Elfring, 2008), generally finding
a positive relationship between EO and performance. Others have questioned
EO’s underlying dimensions and how they are measured (Lumpkin, Cogliser,
& Schneider, 2009; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Stevenson & Gumbert, 1985). Over
the years, a number of alternative perspectives on the conceptual domain of a
firm-level strategic orientation toward entrepreneurship have been proposed
(see the EO Models section of Covin & Wales, 2012 for a discussion of the
different conceptualizations). Nonetheless, as noted in two recent meta-ana-
lyses, the Miller/Covin and Slevin conceptualization is by far the dominant
perspective of EO in the relevant literature (Rauch et al., 2009; Rosenbusch,
Rauch, & Bausch, 2013).
A critical question raised by the considerable volume of nomological research
on EO concerns the extent to which it is more of an attitude, outlook, or per-
spective within an organization, or whether it is more behavioral in nature.
Drawing from measurement theory, Anderson, Kreiser, Kuratko, Hornsby,
and Eshima (2015) propose a formative construction of EO that includes both
managerial attitudes (e.g., toward innovation or risk) and entrepreneurial behav-
iors as jointly necessary dimensions that collectively form the higher order EO
construct.
In essence, corporate venturing, strategic entrepreneurship, and EO combine
to form the overall domain of CE. Building on these elements, it becomes pos-
sible to develop a CE strategy.
Kuratko and Morris 47

Establishing Pedagogy for CE

A CE Course for Educators
While CE is sometimes approached as a module or set of modules in a more
general entrepreneurship course, at many institutions around the world, it is
taught as a standalone course or seminar (Morris, Kuratko, & Cornwall,
2013). However, there is no standard structure for the CE course. The approach
to course design will tend to vary depending on the objectives of the instructor,
the level of the student, and the amount of time allocated for the course.
From a content perspective, the following is an example of the topics around
which a CE course might be organized:

. How organizations evolve; the strategic challenge confronting organizations;

. What it means to be entrepreneurial; the concept of EO;
. Differences between start-up and CE;
. Forms that entrepreneurship takes inside corporations;
. Who is the corporate entrepreneur? Entrepreneurs versus managers;
. A framework for understanding obstacles to CE;
. Innovation, technology and CE; the innovation portfolio;
. Setting goals and formulating entrepreneurial strategies;
. Types of organizational structures and CE;
. The role of control systems, budget systems and cost systems;
. Internal venture capital;
. How the HRM system can facilitate CE;
. Critical aspects and issues surrounding the corporate culture;
. People issues: Resistance to change and fear of failure;
. Entrepreneurship within different functional areas of a company;
. Ethics and the corporate entrepreneur?
. Course wrap-up;

A number of learning resources are available to support the delivery of a CE

course. Examples of standard textbooks include Morris et al. (2011), Sathe
(2007), Hisrich and Kearney (2011), Burns (2008), and Desouza (2011). These
are general texts around which a course can be designed. A wide range of other
books, such as Good to Great (Collins, 2001), The Innovator’s Dilemma
(Christensen, 2013), and Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006) represent good
supplements when teaching a CE course.
For many students, entrepreneurship inside a large, established company is
further removed, conceptually, from their life experiences, especially compared
with start-up entrepreneurship. As such, it becomes important to integrate
experiential learning tools into the CE classroom. Toward this end, excellent
case studies are available to augment lectures and other course activities. These
delve into a range of challenges in organizing for entrepreneurship and seeing
48 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

projects through the entrepreneurial process. Cases can be found through a

search of ‘‘CE’’ in the online case study sites of Harvard Business Publishing,
Darden Business Publishing at the University of Virginia, the Case Centre at
Ivey Publishing, and other case clearing houses.
Other experiential or application-oriented resources can be found online.
A series of podcasts entitled How I Built This is available from National
Public Radio in the United States. Here, fairly in-depth and personal insights
are provided as founders of a number of prominent firms describe the challenges
of sustaining growth and innovation beyond the initial start-up. In addition,
shorter videos that address a host of topics and examples related to CE and
innovation inside companies can be found on YouTube and through online
TED talks.
In addition to these application-oriented resources, engaging students by
having them complete some sort of course project can greatly enhance the
learning process. One direction for such a project could involve a research art-
icle. Students might synthesize available scholarly and applied research and take
positions on such topics as reward systems that encourage CE, the design of
internal venture capital funds, or top-down versus bottom-up approaches to CE.
Another direction is more experiential. Here, students might be required to
conduct and write up an interview with someone who has been involved with
innovative projects inside a larger, established company. While many other
possibilities exist, we encourage educators to consider having students conduct
an audit of a company from an entrepreneurial perspective.

An Entrepreneurial Health Audit

How do we instill an understanding in students about the critical elements of the
internal environment, the roles of managers, and the entrepreneurial strategy of
a firm? A useful class project is called the Entrepreneurial Health Audit (Ireland,
Kuratko, & Morris, 2006a, 2006b). Students are put into teams and assigned to
a midsized or large company that has agreed to participate in exchange for a
final report and presentation assessing the firm from an entrepreneurial vantage
point. The Audit involves a systematic approach that involves three steps or
stages.

Step I: Assessing the company’s entrepreneurial intensity. The entrepreneurial perform-

ance of a company at a given point in time is reflected in its entrepreneurial
intensity (EI) score. EI is an extension of EO and is concerned with both the
degree and frequency of entrepreneurship (Morris & Sexton, 1996).
To assess degree of entrepreneurship, measures are needed of the organiza-
tion’s EO that consists of innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness.
Innovativeness refers to the seeking of creative, unusual, or novel solutions to
problems and needs. These solutions take the form of new technologies and
Kuratko and Morris 49

processes, as well as new products and services. Risk-taking involves the willing-
ness to commit significant resources to opportunities having a reasonable chance
of costly failure. These risks are typically manageable and calculated.
Proactiveness is concerned with pursuing initiatives in advance of rivals’ actions,
with doing what is necessary to anticipate and act upon an entrepreneurial oppor-
tunity. Such pioneering behavior usually entails considerable perseverance, adapt-
ability, and tolerance of failure. Assessment of frequency of entrepreneurship
involves measuring the number of new products, services, and process innovations
introduced over some defined time period (e.g., the last 2 years).
A proven measurement instrument for assessing EI within a company can be
found in Morris et al. (2011). It allows students to graphically capture the pos-
ition of a company on a grid that has degree on the vertical axis and frequency
on the horizontal axis. When interpreting EI scores, it is important to recognize
that norms for EI will differ among industries. One is attempting to achieve
higher levels of EI not in absolute terms, but relative to a specific industry
standard. Measurement of EI also provides numerous opportunities for develop-
ing a richer understanding of how entrepreneurship works in a particular com-
pany. For example, the relative importance of degree and frequency when
measuring entrepreneurial actions may vary depending on certain strategic fac-
tors, such as the pace of technological change in an industry, the levels of com-
petitive intensity, or the heterogeneity of market demand. Also, the conditions
under which degree or frequency is the strongest contributor to performance can
be assessed. It has been speculated that frequency and degree may contribute
fairly equally to short-term results, whereas a greater degree of entrepreneurship
has a stronger long-term impact. In any event, the EI is a powerful assessment
tool for capturing entrepreneurship at the organization or division level.

Step II: Diagnosing the climate for CE. While the assessment of EI captures how
entrepreneurial the company is, a need also exists to determine the underlying
reasons why a given level of EI is being achieved. In a sense, management must
determine the entrepreneurial health of the organization. The Corporate
Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI) is a diagnostic tool for assess-
ing, evaluating, and managing the internal environment of the company in a
manner that supports entrepreneurship (Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002;
Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990). By taking inventory of the company’s
current situation as seen through the eyes of managers, executives can identify
organizational systems and structures that are inconsistent with, or represent
obstacles to, higher levels of EI.
The CEAI is designed around five key antecedents to the creation of sustain-
able entrepreneurship within a company—management support; work discretion/
autonomy; reinforcement; time availability; and organizational boundaries. The
full CEAI survey and its scoring instructions can be found in Kuratko et al.
(2014). It consists of 48 Likert-style questions. The instrument has been shown
50 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

to be psychometrically sound as a viable means for assessing areas requiring

attention and improvement to achieve intended results through use of a CE
strategy. The instrument can be used to develop a profile of a company across
the dimensions and internal environment variables previously described. Low
scores in an area suggest the need for training activities, redesign of systems or
processes, restructuring, or other managerial changes to enhance the company’s
readiness for entrepreneurial behavior and implementation of a CE strategy.
Essentially concerned with a company’s ‘‘entrepreneurial health,’’ the
instrument can significantly benefit organizations and would be of interest
to both organizational practitioners, researchers, and students. For managers,
the instrument provides an indication of a company’s likelihood of being able
to successfully implement a CE strategy. It highlights areas of the work envir-
onment that should be the focus of ongoing design and development efforts.
Further, the CEAI can be used as an assessment tool for students attempting
to evaluate a company as part of the entrepreneurial health audit.
The tacit knowledge of managers at the executive, middle, and operating
levels regarding the role of entrepreneurship within the company and what the
company is explicitly doing to reinforce entrepreneurial behavior is critical.
Managers are most likely to engage in entrepreneurial behavior when the organ-
izational antecedents to that behavior are well-designed and well-communicated.
Individuals assess their entrepreneurial capacities in reference to what they per-
ceive to be is a set of organizational resources, opportunities, and obstacles
related to entrepreneurial activity. Determining that the value of entrepreneurial
behavior exceeds that of other behaviors leads managers to champion, synthe-
size, facilitate, and implement.

Step III: Create an organization-wide understanding of CE. Having assessed the entre-
preneurial performance and the internal environment, the third step in the health
audit involves determining the degree to which a CE strategy and the entrepre-
neurial behavior through which it is implemented are understood and accepted by
affected parties. A CE strategy is implemented successfully only when all actors
are committed to it. Hence, individuals must be aware of the intent and mission
surrounding a CE strategy. Key decision-makers must find ways to explain their
intent and mission to those from whom entrepreneurial efforts are expected. In
addition, the readiness of each actor to display entrepreneurial behavior should be
realistically assessed. Actions to enhance entrepreneurial skills of employees
should then be set into motion. These commitments and processes help to
shape a common vision around the importance of a CE strategy and entrepre-
neurial behavior as the cornerstone to an effective strategic adaptation process. As
a way for organizations to develop a sound program for understanding entrepre-
neurial activity, a CE employee development program can be established. Some
suggested elements for such a program can be found in Kuratko, Covin, and
Hornsby (2014).
Kuratko and Morris 51

The Importance of CE Strategy

Strategy has two key facets when it comes to CE. Morris et al. (2011) contend
that when the strategy-making efforts taken to create competitive advantages
and exploit them are grounded in entrepreneurial actions, the firm is employing
an entrepreneurial strategy. Here, then, we are talking about being entrepreneur-
ial in how management specifies the overall direction of the firm and how it
adapts to changing environmental contingencies (Russell, 1999). Further, when
establishing direction and priorities for the various product, service, process, and
business model innovation efforts of the firm, the company is formulating its
strategy for entrepreneurship. Management is now determining the role of entre-
preneurship and how it can be facilitated within the firm. If we compare these
two strategies, both address issues that are external and internal to the firm.
However, the application of entrepreneurial thinking to the firm’s core strategy
is primarily dealing with external questions such as identifying the unmet needs
in the market and how the firm can best pursue innovation on a sustained basis.
Alternatively, the development of a strategy for entrepreneurship is especially
concerned with internal questions, including the appropriate entrepreneurial
environment for employees to seek and discover company innovations.
Clearly, both aspects of a CE strategy are needed (Morris et al., 2011).
For successful CE, those within the firm must be encouraged and supported
in how to think and act in entrepreneurial ways. Without awareness, encour-
agement, and nurturing, the entrepreneurial behavior that is linked to CE will
not surface or be used consistently throughout the firm (Kuratko, Ireland, &
Hornsby, 2001). Furthermore, an awareness of what CE calls for in terms of
behavior on the part of individuals permits an analysis of choices. Typically,
organizational members compare and evaluate the opportunity costs of enga-
ging in entrepreneurial behavior with those of either not doing so or engaging in
other behaviors. Thus, linking CE activities to strategy and processes is import-
ant (Dess, Lumpkin, & MvGee, 1999).
A more integrated definition of a CE strategy was outlined by Ireland et al.
(2009) as ‘‘a vision-directed, organization-wide reliance on entrepreneurial
behavior that purposefully and continuously rejuvenates the organization and
shapes the scope of its operations through the recognition and exploitation of
entrepreneurial opportunity’’ (p. 21). The strategy is heavily driven by the essen-
tial roles of managers, so students must be aware of their future expectations in
these positions.

The Essential Roles of Managers

Managers, at all organizational levels, have critical strategic roles to fulfill for
the organization to be successful (Ireland, Hitt, & Vaidyanath, 2002). Senior-,
middle-, and first-level managers have distinct responsibilities that are then
52 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

associated with particular managerial actions (Floyd & Lane, 2000), and this
becomes especially relevant when we consider CE.
In examining the role of senior-level managers in the process of CE,
Burgelman (1984) contends that their principal involvement concerns corporate
strategy and setting the strategic and structural context within which entrepre-
neurial behavior can occur. In particular, senior-level managers are responsible
for retroactively rationalizing selected new businesses into the firm’s portfolio
and developing strategy based on their evaluations of those businesses’ prospects
as desirable, value-creating components of the firm. They play an important
selecting role in CE. Senior-level managers are also responsible for structuring
the organization in ways that facilitate the development and eventual integration
of new business ventures embraced as part of the firm’s strategic context.
Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, and Veiga (2008) examined 152 firms in regard to the
impact of a ‘‘transformational’’ CEO on CE. This study provided impetus to the
importance of the directing role that top management must embrace. Thus,
senior-level managers have critical roles in the articulation of an entrepreneurial
strategic vision and instigating the emergence of an organizational climate con-
ducive to entrepreneurial activity. In addition, senior-level managers are cen-
trally involved in the defining processes of both the corporate venturing and
strategic entrepreneurship forms of CE, as they provide leadership to various
entrepreneurial initiatives.
Over the years, evidence indicates that middle-level managers are a hub
through which most organizational knowledge flows (Floyd & Wooldridge,
1992, 1994; King, Fowler, & Zeithaml, 2001). To interact effectively with first-
level managers, middle-level managers must possess the technical competence
required to understand the firm’s core competencies, particularly as they relate
to management and development of entrepreneurial initiatives. Simultaneously,
in their interaction with senior-level executives, middle-level managers must
understand the firm’s strategic intent and goals. Through interactions with
senior- and first-level managers, those operating in the middle of an organiza-
tion’s leadership hierarchy influence and shape the operationalization of the
firm’s corporate entrepreneurial strategy.
Consistent with this view, Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, and Hornsby (2005)
argue that the middle-level manager’s work as a change agent and promoter
of innovation is facilitated by their positioning in the organization hierarchy.
These authors contend that middle-level managers endorse, refine, and shepherd
entrepreneurial initiatives and identify, acquire, and deploy resources needed to
pursue those initiatives. These roles can be further broken explained as follows.
Endorsement: Middle-level managers often find themselves in evaluative pos-
itions with entrepreneurial initiatives emerging from lower levels in the
firm. Then, middle-level managers must endorse selected initiatives to the
top levels of the organization. They must also endorse initiatives originating
at the top-level and ‘‘sell’’ their value-creating potential to the primary
Kuratko and Morris 53

implementers—first-level managers. Refinement involves molding the entrepre-

neurial opportunity into one that makes sense for the organization, given the
organization’s strategy, resources, and structure. Middle-level managers must
convert potential entrepreneurial opportunities into initiatives that fit the organ-
ization. Shepherding: Middle-level managers champion and guide the entrepre-
neurial initiative to assure that those originating at lower levels in the firm are
not abandoned once their continued development requires higher level support.
Identification involves knowing which resources will be needed to convert the
entrepreneurial initiative into a business reality as these initiatives tend to evolve
in their scope, content, and focus as they develop (McGrath & MacMillan,
1995). Acquisition: Middle-level managers are responsible for redirecting
resources away from existing operations and toward entrepreneurial initiatives
appearing to have greater strategic value for the firm (Burgelman, 1984). In
short, it might be argued that the middle management level is where entrepre-
neurial opportunities are given the best chance to flourish based on the resources
likely to be deployed as they are pursued.
According to Floyd and Lane (2000), first-level managers have experimenting,
adjusting, and conforming roles. The experimenting role is expressed through the
initiating of entrepreneurial projects. The adjusting role is expressed through, for
example, a first-level manager responding to recognized and unplanned entre-
preneurial challenges. Finally, the conforming role is expressed through first-level
managers’ adaptation of operating policies and procedures to the strategic ini-
tiatives endorsed at higher organizational levels.
To better understand entrepreneurial actions and the role of management,
Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd, and Bott (2009) conducted a study of 458 man-
agers at different levels in their firms. They found that the relationship between
perceived internal antecedents (as measured by the CEAI mentioned earlier) and
entrepreneurial actions (measured by the number of new ideas implemented)
differed depending on managerial level. Specifically, the positive relationship
between managerial support and entrepreneurial action was stronger for
senior- and middle-level managers than for first-level (lower level) managers.
The positive relationship between work discretion and entrepreneurial action
was also stronger for senior- and middle-level managers than for first-level man-
agers. The few studies that have explored managerial level have emphasized the
role of first-level managers in a ‘‘bottom-up’’ process of CE (Burgelman, 1983a,
1983b, 1984). The Hornsby et al. (2009) study offered a counter view to this
‘‘bottom-up’’ perspective, supporting the notion that higher level managers have
greater ability to ‘‘make more of’’ conditions in the company and thus imple-
ment a greater number entrepreneurial ideas than do first-level managers.
Working jointly, senior-, middle-, and first-level managers are responsible for
developing the entrepreneurial behaviors that can be used to form the capabil-
ities through which future competitive success can be achieved (Kuratko,
Hornsby, & Bishop, 2005). Thus, organizations developing an environment
54 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

conducive to entrepreneurial activity must recognize that there is an integrated

set of roles at the senior, middle, and first levels of management.

Emerging Topics in CE
As the field of CE has become more defined, both the depth and breadth of
topical coverage in the published research have increased. New theoretical and
empirical insights regularly appear that address ever more specific issues,
expanding the richness of what can be taught in CE courses.
Examples of some of the contemporary topics receiving attention include the
following:

. Corporate venture capital and its role in supporting innovation within firms
(Wadhwa, Phelps, & Kotha, 2016; Weber, Bauke, & Raibulet, 2016).
. External corporate venturing as a means for acquiring new innovations
(Basu, Phelps, & Kotha, 2016; Titus, House, & Covin, 2017).
. Women and their role in corporate entrepreneurial activity (Lyngsie & Foss,
2017).
. Understanding employee innovative behaviors (Kang, Matusik, Kim, &
Phillips, 2016).
. Validation and termination processes for corporate entrepreneurial projects
(Behrens & Patzelt, 2016; Fisher, Kuratko, Bloodgood, & Hornsby, 2017).
. Control system factors that influence or restrain corporate entrepreneurial
activity (Goodale, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Covin, 2011).
. Cognitive processes and corporate entrepreneurs (Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007;
Garrett & Holland, 2015).
. The extension of CE to small- and medium-sized firms and not-for-profit
institutions (Kearney & Morris, 2015; Nason, McKelvie, & Lumpkin, 2015).
. The role of CE in family firms (Minola, Brumana, Campopiano, Garrett, &
Cassia, 2016).
. The evolution of the value proposition and subsequent performance of ICVs
(Covin, Garrett, Kuratko, & Shepherd, 2015).
. How learning proficiency of ICVs is related to venture performance (Covin,
Garrett, Gupta, Kuratko, & Shepherd, in press).
. The emotional process for both managers and employees in CE (Biniari, 2012).
. The personal experience of failure when pursuing an innovative project
(Shepherd, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009; Shepherd & Kuratko, 2009).

As these topics demonstrate, CE is a dynamic concept growing in importance

every year. These and other topics within the CE realm will continue to emerge
in our classrooms. So as educators and scholars, we must push the envelope to
better prepare students for the innovative challenges that confront tomorrow’s
organizations.
Kuratko and Morris 55

Conclusion
In this article, we have shown that educators in the entrepreneurship domain
must view CE as holding tremendous significance with so many students begin-
ning careers in major established organizations. Because exponential changes
happening in today’s organizations due to the ever-increasing speed of disruptive
innovations, students need to be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead of
them. Using a tool such as the Entrepreneurial Health Audit, students can gain
the experience of gauging an organization’s internal environment for CE activ-
ities. Not only will they learn more about the challenges of implementing CE but
also retain a valuable tool that could eventually be applied in the organization
that employs them.
So, CE is the critical challenge confronting today’s organizations in this dis-
ruptive age. It is clear that this topic should continue to be embraced by both
entrepreneurship educators and researchers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Ahuja, G., & Lambert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A lon-
gitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic
Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.
Alterowitz, R. (1988). New corporate ventures. New York, NY: Wiley.
Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015).
Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10),
1579–1596.
Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 421–444.
Basu, S., Phelps, C. C., & Kotha, S. (2016). Search and integration in external venturing:
An inductive examination of corporate venture capital units. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(2), 129–152.
Behrens, J., & Patzelt, H. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship managers’ project
terminations: Integrating portfolio-level, individual-level, and firm-level effects.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 40(4), 815–842.
Biniari, M. G. (2012). The emotional embeddedness of corporate entrepreneurship: The
case of envy. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(1), 141–170.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteris-
tics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 207–229.
56 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Borch, O. J., Huse, M., & Senneseth, K. (1999). Resource configuration, competitive
strategies, and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical examination of small firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(1), 49–70.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983a). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the major
diversified firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management:
Insights from a process study. Management Science, 23, 1349–1363.
Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms.
California Management Review, 26(3), 154–166.
Burns, P. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship: Building an entrepreneurial organization.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great
firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don’t.
New York, NY: Random House.
Corbett, A. C., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2007). The conflicting cognitions of corporate entre-
preneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 103–121.
Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Gupta, J. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Shepherd, D. A. (in press).
The interdependence of planning and learning among internal corporate ventures.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.
Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Value proposition
evolution and the performance of internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30(5), 749–774.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of
competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 47–64.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (2007). Strategic use of corporate venturing.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(2), 183–207.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7–25.
Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(4), 677–702.
Desouza, K. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship: Managing ideas within your organization.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship
to strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 23(3), 85–102.
Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom?
The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing
role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.
Kuratko and Morris 57

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and
its association with strategic type. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153–168.
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle
management’s strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), 47–57.
Garrett, R. P., & Holland, D. V. (2015). Environmental effects on the cognitions of
corporate and independent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 369–381.
Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Operations man-
agement and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control
on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation per-
formance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(2), 116–127.
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal, 11(Special Issue), 5–15.
Hanan, M. (1976). Venturing corporations—Think small to stay strong. Harvard Business
Review, 54(3), 139–148.
Hill, R. M., & Hlavacek, J. D. (1972). The venture team: A new concept in marketing
organizations. Journal of Marketing, 36, 44–50.
Hisrich, R., & Kearney, C. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship: How to create a thriving
entrepreneurial spirit throughout your company. New York, NY: McGraw Hill
Professional.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepre-
neurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(Special Issue), 479–491.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers’ cor-
porate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(3), 236–247.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of
the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement
scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 49–63.
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entre-
preneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 33, 19–46.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneur-
ship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–998.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Strategic alliances as a pathway to
competitive success. Journal of Management, 28, 413–446.
Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006a). A health audit for corporate
entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels – Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(1),
10–17.
Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006b). A health audit for corporate
entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels – Part 2. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(2),
21–30.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive
advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50, 49–59.
Jennings, D. F., & Young, D. M. (1990). An empirical comparison between objective and
subjective measures of the product innovation domain of corporate entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1), 53–66.
Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T. Y., & Phillips, J. M. (2016). Interactive effects of
multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial
firms: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 628–642.
58 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Kanter, R. M. (1985). Supporting innovation and venture development in established

companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 47–60.
Kearney, C., & Morris, M. H. (2015). Strategic renewal as a mediator of environmental
effects on public sector performance. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 425–445.
King, A. W., Fowler, S. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. (2001). Managing organizational compe-
tencies for competitive advantage: The middle-management edge. Academy of
Management Executive, 15(2), 95–106.
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring differ-
ent perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(1),
1–17.
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entre-
preneurship. International Entrepreneurship & Management Journal, 9(3), 323–335.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Garrett, R. P. (2009). Corporate venturing: Insights from
actual performance. Business Horizons, 52(5), 459–467.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate
innovation is so difficult. Business Horizons, 57(5), 647–655.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Bishop, J. W. (2005). Managers’ corporate entrepre-
neurial actions and job satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship Management
Journal, 1(3), 275–291.
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., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle-
level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29,
699–716.
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2001). The power of entrepreneurial
outcomes: Insights from Acordia, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4),
60–71.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S. (1990). Developing an entrepreneur-
ial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment.
Strategic Management Journal, 11, 49–58.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational leader-
ship’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT inter-
face. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 557–576.
Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measur-
ing autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 33(1), 47–69.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurship orientation
construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21,
135–172.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orien-
tation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life
cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–452.
Lyngsie, J., & Foss, N. J. (2017). The more, the merrier? Women in top-management
teams and entrepreneurship in established firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3),
487–505.
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (1995). Discovery-driven planning. Harvard Business
Review, 73(4), 4–12.
Kuratko and Morris 59

McNulty, E. J. (2017, March 27). The power of and. Strategy & Leaderships. Retrieved
from https://www.strategy-business.com/blog/The-Power-of-And?gko¼197ab
Merrifield, D. B. (1993). Intrapreneurial corporate renewal. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8, 383–389.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
Science, 29(7), 770–791.
Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., Garrett, R. P., & Cassia, L. (2016).
Corporate venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising
family. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 395–412.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Cornwall, J. R. (2013). Entrepreneurship programs and
the modern university. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship &
innovation (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Thomson Publishers.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and
marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247–259.
Morris, M. H., & Sexton, D. L. (1996). The concept of entrepreneurial intensity:
Implications for company performance. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 5–13.
Nason, R. S., McKelvie, A., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2015). The role of organizational size in
the heterogeneous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,
45(2), 279–304.
O’Bryan, M. (2013, November 15). Innovation: The most important and overused
word in America. Wired. Available at: http://insights.wired.com/profile/
MichaelOBryan#axzz4x6WmeRv1
Peterson, R., & Berger, D. (1972). Entrepreneurship in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16, 97–106.
Pinchott, G. (1985). Intrapreneurship. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation
and business performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 761–787.
Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Bausch, A. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial
orientation in the task environment-performance relationship. Journal of Management,
39, 633–659.
Russell, R. D. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: A cognitive
mapping approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 23(3), 65–84.
Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering entrepreneurship in large diversified firm. Organizational
Dynamics, 18(1), 20–32.
Sathe, V. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: Top managers and new business creation.
Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J., & Keil, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from
external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 493–515.
Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton &
K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 209–229). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the
field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 11–28.
Shepherd, D. A., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Project failure from corporate
entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6),
588–600.
60 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1)

Shepherd, D. A., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). The death of an innovative project: How grief
recovery enhances learning. Business Horizons, 52(5), 451–458.
Smith, K. G., & Di Gregorio, D. (2002). Bisociation, discovery and the role of entrepre-
neurial action. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp & D. L. Sexton (Eds.),
Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 130–150). Oxford, England:
Blackwell Publishers.
Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture perform-
ance: The moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social capital. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.
Stevenson, H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business
Review, 63(2), 85–94.
Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 521–536.
Sykes, H. B., & Block, Z. (1989). Corporate venturing obstacles: Sources and solutions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 159–167.
Titus, V. K. Jr., House, J. M., & Covin, J. G. (2017). The influence of exploration on
external corporate venturing activity. Journal of Management, 43, 1609–1630.
Wadhwa, A., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2016). Corporate venture capital portfolios and
firm innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 95–112.
Weber, C., Bauke, B., & Raibulet, V. (2016). An empirical test of the relational view in
the context of corporate venture capital. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(3),
274–299.
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An
exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259–286.
Zahra, S. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Jennings, D. F. (1999). Entrepreneurship and the acqui-
sition of dynamic organizational capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
23(3), 5–10.

Author Biographies
Donald F. Kuratko, The Jack M. Gill Distinguished Chair of Entrepreneurship,
professor of Entrepreneurship, and Executive & Academic Director, Johnson
Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Kelley School of Business, Indiana
University, USA.

Michael H. Morris, George and Lisa Etheridge professor of Entrepreneurship

and Academic Director of Program in Entrepreneurship, Warrington College of
Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.