Article #1
Title and Authors
The article The Aspects of Organizational Entrepreneurship in Competition Environment was written by Ph.D. Ebrahim Chirani and Rogayeh Hasanzadeh from the Islamic Azad University in Iran. The article was presented in the Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review in July 2013.
Summary
The authors of the article focus on corporate or organizational entrepreneurship and stress the importance of new ideas to develop both organizations and society. The article is divided into several sections. The first one examines the existing definitions of organizational entrepreneurship. The authors distinguish between the individual entrepreneur, group entrepreneur, and organizational entrepreneurship (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013). The authors explain each definition and accentuate the advantages and disadvantages of organizational entrepreneurship. In the next section, Chiarini and Hasanzadeh approach the necessity of organizational entrepreneurship.
According to them, corporate entrepreneurship allows the organization to resist and successfully overcome rapid and complex changes, as well as become a better rival to competitive organizations (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013). The fourth section of the article is dedicated to the explanation of entrepreneurship’s effectiveness. Here, the authors present and discuss their main findings; these are the main components of the organizational entrepreneurship: “entrepreneurial tendency” and “entrepreneurial management” (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013, p. 67). Entrepreneurial tendency operates with the three following aspects: risky commitments, the freshness of ideas (innovation), and pioneering (willingness to imply new ideas and suggestions).
Entrepreneurial management, in return, should focus on change and opportunity, offer a broad perspective when making a decision, following changes, and, if necessary, take risks and derive benefits from the outcomes of these risks if it is possible. Aspects of entrepreneurial management are also presented in the article: strategic and resource orientation, organization culture, as well as reward philosophy and management structure (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013, p. 68). The section ’empirical works’ is used by the authors to refer to the previous works in the field and to emphasize the importance of the middle manager’s inefficient organizational entrepreneurship. At last, the authors provide a conclusion where they briefly summarize their findings and proposals.
Research Method
The research method implied in the article is qualitative: the authors reviewed the articles and books written on corporate entrepreneurship and drew their conclusions from these examinations. The authors also critically approached the information from the articles written earlier and compared it to the data presented in the new articles; the research was not limited by the authors’ point of view, although they presented it too. Overall, the research was conducted using the data (empirical and theoretical) from the previous researches, as well as the authors’ findings.
Evaluation of the Article
The article is written in a comprehensible, clear language and will be useful not only to scientists and specialists in the field but also to the students who have just begun their studies. The order of the sections, presented in the article, is logical and justified by the research’s aim. However, while some of the sections are presented and discussed briefly, the section ‘explanation of effective factors on entrepreneurship’ is used by the authors to present much more detailed information than in the other sections. On the one hand, it is comprehensible, because through this data the authors can support their suggestions (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013, p. 68).
On the other hand, if the authors aim to stress the importance of corporate entrepreneurship, they should have discussed its necessity more precisely so that the reader could understand why this topic is important. In the article, only one paragraph is given to the necessity of organizational entrepreneurship (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013, p. 66). To support the findings, the authors could have conducted an experiment to gain their empirical evidence, or they should have overviewed a bigger number of sources (there are only 17 sources presented). Moreover, the articles that the authors used as references were the studies mostly from the 1990s or 2000s, so it is not clear whether the findings from these studies are obsolete or not.
However, the article provides a very intelligible explanation of organizational entrepreneurship, its aspects, and affective factors. No redundant information is provided; all sources are presented correctly, and the data is summarized efficiently. Although the introduction could have been shorter, the conclusion of the paper provides the reader with accurate outcomes and thoughtful notes from the authors. Moreover, further proposals are also presented in the conclusion: “senior managers must pay attention to entrepreneurship generally and organizational entrepreneurship specifically” (Chirani & Hasanzadeh 2013, p. 69). Other studies also support the opinion that CE “plays an important role as a key tool” in a manager’s work (Corbett et al. 2013). These proposals are supported by the findings of the research.
Conclusion
This article has provided information about the types of entrepreneurship and their main advantages and disadvantages. The importance of organizational entrepreneurship to large corporations, its ability to solve complex problems, and adjust to the changing environment were also discussed by the authors. With the help of this article, I learned to understand how entrepreneurial tendencies and management work connect and what features or aspects they have. Especially useful for me was to understand the resource orientation of organizations, as well as the organization culture, and how the organization culture can influence the other aspects.
Article #2
Title and Authors
The article Linking Two Dimensions of Organizational Creativity To Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Moderating Role Of Environment was written by Polish doctoral student Katarzyna Bratnicka and Professor Mariusz Bratnicki from the University of Economics in Katowice. It was published in Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal in 2013.
Summary
The authors examine the role of creativity in entrepreneurship strategy and firm performance. Although the authors state that creativity has been examined regarding its micro-level characteristics, little research was devoted to the creativity on the organizational level (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013). A particular framework is developed in this paper; it implies that entrepreneurial behavior is directly influenced by the organizational creativity that, in return, affects the firm’s performance (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013). Bratnicka and Bratnicki (2013, p. 155) approach “several significant studies [that] have shaped the construct of creativity” and create a figure to present the findings of these studies in a table. They proceed, providing detailed descriptions of relations between creativity and performance/corporate entrepreneurship/organizational environment.
Each of the theoretical overviews is followed by a proposition; these propositions are drawn from the information presented in various sources. The propositions can be interpreted as the main findings of the article: innovations and usefulness need to be regarded as distinct elements of creativity; organizational creativity is supposed to improve firm’s performance; creativity and corporate entrepreneurship relate positively to each other; the environment can “moderate the relationship between organizational creativity” and firm performance/corporate entrepreneurship (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013). It also can strengthen the ties between the firm’s performance and corporate entrepreneurship.
The authors also provide the reader with discussions of the outcomes and suggested propositions; they stress that the study contributed to the theory of organizational creativity and pointed out the importance of environment towards creativity (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013). The perspective used in the article covers corporate entrepreneurship – this was not done in the previous researches, argue the authors. Moreover, the paper is useful for practitioners too, since it approaches the successful implementation of organizational creativity in corporate entrepreneurship (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013). The limitations of the study (e.g. inconsistent measurement of organizational performance) are also explicitly addressed by the authors; several ideas are presented as suggestions for further research.
References to further reading and their value are also explained in the article; almost all references used by the authors during the research were written in the 2000s or 2010s, which implies that the results of these researches are of current interest.
Research Method
The research method implemented in the study was the following: the authors approached and analyzed the existing theoretical and empirical material on creativity. As they state, they used “the pathbreaking works [to] develop a conceptual model” and label organizational creativity as the basis of a dynamic theory that they present in the article (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013, p. 154). The authors also develop their theory based on the relationship between organizational creativity and other concepts, presented in the academic literature. After each section of reviewed academic literature and findings, the authors present their proposal based on the analysis. Overall, there are five proposals; the fifth proposal is divided into several parts. To extend the theory the authors have examined, they address “the mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship” in the creativity literature (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013, p. 159). Thus, the research method is based on the analysis of the creativity and entrepreneurship literature; the conclusions are drawn from the outcomes of the analysis.
Evaluation of the Article
The article presents valuable information for all scholars, scientists, and professionals in the field. It is a good example of a thorough analysis. Moreover, the article is logically structured, written in comprehensive language; the sections of the article are neither too small, nor too big to hinder the reading and understanding of the research. Almost all sources in the research were published in the years 2000-2013, so the authors can guarantee that the information they are analyzing is not obsolete.
Another advantage of the article is that it approaches the question that has been neglected by most scholars: does creativity have an important role in organizations with complex environments? It was suggested by the authors and supported by other studies that creativity indeed influences the high performance of the firm and helps to use new behavioral patterns in unexpected situations (Weinzimmer, Michel & Franczak 2011). However, only this study has successfully proven that corporate entrepreneurship, organizational creativity, and the environment in the firm are connected and that the theoretical model that examines these three aspects has its issues that should not be neglected (Bratnicka & Bratnicki 2013). The evidence, brought by the authors, is valid and provided in big, but not abundant amounts.
However, when I read this article, I noticed that the domains presented in the study are reviewed only by certain categories. It is comprehensible since all the three domains, analyzed by the authors, are broad, and it would not be possible for the authors to approach them and consider all their complex aspects in one research.
Nevertheless, I believe that some of the explanations or discussions could be left out since the authors had already presented them earlier. Although the article is written professionally, some of the paragraphs could be avoided, since they only repeat the authors’ thought and are not necessary.
Conclusion
This article has helped me to understand how organizational creativity and corporate entrepreneurship can be connected and how they influence the firm’s financial performance. Moreover, it was also important to understand that a firm has not only to be ready to implement new ideas but also to regard its performance and how it affects the implementation of such ideas. I have also learned that, although creativity was believed to have little impact on organizations, it has the potential to improve the employees’ performance, as well as the company’s management paradoxes. Corporate entrepreneurship is supposed to positively influence organizational creativity and vice versa. This fact can be helpful to all managers that prefer strategic entrepreneurship practices. At last, it was also helpful to learn that environment can moderate relationships between all three dimensions that the authors analyzed in this study.
Article #3
Title and Authors
The article Board structure and corporate entrepreneurship: A case study of the U.K was written by Satirenjit Kaur Johl, Alistair Bruce, and Martin Binks for the African Journal of Business Management in 2011. The first author teaches at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS in Malaysia, while the other two authors are from the University of Nottingham in England, United Kingdom.
Summary
The authors approach two questions in the study: do the outsiders influence corporate entrepreneurship and do the outside board of directors affect it? Are the size of the board, frequency of board, and board committee meetings able to influence corporate entrepreneurship/ and/or entrepreneurial activities?
The authors provide background information necessary for the understanding of the research and its history; reference several studies that were used during the research and explain what theories or data from these studies are relevant for the research.
The authors proceed and present the connection between corporate governance and corporate entrepreneurship. According to them, since corporate entrepreneurship is often involved in risky situations, it has to be managed (governed) professionally (Johl, Bruce & Binks 2011). Moreover, executives can benefit from some of the entrepreneurial decisions if governance does not pay enough attention to them.
The positive and negative sides of insider and outsider board of directors are also discussed. To support their suggestions or interpretations, the authors provide various data from different sources and analyze this data to understand what type of board of directors has a better impact on corporate entrepreneurship (Johl, Bruce & Binks 2011). At the end of the section, two contradictory proposals are suggested.
Outside director ownership and board size are also reviewed by the authors who discuss if these two aspects can have an impact on corporate entrepreneurship. The same approach is chosen in these two sections as in the previous: the authors provide various examples of advantages and disadvantages of the aspects and discuss them, supporting their assumptions with references from different sources. Thus, the theoretical background has an important role in this study. Board and sub-committee meetings were also approached. The results have shown that corporate governance was very different in various companies; it was also stated that the board size and both the amount of board and sub-committee meetings negatively influenced the entrepreneurial activities of the organizations.
Research Method
The research method used by the authors is stated in the introduction of the article. The mixed-method approach (quantitative and qualitative), as well as the triangulation method, were used to confirm or deny the proposals (Johl, Bruce & Binks 2011). Questionnaires, interviews, as well as secondary data, were used during the research. One-hundred companies were chosen for the study, but only forty-two took part in it; six case studies were used by the authors (Johl, Bruce & Binks 2011). To select the case studies, the score graph was used. Also, as the authors notice, “the study used bivariate correlation analysis” that was suitable for the study’s sample size (Johl, Bruce & Binks 2011). It is also necessary to know that the research conducted in this paper is based on another research project and uses two indexes to compare corporate entrepreneurship and corporate governance.
Evaluation of the Article
The significant advantage of this research is its methodology, i.e. usage of the mixed-method approach (quantitative and qualitative). Such an approach allowed the authors to receive more precise and valid results that are backed up by the evidence that they have gathered from their interviews and questionnaires. The level of professionalism is also indicated by the authors’ ability to present the research and the data in a clear, comprehensive way. I believe that background information, provided by the authors, is also an advantage of the research since it brings the reader important information on the history of the research and introduces the main issues that are examined in the research.
Contradictory opinions are presented in each section of the article, thus allowing the reader to form an independent opinion on the matter. The article has a neat and logical structure, provides detailed information about the project and its results, and addresses the limitations and suggestions for future research.
Generally, I think I can agree with the findings, although it also should be noted that these findings are only suitable for U.K. corporations and organizations. This, in my opinion, is the biggest limitation of the article – its results are valid for the organizations that exist in the U.K. environment. The results of the research are not completely applicable to other countries; however, such a project still has significant value for the corporate entrepreneurship researchers.
Conclusion
This article has shown me that corporate governance is often connected to good organizational performance, although this thesis does not apply to all countries. I have also learned that the structure of the board, as well as its size, can impact the firm’s performance negatively or positively.
However, if the members of the board focus only on the control, it can harm the company and corporate entrepreneurship. It is also not clear if independent non-executive directors are as helpful to the companies and their employees as some belief them to be. At last, the frequency of board meetings was proven to have a direct impact on entrepreneurial activities, states the article.
Reference List
Bratnicka, K & Bratnicki, M 2013, ‘Linking two dimensions of organizational creativity to firm performance: the mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship and the moderating role of environment’, Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 153-163.
Chirani, E & Hasanzadeh, R 2013, ‘The aspects of organizational entrepreneurship in competition environment’, Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, vol. 2, no.11, pp. 65-70.
Corbett, A, Covin, G, O’Connor, C & Tucci L 2013, ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: state‐of‐the‐art research and a future research agenda’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 812-820.
Johl, K, Bruce, A & Binks, M 2011, ‘Board structure and corporate entrepreneurship: a case study of UK’, African Journal of Business Management, vol. 5, no. 34, pp. 13254-13266.
Weinzimmer, G, Michel, J & Franczak L 2011, ‘Creativity and firm-level performance: the mediating effects of action orientation’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 62-82.