There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., forthcoming; Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Westhead & Wright, 2000; Shane, 2000a). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g., Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e., experiments and longitudinal designs. This is not to deny that there is confusion, signs of identity crisis, or widespread frustration among entrepreneurship researchers because of a sense that the field of entrepreneurship research has not come “far enough, fast enough ” (Low, 2001) or that we are “getting more pieces of the puzzle, but no picture is emerging ” (Koppl & Minniti, 2003). The literature is full of definitions of entrepreneurship, which differ along a number of dimensions, i.e., whether entrepreneurship should be defined in terms of dispositions, behavior, or outcomes 1; whether it belongs in the economic-commercial domain or can be exercised also in not-forprofit contexts; whether it belongs only in small and/or owner-managed firms or in any 2 organizational context, and whether purpose, growth, risk, innovation or success are necessary criteria for something to qualify as entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990; Hébert & Link,

This study discusses the concept, substance and impact of entrepreneurship in public sector organisations by applying the concepts of entrepreneurship theories into public sector activities. The entrepreneurial practises in this study are categorised into two different types: a) The development of an entrepreneurial model of action in the public sector organisations, i.e. intrapreneurship, and b) SME and industrial policies aiming at improving the environment and competitiveness of SMEs. These entrepreneurial practises discussed are heavily linked to each other. SME and industrial policy run by municipal support agencies cannot be customer oriented or entrepreneurial if the organisation itself does not work in an entrepreneurial way. It seems that the most effective and efficient SME policy would be achieved by operating public sector organisations entrepreneurially and in accordance with the SME ideology.

Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. 2

Resources and growth orientation as predictors of firm growth

Research sponsored by East of England Development Agency and Isaac Newton TrustAcknowledgements

Response to environmental change is at the heart of firm sustainability. In the case of disruptive technology, previous research describes this challenge as a problem of commitment. Because disruptive proposals do not fit the criteria considered in the existing resource allocation process, they are denied organizational commitment. The following research seeks to address the phenomenon where incumbents do commit substantial resources, but then force those commitments around their existing business rather than find new markets. The analysis draws on extensive multi-level, longitudinal field data collected from a single revelatory case of a newspaper company as its management responded to the Internet. The conceptual framework for the study links the resource allocation and threat rigidity literatures. The data show that threat framing helps build impetus and commitment for disruptive projects that would otherwise stall. However, this same threat-induced action invokes a set of rigidities that prove maladaptive in the face of disruptive change. The research suggests that the role of structure goes beyond resource allocation. Structural independence creates strategic de-coupling of threat and opportunity framing, allowing the simultaneous management of otherwise inconsistent frames. Keywords: Strategic change, threat, opportunity, resource allocation, framing,

1 Paradoxes, dilemmas, and dichotomies are the stuff of intellectual adventure; and we, as scholars, scientists, and philosophers love them. Not only do they serve to challenge received theories, but they usually also indicate the existence of missing or erroneous assumptions, provoking us to break out of our familiar frames of reference into new conceptual realities. In other words, empirical anomalies that cross our paths are harbingers of possible paradigm-shifts in our theorizing. Zeno’s paradox, for example, signaled the curious relationships between the universe of the discrete and the continuous, eventually leading to the theory of limits and the development of modern algebras. Similarly, the inexplicable and erratic twists in Mars ’ orbit boded doom to Kepler’s elegant circular orbit theory and paved the way for the laws of planetary motion based on elliptical orbits. In this essay we examine the assumptions called into question by one such dilemma in business, namely the Innovator’s Dilemma (Christensen, 1997). The two assumptions challenged by the Innovator’s Dilemma are: (1) Predictive rationality in decision making within the firm; and, (2) Pre-existent markets in the firm’s environment.

My Acknowledgments go to Prof. Alain FAYOLLE for his supporting and helpful comments and to Mr. Ayadi HAJJI for his help with English. With gratitude, I thank the scientific committee of the European Summer University for giving me the opportunity to participate in the conference.

In the past decade, technological advancements have led to changes in the economy with important implications for the strategic management of new ventures. In this paper, we argue that the dynamics of competition, success, and failure for new ventures have been significantly altered by the convergence of electronic technologies and the growing importance of knowledgebased assets. We proceed from the traditional argument that relates first-mover advantage positively and liabilities of newness negatively to entrepreneurial success. The extremely high failure rate of new firms suggests that traditional startups have typically been overwhelmed by liabilities of newness. We then argue that two features of firms competing in the new economy – knowledge-based assets and “virtual embeddedness ” – work to diminish the effects of the liabilities of newness and increase returns to first movers, consequently increasing the probability of success for pioneering new ventures. 2

This article attempts to extract and integrate the knowledge generated by practitioners engaged in Corporate Entrepreneurship experiments. Relying on fifteen case studies, it identifies and discusses the three key dimensions of their “theory-of-action”: autonomy, motivation and resource discipline. It argues for the inclusion of a fourth dimension – institutionalization – if Corporate Entrepreneurship is to overcome its present “unstable organizational form ” status.