1. Warwick Business School James Hayton Professor of HRM & Entrepreneurship Warwick Business School

2. Themes What do we know: a brief review Four challenges for understanding CE Future research needs

3. Warwick Business School Definition & Significance Corporate entrepreneurship (actions) Innovation, venturing, and strategic renewal Entrepreneurial Orientation (qualities): Risk taking, innovativeness and proactiveness Both CE and EO significantly related to financial performance, growth and survival (e.g., Rauch et al., 2009)

4. Warwick Business School HRM systems and CE Higher investments in HRM support CE (e.g., Soutaris, 2002) Higher investments in HRM support CE (e.g., Soutaris, 2002) Multiple dimensions of HR architecture matter (e.g., Hornsby et al., 1999) Multiple dimensions of HR architecture matter (e.g., Hornsby et al., 1999) Discretionary v traditional HRM (Hayton, 2003; Laursen & Foss, 2003) Discretionary v traditional HRM (Hayton, 2003; Laursen & Foss, 2003) HR systems support learning and innovation (e.g., Collins et al, 2005; Kang et al., 2007) Observable: Entrepreneurial initiatives, venturing & innovation Latent: Entrepreneurial Orientation Proximal: Organizational learning Observable: Entrepreneurial initiatives, venturing & innovation Latent: Entrepreneurial Orientation Proximal: Organizational learning

5. Warwick Business School Mediating processes HRM Perceived organisational support (e.g., Eisenberger et al, 1986; Zhang & Jia, 2008) Organisational citizenship behavior (Bolino, Bloodgood & Turnley, 2002; Zhang et al., 2008) Social exchange/social networks (e.g., Collins & Smith, 2006; Kang et al, 2007) CE and related outcomes

6. Warwick Business School Rewards, Incentives & CE Efficiency wage theory Motivation and retention of talent (MacMillan, 1987; Steele & Baker, 1986) Agency theory Individual innovation and risk taking including career risk (Balkin & Gomez-Mejia, 1984; Balkin et al., 2000; Chandler et al.,2000) Internal collaboration, cooperation and integration (Sykes, 1992) Notable absence: stewardship theory and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,2000)

7. Warwick Business School The Challenges

8. Warwick Business School Challenge 1: Varieties of ‘Entrepreneurial’

9. Warwick Business School Four CE ‘types’ (Wolcott & Lippitz, 2007) Resource Authority Dedicated The Enabler e.g. Google, IDEO Advantage: leverage broad-based technical expertise and innovation The Producer e.g. IBM, Shell, Advantage: anticipate disruptive change Ad Hoc The Opportunist e.g., Virgin The Advocate e.g., DuPont, Apple, Advantage: Accelerate business unit growth in related fields DiffusedFocused Organizational Ownership HR Builds Broad, Grassroots Capabilities and incentives for learning, knowledge sharing, risk taking. HR Builds Capacity of Venturing Unit, and Creates incentives for reintegration of businesses HR develops and rewards entrepreneurial Business Leaders and divisions

10. Warwick Business School Tony Fadell Kane Kramer Innovator Champion Sponsor Steve Jobs Challenge 2: Who is the Intrapreneur?

11. Warwick Business School Technical innovator Knowledge Broker Idea champion Executive sponsor 4 entrepreneurial roles

12. Warwick Business School Roles and competencies All roles make a significant contribution (e.g., Day, 1994) Middle managers essential (Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra, 2002) Informal roles may be preferable (von Hippel, 1997) Ability to identify role holders related to success (Souder, 1981) Roles require diverse competencies (Hayton & Kelley, 2005) We still know little about adoption, performance, networking or management of CE roles

13. Warwick Business School a.k.a. ‘Rebuilding the engine while driving down the highway’ Challenge 3: Ambidexterity

14. Warwick Business School Why does adaptation matter in the face of disruptive innovation? “If we attempted to start a potential business and it didn’t fall within a natural business line, it was very hard to develop” IBM SVP Research, Paul Horn (2004)

15. Warwick Business School “[the problem was] “the way work got done at IBM. People running new businesses had to spend an inordinate amount of time justifying their existence” Anonymous IBM Manager

16. Warwick Business School Explore New OpportunitiesExploit Existing Capabilities Autonomous Strategic Behaviors Rule Following behaviors Seeking/findin g new opportunities Performance within strategic objectives Strategic Goals Org Structure, Culture, Leadership, Policies Challenge: Ambidexterity – aka Rebuilding the engine while driving down the highway

17. Warwick Business School Forms of Ambidexterity  Structural Ambidexterity Focus on structural interdependencies HR’s primary role is promoting integration  Contextual/behavioral Ambidexterity Focus on culture and behavioral norms HR’s role is on building an ‘ambidextrous culture’ that motivates two forms of behavior at once (e.g., Patel et al., 2012).

18. Warwick Business School Click to edit Master title style 3 Challenge 4: Knowledge Strategies

19. Warwick Business School Importing Recombining Leveraging Recombining Leveraging Product Line Extension New Platform Development New Business Development Challenge 4: Knowledge Strategies Knowledge strategy Entrepreneurial Structure HR Focus: Making knowledge explicit; Knowing what you know HR Focus: Motivating integration; Ownership of risky new ventures HR Focus: External knowledge identification, acquisition & assimilation

20. Warwick Business School Leadership Structure Culture The intersection of HRM and CE Ability Staffing Training Motivation Rewards HR Architectures Opportunity Participation Work design Entrepreneurial Orientation Human Capital Social Capital Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Integration Entrepreneurial Outcomes Innovation Venturing Renewal Boundaries/Contingencies:  Type of CE – diffused vs focused  Workforce differentiation  Relatedness of new initiatives Motivation for risk taking and innovation Ambidexterity (behavioural & structural) Dynamic capabilities E.g. Absorptive capacity

21. Warwick Business School Future Research Needs 1. Structure: How do structural contingencies (e.g., Wolcott & Lippitz, 2007) influence relationships between HRM and key outcomes? 2. Roles: How do intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and behavioral intentions (Azjen, 1990) apply to CE roles and actions? What is the influence of HRM on social networks? (Collins & Clark, 2006; Kang et al., 2007) 3. Ambidexterity: How do HR architectures contribute to behavioural ambidexterity? (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Patel et al, 2012) 4. Knowledge: What are the complementarities among HR architectures and knowledge capabilities that support CE? (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009)

22. Warwick Business School THANK YOU