Table of Contents
Climate for corporate entrepreneurship 2
Work discretion 3
Management support 4
Reinforcement 4
Time availability 5
Organizational boundaries 5
Specific climate variables 5
Entrepreneurial Intensity 6
Conclusion 7
Works cited 9
Climate for corporate entrepreneurship
With the increasing global competition, firms continue to re-align their objectives and goals to suit the market demands. In this manner, the assessment of entrepreneurial activities within the company becomes critical to the success of the business (Kuratkoand Morris, 2018, p. 44). Firms need to conduct entrepreneurial health audit on a regular basis to ascertain the performance of their daily operations. The climate for corporate entrepreneurship is essential for firms as it helps them gain a better understanding of the space in which they operate in, the underlying challenges and opportunities provided by the market (Kuratko, 2018, p. 219). For firms to focus on their future, they must clearly understand the present which forms the basis and foundation for future decisions. Entrepreneurial health audit is the primary tool which helps firms to diagnose problems within the firm while establishing priorities for enhancing levels of entrepreneurship within the firm.
The audit is divided into two sections; the first section deals with the entrepreneurship intensity while the second section deals with the corporate entrepreneurship climate. In the current survey which seeks to assess the entrepreneurial health audit of Australian firms while benchmarking it with the industry standards. In the study, the participants were given questionnaires which had a question regarding the factors which relate to the intensity of entrepreneurship within their firms. The participants were mainly the employees of the different firms who had better knowledge of the performance of their companies. Furthermore, another set of questionnaires was supplied to the respondents to assess the corporate entrepreneurship climate within the firms.
All the questions regarding the audit were in the form of Likert scale where the respondents were expected to key in their responses from 1 for (strongly disagree) to 5 for (strongly agree). All the data was coded in an excel spreadsheet for further analysis. For entrepreneurship intensity, six sections were used to assess the level of business within the firms. The parts included the management support, work discretion, reinforcement, time availability, organizational boundaries, and specific climate variables. All the responses were coded and their averages and standard deviations calculated. The results are given below.
Data analysis
Work Discretion
2.1
2.5
2.5
3.4
3.9
2
2.8
1.9
2.1
2
Average
2.47
Time Availability
2.2
1.4
1.3
4.3
4.5
2.3
Average
2.677778
Organizational Boundaries
2.1
1.0
3.3
3.3
3.8
4.7
4.1
Average
3.180952
Specific Climate Variables
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.1
3.2
2.8
1.3
5.0
4.2
4.5
1.7
4.8
4.9
2.2
4.4
4.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.5
4.6
1.7
5.0
1.3
4.5
1.6
5.0
1.0
2.8
Average
3.171111
Management support
1.5
1
1.7
1.6
1
3
1.5
1.3
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.2
2.3
1
1.1
2.2
1
2.2
1
Average
1.57
Reinforcement
4.2
1.9
4.1
4.5
4.7
4
Average
3.95
Work discretion
Work discretion refers to the willingness of the top management to tolerate failure and provide decision-making latitude while restraining from excessive oversight (Rolleriand Lussier, 2016, p.15). From the results of the analysis, the variable has a value of 2.47. This shows that a higher percentage of the respondents believe that the top management in their firms is not willing to tolerate failure. Hence, they are more focused on the success of individual employees which result in the success of the entire firm.
Furthermore, it implies that the top management still controls much of the oversight work which involves closely monitoring day to day activities within their firms. Also, the respondents believed that their firms were not willing to provide them with opportunities to be creative and own the methods of doing their jobs. The findings also imply that the firms were not willing to give freedom to employees to use their judgement in their daily duties, but instead, they would prefer the set standards for making any decision.
Management support
The variable measures the willingness of the top management to support entrepreneurial behavior. From the analysis of the responses, the value of 1.57. The value implies that the respondents feel the senior management in their firms has not been willing to support entrepreneurial behavior. The amount shows that most of the respondents disagreed with the statement that their top management has not been supportive of entrepreneurial behavior. The respondents were of the opinion that their firms were not quick to use improved work methods. Also, the firms would prefer enhanced work methods developed by other people other than their employees. Organizations may fail or succeed if management is weak or strong depending on how the management handles issues when there comes a time of the dispute. Giving relevant examples like in the recent case of CHASE BANK that went into receivership on October 5th, 2017. Then just months later they again went under huge closure of branches which sources confirm that the issues have been management issues. Therefore, in this case, the management was not supportive of the talents which existed within firms, but instead, they would prefer hiring experts outside the firms. Also, those employees who came up with innovative ideas on their own were less likely to be supported by the management.
Reinforcement
Reinforcement implies the development and use of systems which promote entrepreneurial behavior. Based on the results of the analysis, the value for this variable is 3.95. This indicates that a higher percentage of the respondents believe that their firms have managed to create systems which promote and support entrepreneurial behavior. This includes removing all the obstacles which might impact negatively on the delivery of results. Also when it comes to positive reinforcement, then that is the point at which in management it helps in encouraging workers to put more effort towards work that at the end of the day helps in increasing organizational productivity. Because if the employees engage in more innovation, there is a high chance that the firm will grow and experience massive profits. Based on the results, the average for this variable was 2.6 which shows that a number of the respondents rarely have time for innovation. The results imply that most of their time is spent on finishing a considerable workload leaving none of the time for a change. It also means that their jobs are structured in such a way that they cannot find time to think about the broader organizational problems.
This type of reinforcement can be made in form of praising of workers, encouragement, buying of gifts or even offering of incentives to appreciate more the positive behavior which helps the organization to succeed by maximizing its profits for example when working as a receptionist then this helps in ensuring that every customer walking in handled with care and with a lot of respect that will make them feel comfortable to come for services again.
Furthermore, the management can do so by rewarding those employees who excel in their areas of jurisdiction. Even though the respondents admitted to working hard in their duties to meet the company targets, they also confirmed that their jobs had unique challenges which required one to use extra effort to overcome them. The results show that the firms were working hard to reward employees and ensure that they continue to improve on a daily basis. Furthermore, those employees who were performing reasonably well would receive special recognition for their outstanding performance which helps in building trust and self-confidence among the employees.
Time availability
This refers to time individuals and team dedicated to innovation in a firm. Any firm which aspires to grow and control a more significant share in the market must stay upfront by coming up with new ideas and putting them into action. To be an industry leader, a firm needs to focus on new opportunities and find ways to tap on the occasions and increase returns (Todorovicand Ma, 2015, p.29). If the employees engage in more innovation, there is a high chance that the firm will grow and experience massive profits. Based on the results, the average for this variable was 2.6 which shows that a number of the respondents rarely have time for innovation. The results imply that most of their time is spent on finishing a huge workload leaving none of the time for change. It also implies that their jobs are structured in such a way that they cannot find time to think about the broader organizational problems. The results show that firms need to focus on reducing the workload for their employees so that they can find some time to think about the company and find solutions to various problems.
Organizational boundaries
It measures the expected outcomes against the constraints facing the firms. Based on the tabulated results, a value of 3.1 was obtained which indicates that a more significant percentage of the respondents are not sure about this measure. It shows that most of them are not sure whether or not they have been following the standard operating procedures when discharging their daily duties. Furthermore, most of the respondents are not precise about what the firm expects from them. Also, they are not sure if there are clear and precise standards to be followed while discharging their duties. The results indicate that most of the respondents have not sure of some boundaries regarding their job description. The firms need to declare the standard rules and procedures for all the employees and put them in writing. This will help them in assessing themselves based on the set rules and standards thus allowing for improvement. Lack of clear regulations and standards can create a lot of confusion and duplication of work in an organization. Firms, therefore, need to be clear on the mission, goals, and objectives to allow the employees to focus on their work with a target.
Specific climate variables
This section touches on various aspects of the entrepreneurial climate which when combined with other measures; they result in better entrepreneurial behavior. Based on this measure, the value obtained was 3.18 which shows that most of the respondents were not sure on some issues which include the firms rewarding employees who take calculated risks and innovate. Also, the respondents were not sure whether their firms would allow them to pursue multiple careers. Also, the employees were not sure whether their firms focused more on the process than the performance. Based on the various variables, it is evident that the respondents had not spent much of their time to study their firms, their expectations from their jobs, the problems facing the firms and the possible solutions to the problems. It is evident that the respondents focused more on completing daily tasks and meeting daily targets without necessarily trying to learn why the goals are set at certain levels and what they mean to the overall performance of their firms regarding entrepreneurial development.
Entrepreneurial Intensity
The second survey focused on the levels of entrepreneurship being achieved in the organizations. The questions focused mainly on company orientation and entrepreneurial frequency and the results are given below.
Average
Innovativeness
1.8
2.8
2.2
1.8
2.15
Risk-taking
1.8
2.3
3.2
3.3
2.65
Proactiveness
1.7
2.5
2
2.5
2.175
Degree of entrepreneurship
2.325
Average
Frequency of entrepreneurship
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.775
EI=DoE*FoE
2.325*1.775
4.126875
Based on the above results, the respondents were of the idea that their firms were not pro-innovative with a value of 2.15. Furthermore, regarding risk-taking, the firms also performed poorly where the respondents were supportive of the idea that their companies did not want to take risks. Also, the level of proactiveness within the companies was significantly low according to the respondents with most of them admitting that there was no proactiveness at all. Based on the results of innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness, the degree of entrepreneurship was obtained as 2.325 which show that the firms had not focused more on entrepreneurship.
The frequency of entrepreneurship was also assessed based on the new introductions and the degree of newness. The results showed significantly low levels of aggressiveness towards entrepreneurship with a value of 1.775. This showed that the firms had not made any new developments in their business cycle for a while and no new products had been introduced by the firm. Furthermore, the companies had not introduced new services into their mainstream businesses to boost their growth. The entrepreneurship intensity was finally calculated, and the value was 4.126875.
Conclusion
Entrepreneurship may be viewed as a broader term but according to the topic under study entrepreneurship was mainly discussed for commercial purposes, and this contributes to the division of entrepreneurship as intensity and corporate entrepreneurship. Based on the above results for the entrepreneurship intensity and the corporate entrepreneurship climate, it is evident that the firms from which the respondents were chosen from averagely performed in the industry. Even though there are areas in which they were doing very like such as reinforcement, there are areas which need a lot of improvement particularly in the section of entrepreneurship intensity. The firms need to focus on innovation by utilizing the current technology to come up with new products and services. Innovations can be diverse ranging from product diversification in which the technique used in product formation may be changed or even generally changing the taste or even packaging of the product to look more appealing to the consumers, and that automatically increases the rate of demand and supply due to the uniqueness of the products. Pricing may also be used as a strategy that helps companies or organizations to compete in the market and remain relevant businesswise and lastly product diversification coming far much behind and still rated the number one strategy in which successful companies have used to succeed in the market before like the “COCA-COLA’ company that over decades now have remained relevant in the market due to their nature of product diversification and production of other non-alcoholic beverages and brands such as “SPRITE, FANTA, KREST, and STONEY”.
Therefore they should focus more on new services which improve performance and enhance service delivery. Also, the firms should engage all the employees in the firm and combine ideas to attain the best results. The management should tap on internal talents and ideas and put them into action for optimum results. Also, the firms must make it clear to the employees of what is expected of them to increase their efficiency and productivity in the industry. In this manner, the firms will be in a position to tackle the dynamics of the global market.
Works cited
Kuratko, D.F., 2018. 10. The challenge of corporate entrepreneurial leadership. Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship and Leadership, p.219
Kuratko, D.F., and Morris, M.H., 2018. Corporate entrepreneurship: A critical challenge for educators and researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), pp.42-60.
Rolleri, M., Nadim, A. and Lussier, R., 2016. Improving small business viability through the strategic longevity and health maintenance evaluation. Small Business Institute Journal, 12(1), pp.10-20.
Todorovic, Z.W., Todorovic, D. and Ma, J., 2015. CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION IN CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT: A DISCUSSION. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 21(1), pp. 22-44