**AN INTEGRATED VIEW INTO THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND
STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR WEALTH CREATION
1
Davood Kia Kojori ,2 Mitra Sadooghi,3 Sara Moosavi Dolatabadi
1.Ph.D.Islamic Azad University ,Noshahr & Chalos,Iran. [email protected]
2.M.A.Roodaki Non-profit Higher EducationInstitute ,Tonekabon,Iran.
2
[email protected]
3.Islamic Azad University,Tonekabon,Iran.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is the explain of interactional role of strategic entrepreneurship and strategic
management to wealth creation.According to the mentioned aim,we considered this question that,"how
we can examin the integration between the strategic management and strategic entrepreneurship for
wealth creation?"For answering this question,we introduce a conceptual model of strategic
entrepreneurship through these procedures:1.We considered the related literature review and then
practically drew out variables and measures of this model.2.We refered to another same researches and
drew out other related variables and measures.3.We formed these measures and variables as a
questionnaire- by Delfi test- and gave to the managers of some companies of Mazandaran province of
Iran to answere.4.The result of the test was used by Structural Equations Model (SEM) test and
LISREL software to analyze.5.Finally, we introduce a local model that shows the direct and indirect
interrelationship between the variables and indentifies the priority of regarding to each variables and its
effects on wealth creation.Thus, this model can be used as a base for further studies in the real
world;Meanwhile, the paper concludes managerial applications and directions for further researches in
future.
Keywords: Strategic management, strategic entrepreneurship, wealth creation
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship and strategic management are developing and producing wealth (Amit & Zott, 2001;
Hitt & Ireland, 2000; Hitt et al, 2001, 2002; Ireland et al, 2001; Morris, 1998; Periem & Butler, 2001b).
Indeed, development and wealth creation are definitions of Entrepreneurship’s goal (Certo et al, 2001;
Ireland et al, 2003). Entrepreneurship increasingly is an incentive for wealth creation and economical
development, also in developed economies; it is an outcome of independent activities of companies
(Peng, 2001; Zahra et al, 2000). Similarly, strategic management is related to find reasons about
differentiations among companies in various economies (Farjoun, 2002; Teece et al, 1997). wealth
creation and development are related to each other. In general, effective developments produce wealth
by economical saving from scale and also strengthening position in market. These results help to get
extra production resources and competitive benefits. In addition for more motivation about
development, wealth increases probability of resource assignment (Ireland et al, 2003).
This relation is especially important about risky companies-companies that produce wealth by rapid
development. In our work by studying wealth creation as a result of effective use of entrepreneurship
and strategic management (strategic entrepreneurship), importance of company’s development is
considered. It is assumed that entrepreneurship and strategic management are not independent fields.
Indeed research on both entrepreneurship and strategic management provides valuable unique aid about
1
organization’s knowledge. Anyhow, according to some researcher's opinion, we believe these two
fields are supplement of each other. By understanding that entrepreneurship and strategic management
are supplement a path is provided for researcher to study how organizations create wealth. Although
both entrepreneurship and strategic management are related to wealth creation, trends of each of them
are different.
According to mentioned materials, in this article after review related literature, we try to represent a
model in order to study innovation in small enterprises (as organizational entrepreneurship) of
developing countries. It can be a base for more study and research on related subjects in real world.
Finally, conclusions, results, managerial usages and future direction for researching are stated to
interested researchers follow them.
2. Theoretical subjects (definitions)
2.1. Entrepreneurship
The word entrepreneurship has French root (Entreprendre) that means commitment and also
idiomatically means mediator. This is a concept that studied from various angles. Many experts believe
that entrepreneurship is incentive engine for economical development of developed or developing
countries. Three main reasons for attention to entrepreneurship are wealth creation, technology
development and job production. Also in many cases this concept is defined as job production wrongly.
Since end of seventy decade, because of changes in society values and desires or populationrecognition changes, many small businesses and self employment individuals have been appeared in
developed countries. This occurrence cause to study entrepreneurship issue from various aspects and by
different scientific fields such as economy, management, social science, and psychology.
Schumpeter believes that entrepreneurship is main incentive engine in economical development and
role of entrepreneur is innovation and creation of new material combination (Palmer, 1987, 48).
Entrepreneurship means regognition and using opportunities in order to create and develop small
companies (Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986, 45). Entrepreneurship is process of getting profits by new,
unique and valuable resource combination in uncertain and probable environment. Entrepreneurship is
defined as starting or developing a new company by innovative and risky management.
Entrepreneurship is process that an entrepreneur starts new and small economical activity by his
properties (Drucker, 1985). Furthermore entrepreneurship is process of following opportunities by
person without considering available resources (Hurley, 1999, 2). In summary, the best definition that
can be defined about entrepreneurship is: entrepreneurship is process of innovation and opportunities
usage (Hisrich, 2002).
2.2. Strategic management
Strategic management can be defined as art and science of planning, execution and assessment of multi
functional decisions that aid to reach long term goals of organization. According to mentioned
definition, it is found that in order to attain organizational success, some factors are concentrated in
strategic management: systematizing management, marketing, financial works (accounting), production
(operation), research and development and computer information system (Deivide, 1379, 24).
Strategic management is defined as a process by which organizations can analyze and recognize their
inside and outside environment. Moreover they can build their strategic route, create some strategies
that are useful for attaining goals and execute those strategies. All these activities are done for
satisfaction of key members who called interested parties (Harison & Jan, 1382, 19).
2
3. Importance and necessity of issue
Some researcher state that entrepreneurship focused on newness about shape and configuration of new
products, new processes and new markets as factors of wealth creation (Daily et al, 2002; Lumpkin &
Dess, 1996; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999; Smith & Di Gregorio, 2002). Shane and Venkataraman said a
little different statement that recognition and usage of beneficial opportunities are basis for wealth
creation by entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Both of these two views agree with that
opportunities recognition is core of entrepreneurial activities (Brown & Eisenhardt, 2000; Mc Cline,
Bhot & Baj, 2000). Indeed the power of producing extra wealth by companies and experts results in
robbing entrepreneurship opportunities (Teece, 1998). Entrepreneurship researchers reply to some
questions as:
1- Why, when and how opportunities are provided for produce goods and services?
2- Why, when and how only special people, not everyone, find these opportunities and use them?
3- Why, when and how various activities have been defined for using
entrepreneurship
opportunities? (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, 218).
By reflecting importance of these questions, entrepreneurship is stated as recognizing and using of
unused opportunities (Hitt et al, 2001). Therefore it is stated as a social process that is dependent to
concept (field) (Ireland et al, 2001). Entrepreneurship includes of resource incorporation and use them
for building industrial and organizational configuration (Schoonhoven & Romanell, 2001). Use of
entrepreneurial opportunities help to attempts of company in order to produce competitive benefit and
wealth. Unfortunately, many companies fail in using methods for motivating individuals to follow
entrepreneurial opportunities. Hence individuals are not able to effect on competitive benefits of
company (Day & Wendler, 1998). Furthermore entrepreneurs may recognize and use temporary
opportunities as permanent competitive benefits. At first, this problem occurs when entrepreneurs
strategically fail in resource control and it makes difficult protection of developed competitive benefits
(Hitt et al, 2001). So, both searching opportunities (entrepreneurship) and searching benefits (strategic
management) are behaviors that are necessary for wealth creation and each of them is not enough
without another one(Amit & Zott, 2001; Hitt & Ireland, 2000; Mc Grath & Mc Millan, 2000).
4. Problem description
Ariland et al. summarized the basic meditation about entrepreneurship and strategic management
(Ireland et al, 2001; Hitt et al, 2001, 2002). Their elementary aim was finding questions strategically
about searching wealth in order to help to develop understanding of wealth creation in current or new
venture companies. In brief, their research stated that both entrepreneurship and strategic management
concentrate on how companies can do changes (adapt or search) by using opportunities resulted from
uncertainty in their external environment (Hitt et al, 2001; Ireland et al, 2001). So, companies create
wealth by opportunities recognition in their external environment and then developing competitive
benefits for using them (Hitt et al, 2001; Ireland et al, 2001). On the base of this, we conclude that
entrepreneurship is result of entrepreneurship and strategic management science.
Historically small companies and venture capitals are less effective about protection and development
of necessary competitive benefits; however, they are considerably skilled in recognition of
entrepreneurial opportunities for necessary competitive benefits. In contrast, many existing
organizations are considerably sophisticated and skilled in protection and development of competitive
benefits but they are less successful in understanding of entrepreneurial opportunities for resource
usage and developing abilities. Therefore, venture capitals and entrepreneur companies are outstanding
3
in searching opportunities behavior. On the other hand existing companies are outstanding in searching
benefits behavior.
Potential and Desirable condition: roles of strategic entrepreneurship and strategic management in wealth creation are specified
Problem: gap between existing and desirable condition
Existing condition: roles of strategic entrepreneurship and strategic management in wealth creation are unspecified
Figure 1: Problem of research
5. Conceptual model
Wealth creation Capability by an entrepreneurial meditation is strengthened when it uses in an
entrepreneurial framework. An entrepreneurial framework, must be continuously used when projects
are running and also when company should examine resource assignment replacement. Wealth creation
must be basically followed more by using an entrepreneurial meditation rather than an increasing
meditation. Building a framework from desirable section’s results help to conceive process and results
of goals that must be attained during following entrepreneurial opportunities(Ireland et al, 2003).
Entrepreneurial
meditation
Entrepreneurial
culture and
leadership
Strategic
control of
resources
Use creativity
and develop
innovation
Competitive
benefit
Wealth
creation
Figure 2: strategic entrepreneurship model
6. Explanation of model components
6.1. Entrepreneurial meditation
An entrepreneurial meditation is both individual and social phenomenon. Moreover an entrepreneurial
meditation, in direction of both meditation and action, is important for both independent entrepreneurs
and managers and employees in existing companies(Covin & Slevin, 2002). Mac grath and Mac Milan
stated that entrepreneurship is a meditation method about business focused on uncertainty benefits(Mc
Groth & Mc Millan, 2002). Uncertainty is a conceptual phenomenon resulted from inability in
probability planning about future occurrences, mainly because of information and communication
lack(Hoskisson & Busenitz, 2002). Risks and unspecified conditions are parts of organizational
uncertainty(Priem, Love & Shaffer, 2002). Ability of organizations in facing with uncertainty, indicates
their tendency for improving this inability(Brostrom, 2002).Therefore, an entrepreneurial meditation is
useful for competitive benefit production(Miles, Heppard, Miles & Snow, 2000) and necessary for
wealth creation.
4
6.2. Entrepreneurial culture and leadership
6.2.1. Entrepreneurial culture
Entrepreneurial culture is a systems of common values and beliefs (how things work) that defines
arrangement of company members activities in direction of behavioral moralities development (Dess &
Picken, 1999). A good entrepreneurial culture is recognized by several expectations and facilitates
activities of company in order to strategically control of resources. By insuring that pay a same
attention to searching opportunities and searching benefits behaviors, by means of an effective
entrepreneurial culture we can encourage new risky ideas, bear failures, develop education, support
production, process and management of innovations and see continuous changes as a transporter of
opportunities. So an entrepreneurial culture supports the opportunities that can be seen as continuous
competitive benefits(Mc Groth & Mac Millan, 2000). An entrepreneurial culture can be developed in
an organization that it’s leaders have entrepreneurial meditation.
Individuals with entrepreneurial meditation search existing entrepreneurial opportunities in uncertain
business environments and then specify needed capacities for successful use of them(Covin & Slevin,
2002; Mc Groth & Mc Millan, 2000). Therefore, there is a high correlation between entrepreneurial
cultures and entrepreneurial meditation. Leaders are responsible for development and improvement of
an entrepreneurial culture- entrepreneurial meditation in order to use strategic entrepreneurship
successfully.
6.2.2. Entrepreneurship leadership
Effective leadership are related to success of all sizes and types of companies(Daily et al, 2002). A
specific type of leadership is Entrepreneurship leadership that is stated as power of effecting on others
with strategic control of resources and concentration on both opportunities searcher’s behavior and
benefit searcher’s behavior(Covin & Slevin, 2002; Ireland & Hitt, 1999; Rowe, 2001). Kavin and
oslevin stated that Entrepreneurship leadership specifies by six directions(Covin & Slevin, 2002):
•
•
•
•
•
•
grow a entrepreneurial ability
support treating innovations for current business model
Provide An understanding (sense) of opportunities
Domination of Question and doubt
Revise simple but cheating questions
relation between entrepreneurship and strategic management
6.3. Effect of strategic control of resources on wealth creation
Researches have showed that different performance of companies are based on wealth creation.
Documents represent that private use of company’s resources have stronger effect on performance
(instead of using industrial characteristics), however, considerable effects can be changed on the basis
of industry type(Barney & Arikan, 2001). Brash and Artz found that special resources of company are
needed for effective performance in industry and can be used for supporting a competitive
benefit(Brush & Artz, 1999). Miller and Shamsie showed different type of performance in various type
of environment(Miller & Shamsie, 1996). Hitt et al. find that human resource have direct and indirect
effect on performance of company (according to strategy)( Hitt et al, 2001). Results show that at first,
cost of human resources exceed it’s benefits. During human resource is increased ( growth of
knowledge), it’s benefits exceed costs. In addition, increasing documents exist about company ability
for effective direction of resource portfolio that effect on it’s performance(Henderson & Cockburn,
5
1994; Teece et al, 1997; Zott, 2003). The philosophy put behind it, is that process of control resources
for wealth creation implies resource based attitude about company(Hitt, Clifford, Mixon & Coyne,
1999; Priem & Butler, 2001). Also some activities are required for strategic control of invisible
resources that implies only resources do not able to predict performance difference of company(Amit et
al, 2002). Indeed, special resource of company may produce a continuous competitive benefit only
when they are controlled strategically(Gove et al, 2003). Here we state that resources that facilitate
identical and extensive use of opportunities and benefits searching behaviors during using them, are
strategically controlled.
6.4. Creativity
Specially creativity is increasingly important for companies those act on markets with many
opportunities for difference in goods or services(Barney & Arikan, 2001). Creativity is defined as an
attitude about an activity that result in idea, appropriate and new processes or solutions(Perry- Smith &
Shalley, 2003, 90). Creativity is a continuous process in exchange for result of an independent activity.
Skills for creativity are ability for management of company’s information collection about judgment,
synchronous increasing complexity and exact reminding in order to opportunities recognition(Smith &
Di Gregorio, 2002). Creativity is a base for innovation and if resources controlled strategically,
creativity is supported. Creativity often effect on quality and quantity of both continuous and spoiling
innovations. In general, organization’s personnel with good knowledge in a field, may be creative and
develop continuous innovations. Personnel with appropriate amount of knowledge in fields are likely
creative about methods those result in spoiling innovations. About a specific job, continuous creativity
encourage personnel to create new methods for value creation by their jobs, on the other hand, when
personnel do spoiling creativity, they plan again work procedures as new options(Perry- Smith &
Shally, 2003). Spoiling or radical innovation comes from recognition and use of entrepreneurial
opportunities by new arrangement of resources to create new abilities those result in competitive
benefits.
7. methodology
Various opinions and view points have been set forth regarding the method of researching. (Zohouri
2000, 27). With regard to the double ways of explaining the hypotheses, including the usages of the
statistical skills and non-statistical skills such as the research in the operations (Nov, 1995, 34), the first
research is located in the first group. The purpose of the current article has been to survey and examine
the presentation of the conceptual model of the strategic entrepreneurship in order to create the wealth
generally, and in the Mazandarn province particularly. Based upon this, the instrument of the collection
of the data or information for testing of the questions is questionnaire in the current research which was
designed during the following step:
The first step: The extraction of the variables relating to the strategic entrepreneurship in order to
produce the wealth from the subjective literature as well as the results of the similar researches
connected with the problem of current research.
The second step: The extracted variables of the first step were put at the experts and alerts disposal; the
aim of the execution of this step is to specify the variables which show the direct or indirect effect of
the strategic entrepreneurship to produce the wealth.
The third step: On the basis of the acquired results in the second step, the action was taken to regulate
the final questionnaire of the current research, and the dimensions of the research's model were
specified in this step, and the under-studied variables were classified in each dimension of the
research's pattern.
6
There are various methods in order to determine admissibility of the measuring tools which one of
them is to ask question from the experts and alerts. The questions of the measuring tools of the current
research are of the credit because the parts or the current research are of the credit because the parts or
the elements of the under – measured variables have taken from the subjective literature, and, in other
words, the agreement of the expects and authorities of the affair has been reached regarding them.
Also, there are various and several methods in order to specify the reliability of the measuring
instruments which one of them is the evaluation/ measurement of the internal compatibility (Conca &
et al, 2004) the internal compatibility of the measuring tools can be measured by the alpha coefficient
of Chronbach – 1951). Although the admissible minimum amount for this coefficient must be 0.7, the
amounts of the 0.6 and even 0.55 are also admissible (van de Ven and Ferry, 1979 & Nunnally, 1978).
In the current research, 30 questionnaires were distributed experimentally which the rate of it's
reliability was resulted as the figure of 0.890 through the "Spss" Soft ware and using the Chronbach's
Alpha formula that has been suggestive of the relative high reliability of the questionnaire.
In order to solve the problem and answer to the questions of the research, the followings steps or paces
were traversed: the library readings (to review the subjective literature), extraction of the environmental
variables, the operational definition of the variables (together with the view- point measurement of the
experts and alerts), designation and development of the instruments of collecting the data and field
studies were done in the companies of the Mazandaran province, and the data – were collected, and the
analysis of the data and information was proceeded, which of course, have been used in the subject of
the analysis of the results arisen from the LISREL soft ware- in order to explain the patterns of the
relationships explaining the variables connected with the strategic entrepreneurship to produce the
wealth in the Mazandaran province in the mould of the model of the structural equations (SEM).
8. Conclusion
The goal of this article is replying to this question that what is the relation of strategic entrepreneurship
and strategic management in wealth creation? The philosophy of such question is that how use
incorporation of strategic entrepreneurship and strategic management in wealth creation, as mentioned
in section 5. in order to reply to this question, this article has defined and explained strategic
entrepreneurship model in direction of incorporating benefits and opportunities searching behaviors, in
an innovative and new way.
As it was above mentioned, the above division is based and documented on the statements of the
experts of the affair. In the continuation of the discussion, we will specify, using the pattern of the
variables of the entrepreneurship and the strategic management has a direct and indirect influence on
the creation of the wealth and is to be explained so that we are able to develop it's native pattern. In this
sections, the integrated and transacted connections among the variables will be considered in the mould
of the equations of the structural regression. This task can be performed by the " LISREL soft ware."
Table1: The specifications of the entrepreneurship variables and the strategic management in order
to create the wealth in the Mazandaran province.
Row
Independent Variable
Title No of questions
1
Entrepreneurial meditation
EM
9
2
Entrepreneurial culture and
ECL
6
leadership
3
Strategic control of resources
SCR
8
4
Use creativity and develop
UCDI
8
7
5
innovation
Competitive benefit
CB
7
The pattern of the structural equations of the explaining variables connected with the strategic
entrepreneurship in order to produce wealth in the Mazandaran province based on the LISREL soft
ware, which is as following.
8.1. Result of the test
The result of testing shows which, considering that the index of RMSEA or the square root of
estimating the approximate error is less than 10% ten percent (RMSEA=0.043), It can thus be said that
the above model has had a good fit from the data of the real world. As a result, the generality of the
native model has been confirmed; That is, the determined variables are well explaining the creation of
the wealth in the Mazandaran province. Based upon this, the structural equation of the direct and
indirect effects of the variables has been extracted as following on the basis of the out put of the
LISREL soft ware:
The rate of explaining of effecting influencing the explained variables connected to the strategic
entrepreneurship in order to produce the wealth in the mazandaran province= the direct effects of the
variables + the indirect effects of the variables. Ss = [0.35EM + 0.44EC +0.155CR + 0.26UCDI +
0.06CB] + [The indirect effects of variables inserted in the out put of LISREL soft ware].
As it will be noted in the above structural equations, the variables expressing the creation of the wealth
in the Mazandarn province and their explained effects have been specified directly and indirectly.
In fact, the above equation shows the fited regression model. Among the variables explaining the
production of the wealth in the Mazandarn province, that is, any form of the prediction and change in
these variables can be possible through the voluntary conscious change in the explaining variables
considering the calculated coefficients.
8
9. Suggestions and managerial usages
As mentioned, review of literature has shown that strategic entrepreneurship framework help to
conceive that how wealth create in companies. Companies that recognize potential value of
opportunities but are not able to use them for developing a competitive benefit, can not produce a value
for their customers or a wealth for their shareholders. On the other hand, companies that have
competitive benefits but can not recognize valuable entrepreneurial opportunities, is likely unable to
protect or continue those benefits. Therefore, they can not continue wealth creation process for their
shareholders. In brief, all companies, small or large, new or existing, must be follow both searching
opportunities behavior and searching benefits behavior synchronously.
References
♦-Amit, R., & Zott, C., (2001), Value creation in e-business, Strategic Management Journal,
22(Special Issue), pp. 493– 520.
♦-Amit, R., Lucier, C., Hitt, M. A., & Nixon, R. D., (2002), Strategies for creating value in the
entrepreneurial millennium. In M. A, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
♦- Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M., (2001), The resource-based view: Origins and implications.
In M. A, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
♦-Brockhaus, R. & Horwitz, P., (1986), The psychology of the entrepreneur, in D. Sexton & R.
Smilor(eds), The art and science of entrepreneurship, Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.
♦-Brorstrom, B., (2002), The world’s richest municipality: The importance of institutions for
municipal development, Journal of Economic Issues, XXXVI(4), pp. 55–78.
♦- Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M., (2000), Patching: Restitching business portfolios in
dynamic markets, The McKinsey Quarterly, pp. 137–146.
♦-Brush, T. H., & Artz, K. W., (1999), Toward a contingent resource-based theory: The impact
of information asymmetry on the value of capabilities in veterinary medicine, Strategic
Management Journal, 20, pp. 223–250.
♦-Certo, S. T., Covin, J. G., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R., (2001), Wealth and the effects of
founder management among IPO-stage new ventures, Strategic Management Journal, 22(Special
Issue), pp. 641–658.
♦-Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P., (1999), Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of
competitive advantage, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), pp. 47–63.
♦-Daily, C. M., McDougall, P. P., Covin, J. G., & Dalton, D. R., (2002), Governance and
strategic leadership in entrepreneurial firms, Journal of Management, 28, pp. 387–412.
♦-Day, J. D., & Wendler, J. C., (1998), The new economics of organization, The McKinsey
Quarterly, 1, pp. 5–18.
♦-Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C., (1999), Beyond productivity: How leading companies achieve
superior performance by leveraging their human capital, New York: AMACOM. Management
Review, 44(3), pp. 61–66.
♦- Drucker, P., (1985), Innovation and entrepreneurship, NY: Harper Collins Publisher.
♦-Farjoun, M., (2002), Towards an organic perspective on strategy, Strategic Management
Journal, 23, pp. 561–594.
♦-Gove, S., Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A., (2003), Relative resource advantages: The effect of
resources and resource management on organizational performance, Paper presented at the annual
Strategic Management Society Conference, Baltimore.
♦-Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I, (1994), Measuring competence? Exploiting firm effects in
pharmaceutical markets, Strategic Management Journal, 15(Special Issue), pp. 63–84.
♦- Hisrich, R. D. & Peters, M., 2002), Entrepreneurship, New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
9
♦-Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D., (1986), Relationships among corporate level distinctive
competencies, diversification strategy, corporate strategy and performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 23,pp. 401–416.
♦-Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D., (2000), The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic
management research, In D. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
♦-Hitt, M. A., Clifford, P. G., Nixon, R. D., & Coyne, K. P., (1999), Dynamic strategic resources:
Development, diffusion & integration, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
♦-Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R., (2001), Direct and moderating effects of
human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based
perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 13–28.
♦-Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D., (2002), The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human
and social capital, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9(1), pp. 3–14.
♦-Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L., (2001), Strategic entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation, Strategic Management Journal, 22(Special Issue), pp.
479–491.
♦-Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton., (2002), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating
a new mindset, pp. 1–16.
♦-Hoskisson, R. E., & Busenitz, L. W., (2002), In M. A. Market uncertainty and learning
distance, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 151–172.
♦- Hurley, A., (1999), Incorporating feminist theories into sociological theories of
entrepreneurship, Woman in Management Review, (14)(2).
♦-Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G., (2003), Antecedents, elements, and
consequences of corporate entrepreneurship strategy, In D. H. Nagao (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Sixty-third Anual Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD), ISSN 1543–8643.
♦- Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A. & Sirmon, D. G., (2003), A model of strategic entrepreneurship:
the construct and its dimensions, Journal of Management 29(6), pp. 963- 989.
♦-Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G., (1996), Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 135–171.
♦-McCline, R. L., Bhat, S., & Baj, P., (2000), Opportunity recognition: An exploratory
investigation of a component of the entrepreneurial process in the context of the health care
industry, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(2), pp. 81–94.
♦-Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A., (2000), Entrepreneurial strategies: The dominant logic of
entrepreneurship.
♦-Miles, G., Heppard, K. A., Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C., (2000), Entrepreneurial strategies:
The critical role of top management, In G. D.
♦-Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C., (1978), Organizational strategy, structure, and process, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
♦-Miller, D., & Shamsie, J., (1996), The resource-based view of the firm in two environments:
The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965, Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 513–531.
♦-Morris, M. H., (1998), Entrepreneurial intensity: Sustainable advantages for individuals,
organizations, and societies, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
♦- Palmer, M., (1987), The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential, In
C. Baumback & J. Mancuso(eds), Entrepreneurship and venture management, NJ: Prentice–Hall Inc.
♦-Peng, M. W., (2001), How entrepreneurs create wealth in transition economies, Academy of
Management Executive, 15(1), pp. 95–108.
♦-Penrose, E. T., (1959), The theory of the growth of the firm, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
♦-Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E., (2003), The social side of creativity: A static and
dynamic social network perspective, Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 89–106.
10
♦-Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E., (2001a), Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for
strategic management research?, Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 22–40.
♦-Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E., (2001b), Tautology in the resource-based view and the
implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments, Academy of
Management Review, 26, pp. 57–66.
♦-Priem, R. L., Love, L. G., & Shaffer, M. A., (2002), Executives’ perceptions of uncertainty
scores: A numerical taxonomy and underlying dimensions, Journal of Management, 28, pp. 725–
746.
♦-Rowe, W. G., (2001), Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership,
Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), pp. 81–94.
♦- Schoonhoven, C. B. & Romanelli, E., (2001), The entrepreneurship dynamic: Origins of
entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 383–
408.
♦-Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S., (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 217–236.
♦-Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J., (1999), Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the
field of corporate entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), pp. 11–27.
♦-Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A., (2003), Managing resources: Linking unique resources,
management and wealth creation in family firms, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), pp.
339–358.
♦-Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D., (2003), Managing the firm’s resources in order to
achieve and maintain a competitive advantage, Paper presented at the annual Academy of
Management meeting, Seattle.
♦-Smith, K. G., & Di Gregorio, D., (2002), Bisociation, discovery, and the role of
entrepreneurial action. In M. A, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
♦-Teece, D. J., (1998), Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for
know-how, and intangible assets, California Management Review, 40(3), pp. 55–79.
♦-Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A., (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management, Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 509–533.
♦-Tsai, W., (2001), Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network
position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance, Academy of
Management Journal, 44, pp. 996–1004.
♦-Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M., (1999), Coevolution of firm
absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative
capabilities, Organization Science, 10, pp. 551– 568.
♦-Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M., (2001), Managing the unexpected: Assuring high
performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11