What Stimulates Entrepreneurship In Large Organizations Commerce Essay

What Stimulates Entrepreneurship In Large Organizations Commerce EssayThis paper discusses how prodigious fundamental laws strike with entrepreneurial use. Entrepreneurship Is often associated with pocketable theaters. These small firms atomic morsel 18 to a greater extent flexible, they dont suck in occupations with bureaucratic social expressions and as a consequence they ar more speedy in coming up with stark naked inventions. On the separate hand, Peter Drucker (innovation and entrepeneurship) states that entrepreneurship is buttd upon the same principles, whether the entrepreneur is an quick large design or an individual starting its own venture. So the nature of entrepreneurship is the same in twain cases.To succeed in todays unpredictable world, companies large and small must(prenominal) be agile and able to respond chop-chop to fast-moving marts (Taylor 2001).In this case we get out emphasis on the large companies who have to image a lot of problems if they want to implement in collectived entrepreneurship. In the beginning(a) part, we do a literature review concerning collective entrepreneurship. Here we will look for constraints of and solutions to merged entrepreneurship.In the second part we combine speculation with practice. Through in depth interviews I would analogous to meet how a large administration (Barco) manages corporate entrepreneurship, what problems they have and if they get run from their actions. ( A monumental ship isnt easy to turn). I will do this by following a mental synthesis based on the mannikin of Morris (1998). This frame acidify includes the following persuasions systems, structure, strategic direction, policies, battalion and finish. For each aspect I would like to have an interview with a liable to get insight on how Barco applies corporate entrepreneurship.By considering every aspect I want to learn which methods Barco applies and which it doesnt apply and why this is the case. Taylor Bernard (2001), From corporate face to corporate entrepreneurship, Journal of dislodge all all over Management, 22, 128-147Literature ReviewDefinition What is corporate entrepreneurship?Definitions of corporate entrepreneurship ex stir a lot. Some authors speak of intrapreneurship (Gifford Pinchot, 1985), others form corporate venturing (Chesbrough, 2002).von Hippel (1977) defines corporate venturing as an activity that aims at creating current businesses for the corporation done the development of remote or home(a) corporate venture.Corporate entrepreneurship is a term subroutine to describe entrepreneurial demeanour inside established administrations (Guth Gingsberg, 1990). Damanpour (1991) states that at a fundamental level corporate entrepreneurship involves the generation, development and implementation of crude ideas and behaviors by a company.Zahra (1991) argues that corporate entrepreneurship crumb have formal and informal activities aimed at creatin g tender businesses inside of established companies through product and process innovations and market developments.From all the definitions we whitethorn conclude that there is no real consensus of what corporate entrepreneurship exactly is. Maybe a definition is to narrow to describe the satisfying process of corporate entrepreneurship. Corporate entrepreneurship is not an exact science and every firm adapts it in other instructions. This is why we whitethorn not conceive this definitions in a stern federal agency. Therefore we will look at corporate entrepreneurship as a system-wide activity under placen at heart the context of existing firms.Pinchot, Gifford III, Intrapreneuring Why You Dont Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur (1985). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigns Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.Chesbrough, H.W. (2002) Making Sense of Corporate Venture Capital, Harvard logical ar gument Review, Marchvon Hippel, E. (1977). The sources of innovation. slopeer York Oxford University Press.Guth, W. D., Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors introduction Corporate entrepreneurship.Strategic Management Journal, (Summer),11, 5-15.Damanpour, F. 1991, organisational change A Meta-Analysis of Determinants and Moderators, Personnel ( September) 28-36Zahra, S. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship Anexploratory study. Journal of blood line Venturing, (July),6, 259-285Motivation Why engage in corporate entrepreneurship?Today firms ar struggling to reinvent themselves and find ways how they could give out. For some companies its already likewise late but for others corporate entrepreneurship may be the come across to survive.The way of doing business has frighteningly changed in the 21st century. Today companies must survive in a fast changing global environment where skepticism is higher than ever. Firm nowadays need to become flexible and adaptive. adept way by doing this is by stimulating entrepreneurship within the organization. Authors argue that entrepreneurship becomes bonk in the sustainability of large firms ( Baumol, 1996 Audretsch Thurik, 2001). The dynamic that drives real competitive advantage is entrepreneurship and innovation. forward research similarly supported a positive kin mingled with intrapreneurship and sireth, pro check up onability, or both ( Covin and Slevin, 1986) for large firms in public, as well as for small firm executing in unlike environments ( Covin and Slevin, 1989)Other reasons for stimulating entrepreneurship atomic number 18 that you take advantage of the in-house genius ( Adams 1996 ) and that you can exploit new market opportunities ( Eggers 1999 )Baumol, W.J. (1996), Entrepreneurship Productive, unproductive, and destructive, Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 3-22Audretsch, D. B., Thurik, A. R. (2001), Whats new about the new prudence? From the ma naged to the entrepreneurial economy , Industrial andCorporate Change, 10(1), 267-315Covin, J.G., and Slevin, D.P. (1986), The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship plate , In R. Ronstadt et al., eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA Babson College.Covin, J.G., and Slevin, D.P. (1989), Strategic perplexity of small firmsin hostile and benign environments, Strategic Management Journal 10(January)75-87.Adams, R. V. (1996). Inspiring innovation. International Business, 9, 56-58.Eggers, J. H. (1999). maturation entrepreneurial growth. Ivey Business Journal, (May),63,76-81.Obstacles for corporate entrepreneurshipA lot of large companies started to learn the importance of corporate entrepreneurship. These companies were nearlyly used to work in hoary bureaucratic ways with a lot of confine and class-conscious structures. instantly these companies realize that they have to change into entrepreneurial entities. The change from corp orate governance to corporate entrepreneurship could be seen as a large problem because it has to deal with all the organizational aspects. To bring in corporate entrepreneurship in an organization everything has to be right.There are a lot of obstacles for corporate entrepreneurship. precondition the large number of potential constraints, it is helpful to spot general categories into which they can be grouped. Morris ( 1998) captured obstacles and divided them in six groups nuance, strategic direction, structure, systems, policies and mint. This way of structuring seems evoke because we can then judge of solutions in a planned way. By considering every aspect we are more focused and keep an overview of divergent processes who often work together. In this paper I will use and extend the framework of Morris to handle most constraints of corporate entrepreneurship and look how a large company applied solutions to these problems. Let us look at each of the categories in more det ail.CULTURECornwall and Perlman (1990) define civilization as an organizations basic beliefs and assumptions about what the company is about, how it members behave, and how it defines itself in relation to its external environment. galore(postnominal) authors have identified the fine post that corporate culture plays in the organizational process (e.g. Deal Kennedy, 1982 Martin 1992 Sackmann 1992). Cornwall and Perlman (1990) have written that culture is a key determinant of, and the first step in fostering, entrepreneurial activity within an organization. For instance, Sonys achievement in product innovation has been by and large attributed to the success with which the company has inculcated its Sony Spirit in employees (Quinn, 1985). Although setting up a culture may not be that straightforward.Firstly, a culture that is risk averse, or very process driven, is almost by definition discouraging employees from being entrepreneurial. ( Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011). Kriegesman n et al. (2005) have noted a tendency within companies to develop nix error cultures as competitive strive to meet high performance standards in a hypercompetitive marketplace. Managers therefore wrongly believe that zero errors are proof of high performance standards.Secondly, companies often cant make have what they stand for, or do not achieve a consensus over value priorities (Morris, 1998). To stimulate entrepreneurship there should be a easy focus on what the company is about. The elements of a culture should be in product line with the peck, mission and strategies of an organization.Thirdly, culture itself is very complex and cannot be easily changed. For example, a non- advanced(a) firm could bring in an extremely entrepreneurial CEO, and it could take septenary to ten years (or more) to realize a substantial cultural change (Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011).Fourthly, The culture itself may be similarly strong or alike commanding. In this manner, homogeneity is stimulate d and pot are not allowed to think outside the cultural box. This can malarkey to stagnation and a cut ability to adapt changes in the environment (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002).As corporate entrepreneurship asks for change and diversity, a culture that is too imposing could be tremendous for corporate entrepeneurship.Lastly, individualism-collectivism would similarly appear to be an all-important(a) dimension of organizational culture (Morris, Davis Allen, 1994). A culture that focuses too much on individualism or collectivism may not be encouraging for corporate entrepreneurship. The reply will be modest levels of entrepreneurship (Morris, Davis Allen, 1994).A high individualistic culture may produce strong incentives for entrepreneurial behavior, but will withal result in gamesmanship, zero-sum competition, sequestering of study, and the chaotic pursuit of tangential rolls having little fit with the organizations competencies or overall direction. (Maidique 1980 Quinn 198 5 Reich 1987 Rosenbaum et al. 1980 Steele 1983). Furthermore, individuals will more likely use organizational preferences to satisfy self-interests and many tasks will be left incomplete as individuals are unable to obtain cooperation from those have the expertise. (Morris, Davis Allen, 1994).On the other extreme, a strongly collectivist atmosphere may actually give raising to an anti-entrepreneurial bias. Companies therefore may suffer from free-riding or social faineance syndromes. (Earley 1989 Jones 1984 Albanese and forefront Fleet 1985).The way in which a firm sets up a true corporate culture and handles the above problems will be ascertain for the firms entrepreneurial success, as culture gives people direction and keeps the whole organization together.Morris, M. H. 1998. Entrepreneurial Intensity ( Westport, CT Quorum Books)Deal, T., Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate cultures. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations tether perspectives. Oxf ord Oxford University Press.Sackmann, S. (1992), Culture and subcultures. An analysis of organizational knowledge. Administrative learning Quarterly, 37, 140-161Cornwall, J. and Perlman, B. (1990) Organisational Entrepreneurship, Homewood, ///. Irwin. Macmillan.Quinn, J.B. (1985). Managing innovation Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review, 73-84Cloke, K. et al., 2002. The end of guidance and the rise of organizational democracy, Jossey-Bass.Michael H. Morris, Duane L. Davis, Jeffrey W. Allen (1994), Fostering Corporate Entrepreneurship cross-cultural Comparisons of the Importance of Individualism versus Collectivism, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.25, pp. 65-89Earley, P. Christopher, (1989). Social loafing and collectivism A comparison of the United States and the Peoples Republic of China, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 565-81Jones, Gareth, (1984) Task visibility, free riding, and shirking Explaining the effect of structure and applied science on employe e behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9 684-95Albanese, Robert David D. Van Fleet. (1985), Rational behavior in groups The free-riding tendency, Academy of Management Review, 10 244-55.Kriegesmann, B., Kley, T., and Schwering, M. (2005), Creative errors and Heroic Failures Capturing Their sophisticated Potential, Journal of Business Strategy, 26(3) 57-64STRATEGIC DIRECTIONMichael Porter (1996) draws a critical distinction surrounded by strategy and operational effectiveness, arguing that managers are more and more preoccupied with the latter and ignorant of the former. As operational effectiveness could be effective in the short run, it fails in the long run. Therefore, firms need to find strategies for long run survival.Firms that want to engage in successful corporate entrepreneurship need to have an entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation refers to the strategy-making practices that businesses use to identify and launch corporate ventures (Dess and Lumpkin , 2005). In the absence of an entrepreneurial orientation, the goal of corporate entrepreneurship may not be reached.Furthermore, entrepreneurship in a firm may not be achieved if there is no meaningful direction from the top. This requires devout leaders with a clear vision and commitment to entrepreneurship. Instead, top management is often more cautious with new opportunities. This could be a major(ip) problem because with no top management support, nobody will discover to engage in entrepreneurial activity and take risks. Hence, middle-and lower-level employees are strongly seed by the role models raise at the top of the firm. In the absence of specific goals for product and process innovation and a strategy for accomplishing such(prenominal) goals, entrepreneurship will only result accidentally or by possibility (Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011).Besides that, firms could also have problems to define a strategy that encounters both exploration and exploitation. As exploration and exploitation are often dickens opposing forces, the strategy of a firm needs to find a balance between these two. This mental balancing act can be one of the toughest of all managerial challenges -it requires executives to explore new opportunities while work on exploiting existing capabilities (OReilly Tushman, 2004).A final note is that strategy training itself is not enough. The actual execution of a strategy is as important as the strategy itself. Implementing the strategy requires adequate structures, systems, procedures and tender-hearted resource practices.Gregory G. Dess, G.T. Lumpkin (2005), The role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Stimulating Effective Corporate Entrepreneurship.OReilly C. Tushman M., (2004), The ambidextrous organization, Harvard Business Review, 74-81.Porter, M.E. (1996), What is Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, 74(6) 61-78.STRUCTUREStructure typically depends on a number of positionors such as the nature, the size, the strategies and e nvironmental conditions of a firm ( ruin, 2005). Although there is no one best structure, it is generally argued that a companys structure follows from the strategy. If entrepreneurship and innovation are integral part of the companys strategy, then inconsistencies with certain general types of structure can be problematic.Morris, Kuratko Covin (2011) state that a hierarchical structure is a typical problem in large organizations. A hierarchical structure seems to be problematic because this reduces the ability to identify market opportunities and to take risk. Entrepreneurship suffers the farther away decision making becomes from everyday operations. Other entrepreneurial barriers within a hierarchical structure are top-down management and restrictive communication channels. In contrast, as an organic structure may be more preferred to stimulate corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. Morris and Kuratko, 2002) , organic structures may also have some pitfalls. For instance, if teams almos t work autonomously, this can result in anarchy.Additionally, there is a tendency to continually narrow the crossbreed of control of managers over subordinates. The result is over-supervised employees with little room for creativity.To finish, structures that give righteousness for entrepreneurial activities to managers without delegating a certain amount of function also constraints corporate entrepreneurship as managers will feel frustrated. Therefore, some hierarchy, that gives managers some authority could be desired.Burns P., (2005), Corporate Entrepreneurship Building an Entrepreneurial Organisation, Palgrave MacmillanMorris, H.M. and Kuratko, D.F. (2002), Corporate Entrepreneurship, foregather Worth Harcourt College Publishers.SYSTEMSLarge organizations typically depend on a number of formal managerial systems that have evolved over the years. These systems were needed to coordinate the increasingly complex corporate environment and were focused on stability, order and co ordination. deep down this focus, entrepreneurship is discouraged (Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011).The question here arises in what way the old systems are obsolete for corporate entrepreneurship. As corporate entrepreneurship requires other systems, companies are hale to try new things. In what way could the old system be used and in what way are new systems required? For example, how do companies use control, budgeting and preparation systems that foster innovation and entrepreneurship?Control systems have historically placed a heavy emphasis on efficiency, sometimes ignoring or even undermining effectiveness (Morris, Schindehutte Allen, 2006). Probably, control systems may be too strict for corporate entrepreneurship. Budgeting systems provide no flexibility for the funding of experimental projects and tend to reward the politically powerful. preparation systems are often too acid and become prescribed, they focus on the grooming document rather than the planning process, and often use professional planners instead of relying on the people who very are involved (Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011).Lastly, these systems could be supported by new technologies. The way in which firms use information and communication technologies could help them achieve a better environment for corporate entrepreneurship. If information systems are absent or deficient, innovation could be slower.POLICIES AND PROCEDURESFirst of all, it should be clear that policies and procedures are a smaller part of the larger control system. Policies and procedures are in fact the underlying elements of how control systems work. For example, inflexible policies and strict procedures will result in rigid control systems, which, as I have discussed, are tremendous for entrepreneurial activity.The procedures that people have to follow when they want to introduce new entrepreneurial activity may be too strict. Two of the most costly side-effects of detailed operating policies are complex approval cycles for new ventures and detailed documentation requirements (Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011). This could be seen as red tape for entrepreneurial activity. If procedures are very complex, people are blocked and give up their ideas.Nevertheless, some procedures are definitely required for making decisions about which project may be initiated and which may not. The fact is that those procedures are often too severe. For example procedures often impose unrealistic timetables and performance benchmarks on entrepreneurial programs (Morris, Kuratko Covin, 2011).They way in which firms can bruise these strict policies and procedures will lead to better corporate entrepreneurship.PEOPLEAl of the entrepreneurial activity depends on the people, it are the people who have to do it.The treatment of people is do by human resource management. Human resource management is responsible for the recruitment, training, motivation, evaluation and recognise of people. When a firm engages in corporat e entrepreneurship, human resources also need to apply new methods.The main problem with people is that they have a natural tendency to resist change. This is a big problem as entrepreneurship requires a lot of change. How does HR helps to change people minds in the direction of corporate entrepreneurship? What problems do they face?Next to that, people are afraid of ill. It is important for HR to see failure as a process of learning. The way in which HR treats failure may therefore be important for the entrepreneurial people.Another people-related aspect is the wish of skills and talent in the entrepreneurial area. Therefore recruitment and training of drug-addicted people may be very important.A different aspect of corporate entrepreneurship is that people should have some freedom in their work. For example 3M was the first company that introduced organizational s insufficiency as a key constituent for corporate entrepreneurship, enabling their engineers and scientists to spen d 15% of their time on projects of their own design. As a result of this many inventions came out of 3M (e.g., dribble it Notes and Scotch Tape). CASE Google. How do other companies do this? Do they also give some time to work on own projects or do they use other methods? How does HR deal with autonomy of their people. familiarity is necessary for people to work on entrepreneurship. save what is a right-hand(a) autonomy. Shouldnt there be some control?Furthermore, corporate entrepreneurship often requires to work in teams. How does HR helps to form decent teams? How do they encounter the problem of free-riding?One more aspect of HR is that they are responsible for rewarding people. How does HR give bonuses for new entrepreneurial activity. Especially the rewarding of teams may not be that easy.Breaking through the obstaclesThe way in which an organization can deal with the above obstacles will be determining for their entrepreneurial success. In this section we will look at rese arch that offers solutions to keep down the problems and constraints of corporate entrepreneurship.CULTUREIn this section we will look at the literature concerning solutions to set up a decent culture that stimulates entrepreneurship within a firm.First of all, an entrepreneurial culture should have some basic values concerning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship therefore requires a culture built around risk, innovation, stirred up commitment, autonomy, and empowerment, among others (Cornwall and Perlman 1990 Peters 1987 Pinchot 1985 Waterman 1987).It is important that a culture is open for risk-taking and sees failure as an opportunity to learn from. In that way, culture can help to overcome peoples natural tendency to fear failure. For example Nokias culture states that you are allowed to have a bit of fun, to think unlike the norm, where you are allowed to make a mistake (Leavy, 2005, p. 39). In the factories of BMW there is a flop of the month award, attached by the senior ex ecutive for successful failures (Kriegesmann et al., 2005). Here it is recognized that failure is needed to innovate and learn.Next, a culture needs a clear vision about what the company stands for. It is here that leadership comes into place. It is difficult to class a culture without someone having a vision about the future. fit in to Covin Slevin (1991), top management values and philosophies are essential variables of firm-level entrepreneurship. There should be a clear voice from top management that gives direction towards an entrepreneurial culture. Moreover, vision, mission and strategy should be aligned. For example, you cant have an entrepreneurial vision when your strategy is imitating competitors.As a final point, the culture should find a good balance between individualism and collectivism. Corporate executives must recognize and proactively manage this dimension of culture. The highest levels of entrepreneurship will occur when a fairly match amount of consideration is given to the needs of the individual and the collective (Morris, Davis Allen, 1994). Individuals are needed to provide the vision, commitment, and internal salesmanship because otherwise nothing would be accomplished. But as the process unfolds, the entrepreneur requires teams of people with unique skills and resources.Cornwall, Jeffrey T. Baron Perlman, (1990), Organizational entrepreneurship. Homewood, ///. Irwin.Peters, Thomas. (1987), Thriving on chaos, New York Alfred A. Knopf.Pinchot, Gifford, ///. (1985), Intrepreneuring, New York Harper and Row.Waterman, Robert H, (1987), The renewal factor How the best get and keep the competitive edge, New York, Bantam Books.Leavy, B. (2005), A Leaders Guide to Creating an Innovation Culture, Strategy Leadership, 33(4) 38-45.Jeffrey G. Covin, Dennis P. Slevin (1991), A Conceptual cast of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior, Baylor UniversitySTRATEGIC DIRECTIONMany fast-growing materialization corporations attribute much of their suc cess to an entrepreneurial orientation. By illustration, 3M is a good example of how a corporate strategy can induce internal venture development. Every aspect of 3Ms management approach is aimed at new venture creation and 3Ms policies wee-wee a climate of innovation and entrepreneurial development. (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).Dess and Lumpkin (2005) emphasize the role of entrepreneurial orientation towards successful corporate entrepreneurship. The dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation include autonomy, innovativeness, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and risk-taking.Moreover, Geller (1980) argued that a risk-taking, highly venturesome, and innovative top management style is appropriate in invest/grow situations.In a study of Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) a positive relationship was found between corporate entrepreneurship intensity and scan intensity, planning flexibility, locus of planning, and strategic controls. These are all part of the strategic management practic es.Environmental scanning refers to the managerial activity of learning about events and trends in the organizations environment (Hambrick, 1981).Planning flexibility refers to the capacity of a firms strategic plan to change as environmental opportunities/threats emerge. Flexible planning systems allow firms to adjust their strategic plans quickly to pursue opportunities and keep up with environmental change (Stevenson and Jarrillo-Mossi, 1986).The term locus of planning refers to the depth of employee involvement in a firms strategic planning activities. A deep locus of planning involves a high stratum of employees from all hierarchical levels in the planning process (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999).Strategic controls base performance on stragically relevant criteria, contrasting to objective financial information (Gupta, 1987 Hoskisson and Hitt, 1988). Examples of strategic control measures include customer satisfaction criteria, new ostensible registrations, quality control, etc .Next, the challenge to balance exploitation and exploration could be seen as a major task for the top management. The companys leaders must decide if they should house mainstream and newstream activities in physically separate units within the organization (spatial separation approach) or if major innovative activity should be sporadically performed within mainstream units (temporal separation approach) (Baden-Fuller and Volberda, 1997).According to Morris, Kuratko and Covin (2011) organizational ambidexterity is encouraged when top-level managers draw direct responsibility for both mainstream and newstream. By placing themselves in roles where they directly move with both the exploitation-focused and exploration-focused sides of their organizations, top managers can more effectively balance the resource commitments needed to achieve current and future competitiveness. Finally, top managers help create ambidextrous organizations by setting explicit goals for innovative outcome. For example 3M wants at least 25 percent of its annual sales coming from products introduced over the preceding five years.Lastly, the implementation of a firms entrepreneurial strategy relies largely on middle-level managers. According to Kuratko et al. (2005), Middle-level managers endorse, refine, and shepherd entrepreneurial opportunities and identify, acquire, and deploy resources needed to pursue those opportunities.Baden-Fuller, C., and Volberda, H. 1997. Strategic Renewal How Large Complex Organizations bring up for the Future, International Studies of Management Organization, 27(2) 95-120Geller, A. (1980), Matching people to business strategies, Financial Executive, 48(10), 18-21.Bruce R. Barringer, Allen C. Bluedorn, The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 20 421-444.Hambrick, D.C. (1981), specialty of environmental scanning activities among upper level executives Journal of Management Studies, 18, pp. 299-320.Gupta, A.K. (1987), make out strategies, corporate-SBU relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation, Academy of Management Journal, 30, pp. 477-500.Hoskisson, R.E. and M.A. Hitt (1988), Strategic control systems and relative RD investment in large multiproduct firms, Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), pp. 605-621Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Hornsby, J.S. (2005), A Model of Middle-Level Managers Entrepreneurial Behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6) 699-716.STRUCTUREStructural context, fit in to Burgelman (1983) refers to the various administrative mechanisms which top management can manipulate to influence the perceived interest of the strategic actors at the operational and middle levels in the organization. The corporate entrepreneurship and the innovation literatures indicate that one method of managing the uncertainties of innovation is through organizational structure (Burgelman, 1983, 1984 Nielsen, Peters Hisrich, 1985 Tornatzky et al., 1983).In general, results indicate a link between higher levels of innovation and more organic structures (rather than mechanistic structures) characterized by decentralization, lack of formalization, open communication, broader span of control and high levels of complexity ( for example Covin Slevin, 1990 Burns Stalker, 1961 Pierce Delbecq, 1973 Tornatzky et al., 1983). Supporting a flexible/fluid organizational structure that minimizes bureaucracy and maximizes adhocracy and by evaluating innovative schemes in terms of their contribution to a coherent str