Examining the technical corporate entrepreneurs' motivation: voices from the field.

Prior research has proposed five conditions that support corporate entrepreneurship: rewards, management support, resources including time, organizational structures (at the macro level), and risk acceptance. This article investigates the sufficiency of these conditions in motivating individual scientists or engineers who have created and commercialized multiple breakthrough innovations in mature corporations--or technical corporate entrepreneurs. Using in-depth interviews with technical corporate entrepreneurs and human resource managers, we explore both how they are motivated and whether there is concurrence between how they say they are motivated and how their human resource managers perceive that they are motivated. We find the framework applicable but incomplete relative to motivating these individuals. The additional dimensions of appropriate work design (at the micro level) and their intrinsic motivation to innovate need to be considered in supporting technical corporate entrepreneurship. Further, we find that an important disparity exists between what technical corporate entrepreneurs say motivates them and the perceptions of their human resource manger.

Introduction

Increasing attention has centered on entrepreneurial behavior within existing organizations, which is often referred to as intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship. Corporate entrepreneurship is the process whereby an individual or group working within an existing organization creates a new organization or instigates renewal or innovation within that organization (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). Empirical evidence is compelling that corporate entrepreneurship improves organizational performance (Zahra & Covin, 1995). The firm that exemplifies corporate entrepreneurship internally undertakes somewhat risky ventures, engaging in product-market innovation and developing proactive solutions to opportunities through forming new businesses or bringing new products to life (Miller, 1983). The research reported in this article focuses on a subset of individual corporate entrepreneurs who create breakthrough innovation in mature firms.

Radical innovation lies at the core of new business development and long-term wealth creation (Kirchhoff, 1991; Schumpeter, 1942). A radical innovation is a product, process, or service that offers significant step-change improvements in performance or cost. Radical innovations transform existing markets and create new ones (Leifer, O'Connor, & Rice, 2001), serve as the basis of new technology trajectories, and are an important part of the creative destruction by which existing products are replaced by new ones (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001).

Organizations do not innovate--individuals within those organizations innovate (Krueger, 2000). Corporate entrepreneurs are the individuals who take hands-on responsibility for innovating within an organization (Pinchot, 1985) and may arise out of many functions including marketing, finance, and engineering. Previous corporate entrepreneurship research has focused on middle managers, with little specification as to their functional origins (i.e., Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002; Kanter, 1985; Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990; Pearce & Kramer, 1997). This study focuses on the technical corporate entrepreneur: engineers and scientists responsible for breakthrough technology innovations in firms. Given the fundamental role of the technical corporate entrepreneur in creating breakthrough innovation, understanding how these individuals are motivated is of immense interest to management.

Little is known about ways to motivate the technical corporate entrepreneurs who create breakthrough innovation, representing a gap in the literature. We draw from the organizational behavior literature to inform and extend our understanding of employee motivation within corporate entrepreneurship research. There are five theoretically derived and empirically confirmed environmental dimensions through which we can motivate corporate entrepreneurship behavior: the reward system, management support, resource availability, organizational structure, and a risk-taking culture. Management support, organizational structure, and the reward system are identical to motivators found in the motivation and empowerment research within the organizational behavior literature. However, the motivation and empowerment literature also suggests that job design and intrinsic motivation are necessary factors to motivate employees, factors not found in the research on conditions necessary to support corporate entrepreneurship. This begs the question as to whether there may be additional motivators necessary to support corporate entrepreneurship other than those reported.

This research investigates what motivates the individuals who create breakthrough innovations and drive radical new products in mature firms--technical corporate entrepreneurs. It is investigated using the five conditions identified in the corporate entrepreneurship literature as an initial framework. We strive to determine if the conditions are sufficient in motivating technical corporate entrepreneurs. We also investigate discrepancies between their stated motivation and their human resource manager's perception of their motivation.

The next section reviews the literature concerning conditions for corporate entrepreneurship, which has primarily focused on middle managers. We then draw on the employee motivation literature from organizational behavior to extend what has been a limited understanding of motivation within corporate entrepreneurship research. This discussion is followed by an empirical examination of self-proclaimed motivators (and de-motivators) of technical corporate entrepreneurs and as perceived by their human resource managers. The implications of the results for research and managerial practice are presented in the final discussion.

Literature Review

Conditions Supporting Corporate Entrepreneurship

Across the 1980s, researchers proposed several organizational conditions that they theorized initiated and influenced corporate entrepreneurship behavior--or motivated these behaviors. We first review the flow of the empirical research that has been completed to test the relevancy and independence of the proposed dimensions and then present the dimensions.

Based on the conditions that had been theorized in the literature to support corporate entrepreneurship, Kuratko et al. (1990) developed the Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument (IAI) to assess the underlying environmental factors required to behave entrepreneurially. This effort was extended by Hornsby, Montagno, and Kuratko (1992) using standard scale development techniques. Their survey-based study of managers resulted in finding five dimensions of the firm's internal environment necessary to support corporate entrepreneurship. Hornsby, Kuratko, and Montagno (1999) later expanded this work to include cultural differences between Canadian and American managers, resulting in the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI). In 2002, Hornsby et al. further tested the CEAI with two additional samples of middle managers. Their results further confirmed that five distinct internal organizational factors were necessary to support corporate entrepreneurship: (1) rewards/recognition; (2) management support; (3) resources, including time availability; (4) organizational structure; and (5) acceptance of risk.

The use of rewards and reinforcement as motivators is highly visible in the literature (Block & Ornati, 1987; Kanter, 1985; Sathe, 1985). To be effective, a reward system that fosters corporate entrepreneurship must consider goals, feedback, individuality, and rewards based on results. The use of an appropriate reward system can enhance an individual's willingness to assume the risks associated with entrepreneurial activity.

Management support, management's willingness to facilitate or promote entrepreneurial initiatives, is also well documented (Hisrich & Peters, 1986; MacMillan, Block, & Narasimha, 1986; Quinn, 1985; Sykes, 1986). Management support can take many forms, including championing innovative ideas and institutionalizing entrepreneurial activities within the firm.

Resource availability, including time, is a third condition found necessary for corporate entrepreneurship. Employees must perceive the availability of resources for innovative activities (Hisrich & Peters, 1986; Katz & Gartner, 1988; Sathe, 1985; Sykes, 1986). Slack resources encourage experimentation and risk taking (Burgelman & Sayles, 1986).

The fourth condition is organizational structure (Hisrich & Peters, 1986; Sathe, 1985; Sykes & Block, 1989). An organizational structure supporting corporate entrepreneurship provides administrative mechanisms that allow ideas to be evaluated, selected, and implemented (Burgelman & Sayles, 1986).

Risk taking is the final condition that consistently appears as a necessary support for corporate entrepreneurship. Employees and management must be willing to accept risk and have a tolerance for failure should it occur (Burgelman, 1983, 1984; MacMillan et al., 1986; Sathe, 1985; Sykes, 1986; Sykes & Block, 1989).

In summary, research has found that middle managers believe that a number of environmental conditions must be in place in the firm to support corporate entrepreneurship or to motivate entrepreneurial behavior within the firm. We now turn to a review of the organizational behavior literature on motivating individuals in general.

Employee Motivation