Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Whereas our understanding of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) and corporate entrepreneurship strategy (CES) continues to expand, there has been little theoretical development to support the most extensive framework to date: the integrative model of CES as proposed by Ireland et al. (Entrep Theory Pract 33(1):19–46, 2009). According to the model, CES is built upon the “three foundational elements of an entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture, and entrepreneurial processes and behaviors as exhibited throughout the organization” (Ireland et al. 2009, p. 38). The purpose of this study is to present a broad, overarching theory—complexity science—to examine the key elements and propositions of the CES model. Complexity science—founded on assumptions of interdependent heterogeneous agents and nonlinear interactions, as well as non-deterministic and potentially extreme outcomes—offers established multi-level concepts, theoretical boundary conditions, and methodological guidance for scholars to build and test future studies on CE and CES. Though our complexity perspective draws extensively from conceptual work on complex adaptive systems and agent-based models, we ground our arguments on the empirical ubiquity of power law distributions in all constructs and levels of analysis within the CES model. We conclude with a detailed research agenda, as well as a prescriptive discussion related to theory development, quantitative analysis, and practical applications to guide future studies on CE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for offering this suggestion.

References

  • Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first-century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 313–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amburgey, T. L., & Rao, H. (1996). Organizational ecology: Past, present, and future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1265–1286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., Brander, J., & Zott, C. (2000). Venture capital financing of entrepreneurship: Theory, empirical evidence, and a research agenda. In D. Sexton & H. Landstrom (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 259–281). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1990). Entrepreneurial ability, venture investments, and risk sharing. Management Science, 36(10), 1232–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriani, P., & McKelvey, B. (2009). From Gaussian to Paretian thinking: Causes and implications of power laws in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 1053–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8(6), 501–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axtell, R. J. (1999). The emergence of firms in a population of agents: Local increasing returns, unstable Nash equilibria, and power law size distribution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(May), 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A.-L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3), 590–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems (Vol. 213). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

  • Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Strumsky, D., & West, G. (2010). Urban scaling and its deviations: Revealing the structure of wealth, innovation, and crime across cities. PLoS One, 5(11), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettis, R. A., & Wong, S.-S. (2003). Dominant logic, knowledge creation, and managerial choice. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 343–355). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2010). Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science bridge. The Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 415–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A. (2000). Some Santa Fe scenery. In D. Colander (Ed.), The complexity vision and the teaching of economics (pp. 29–49). Cheltanham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buldyrev, S. V., Dokholyan, N. V., Erramilli, S., Hong, M., Kim, J. Y., Malescio, G., & Stanley, H. E. (2003). Hierarchy in social organization. Physica A, 330(3), 653–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms. California Management Review, 26(3), 154–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, T. H., Vultee, D. M., Gupta, V. K., Greening, D. W., & Tuggle, C. S. (2010). The philosophical foundations of a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 138–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4), 661–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2013). More than just novelty: Conceptual blending and causality. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 152–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 1(10), 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G. C. (2012a). Emerging scalability and extreme outcomes in new ventures: Power-law analyses of three studies. In L. A. Toombs (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventy-second annual meeting of the academy of management. ISSN 1543-8643.

  • Crawford, G. C. (2012b). Disobeying power-laws: Perils for theory and method. Journal of Organization Design, 1(2), 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G. C., & McKelvey, B. (2012). Strategic implications of power-law distributions in the creation and emergence of new ventures: Power-law analyses in three panel studies. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 32(12), 1. (Wellesley: Babson College).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G. C., McKelvey, B., & Lichtenstein, B. (2014). The empirical reality of entrepreneurship: How power law distributed outcomes call for new theory and method. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 1(1–2), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G. C., Aguinis, H., Lichtenstein, B., Davidsson, P., & McKelvey, B. (2015). Power law distributions in entrepreneurship: Implications for theory and research. Journal of Business Venturing. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.001.

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKinder, J. S., & Kohli, A. K. (2008). Flow signals: How patterns over time affect the acceptance of start-up firms. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 84–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.

  • Drazin, R., & Sandelands, L. (1992). Autogenesis: A perspective on the process of organizing. Organization Science, 3(2), 230–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., Furr, N., & Bingham, C. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., & Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 387–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fioretti, G. (2013). Agent-based simulation models in organization science. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2007). Breakthroughs and the ‘long tail’ of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 68–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. (2003). A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B., Bird, B., & Starr, J. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. (1988). The concept of the Institute. In D. Pines (Ed.), Emerging synthesis in science (pp. 1–15). Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, D., Barr, P., & Shepherd, D. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynie, M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 695–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009). Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 236–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanin, D., Baum, J. R., Turel, O., & Mahto, R. V. (2009). Are some venture capitalists more likely than others to replace founder-CEOs? The Journal of Private Equity, 12(2), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Sah, R. (2006). Some empirical regularities in market shares. Management Science, 52(11), 1792–1798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komolgorov, A. (1933). Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione. Giornale dell’Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, 4, 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Weaver, K. M. (2013). Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: The non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 273–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F. (2009). The entrepreneurial imperative of the 21st century. Business Horizons, 52(5), 421–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. (2005). When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 677–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitch, C., Hill, F., & Neergaard, H. (2010). Entrepreneurial business Growth and the quest for a “comprehensive theory”: Tilting at windmills? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B. (2011). Complexity science contributions to the field of entrepreneurship. In S. Maguire, P. Allen, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), SAGE handbook of complexity and management (pp. 473–495). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B. (2014). Generative emergence: A new discipline of organizational, entrepreneurial, and social innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B., Carter, N., Dooley, K., & Gartner, W. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 236–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomi, A., Larsen, E., & Wezel, F. (2010). Getting there: Exploring the role of expectations and preproduction delays in processes of organizational founding. Organization Science, 21(1), 132–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B. B. (1963). New methods in statistical economics. Journal of Political Economy, 71, 421–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, A. P., Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Mick, D. G., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (2004a). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (2004b). Toward a 0th law of thermodynamics: Order-creation complexity dynamics from physics and biology to bioeconomics. Journal of Bioeconomics, 6(1), 65–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. S. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. D., & Lin, S.-J. (2010). Different truths in different worlds. Organization Science, 21(1), 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. S. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Cengage/SouthWestern Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndofor, H. A., Sirmon, D. G., & He, X. (2011). Firm resources, competitive actions and performance: Investigating a mediated model with evidence from the in vitro diagnostics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32(6), 640–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, E. H., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. M. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. C. (2003). Varieties of competitive parity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmandad, H., & Sterman, J. (2008). Heterogeneity and network structure in the dynamics of diffusion: Comparing agent-based and differential equation models. Management Science, 54(5), 998–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2007). Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Science, 53(7), 1068–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Bausch, A. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the task environment–performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(3), 633–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: The role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 241–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Regulatory focus in a demanding world. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 291–314). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency “theory”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 349–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Multilevel entrepreneurship research: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision making. Journal of Management, 37(2), 412–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinkle, G. A. (2012). Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: Building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management, 38(1), 415–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., Broberg, J., Cogliser, C., & Brigham, K. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2), 101–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42(3/4), 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1968). On judging the plausibility of theories. In B. van Rootselaar, & F. Staal (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of sciences III (pp. 439–459). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  • Singh, J., & Fleming, L. (2010). Lone inventors as sources of technological breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Science, 56(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, C., Qu, Z., Blumm, N., & Barabási, A.-L. (2010). Limits of predictability in human mobility. Science, 327(5968), 1018–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, M., Amaral, L. A. N., Buldyrev, S. V., Havlin, S., Leschhorn, H., Maass, P., et al. (1996). Scaling behavior in the growth of companies. Nature, 379(6568), 804–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H., & Nystrom, P. C. (1981). Why the world needs organizational design. Journal of General Management, 6(3), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), The handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2014). Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 407–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. (2002). The variance of firm growth rates: the ‘scaling’puzzle. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 312(3), 577–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toegel, G., Kilduff, M., & Anand, N. (2013). Emotion helping by managers: An emergent understanding of discrepant role expectations and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 334–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, B. J., & Deering, B. (1995). The lure of modern science: Fractal thinking. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1911–1941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S., Cattani, G., & Dorsch, A. (2007). The value of moderate obsession: Insights from a new model of organizational search. Organization Science, 18(3), 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanini, M. (2008) Using power curves to assess industry dynamics. McKinsey Quarterly, November, 1–5.

  • Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Eastford: Martino-Fine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Ohio University, 304 Copeland Hall, Athens, OH, 45701, USA

    G. Christopher Crawford

  2. College of Business, Iowa State University, 3117 Gerdin Business Building, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Patrick M. Kreiser

Authors
  1. G. Christopher Crawford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick M. Kreiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Christopher Crawford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crawford, G.C., Kreiser, P.M. Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science. Small Bus Econ 45, 403–423 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9637-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9637-1

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation