DOES SPIRITUALITY HAVE A PLACE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP BEHAVIOR? CAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP BE TAUGHT?
For each factor, specific acts or initiatives were suggested based on the statistical analysis for implementation. Specific initiatives related to the first factor were: (i) separating CEO from the board; (ii) rewarding senior executives with stock right; (iii) attracting outside directors by rewarding them with stock ownership. With respect to the second and third factor specific initiatives suggested were as follows: (i) developing capacity to endure uncertain circumstances; (ii) developing the ability to seize opportunities; (iii) developing the ability to learn from failures; (iv) developing a self-efficacious personality; (v) developing an independent personality. The last factor embraced the following action plans: (i) improve staff participation in strategy formulation; (ii) formulate strategy flexibly according to the circumstances; (iii) adopt an enterprising strategy; (iv) flatten the organization structure; (v) emphasis on strategic financial control; (vi) set up a special department for innovation and venture; (vii) have in place an innovation-oriented culture.
Chen, Zhu & Anquan in their study measured CE via innovation and venture that appears to factor in the several facets of innovation as conceptualized by Johnson. Unlike Echols and Neck, they build their model on the premise that ES or CE can be taught.
Proceeding from the premise that ES is a process that requires the display of entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior, can ES be taught? This begs the question as to whether entrepreneurs are born or made. More importantly can CE be imbued into an organization that has not institutionalized innovation and opportunity focus as a cultural value?
Thornberry’s research involved a field research of four companies that were struggling to be more innovative. Two of those companies adopted the corporate venturing path; and the other two the intrapreneuring path. A management education program (MEP) was developed for a group of employees from every company and customized dependant upon the path chosen by the said company. If the path chosen were that of corporate venturing the MEP would focus on the ability of the trainees to create new business venture. However, if the path chosen were that of intrapreneuring, the MEP would focus on inculcating the mind and skill of the start-up entrepreneur into the trainees rather than the actual setting up of a corporate venture. The end goal in this case was according to Thornberry to enable trainees (who were managers) ‘… to act as catalyst and coaches for more entrepreneurial thinking and acting, within their own areas or functions.’ The MEP customized for companies that chose the first path appreciated the possibility that some organizations may be mouthing ES but at the same time they were averse to ES via cultures that had ‘built-in antibodies to ES’. Thus the MEP program was designed in such way that when a trainee faced a threat to innovation, the presence of this barrier would be revealed to the board level. This way the board would have to deal with the barrier or terminate the program; as failure to remove the barrier reflects lack of seriousness on the part of the board with respect to corporate venturing. This intervention method designed into the MEP proved that entrepreneurial activity could be developed in an organization that is not entrepreneurial to begin with. To put it another way, change of organizational culture is not a precursor to CE.