Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.82.4.234-240
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Measuring Entrepreneurship in Business Schools
Mary Hazeldine & Morgan Miles
To cite this article: Mary Hazeldine & Morgan Miles (2007) Measuring Entrepreneurship
in Business Schools, Journal of Education for Business, 82:4, 234-240, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.82.4.234-240
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.4.234-240
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 147
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:26
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Measuring Entrepreneurship in Business
Schools
MARY HAZELDINE
MORGAN MILES
GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
STATESBORO, GEORGIA
ABSTRACT. The recent positions of
the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB) and the
European Foundation for Management
Developments (EQUIS) on the value of
entrepreneurship suggest a more entrepreneurial perspective in a business school’s
culture and strategic processes for obtaining
and sustaining a business school’s reputation. The study consists of scale development to measure the dimensions of entrepreneurship in business schools. Results
suggest that AACSB deans must reassess
the school’s mission, nourish entrepreneurship, reward and support opportunity creation and discovery, and link entrepreneurship with the school’s strategy.
Keywords: AACSB, business schools,
entrepreneurship, school mission
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
234
Journal of Education for Business
T
he Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) has recently embraced a much
more entrepreneurial approach to management education in its “New Standards for Accreditation” (2003; Miles,
Hazeldine, & Munilla, 2004). These new
standards emphasize the importance of
emergent, stakeholder-based innovative
initiatives (i.e., corporate entrepreneurship) to direct strategy making at business schools. AACSB estimates that its
412 accredited business schools produce
“56% of the undergraduate U.S. business degrees awarded and 62% of the
U.S. masters level U.S. degrees awarded” (Thompson, 2004, p. 438). The
accreditation-driven imperatives for
business schools to become more innovative and adaptive and to create incremental value for all of their stakeholders
suggest that schools of business could
benefit from becoming more entrepreneurial in terms of strategy making and
implementation. For example, the need
for entrepreneurial strategy making and
its now significant links to successful
AACSB reaffirmation suggest that strategy at business schools “must proactively encourage flexibility, creativity, and
new initiatives” (Zoffer as cited in
Hasan, 1993, p. 48).
Given AACSB’s and European Foundation for Management Development
(EQUIS’s) leadership positions in business school practices and AACSB’s
recent position on accreditation standards, the adoption of a more entrepreneurial perspective in a business
school’s culture and strategic processes
is critical for the institution’s ability to
obtain and sustain relevancy to management. However, at this point in time, no
studies provide metrics to benchmark
the current level of entrepreneurship in
business schools.
Metrics, Benchmarking, and
Continuous Improvement
Entrepreneurship within an organization can be measured using a variety of
mechanisms. For example, entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is one indicator
of the presence of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial orientation is a multidimensional construct that typically captures how autonomous an organization
is, its level of innovativeness, its risktaking propensity, its tendency to be
proactive, and its tendency to act aggressively with respect to its competitors
(see Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin &
Dess, 1996). Although researchers have
conducted studies on developing measures of the EO of businesses (see
Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001;
Covin & Slevin, 1986, 1989; Ginsberg,
1985; Miller & Friesen, 1983; Morris &
Paul, 1987), they have focused less work
on developing any metrics to measure
entrepreneurship in other types of orga-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
nizations (Morris & Jones, 1999). For
example, Todorovic and McNaughton’s
(2003) work on the entrepreneurial orientation of university departments is one
of the only studies specifically addressing the EO in higher education, and the
study was conducted with engineering
faculty at a Canadian University, not
business faculty.
If one takes AACSB and EQUIS
imperatives for business schools seriously, and views entrepreneurship as the
mechanism to implement these initiatives, it is critical to benchmark the current level of EO that exists in business
schools so that changes in the level of
entrepreneurship in business schools
can be measured. To do this requires the
development of a set of metrics to measure the current level of EO in business
schools. Then, in subsequent follow-up
studies, one must measure (a) if desired
performance is related to the level of
entrepreneurship in business schools
and (b) which management interventions can affecting the level of entrepreneurship in business schools.
Although AACSB has focused on
developing benchmarks pertaining to
assessment and other business school
deliverables as management tools for
deans, at this point no researchers have
developed scales to measure how entrepreneurial business schools currently are
or how effective continuous improvement activities are in impacting the level
of entrepreneurship in business schools.
In this study, we aim to offer a psychometrically sound scale to measure entrepreneurship and benchmarking data on
the current level of entrepreneurship in
business schools. These tools should
provide business school deans the ability to measure (a) how current their entrepreneurial-related activities are, (b) how
their schools compare to other business
schools in entrepreneurship-related
activities, and (c) how successful their
schools are in transforming themselves
toward a more entrepreneurial approach
to management.
METHOD
In this study, we exploit the external
stimulus of recent AACSB initiatives for
business schools to become more entrepreneurial and to explore the dimensions
of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in a
not-for-profit context. Although U.S.
schools that hold AACSB accreditation
are approximately only 32% of all institutions of higher learning that offer management education, AACSB is a leader
in setting standards and new initiatives
(see Thompson, 2004). The methodology for the present study consists of three
components: (a) scale development, (b)
pretest of the instrument, and (c) scale
assessment.
Scale Development
Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby
(1990) developed the Intrapreneurship
Assessment Instrument to measure an
organization’s culture, structure, and
support for entrepreneurship in an organizational context. Covin and Miles
(1999) conceptualized another perspective of entrepreneurship or CE within an
organizational context and suggested
organizations may exploit innovation to
exhibit one or more of four generic
forms of entrepreneurial activity that
include innovation of the (a) product, (b)
organization and its processes, (c) business concept and strategy, and (d) product/market/technology domain within
which the organization operates. For
example, in an adaptation of Covin and
Miles’s categorization of CE, sustained
regeneration is the process of creating
innovative products and services and
may be a driver of strategy in competitive markets that demand a continuous
stream of innovations (e.g., master of
business administration [MBA] graduate
management education). Organizational
rejuvenation is innovation applied to the
organization itself, its processes, and its
capabilities and is typically formally
integrated into strategy making. Organizational rejuvenation within a business
school is, by definition, a traumatic cultural change and may ultimately influence subsequent strategy. For example,
when a formerly unaccredited business
school applies for AACSB accreditation
candidacy, the decision typically
requires a dramatic realignment of strategy, culture, capabilities, and resources,
moving from a teaching-only focus, with
strategy and culture supporting the
transmission of knowledge function, to a
more research-focused strategy, with
some aspects of culture and resource
allocations supporting the knowledgecreation function. Strategic renewal is
innovation of the organization’s strategy
and how it is related to the environment.
When a business school engages in
strategic renewal, it uses innovation to
alter its strategy, explicitly reconsidering
its organization-environment interface
from a creative perspective, which
would include strategic reconfigurations
(e.g., emerging links between major universities such as the MIT/Cambridge
entrepreneurship center partnership).
The most dramatic form of CE is
domain redefinition, which is when an
organization intentionally develops
new and previously unrecognized product/market or market spaces. Domain
redefinition is the most comprehensive,
frame-breaking, and integrative form of
corporate entrepreneurship, simultaneously forcing innovation of products,
processes, and strategies. Domain redefinition may be intentional and part of
an overarching strategy (e.g., Sony’s
development of the Walkman, which
created a new product/market space).
One example of technology that may
have the potential to alter the domains
of business schools is biotechnology.
For example, the promise of biotechnology creates a tremendous opportunity for some business schools that are
affiliated with biotechnology research
centers, just as the information technology revolution altered the relevant
domain of business schools in the
recent past.
Item Generation
To date, no one has specifically
designed a scale to assess the level of
entrepreneurship in business schools.
We drew our scale development efforts
from previous studies that developed
scales purporting to measure EO or
entrepreneurship in an organizational
context (cf., Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001; Covin & Slevin, 1986,
1989; Ginsberg, 1985; Miles & Arnold,
1991; Miller & Friesen, 1983; Morris &
Paul, 1987). We adapted items to better
capture the domain of entrepreneurship
within a business school context. In
addition, we adapted items from Dess et
al.’s (2003) model of CE, conceptual
March/April 2007
235
work on entrepreneurial strategic leadership by Covin and Slevin (2002), and
a field study of corporate venturing and
strategy (Covin & Miles, in press). We
developed items to attempt to capture
the dimension of corporate or organizational entrepreneurship within a business school context. We measured items
using a 7-point Likert scale (7 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Instrument Pretest
We reduced scale items by sending the
scale to researchers experienced in the
measurement of EO. We eliminated
items that were confusing or did not contribute to capturing the domain of entrepreneurship in business schools. In addition, we sent the scale to a visiting
AACSB team dean and an associate dean
of an AACSB-accredited business school
to help refine the items and enhance
response rates. Because of the nature and
size of the population of interest, we did
not perform a formal psychometric
analysis during the pretest phase.
Scale Assessment
The population of interest in the
study (i.e., AACSB-accredited business
schools) allowed the use of a census. In
addition, because of recent changes in
AACSB (2003) requirements , the business schools’ key informants were very
interested and involved in understanding how to enhance their schools’
strategic management processes (see
Chaganti & Sambharya, 1987, and
Zelditch, 1962 for information about
the use of upper management as organizational key informants). We mailed
surveys in the summer of 2003, with an
e-mail follow-up during the autumn of
2003. We sent surveys to the deans of
all AACSB-accredited business schools
in the United States (n = 406), from
which 149 usable responses were
returned, resulting in a 37% response
rate. Table 1 shows the survey items
with selected descriptive statistics.
Internal Scale Reliability
The initial 21-item scale exhibited a
coefficient alpha of 0.9, exceeding
Nunnally’s (1978) standard for scale
development studies of 0.7. This sug236
Journal of Education for Business
gests a scale that exhibits high internal
consistency.
Factor Analysis of the Scale
We used maximum likelihood factor
analysis as a proxy to measure construct
validity (Churchill, 1979; Kerlinger,
1986). Using the original 21 items,
maximum likelihood extraction, and
varimax rotation (converging in 16 iterations), five factors exhibited eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater (Hair, Anderson, &
Tatham, 1987). The first factor extracted
exhibited an eigenvalue of 7.9 and
accounted for 37.7% of the variance. On
the basis of eigenvalues, the scale has
one dominate dimension. Table 2 summarizes the 21-item factor analysis.
Scale Purification
We used scale purification and item
reduction, as well as the results of the
initial factor analysis, to construct a
scale that purports to more fully capture
the domain of entrepreneurship in business schools using Covin and Miles’s
(1999) dimensions of CE. Initially, we
included 18 items with the minimum
factor loading of .35 or greater in the
subscale for item reduction (see Hair,
Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Using an
iterative process that maximized the
scale internal consistency (alpha if item
deleted), we reduced the 18-item subscale to a 6-item subscale for the dominant dimension that resulted in the highest alpha score (α = 0.83) that was
adequate in terms of internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). The Appendix
summarizes the 6 items that most efficiently captured the construct of entrepreneurship in business schools.
Results of Benchmarking
Entrepreneurship in Schools of
Business
The current level of entrepreneurship
exhibited in business schools is illustrated in Table 1. All item means in the 21item scale were greater than 3.5 (using a
7-point scale), indicating a positive
level of entrepreneurship in business
schools, with the exception of the item
that pertained to penalizing faculty for
new ideas that did not work. In general,
business schools tended to be engaged
(item means of 5.0 or greater) in the systematic reevaluation of their mission,
creating new value propositions, and
nourishing school-wide entrepreneurial
capabilities. Areas in which business
schools tended to perform less entrepreneurially included making dramatic
changes in product offerings; being
innovative in new courses, majors, and
programs; and enhancing the business
schools’ marketing process. This suggests that additional opportunities to
leverage process and product innovation
to gain competitive advantages within
business schools may exist.
Managerial Implications
An analysis of the frequency of
responses suggests four issues are
important to business school deans in
understanding their perceived roles in
encouraging entrepreneurship within
their schools (based on an item mode of
6 or 7, indicating that the respondent
strongly agreed with the statement).
More than 85% of the deans who
responded indicated they strongly
agreed that their schools should systematically re-evaluate their missions, definitions, and purposes. Almost 75% of the
deans who responded indicated they
strongly agreed that their role as the
strategic leader of a business school is to
nourish an entrepreneurial capability.
Approximately 68% of the deans strongly agreed with the statement that management’s role was to make opportunities and opportunity recognition make
sense for the school. Finally, more than
65% of the deans strongly agreed that
management must somehow explicitly
link entrepreneurship with the business
school’s strategy. Table 3 summarizes
these four critical issues that business
school deans perceive as important in
encouraging entrepreneurship within
schools of business and offers suggestions on managerial implications.
DISCUSSION
Our intent was to explore and measure the dimensions of entrepreneurship
in business schools and to provide a current benchmark of the state of entrepreneurship in business schools from the
perspective of the school’s key infor-
TABLE 1. Items and Variables Used to Measure Entrepreneurship in Business Schools
Variable
M
Mode
Role of dean
The role of our dean is to nourish an entrepreneurial capability.
5.3
6
Opportunities
Our school’s management makes opportunities and opportunity recognition make
sense for the organization.
4.83
6
Our school’s top management has the role of linking entrepreneurship with business
strategy.
4.81
6
Reevaluates mission
Our school systematically reevaluates our mission, definition, and purpose.
5.62
6
Organizational goals
One of our organizational goals is to use new classes, majors, and programs
introduced within the last 5 years as a metric to assess academic innovation
objectives.
4.31
5
We favor new initiatives that create unique value propositions for our students and
stakeholder groups.
5.24
5
We attempt to stay close to our academic disciplines, but we also invest in promising
innovations that do not currently meet expressed needs.
4.41
5
Changes in marketing
processes
Changes in our school’s marketing processes have been quite dramatic.
3.98
5
Intended-emergent
initiatives
Our school allows both intended and emergent entrepreneurial initiatives to define
and redefine our concept of strategy.
4.52
5
Academic fit
When evaluating new services, business concepts, projects, or other initiatives, our
school tends to place a greater weight on academic fit than on financial analysis.
4.18
5
Strategic relevance
We systematically assess the strategic relevance of emergent initiatives.
4.54
5
Boundary spanning
We encourage school- and university-wide, boundary spanning strategic
conversations to help renew and rejuvenate the business school.
4.81
5
Our school’s organizational structure and strategic processes are designed to allow
for strategic flexibility.
4.65
5
Top management
defines opportunities
The school’s top management defines our concept of strategy in terms of
entrepreneurial opportunities.
4.38
5
At the vanguard
Our school is often at the vanguard of new and innovative courses, majors and
programs.
4.11
4, 5
Research or innovation
The University has a strong emphasis on research and innovation.
4.7
4
Dramatic changes
Changes in what we offer have usually been quite dramatic.
3.75
4
Protects threats
Our Dean protects disruptive innovations that threaten the current business model.
4.04
4
Technical innovations
Technical innovations based on research results are readily accepted and quickly
adopted.
4.16
4
Students incur switching
costs
Students incur high switching costs to transfer to our institution.
2.51
2
Penalize employees
Employees are penalized for new ideas that do not work.
1.96
1
Top management’s role
New initiatives
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Item
Invest in innovations
Strategic flexibility
Note. All items were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
mant, its dean. The findings suggest that
many deans would like for their schools
to become somehow more entrepreneurial, and that these same deans recognize
that much of the burden of cultural
change will fall on them. The dean can
either establish or influence which sorts
of activities are supported and rewarded
in many schools of business and thereby
change culture and behaviors. They can
also provide strategic leadership in
helping the faculty understand and
adapt strategy. The findings illustrated
in Table 3 suggest that if deans wish
their business schools to become more
entrepreneurial, they must (a) systematically reassess the mission, (b) use the
position of dean to nourish an entrepre-
neurial capability within the school, (c)
reward and support opportunity creation
and discovery, and (d) explicitly link
entrepreneurship with the business
school’s strategy.
Enhancing entrepreneurial strategy
within a business school can encourage
innovation in teaching, research, and
service. In teaching, being innovative in
March/April 2007
237
TABLE 2. 21-Item Corporate Entrepreneurship of Business Schools
Scale Rotated Factor Matrix Loadings
Factor
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
Organizational goals .227
.348
.265
4.670E-02
.316
Research or
innovation
.152
.385
.359
.131
7.061E-02
Dramatic changes
.169
.641
.301
−6.175E-02 −.134
At the vanguard
.274
.805
.223
5.800E-02 −.116
New initiatives
.370
.576
.187
7.976E-02
.119
Role of dean
.448
.397
.406
2.493E-02
.145
Protects threats
.103
.225
4.473E-02 5.710E-02
.135
Invest in innovations .331
.315
.408
1.846E-02 7.276E-02
Technical
innovations
.385
.421
.324
9.583E-02 3.928E-02
Students incur
switching costs
5.305E-03
.59
.412
−2.134E-02 2.275E-02
Changes in marketing
processes
.183
8.983E-02
.729
.645
−.101
Penalize employees −.106
−7.663E-03 −1.084E-02 −.237
7.149E-02
intended-emergent
initiatives
.570
.430
.117
7.730E-02 3.168E-02
Academic fit
2.379E-02 −3.549E-02 6.262E-03 −.104
.445
Strategic relevance
.586
.376
.144
.295
.123
Boundary spanning .428
.524
−5.027E-02
.516
.468
Opportunities
.597
.302
.109
.211
.195
Top management’s
role
.818
.233
.186
.127
8.426E-02
Strategic flexibility
.787
.136
9.055E-02
.166
−5.231E-02
Top management
defines
opportunities
.734
.222
.342
−4.277E-02
.354
Reevaluates mission .440
.115
−1.215E-02
.115
−4.831E-03
Note. Extraction method was maximum likelihood. Rotation method was a Varimax rotation with
Kaiser normalization. A rotation converged in 16 iterations.
using high quality resources to deliver
course content and staying abreast of
curriculum development in emergent
subject areas are ways that may align
with the business school’s strategic
objectives. Delivering high-quality programs is one way to remain competitive,
increase enrollments, and maintain student retention.
Furthermore, in research, faculty may
be encouraged to apply for grants or be
assessed by the creativity and innovation they use in the research arena.
Finally, in-service faculty can forge ties
with the business community and
engage in applied research projects.
Setting benchmarks for these areas
will aid in developing faculty capabilities
and assessing academic innovation. To
stay competitive, to attract and retain
quality faculty and students, and to be
valued in the greater community, business school deans should consider
improving the processes of course and
academic program change, using innovation to make the school’s administrative
processes more efficient and effective,
and leveraging an entrepreneurial perspective of strategy to create a competitive advantage for the business school relative to peer business schools and
competing schools and colleges within its
university. Future researchers should provide additional insight on the ways that
adoption of entrepreneurship by business
TABLE 3. Issues Perceived by Deans to Be Critically Important in Encouraging Entrepreneurship in Schools of
Business and Their Management Implications
Factor
Issue
Deans who strongly
agreed issue was
important (%)
Reevaluates mission
Our school systematically reevaluates
our mission, definition, and purpose.
85
Role of dean
The role of our dean is to nourish an
entrepreneurial capability.
76
Opportunities
Our school’s management makes
opportunities, and opportunity
recognition makes sense for the
organization.
68
Top management’s role
Our school’s top management has the
role of linking entrepreneurship with
the business school’s strategy.
65
238
Journal of Education for Business
Management implications
Defining and redefining the school of
business’ domain, mission, customers,
and core capabilities is critical to
stimulating innovation and
entrepreneurship.
Deans help establish and adapt business
school culture. Faculty will be more
willing to act innovatively if the dean
openly and consistently supports and
rewards entrepreneurial initiatives.
Opportunity recognition is a major
dimension of entrepreneurship. Faculty
should be rewarded and supported when
they either discover or create exploitable
opportunities.
It is critical that the business school’s
concept of strategy be widely understood
throughout the school and formally linked
to entrepreneurship.
schools can be leveraged to create superior value for the schools’ stakeholders and
to enhance prospects for successful initial
accreditation and reaffirmation.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Morgan Miles, PO Box 8145,
Department of Marketing, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460.
E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International. (2003). Proposed eligibility procedures and standards for business
accreditation. Retrieved February 2, 2007,
from http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/
web/AACSBstand1_1_04.pdf
Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001).
An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunitybased firm behavior. Strategic Management
Journal, 22, 953–968.
Chaganti, R., & Sambharya, R. (1987). Strategic orientation and characteristics of upper management.
Strategic Management Journal, 8, 393–401.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate
entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (in press). Strategic
use of corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1986). The development and testing of an organization-level entrepreneurship scale. In R. Ronstadt, J. A. Hornaday, and K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship
Research-1986
(pp.
628–639). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic
management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management
Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2002). The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In
M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L.
Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 309–327). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
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, 351–378.
Ginsberg, A. (1985, October). Measuring changes
in entrepreneurial orientation following industry deregulation: The development of a diagnostic instrument. Proceedings of the First
Biannual Conference of the U.S. Affiliate of the
International Council for Small Business,
Orlando, FL.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(1987). Multivariate data analysis: With readings. New York: MacMillan.
Hasan, S. M. J. (1993). Business schools: Ostrich
syndrome. Journal of Organizational Change,
6(1), 47–53.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S.
(1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management
Journal, 11, 49–58.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying
the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Miles, M. P., & Arnold, D. R. (1991). The relationship between marketing orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 15(4), 49–65.
Miles, M. P., Hazeldine, M. F., & Munilla, L. S.
(2004). The 2003 AACSB accreditation standards and implications for business faculty: A
short note. Journal of Education for Business,
80, 29–34.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic
Management Journal, 4, 221–235.
Morris, M. H., & Jones, F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of
the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 24(1), 71–91.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business
Venturing, 2, 247–259.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with
Milton Blood: The new AACSB standards.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 429–439.
Todorovic, B., & McNaughton, R. B. (2003,
June). The entrepreneurial orientation of university departments. Proceedings of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, Entrepreneurship and Family Business,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Zelditch, M. (1962). Some methodological problems of field studies. American Journal of Sociology, 67, 566–576.
APPENDIX
Six Items Measuring Entrepreneurship in Business Schools
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Item
The University has a strong emphasis on research and innovation.
Changes in our school’s marketing processes have been quite dramatic.
Our school is often at the vanguard of new and innovative courses, majors, and programs.
We favor new initiatives that create unique value propositions for our students and stakeholder groups.
Technical innovations based on research results are readily accepted and quickly adopted.
We encourage school- and university-wide, boundary spanning strategic conversations to help renew and rejuvenate the business
school.
March/April 2007
239
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Measuring Entrepreneurship in Business Schools
Mary Hazeldine & Morgan Miles
To cite this article: Mary Hazeldine & Morgan Miles (2007) Measuring Entrepreneurship
in Business Schools, Journal of Education for Business, 82:4, 234-240, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.82.4.234-240
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.4.234-240
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 147
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:26
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Measuring Entrepreneurship in Business
Schools
MARY HAZELDINE
MORGAN MILES
GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
STATESBORO, GEORGIA
ABSTRACT. The recent positions of
the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB) and the
European Foundation for Management
Developments (EQUIS) on the value of
entrepreneurship suggest a more entrepreneurial perspective in a business school’s
culture and strategic processes for obtaining
and sustaining a business school’s reputation. The study consists of scale development to measure the dimensions of entrepreneurship in business schools. Results
suggest that AACSB deans must reassess
the school’s mission, nourish entrepreneurship, reward and support opportunity creation and discovery, and link entrepreneurship with the school’s strategy.
Keywords: AACSB, business schools,
entrepreneurship, school mission
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
234
Journal of Education for Business
T
he Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) has recently embraced a much
more entrepreneurial approach to management education in its “New Standards for Accreditation” (2003; Miles,
Hazeldine, & Munilla, 2004). These new
standards emphasize the importance of
emergent, stakeholder-based innovative
initiatives (i.e., corporate entrepreneurship) to direct strategy making at business schools. AACSB estimates that its
412 accredited business schools produce
“56% of the undergraduate U.S. business degrees awarded and 62% of the
U.S. masters level U.S. degrees awarded” (Thompson, 2004, p. 438). The
accreditation-driven imperatives for
business schools to become more innovative and adaptive and to create incremental value for all of their stakeholders
suggest that schools of business could
benefit from becoming more entrepreneurial in terms of strategy making and
implementation. For example, the need
for entrepreneurial strategy making and
its now significant links to successful
AACSB reaffirmation suggest that strategy at business schools “must proactively encourage flexibility, creativity, and
new initiatives” (Zoffer as cited in
Hasan, 1993, p. 48).
Given AACSB’s and European Foundation for Management Development
(EQUIS’s) leadership positions in business school practices and AACSB’s
recent position on accreditation standards, the adoption of a more entrepreneurial perspective in a business
school’s culture and strategic processes
is critical for the institution’s ability to
obtain and sustain relevancy to management. However, at this point in time, no
studies provide metrics to benchmark
the current level of entrepreneurship in
business schools.
Metrics, Benchmarking, and
Continuous Improvement
Entrepreneurship within an organization can be measured using a variety of
mechanisms. For example, entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is one indicator
of the presence of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial orientation is a multidimensional construct that typically captures how autonomous an organization
is, its level of innovativeness, its risktaking propensity, its tendency to be
proactive, and its tendency to act aggressively with respect to its competitors
(see Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin &
Dess, 1996). Although researchers have
conducted studies on developing measures of the EO of businesses (see
Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001;
Covin & Slevin, 1986, 1989; Ginsberg,
1985; Miller & Friesen, 1983; Morris &
Paul, 1987), they have focused less work
on developing any metrics to measure
entrepreneurship in other types of orga-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
nizations (Morris & Jones, 1999). For
example, Todorovic and McNaughton’s
(2003) work on the entrepreneurial orientation of university departments is one
of the only studies specifically addressing the EO in higher education, and the
study was conducted with engineering
faculty at a Canadian University, not
business faculty.
If one takes AACSB and EQUIS
imperatives for business schools seriously, and views entrepreneurship as the
mechanism to implement these initiatives, it is critical to benchmark the current level of EO that exists in business
schools so that changes in the level of
entrepreneurship in business schools
can be measured. To do this requires the
development of a set of metrics to measure the current level of EO in business
schools. Then, in subsequent follow-up
studies, one must measure (a) if desired
performance is related to the level of
entrepreneurship in business schools
and (b) which management interventions can affecting the level of entrepreneurship in business schools.
Although AACSB has focused on
developing benchmarks pertaining to
assessment and other business school
deliverables as management tools for
deans, at this point no researchers have
developed scales to measure how entrepreneurial business schools currently are
or how effective continuous improvement activities are in impacting the level
of entrepreneurship in business schools.
In this study, we aim to offer a psychometrically sound scale to measure entrepreneurship and benchmarking data on
the current level of entrepreneurship in
business schools. These tools should
provide business school deans the ability to measure (a) how current their entrepreneurial-related activities are, (b) how
their schools compare to other business
schools in entrepreneurship-related
activities, and (c) how successful their
schools are in transforming themselves
toward a more entrepreneurial approach
to management.
METHOD
In this study, we exploit the external
stimulus of recent AACSB initiatives for
business schools to become more entrepreneurial and to explore the dimensions
of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in a
not-for-profit context. Although U.S.
schools that hold AACSB accreditation
are approximately only 32% of all institutions of higher learning that offer management education, AACSB is a leader
in setting standards and new initiatives
(see Thompson, 2004). The methodology for the present study consists of three
components: (a) scale development, (b)
pretest of the instrument, and (c) scale
assessment.
Scale Development
Kuratko, Montagno, and Hornsby
(1990) developed the Intrapreneurship
Assessment Instrument to measure an
organization’s culture, structure, and
support for entrepreneurship in an organizational context. Covin and Miles
(1999) conceptualized another perspective of entrepreneurship or CE within an
organizational context and suggested
organizations may exploit innovation to
exhibit one or more of four generic
forms of entrepreneurial activity that
include innovation of the (a) product, (b)
organization and its processes, (c) business concept and strategy, and (d) product/market/technology domain within
which the organization operates. For
example, in an adaptation of Covin and
Miles’s categorization of CE, sustained
regeneration is the process of creating
innovative products and services and
may be a driver of strategy in competitive markets that demand a continuous
stream of innovations (e.g., master of
business administration [MBA] graduate
management education). Organizational
rejuvenation is innovation applied to the
organization itself, its processes, and its
capabilities and is typically formally
integrated into strategy making. Organizational rejuvenation within a business
school is, by definition, a traumatic cultural change and may ultimately influence subsequent strategy. For example,
when a formerly unaccredited business
school applies for AACSB accreditation
candidacy, the decision typically
requires a dramatic realignment of strategy, culture, capabilities, and resources,
moving from a teaching-only focus, with
strategy and culture supporting the
transmission of knowledge function, to a
more research-focused strategy, with
some aspects of culture and resource
allocations supporting the knowledgecreation function. Strategic renewal is
innovation of the organization’s strategy
and how it is related to the environment.
When a business school engages in
strategic renewal, it uses innovation to
alter its strategy, explicitly reconsidering
its organization-environment interface
from a creative perspective, which
would include strategic reconfigurations
(e.g., emerging links between major universities such as the MIT/Cambridge
entrepreneurship center partnership).
The most dramatic form of CE is
domain redefinition, which is when an
organization intentionally develops
new and previously unrecognized product/market or market spaces. Domain
redefinition is the most comprehensive,
frame-breaking, and integrative form of
corporate entrepreneurship, simultaneously forcing innovation of products,
processes, and strategies. Domain redefinition may be intentional and part of
an overarching strategy (e.g., Sony’s
development of the Walkman, which
created a new product/market space).
One example of technology that may
have the potential to alter the domains
of business schools is biotechnology.
For example, the promise of biotechnology creates a tremendous opportunity for some business schools that are
affiliated with biotechnology research
centers, just as the information technology revolution altered the relevant
domain of business schools in the
recent past.
Item Generation
To date, no one has specifically
designed a scale to assess the level of
entrepreneurship in business schools.
We drew our scale development efforts
from previous studies that developed
scales purporting to measure EO or
entrepreneurship in an organizational
context (cf., Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001; Covin & Slevin, 1986,
1989; Ginsberg, 1985; Miles & Arnold,
1991; Miller & Friesen, 1983; Morris &
Paul, 1987). We adapted items to better
capture the domain of entrepreneurship
within a business school context. In
addition, we adapted items from Dess et
al.’s (2003) model of CE, conceptual
March/April 2007
235
work on entrepreneurial strategic leadership by Covin and Slevin (2002), and
a field study of corporate venturing and
strategy (Covin & Miles, in press). We
developed items to attempt to capture
the dimension of corporate or organizational entrepreneurship within a business school context. We measured items
using a 7-point Likert scale (7 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Instrument Pretest
We reduced scale items by sending the
scale to researchers experienced in the
measurement of EO. We eliminated
items that were confusing or did not contribute to capturing the domain of entrepreneurship in business schools. In addition, we sent the scale to a visiting
AACSB team dean and an associate dean
of an AACSB-accredited business school
to help refine the items and enhance
response rates. Because of the nature and
size of the population of interest, we did
not perform a formal psychometric
analysis during the pretest phase.
Scale Assessment
The population of interest in the
study (i.e., AACSB-accredited business
schools) allowed the use of a census. In
addition, because of recent changes in
AACSB (2003) requirements , the business schools’ key informants were very
interested and involved in understanding how to enhance their schools’
strategic management processes (see
Chaganti & Sambharya, 1987, and
Zelditch, 1962 for information about
the use of upper management as organizational key informants). We mailed
surveys in the summer of 2003, with an
e-mail follow-up during the autumn of
2003. We sent surveys to the deans of
all AACSB-accredited business schools
in the United States (n = 406), from
which 149 usable responses were
returned, resulting in a 37% response
rate. Table 1 shows the survey items
with selected descriptive statistics.
Internal Scale Reliability
The initial 21-item scale exhibited a
coefficient alpha of 0.9, exceeding
Nunnally’s (1978) standard for scale
development studies of 0.7. This sug236
Journal of Education for Business
gests a scale that exhibits high internal
consistency.
Factor Analysis of the Scale
We used maximum likelihood factor
analysis as a proxy to measure construct
validity (Churchill, 1979; Kerlinger,
1986). Using the original 21 items,
maximum likelihood extraction, and
varimax rotation (converging in 16 iterations), five factors exhibited eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater (Hair, Anderson, &
Tatham, 1987). The first factor extracted
exhibited an eigenvalue of 7.9 and
accounted for 37.7% of the variance. On
the basis of eigenvalues, the scale has
one dominate dimension. Table 2 summarizes the 21-item factor analysis.
Scale Purification
We used scale purification and item
reduction, as well as the results of the
initial factor analysis, to construct a
scale that purports to more fully capture
the domain of entrepreneurship in business schools using Covin and Miles’s
(1999) dimensions of CE. Initially, we
included 18 items with the minimum
factor loading of .35 or greater in the
subscale for item reduction (see Hair,
Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Using an
iterative process that maximized the
scale internal consistency (alpha if item
deleted), we reduced the 18-item subscale to a 6-item subscale for the dominant dimension that resulted in the highest alpha score (α = 0.83) that was
adequate in terms of internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). The Appendix
summarizes the 6 items that most efficiently captured the construct of entrepreneurship in business schools.
Results of Benchmarking
Entrepreneurship in Schools of
Business
The current level of entrepreneurship
exhibited in business schools is illustrated in Table 1. All item means in the 21item scale were greater than 3.5 (using a
7-point scale), indicating a positive
level of entrepreneurship in business
schools, with the exception of the item
that pertained to penalizing faculty for
new ideas that did not work. In general,
business schools tended to be engaged
(item means of 5.0 or greater) in the systematic reevaluation of their mission,
creating new value propositions, and
nourishing school-wide entrepreneurial
capabilities. Areas in which business
schools tended to perform less entrepreneurially included making dramatic
changes in product offerings; being
innovative in new courses, majors, and
programs; and enhancing the business
schools’ marketing process. This suggests that additional opportunities to
leverage process and product innovation
to gain competitive advantages within
business schools may exist.
Managerial Implications
An analysis of the frequency of
responses suggests four issues are
important to business school deans in
understanding their perceived roles in
encouraging entrepreneurship within
their schools (based on an item mode of
6 or 7, indicating that the respondent
strongly agreed with the statement).
More than 85% of the deans who
responded indicated they strongly
agreed that their schools should systematically re-evaluate their missions, definitions, and purposes. Almost 75% of the
deans who responded indicated they
strongly agreed that their role as the
strategic leader of a business school is to
nourish an entrepreneurial capability.
Approximately 68% of the deans strongly agreed with the statement that management’s role was to make opportunities and opportunity recognition make
sense for the school. Finally, more than
65% of the deans strongly agreed that
management must somehow explicitly
link entrepreneurship with the business
school’s strategy. Table 3 summarizes
these four critical issues that business
school deans perceive as important in
encouraging entrepreneurship within
schools of business and offers suggestions on managerial implications.
DISCUSSION
Our intent was to explore and measure the dimensions of entrepreneurship
in business schools and to provide a current benchmark of the state of entrepreneurship in business schools from the
perspective of the school’s key infor-
TABLE 1. Items and Variables Used to Measure Entrepreneurship in Business Schools
Variable
M
Mode
Role of dean
The role of our dean is to nourish an entrepreneurial capability.
5.3
6
Opportunities
Our school’s management makes opportunities and opportunity recognition make
sense for the organization.
4.83
6
Our school’s top management has the role of linking entrepreneurship with business
strategy.
4.81
6
Reevaluates mission
Our school systematically reevaluates our mission, definition, and purpose.
5.62
6
Organizational goals
One of our organizational goals is to use new classes, majors, and programs
introduced within the last 5 years as a metric to assess academic innovation
objectives.
4.31
5
We favor new initiatives that create unique value propositions for our students and
stakeholder groups.
5.24
5
We attempt to stay close to our academic disciplines, but we also invest in promising
innovations that do not currently meet expressed needs.
4.41
5
Changes in marketing
processes
Changes in our school’s marketing processes have been quite dramatic.
3.98
5
Intended-emergent
initiatives
Our school allows both intended and emergent entrepreneurial initiatives to define
and redefine our concept of strategy.
4.52
5
Academic fit
When evaluating new services, business concepts, projects, or other initiatives, our
school tends to place a greater weight on academic fit than on financial analysis.
4.18
5
Strategic relevance
We systematically assess the strategic relevance of emergent initiatives.
4.54
5
Boundary spanning
We encourage school- and university-wide, boundary spanning strategic
conversations to help renew and rejuvenate the business school.
4.81
5
Our school’s organizational structure and strategic processes are designed to allow
for strategic flexibility.
4.65
5
Top management
defines opportunities
The school’s top management defines our concept of strategy in terms of
entrepreneurial opportunities.
4.38
5
At the vanguard
Our school is often at the vanguard of new and innovative courses, majors and
programs.
4.11
4, 5
Research or innovation
The University has a strong emphasis on research and innovation.
4.7
4
Dramatic changes
Changes in what we offer have usually been quite dramatic.
3.75
4
Protects threats
Our Dean protects disruptive innovations that threaten the current business model.
4.04
4
Technical innovations
Technical innovations based on research results are readily accepted and quickly
adopted.
4.16
4
Students incur switching
costs
Students incur high switching costs to transfer to our institution.
2.51
2
Penalize employees
Employees are penalized for new ideas that do not work.
1.96
1
Top management’s role
New initiatives
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Item
Invest in innovations
Strategic flexibility
Note. All items were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
mant, its dean. The findings suggest that
many deans would like for their schools
to become somehow more entrepreneurial, and that these same deans recognize
that much of the burden of cultural
change will fall on them. The dean can
either establish or influence which sorts
of activities are supported and rewarded
in many schools of business and thereby
change culture and behaviors. They can
also provide strategic leadership in
helping the faculty understand and
adapt strategy. The findings illustrated
in Table 3 suggest that if deans wish
their business schools to become more
entrepreneurial, they must (a) systematically reassess the mission, (b) use the
position of dean to nourish an entrepre-
neurial capability within the school, (c)
reward and support opportunity creation
and discovery, and (d) explicitly link
entrepreneurship with the business
school’s strategy.
Enhancing entrepreneurial strategy
within a business school can encourage
innovation in teaching, research, and
service. In teaching, being innovative in
March/April 2007
237
TABLE 2. 21-Item Corporate Entrepreneurship of Business Schools
Scale Rotated Factor Matrix Loadings
Factor
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
Organizational goals .227
.348
.265
4.670E-02
.316
Research or
innovation
.152
.385
.359
.131
7.061E-02
Dramatic changes
.169
.641
.301
−6.175E-02 −.134
At the vanguard
.274
.805
.223
5.800E-02 −.116
New initiatives
.370
.576
.187
7.976E-02
.119
Role of dean
.448
.397
.406
2.493E-02
.145
Protects threats
.103
.225
4.473E-02 5.710E-02
.135
Invest in innovations .331
.315
.408
1.846E-02 7.276E-02
Technical
innovations
.385
.421
.324
9.583E-02 3.928E-02
Students incur
switching costs
5.305E-03
.59
.412
−2.134E-02 2.275E-02
Changes in marketing
processes
.183
8.983E-02
.729
.645
−.101
Penalize employees −.106
−7.663E-03 −1.084E-02 −.237
7.149E-02
intended-emergent
initiatives
.570
.430
.117
7.730E-02 3.168E-02
Academic fit
2.379E-02 −3.549E-02 6.262E-03 −.104
.445
Strategic relevance
.586
.376
.144
.295
.123
Boundary spanning .428
.524
−5.027E-02
.516
.468
Opportunities
.597
.302
.109
.211
.195
Top management’s
role
.818
.233
.186
.127
8.426E-02
Strategic flexibility
.787
.136
9.055E-02
.166
−5.231E-02
Top management
defines
opportunities
.734
.222
.342
−4.277E-02
.354
Reevaluates mission .440
.115
−1.215E-02
.115
−4.831E-03
Note. Extraction method was maximum likelihood. Rotation method was a Varimax rotation with
Kaiser normalization. A rotation converged in 16 iterations.
using high quality resources to deliver
course content and staying abreast of
curriculum development in emergent
subject areas are ways that may align
with the business school’s strategic
objectives. Delivering high-quality programs is one way to remain competitive,
increase enrollments, and maintain student retention.
Furthermore, in research, faculty may
be encouraged to apply for grants or be
assessed by the creativity and innovation they use in the research arena.
Finally, in-service faculty can forge ties
with the business community and
engage in applied research projects.
Setting benchmarks for these areas
will aid in developing faculty capabilities
and assessing academic innovation. To
stay competitive, to attract and retain
quality faculty and students, and to be
valued in the greater community, business school deans should consider
improving the processes of course and
academic program change, using innovation to make the school’s administrative
processes more efficient and effective,
and leveraging an entrepreneurial perspective of strategy to create a competitive advantage for the business school relative to peer business schools and
competing schools and colleges within its
university. Future researchers should provide additional insight on the ways that
adoption of entrepreneurship by business
TABLE 3. Issues Perceived by Deans to Be Critically Important in Encouraging Entrepreneurship in Schools of
Business and Their Management Implications
Factor
Issue
Deans who strongly
agreed issue was
important (%)
Reevaluates mission
Our school systematically reevaluates
our mission, definition, and purpose.
85
Role of dean
The role of our dean is to nourish an
entrepreneurial capability.
76
Opportunities
Our school’s management makes
opportunities, and opportunity
recognition makes sense for the
organization.
68
Top management’s role
Our school’s top management has the
role of linking entrepreneurship with
the business school’s strategy.
65
238
Journal of Education for Business
Management implications
Defining and redefining the school of
business’ domain, mission, customers,
and core capabilities is critical to
stimulating innovation and
entrepreneurship.
Deans help establish and adapt business
school culture. Faculty will be more
willing to act innovatively if the dean
openly and consistently supports and
rewards entrepreneurial initiatives.
Opportunity recognition is a major
dimension of entrepreneurship. Faculty
should be rewarded and supported when
they either discover or create exploitable
opportunities.
It is critical that the business school’s
concept of strategy be widely understood
throughout the school and formally linked
to entrepreneurship.
schools can be leveraged to create superior value for the schools’ stakeholders and
to enhance prospects for successful initial
accreditation and reaffirmation.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Morgan Miles, PO Box 8145,
Department of Marketing, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460.
E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International. (2003). Proposed eligibility procedures and standards for business
accreditation. Retrieved February 2, 2007,
from http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/
web/AACSBstand1_1_04.pdf
Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001).
An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunitybased firm behavior. Strategic Management
Journal, 22, 953–968.
Chaganti, R., & Sambharya, R. (1987). Strategic orientation and characteristics of upper management.
Strategic Management Journal, 8, 393–401.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate
entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (in press). Strategic
use of corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1986). The development and testing of an organization-level entrepreneurship scale. In R. Ronstadt, J. A. Hornaday, and K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship
Research-1986
(pp.
628–639). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic
management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management
Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2002). The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In
M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L.
Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 309–327). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
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, 351–378.
Ginsberg, A. (1985, October). Measuring changes
in entrepreneurial orientation following industry deregulation: The development of a diagnostic instrument. Proceedings of the First
Biannual Conference of the U.S. Affiliate of the
International Council for Small Business,
Orlando, FL.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(1987). Multivariate data analysis: With readings. New York: MacMillan.
Hasan, S. M. J. (1993). Business schools: Ostrich
syndrome. Journal of Organizational Change,
6(1), 47–53.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S.
(1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management
Journal, 11, 49–58.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying
the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Miles, M. P., & Arnold, D. R. (1991). The relationship between marketing orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 15(4), 49–65.
Miles, M. P., Hazeldine, M. F., & Munilla, L. S.
(2004). The 2003 AACSB accreditation standards and implications for business faculty: A
short note. Journal of Education for Business,
80, 29–34.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic
Management Journal, 4, 221–235.
Morris, M. H., & Jones, F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of
the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 24(1), 71–91.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business
Venturing, 2, 247–259.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with
Milton Blood: The new AACSB standards.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 429–439.
Todorovic, B., & McNaughton, R. B. (2003,
June). The entrepreneurial orientation of university departments. Proceedings of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, Entrepreneurship and Family Business,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Zelditch, M. (1962). Some methodological problems of field studies. American Journal of Sociology, 67, 566–576.
APPENDIX
Six Items Measuring Entrepreneurship in Business Schools
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Item
The University has a strong emphasis on research and innovation.
Changes in our school’s marketing processes have been quite dramatic.
Our school is often at the vanguard of new and innovative courses, majors, and programs.
We favor new initiatives that create unique value propositions for our students and stakeholder groups.
Technical innovations based on research results are readily accepted and quickly adopted.
We encourage school- and university-wide, boundary spanning strategic conversations to help renew and rejuvenate the business
school.
March/April 2007
239
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:26 11 January 2016