Top

Small Business Economics

Published in:

20-09-2023 | Research article

Core business prospects and the management of internal corporate ventures

Authors: Jeffrey G. Covin, Robert P. Garrett Jr, Ricarda B. Bouncken, Martin Ratzmann, Malcolm Muhammad

Published in: Small Business Economics | Issue 1/2024

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Corporations with attractive core business prospects focus their attention on those core businesses and away from ICVs they may be pursuing, thus influencing how those ICVs are treated from a corporate parenting perspective and, in turn, how well they perform. Using data collected from 145 ICVs operating in 72 corporate parents, this research reveals that corporations with more attractive core businesses grant greater planning autonomy to their ICVs’ managers, and planning autonomy contributes to ICV performance. Additional results reveal the moderating effects within our structural model of venture manager experience and the similarity of the ICV’s product to those of other businesses within the corporation. Considered collectively, this research demonstrates why corporations that “need” their ICVs to be successful – because of poor prospects in their core businesses – are most likely to mismanage them. Unattractive core business prospects can be viewed as justifying corporate managers’ involvement in the direct management of their firms’ ICVs. However, venture planning autonomy is needed to avoid placing undue expectations on ICVs as the “saviors” of corporate performance. By extension, this need for autonomy is also anticipated to apply to other entrepreneurial contexts where experimentation and learning are significant concerns (e.g., business incubators, corporate venture capital investments, new venture divisions).

Plain English Summary

This research demonstrates how and why corporations that have attractive core business operations are most likely to be good corporate parents to their internal corporate ventures (ICVs), and vice versa. In a sense, when it comes to internal corporate venturing, “the rich corporations get richer, and the poor corporations get poorer.” Parent corporations with more attractive core business prospects were found to grant greater planning autonomy to the managers of their ICVs, and autonomy is needed to give ICV managers the discretion and flexibility they need when navigating their ventures though unchartered business territory. Overall, this research demonstrates the importance of corporate managers (1) granting ICV managers autonomy in planning their venture operations, (2) being willing to consider engaging in internal corporate venturing even though their firms’ existing, core business operations may be attractive (i.e., before these ICVs “need” to be successful), and (3) not putting too much pressure on ICVs to “perform,” and avoiding meddling in the management of those ventures, when prospects in the corporation’s core business are unattractive. We argue that autonomy is likely efficacious in most entrepreneurial contexts where experimentation and learning are significant concerns (e.g., business incubators, corporate venture capital investments, new venture divisions).

previous article Estimating the innovation benefits of first-mover and second-mover strategies when micro-businesses adopt artificial intelligence and machine learning

next article Correction to: Core business prospects and the management of internal corporate ventures

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

One might ask why corporate management wouldn’t always choose more experienced venture managers to lead important venturing initiatives. In fact, it may be reasonable to assume that corporate management may generally prefer to place more experienced managers in charge of ventures, especially “important” ventures that are salient to corporate management. However, venture manager experience is not inherently a “choice” variable from the perspective of corporate management in the sense that corporate management will not always have experienced potential venture managers to choose from. By contrast, venture planning autonomy is a choice variable in that corporate management can choose to grant or withhold any level of this variable. Thus, the relationship between core business prospect attractiveness and venture planning autonomy may differ across parent corporations having the same level of prospect attractiveness as a function of the availability of more experienced managers. This likelihood does not alter the fundamental arguments supportive of Hypothesis 2; indeed, it is consistent with those arguments.

Just as we hypothesized that venture manager experience will moderate the relationship between a parent’s core business prospect attractiveness and venture planning autonomy, one might also expect that venture manager experience will moderate the planning autonomy-ICV performance relationship, with the autonomy-performance relationship being more positive when the venture managers have greater experience. However, among independent start-ups, venture manager experience per se is weakly linked to venture performance; venture performance is only predicted by prior experience in the same industry (Song et al., 2008). Given that ICVs as operationally defined in this study are, by definition, new businesses, the value of the venture manager’s prior knowledge pertaining to the venture’s new business operations (vs. the process of managing the ICV) was expected to be modest at best. Accordingly, we assumed that venture manager experience would principally affect how ventures are managed – that is, the process of ICV management – with a lesser effect as a possible determinant of ICV performance. Consistent with this assumption, Table 1 reveals an insignificant correlation between venture manager experience and ICV performance (r = .04, p > .10).

As useful points of reference, McGrath (2001) measured “learning effectiveness” using respondents’ (the project leaders’) perceptions (from 1 = “results were far worse than expected” to 5 = “results were far better than expected”) of their projects’ performance on “ten generic objectives common to new business development projects” (p. 122). These ten generic objectives included, for example, “meeting budget objectives”, “meeting staffing objectives”, “meeting major deadlines”, “meeting quality objectives”, and “meeting reliability objectives.” Thornhill and Amit (2001, p. 37) measured “venture performance” by asking respondents (in this case CEOs) “to indicate on a scale of one to seven the degree to which they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with the statement that their venture had been able to meet milestones on schedule” (“milestones included such measures as profit, revenue, market share, customer satisfaction, and technical objectives” [p. 38]).

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Barnett, M. L. (2008). An attention-based view of real options reasoning. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 606–628. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465698CrossRef

Bhide, A. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Birkinshaw, J., & Hill, S. A. (2005). Corporate venturing units: Vehicles for strategic success in the new Europe. Organizational Dynamics, 34(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.06.009CrossRef

Birkinshaw, J., van Basten Batenburg, R., & Murray, G. (2002). Venturing to succeed. Business Strategy Review, 13(4), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00229CrossRef

Block, Z. (1982). Can corporate venturing succeed? Journal of Business Strategy, 3(2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb038963CrossRef

Block, Z., & MacMillan, I. (1993). Corporate venturing. Harvard Business School Press.

Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349–1365. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349CrossRef

Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms. California Management Review, 26(3), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165086CrossRef

Burgelman, R. A., & Valikangas, L. (2005). Managing internal corporate venturing cycles. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 26–34.

Byron, D. L. (1994). How internal venture groups innovate. Research Technology Management, 37(2), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1994.11670968CrossRef

Campbell, A., Goold, M., & Alexander, M. (1995a). The value of the parent company. California Management Review, 38(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165822CrossRef

Campbell, A., Goold, M., & Alexander, M. (1995b). Corporate strategy: The quest for parenting advantage. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 120–132.

Campbell, A., Birkinshaw, J., Morrison, A., & van Basten Batenburg, R. (2003). The future of corporate venturing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 30–37.

Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0192CrossRef

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution. Harvard Business School Press.

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00018392%28199003%2935%3A1%3C128%3AACANPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (2007). Strategic use of corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00169.xCrossRef

Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00015-9CrossRef

Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Value proposition evolution and the performance of internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.11.002CrossRef

Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Gupta, J. P., Kuratko, D. F., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). The interdependence of planning and learning among internal corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(4), 537–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12265CrossRef

Covin, J. G., Garrett, R. P., Jr., Kuratko, D. F., & Bolinger, M. (2021). Internal corporate venture planning autonomy, strategic evolution, and venture performance. Small Business Economics, 56, 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00220-2CrossRef

Covin, J.G., Garrett, R.P., Jr., Kuratko, D.F., & Shepherd, D.A. (2020). Short leash or long leash? Parenting style, initial strategic clarity, and the development of venture learning proficiency. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.10595

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555CrossRef

Dada, O. (2018). A model of entrepreneurial autonomy in franchised outlets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12123CrossRef

Donahoe, J., Schefter, P., & Harding, D. (2001). Corporate venturing: Management fad or lasting trend? Bain & Company.

Enders, C.K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121

Fast, N. D. (1979). The future of industrial new venture departments. Industrial Marketing Management, 8(4), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(79)90032-4CrossRef

Garvin, D. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2006). Meeting the challenge of corporate entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 102–112.

Gelfand, L. A., Mensinger, J. L., & Tenhave, T. (2009). Mediation analysis: A retrospective snapshot of practice and more recent directions. Journal of General Psychology, 136(2), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.136.2.153-178CrossRef

Ginsberg, A., & Hay, M. (1994). Confronting the challenges of corporate entrepreneurship. European Management Journal, 12(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(94)90024-8CrossRef

Goold, M., Campbell, A., & Alexander, M. (1998). Corporate strategy and parenting theory. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(98)00017-XCrossRef

Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078CrossRef

Hill, S. A., & Georgoulas, S. (2016). Internal corporate venturing: A review of (almost) five decades of literature. In S. A. Zahra, D. O. Neubaum, & J. C. Hayton (Eds.), Handbook of research on corporate entrepreneurship (pp. 13–63). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12(4), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.414.10639CrossRef

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm, managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-XCrossRef

Johnson, K. L. (2012). The role of structural and planning autonomy in the performance of internal corporate ventures. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(3), 469–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00363.xCrossRef

Johnson, K.L. (2005). Predicting internal corporate venture performance: process, resource, strategic and structural considerations. Unpublished dissertation, Bloomington: Indiana University.

Kanter, R. (1985). Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90006-0CrossRef

Kanter, R. M. (1989). Swimming in newstreams: Mastering innovation dilemmas. California Management Review, 31(4), 45–69.CrossRef

Keil, T., McGrath, R. G., & Tukiainen, T. (2009). Gems from the ashes: Capability creation and transformation in internal corporate venturing. Organization Science, 20(3), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0373CrossRef

Khandwalla, P.N. (1976/1977). Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 7(4), 21–51.

Kroll, M., Walters, B. A., & Wright, P. (2008). Board vigilance, director experience, and corporate outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.649CrossRef

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Summer Special Issue), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009

Levinthal, D.A., & March, J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Winter Special Issue), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009

Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00280.xCrossRef

Lussier, R. N. (1995). A nonfinancial business success versus failure prediction model for young firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(1), 8–20.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.

Marino, K. E., & De Noble, A. F. (1997). Growth and early returns in technology-based manufacturing ventures. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(97)90004-3CrossRef

Marvel, M. R., Wolfe, M. T., & Kuratko, D. F. (2020). Escaping the knowledge corridor: How founder human capital and founder coachability impacts product innovation in new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 106060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106060CrossRef

McDougall, P. P. (1989). International versus domestic entrepreneurship: New venture strategic behavior and industry behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(6), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(89)90009-8CrossRef

McGrath, R. G. (1995). Advantage from adversity: Learning from disappointment in internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(89)90009-8CrossRef

McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069340CrossRef

McGrath, R. G., Keil, T., & Tukiainen, T. (2006). Extracting value from corporate venturing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 50–56.

Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2002). Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600302CrossRef

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Structural change and performance: Quantum versus piecemeal incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 867–892. https://doi.org/10.5465/256104CrossRef

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (3rd ed.). Cengage.

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Summer Special Issue), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%3C187::AID-SMJ936%3E3.0.CO;2-K

Paoloni, P., & Modaffari, G. (2022). Business incubators vs start-ups: A sustainable way of sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(5), 1235–1261. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2020-0923CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408CrossRef

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Riikkinen, M., & Pihlajamaa, M. (2022). Achieving a strategic fit in fintech collaboration-A case study of Nordea Bank. Journal of Business Research, 152, 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.049CrossRef

Roberts, B. E., & Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: Selecting strategies for success. Sloan Management Review, 26(3), 3–17.

Robins, J. A., & Wiersema, M. F. (1995). A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: Empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160403CrossRef

Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Harvard University Press.

Sathe, V. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Top managers and new business creation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J., & Keil, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00095.xCrossRef

Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300302CrossRef

Shrader, R. C., Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2000). How new ventures exploit trade-offs among international risk factors: Lessons for the accelerated internationalization of the 21^st century. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1227–1247. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556347CrossRef

Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8), 1109–1124. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.8.1109CrossRef

Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. Free Press.

Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Gurney, J. (1999). Succeeding at internal corporate venturing: Roles needed to balance autonomy and control. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(2), 145–158.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). Jossey-Bass.

Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M. (2008). Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00280.xCrossRef

Sorrentino, M., & Williams, M. L. (1995). Relatedness and corporate venturing: Does it really matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00007-HCrossRef

St. John, C. H., & Harrison, J. S. (1999). Manufacturing-based relatedness, synergy, and coordination. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2%3C129::AID-SMJ16%3E3.0.CO;2-FCrossRef

Sykes, H. B. (1992). Incentive compensation for corporate venture personnel. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(4), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90001-8CrossRef

Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.435CrossRef

Teece, D. J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(3), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90002-5CrossRef

Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2001). A dynamic perspective of internal fit in corporate venturing. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00040-3CrossRef

Veer, T., Yang, P., & Riepe, J. (2022). Ventures’ conscious knowledge transfer to close partners, and beyond: A framework of performance, complementarity, knowledge disclosure, and knowledge broadcasting. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(3), 106191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106191CrossRef

von Hippel, E. (1977). Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: An empirical analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 6(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(77)90014-1CrossRef

Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 819–835. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083132CrossRef

Weiss, L. A. (1981). Start-up businesses: A comparison of performances. Sloan Management Review, 23(1), 37–53.

Weiss, L., & Kanbach, D. (2022). Toward an integrated framework of corporate venturing for organizational ambidexterity as a dynamic capability. Management Review Quarterly, 72(4), 1129–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00223-yCrossRef

Williams, C., & Mitchell, W. (2004). Focusing firm evolution: The impact of information infrastructure on market entry by U.S. telecommunications companies, 1984–1998. Management Science, 50(11), 1561–1575. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0223CrossRef

Yu, J., Engleman, R. M., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2005). The integration journey: An attention-based view of the merger and acquisition integration process. Organization Studies, 26(10), 1501–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057071CrossRef

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–303. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995CrossRef

Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 925–950. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556420CrossRef

Zook, C., & Allen, J. (2003). Growth outside the core. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 66–73.

Title: Core business prospects and the management of internal corporate ventures
Authors: Jeffrey G. Covin
Robert P. Garrett Jr
Ricarda B. Bouncken
Martin Ratzmann
Malcolm Muhammad
Publication date: 20-09-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Small Business Economics / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00824-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Plain English Summary

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

The well-being of women entrepreneurs: the role of gender inequality and gender roles

Estimating the innovation benefits of first-mover and second-mover strategies when micro-businesses adopt artificial intelligence and machine learning

Deconstructing involuntary financial exclusion: a focus on African SMEs

Does the bank-firm human relationship still matter for SMEs? The game-changing role of digitalization

In search of gazelles: machine learning prediction for Korean high-growth firms

Correction to: Core business prospects and the management of internal corporate ventures

Premium Partner