The link would be to the incentive in research and development and not in activities as the process bureaucracy. The discussion is interesting.

I am sure experts in Entrepreneurship, especially in "Corporate Entrepreneurship," will handsomely contribute to the discussion.

I believe this relate to the culture of a corporate house which encourage entrepreneurial spirit among its own employee and even help them by giving time / space and even seed capital. It is a win win situation.

Established companies are most exposed to aging product portfolios. When core businesses begin to decline, it makes it imperative to create and sustain initiatives to innovate and develop new products. Corporate entrepreneurship offers a potent solution for companies to sustain their competitive edge. 

It is not enough to look at value propositions, understand customer segments and develop new product ideas. Organizational structures and entrepreneurial cultures are at the heart of innovation. It is not so much about ‘dismantling plant & machinery, etc. time and again’ but accepting that success is not linear. Corporate entrepreneurship requires acceptance, indeed planning for, obsolescence of one’s own products.  

As an example, Sony had the brand, technology and marketing but it was Steve Jobs who brought out iPod -  not just a better MP3 player. The continued success of large corporations such as Apple and Amazon shows that corporate growth does not have to stifle innovation.

Size does not, and should not, always equal bureaucracy.

Take a look at Charles O'Reilly's work (Stanford University) on organizational ambidexterity.  Over the past ten years, this has become a whole branch of the strategy field.  The idea is to understand how corporates might successfully transition from aging products to new products for growth.  In this context, nurturing entrepreneurial efforts within existing bureaucracy is the central issue.  

Similarly, John Hagel from Deloitte is a leader in this area.  He talks about leading from the edge, meaning keeping the entrepreneurial efforts at the edge of the company so they don't get swamped by the ongoing commercial concerns.

I don't think corporate entrepreneurship is an oxymoron.  Apple's continued success in introducing innovative products shows it can be done.  They are just the most visible but every successful corporate has to be able to invent and grow new businesses if it wishes to survive for a long time.

Best of luck

Thanks Subash for your views.

You have nicely brought the case of Sony, Apple and Amazon. No doubt, there is innovation in varying degrees in these firms but are they devoid of Bureaucracy? Should innovation and entrepreneurship be considered synonymous as you are suggesting? Do corporates innovate or the employees of the corporate innovate? Why have we coined two terms; Intrapreneur and corporate entrepreneur?

I don't also think corporate entrepreneurship is an oxymoron. In contrary, it's a way of thinking, deciding, acting and behaving in corporations and organizations in general like sole or independent entrepreneurs.

it's a new style of managing and leading in firms.

Thanks, Wassim.

It is true that corporate entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, deciding, acting and behaving in corporations and organizations in general like sole or independent entrepreneurs. My question then is, Can corporations think, decide, act and behave as independent entrepreneurs?

thank you for your interesting question.

It's depends especially on organisational factors (strategy, structure, resources and their TMM).

You can be referred to these:

Schendel, D., “Introduction to the special issue on corporate entrepreneurship”, in Strategic Management Journal, Vol.11, 1990, P.1-3.

Guth, W.A.et A.Ginsberg, “Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship”, in Strategic Management Journal, Vol.11, 1990, P.5-15.

Stopford, J.M.et C.W.F.Baden-Fuller, “Creating a corporate entrepreneurship”, in Strategic Management Journal, Vol.15, 1994, PP. 521-536.

old references but, still robust.

To understand corporate entrepreneurship, we must first look at its parent, ‘start-up’ entrepreneurship. Some readers will see an oxymoron in the term ‘corporate entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurs are generally associated with start-up businesses. Often the heroes of culture, their pure grit, determination, and risk-taking seem to allow them to do amazing things – Bill Gates, creating Microsoft, Henry Ford, the mass-produced automobile, and Jeff Bezos, founding Amazon.com. Start-up entrepreneurs don’t

work for large companies; they create them (Thornbery, 2001).

https://www.ceo.com/news_and_insights/is-the-entrepreneurial-corporation-an-oxymoron/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/corporate-entrepreneurship-blaine-hone

http://www.firstorm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10Corporate-Entrepreneurship.pdf

Hi Amir,

Thanks for nice inputs.

Entrepreneurs (Start-up) don’t work for large companies; they create them. In University campuses, Corporate carrier is considered to be the end of entrepreneurial spirit in the student. How come, then, we think of corporate as entrepreneur. Obviously corporates cannot become entrepreneurs; they are corporates with their systems, processes and bureaucracy.. 

A new construct 'Corporate Entrepreneurship' is in vogue in the entrepreneurship literature.  encompasses a set of activities. Various authors have defined Corporate Entrepreneurship as attitudes, and actions that are believed to help large companies regain some of this lost magic. Some employees work effectively by leveraging the strengths of their organization towards their entrepreneurial endeavors. Most of corporate growth usually comes from such employees of the company being willing to be an entrepreneur (and the company supports the endeavor). Therefore, the form (corporate) only facilitates; It is the employees who show entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour. Therefore, I consider the term 'Corporate Entrepreneurship' an Oxymoron.