Administration & Societyfaculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM601 Fall 2010/Stimulating... · Jones, 1999), market-based practices like public entrepreneurship “provide a great

http://aas.sagepub.com/

Administration & Society

http://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/08/02/0095399710377432The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0095399710377432

published online 4 August 2010Administration & SocietyYounhee Kim

Roles of Organizational CharacteristicsStimulating Entrepreneurial Practices in the Public Sector: The

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Administration & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

at UNIV OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE LIB on August 21, 2010aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/08/02/0095399710377432

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Administration & SocietyXX(X) 1 –35

© 2010 SAGE PublicationsDOI: 10.1177/0095399710377432

http://aas.sagepub.com

1East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina

Corresponding Author:Younhee Kim, Department of Political Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858 Email: [email protected]

Stimulating Entrepreneurial Practices in the Public Sector: The Roles of Organizational Characteristics

Younhee Kim1

Abstract

Unlike the practices of contracting out and privatization, which reduce public sector involvement and responsibility in service provision, public entrepreneurial practices may be one of the best ways to improve government performance and meet citizens’ demand efficiently and effectively. This study examines the relationships between organizational characteristics and public entrepreneurship in order to provide empirical support for entrepreneurial practices in state governments in the United States. The study found that most organizational characteristics influence the entrepreneurial behaviors defined as risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness. The findings suggest that organizational structures and strategies in the public sector need to be adjusted to stimulate entrepreneurial activities and culture through opportunity-driven management.

Keywords

public entrepreneurship, innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, reinventing government

doi:10.1177/0095399710377432Administration & Society OnlineFirst, published on August 4, 2010 as



2 Administration & Society XX(X)

The virtues of traditional ideas about government have been challenged as significant changes have emerged in economic, societal, demographic, and cultural movements. The need to be more competitive in a turbulent environ-ment demands changes in the role of government, and the public sector has created innovative ways of structuring and managing government arrange-ments as a consequence of administrative reform activities. Recent adminis-trative reforms under the umbrella term reinvention (e.g., the Government Performance and Results Act and the New Public Management movement) have been introduced and implemented to improve government performance. With the goal of performing government tasks effectively, a number of market-based approaches have been introduced into the public sector, such as priva-tization, public–private partnerships, outsourcing, and entrepreneurship. Because public management is a multidimensional concept (Walker & Boyne, 2006), introducing an entrepreneurial framework will provide important insights into government’s reform strategies.

The form of entrepreneurial government is introduced as a means to market-oriented practices for better services (Borins, 1998b; Boyett, 1996; Drucker, 1985; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). The adoption of some beneficial entrepreneurial practices into the public sector could be a sound approach for satisfying citizens’ needs for more efficient, more responsive, and lower cost government. Despite the enthusiasm and widespread belief in the appli-cability of entrepreneurial practices to the public sector, there are still ongo-ing debates about their suitability to public organizations in terms of core values of the public sector (Cohen & Eimicke, 2000), such as democratic theory (Terry, 1998), accountability (Roberts & King, 1996), and structural and legal restrictions on managerial behaviors (Goodsell, 1993). However, the main point behind public entrepreneurship is not to make the govern-ment more businesslike or market savvy. Rather, the idea of public entrepre-neurship is to increase opportunities to take challengeable ideas and find ways to offer more public choices and benefits, providing high-quality ser-vices to citizens.

Unlike privatization or contracting out, which reduces public sector involvement and responsibility as a significant service provider (Morris & Jones, 1999), market-based practices like public entrepreneurship “provide a great many advantages and have important roles to play in public policy and management” (Bozeman, 2007, p. 7). Thus, adopting entrepreneurial prac-tices, such as searching innovative opportunities and providing the ability to be proactive, can improve in-house capacities for contributing to the public values of sustainability and productivity (Bozeman, 2007) and could be the best way to resolve recurrent perceptions of less efficient services (Llewellyn



Kim 3

& Jones, 2003). Furthermore, implementing entrepreneurial approaches is not contradictory to long-established views of the public management’s role in providing services, being responsible to citizens, and supporting public values using applicable market practices for efficiency and effectiveness. An attempt to establish an appropriate balance between entrepreneurial manage-ment and organizational structures is needed because the public sector lacks built-in systems for stimulating entrepreneurial arrangements.

Prior research on public sector entrepreneurship has focused on psycho-logical and behavioral characteristics of individuals, but such research has been insufficient in terms of the need to understand the very heart of public entrepreneurship as a systematic mechanism for improving government per-formance. Individual qualities and motivations are far less important than the institutional and collective commitment to public entrepreneurialism (Forster, Graham, & Wanna, 1996). Little research has been conducted to provide empirical support for promoting public sector entrepreneurship through anal-ysis of the effects of organizational factors on three aspects of entrepreneur-ship: risk taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness. This research seeks to fill the gap between conceptual arguments about public entrepreneurship and the empirical realities of entrepreneurial practices by using large-scale survey data that was specifically designed for assessing public entrepreneurship. Accordingly, after discussing the concept of public sector entrepreneurship defined in terms of risk taking, innovative, and proactive dimensions, this study examines the relationships between the organizational characteristics and public entrepreneurship.

Framing Public Sector EntrepreneurshipConceptualization

Entrepreneurship is considered to be a driving force of change and innovation by introducing innovative opportunities to achieve efficient, effective perfor-mance in both public and private sectors. Entrepreneurial efforts can respond to changes in the environmental turbulence more promptly and effectively than other public management models for improving performance (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miller & Friesen, 1983). Since the emergence of inquiry into entrepreneurship in the early 1980s, researchers have continuously fine-tuned the field of entrepreneurship, focusing on the concepts of entrepreneurial orientation and opportunities (Kirzner, 1979; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), economic growth (Baumol, 1990), firm per-formance (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), new venture




strategies (Gartner, 1985; Low & MacMillian, 1988), institutional changes (North, 1990), psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs (Boyett, 1996; Gartner, 1985), and social network (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986).

At the organizational level, scholars have researched both entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial management (Fox, 2005). The term entrepre-neurial orientation has been used to describe an organization’s commitment to the intensity of entrepreneurial actions. This approach proposes that entre-preneurial organizations tend to take risks and search for new business oppor-tunities proactively more than other types of organizations (Mintzberg, 1973). Furthermore, the field of management perceives entrepreneurship as an orga-nizational process that promotes innovation, risk-taking, and proactivity (Miller & Friesen, 1982), and Drucker (1985) noted that entrepreneurial manage-ment promoted openness to innovation, willingness to change, and creation of practices of performance measurement.

The phenomenon of entrepreneurship is intertwined with a multifaceted set of overlapping constructs such as management of change, innovation, technological and environmental turbulence, and new product development (Low, 2001). As a result, the notion of entrepreneurship encompasses differ-ent disciplines, different theoretical frameworks, and different levels of anal-yses and methodological traditions (Cornelius, Landstrom, & Persson, 2006; Stone, 1992). Thus, entrepreneurship research has been characterized as a diverse and fragmented field (Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001; Gartner, 2001; Schildt, Zahra, & Sillanpaa, 2006; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) because of its multidimensional approaches.

The early period of entrepreneurial government has been connected with the New Public Management movement, promoting nonbureaucratic mech-anisms to remedy fundamental problems of traditional bureaucracy. Along with promotion of entrepreneurial government, the concept of entrepreneur-ship has been attractive to underperforming public organizations. Because of the unique characteristics of public organizations, the application of private sector entrepreneurial themes cannot be directly translated into the public entities. Public entrepreneurship is more than simply being enterprising or businesslike (Sadler, 1999). Thus, entrepreneurial government can adopt techniques and efficiencies from the business side whereas bureaucracies are still functioning within the legal and policy frameworks of the public sector (Laurent, 2000). Public entrepreneurship is generally defined as a means of achieving less inefficiency and inflexibility through promoting managerial improvement and a process of creating value for citizens to exploit social opportunities (Morris & Jones, 1999). Table 1 introduces the definitions of public sector entrepreneurship. This study defines public sector entrepreneurship



Kim 5

as any attempt at creating new opportunities with resulting improvement in government performance characterized by risk taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness.

Table 1. Definitions of Public Sector Entrepreneurship

Sources Definition

Bellone & Goerl (1992) Be participatory or one where the citizenry have greater opportunities to participate in the designing and delivery of their public goods and services (p. 132).

Carpenter (2001) The incremental selling of new program ideas (p. 30).

Drucker (1985) Perceptiveness to change (p. 25).Edwards, Jones, Lawton, &

Llewellyn (2002)Driving the process of utilizing the energy

and creativity of the community to support managers to identify needs and solutions to meet those needs (p. 1548).

Gansler (2003) The development of separate fee-for-service entities operating within a governmental agency (p. 37).

Marcias (2000) The risky use of public resources in the creation of value for the people (p. 6).

Moon (1998) Entrepreneurial role behavior (p. 52).Morris & Jones (1999) The process of creating value for citizens by

bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to exploit social opportunities (p. 74).

Roberts & King (1991) The process of introducing innovation—the generation, translation, and implementation of new ideas—into the public sector (p. 147).

Roberts (1992) The generation of a novel or innovative idea and the design and implementation of the innovative idea into public sector practice (p. 56).

Stone (1992) An organizational process involving innovation, risk and pro-activity which results in a disjuncture from standard operating procedures and responses by current systems in order to achieve public purposes (pp. 31-32).




Dimensionalities

Several dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation have been suggested in the entrepreneurship literature. Harbison (1956) linked the modern entrepreneurial organization, whether privately or publicly owned, to several functions, includ-ing the undertaking of risk, the handling of economic uncertainty, planning and innovation, coordination, administration and control, and routine supervision. Moreover, a commonly accepted definition of entrepreneurship includes the three dimensions of risk taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness (Collins & Moore, 1970; Covin & Slevin, 1991; M. P. Miles & Arnold, 1991; Miller, 1983; Morris & Jones, 1999; Morris & Paul, 1987; Stone, 1992). These char-acteristics could be translated to the public sector because public entrepreneur-ial efforts are intended to revitalize government performance.

Risk taking. Entrepreneurial risk taking entails making a conscious deci-sion to assume uncertainty of outcomes when new services, products, or pro-cesses are introduced; thus, risk taking requires an appreciation that “adversity and uncertainty can be overcome in the quest for better outcomes” (Berman & West, 1998, p. 346). Risk-taking behaviors are influenced by organizational target performance, an organizational decision process, and a risk-seeking organizational culture (West & Berthon, 1997), so mixed positive and nega-tive outcomes connected with financial risks linked to a net loss, service-based risks linked to new or untried services, and relational risks linked to rules and political relationships could discourage taking risks, especially in the public sector, which has been commonly perceived as risk-averse because of managerial ineffectiveness (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). In the public sector, failures resulting from risk taking are less acceptable because of the need for accountability and responsiveness, so public employees are inclined to avoid risky alternatives in decision making (Berman & West, 1998). There-fore, the logic of “the greater the risk, the greater the reward” could not be easily reproduced in the public sector (Eggers & O’Leary, 1995). However, the possibility of and tolerance for failure cannot be ignored in the public sec-tor because it needs to be competitive and flexible for dealing with unex-pected changes. A risk-taking propensity can continuously contribute to desirable outcomes of performance in responding to citizen demands, not just to satisfy the status quo, and can be a common aspect of daily work life for public man-agers (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). This study defines risk taking in public entrepreneurship as the willingness to pursue risky alternatives and a toler-ance for minimal failure on service-based risks.

Innovativeness. Environmental turbulence requires public organizations to take innovative approaches to resolve emerging problems (Berman, 1998).



Kim 7

Although some public service activities can be transferred to the private sec-tor through privatization, the more massive public services could not be con-verted into profit-making enterprises. To provide these nontransferable services effectively, public organizations need to develop new service strate-gies and be more innovative in responding to social, technological, economic, and demographic shifts as opportunities during rapid changes (Berman, 1998; Drucker, 1985; Holzer & Callahan, 1998; Moon & deLeon, 2001). Although innovation has generally been defined as the development and/or the use of new ideas or behaviors resulting in a new outcome for an organization (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009; Walker, 2008), innovation in the public sector may not necessarily be associated with invention or creation of new services and new managerial processes. The concept may be close to “a repackaging of existing concepts to create new realities” (Keys, 1988, p. 62). Thus, innovation in the public sector may range from the development of new services and programs to the improvement of managerial processes and institutional tasks through reconceptualizing existing resources (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). This study defines innovativeness as the willingness to seek the adoption of new services and the reconstruction of managerial processes. As Kanter (1983) suggested, public organizations may follow three steps of advancing innovation: eliminating structural and practical barriers to flexibil-ity and prompt actions for innovation, providing tools and incentives for entrepreneurial projects, and developing an entrepreneurial climate.

Proactiveness. Proactiveness defined as an aggressive behavior (Stevenson & Jarillo-Mossi, 1990) focuses on the future by anticipating and preventing problems, communicating effectively with internal and external environ-ments, and preserving implementation of the new process or new product (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Organizations can exercise a proactive propensity to be placed in a more competitive position than others because proactiveness involves seizing the initiative in an effort to shape the environment to one’s own advantage (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Proactiveness in the public sector implies “the active search for creative solutions, service delivery, taking the initiative to introduce change, implementation, and responding rapidly to opportunities and employing the best resources, not passiveness or reactive-ness” (Salazar, 1992, p. 33). Although traditional organizations invariably respond defensively, proactive public organizations are alert to new opportu-nities and embrace them. Prior studies found that managers’ proactive atti-tudes and orientations facilitate the adoption of innovation, development of an innovative environment, and allocation of resources to acquire and implement those opportunities (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Moon & Bretschneider, 2002). The proactive argument is also similar to the prospector’s system




suggested by R. E. Miles and Snow (1978), in which public-sector prospectors would like to search for new market opportunities in response to emerging envi-ronmental trends. To be more innovative and competitive as an early adopter, a public-sector prospector could be eager to take risks and be more proactive than other agencies (Boyne & Walker, 2004). Therefore, this study defines proactiveness as the willingness to be aggressive for implementing actions in pursuit of changes and improvement in inefficient organizational settings, rather than simply responding to events as they occur.

Organizational Characteristics and Entrepreneurial PropensitiesCharacteristics of the Organizational Structure

Organizational structure significantly influences a public entity’s capacity to promote entrepreneurial tendency (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Slevin & Covin, 1990). Traditional organizations depend on bureaucratic structures to ensure that work is efficient by minimizing errors and reinforcing conformity and control. Contemporary environments, however, are constantly changing and unpredictable. Public institutions can deliver the demanded services only by being flexible, responsive, and less hierarchical. Therefore, organizations having entrepreneurial tendencies may respond well to changing structural conditions because an entrepreneurial organization is inclined to be more consensual, loosely controlled, and flexible rather than being a mechanical organization, which is considered more rigid, controlled, and hierarchical (Slevin & Covin, 1990).

Hierarchy. A hierarchical system is likely to maintain the status quo in organizations and reduce the probability of change and innovation (Hage & Aiken, 1970). Thus, a less hierarchical organization is likely to initiate inno-vation and change in organizations. For instance, flat organizational struc-tures are more flexible to adopting innovative programs and administrative systems, but more hierarchical layers cause administrative delays, undermine communications (Moon, 1999), and have greater transaction costs for adopt-ing risky and innovative services. These conditions could inhibit innovative decisions and new programs. However, proactive organizations like prospec-tors tend to be less hierarchical (R. E. Miles & Snow, 1978). As a result, a higher degree of hierarchy may have a negative effect on risk-taking, innova-tive, and proactive tendencies.

Formalization. The degree of formalization in an organization refers to activi-ties that are visible in written documents such as procedures, job descriptions,



Kim 9

regulations, and policy manuals (Hall, 1996). Formalization enhances an orga-nization’s stability and accountability by formal devices (e.g., internal rules and regulations, specific guidelines) designed for preventing unexpected changes, increasing internal control, and reducing goal ambiguity. It also forces public employees to follow general patterns of behaviors and hold attitudes and val-ues for minimizing unexpected circumstances (Ingram & Clay, 2000). On the other hand, those higher degrees of formalism in the public sector may under-mine risk taking (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998) as well as other outcomes of reforms. Therefore, a higher degree of formalization will generally reduce risk-taking, innovative, and proactive propensities.

Flexibility. Flexibility refers to the degree of feasible changes possible in structural and managerial settings. Flexibility allows for greater possibility of adopting innovative and risk-taking opportunities as quickly as possible through structural and managerial changes. Bozeman and Kingsley (1998) argued that having a risk-taking culture requires less rigid structures and inflexible procedures. In addition, an entrepreneurial organization has similar features to organically structured organizations that are flexible and less rigid (Jennings, 1994). Accordingly, public entrepreneurship would be encouraged by having a higher level of flexibility.

Size. There is no definitive empirical research on the impact of the organi-zational size on cultivating public entrepreneurship. Two contradictory argu-ments are still discussed to analyze the effect of organizational size in the public sector. One tenet asserts that smaller organizations engage in better entrepreneurial behaviors than larger organizations because the latter have rigid rules and procedures that hinder innovative entrepreneurial activities (Jennings, 1994). On the other hand, some have argued that larger organiza-tions may be more entrepreneurial because they are more competitive in terms of external changes (Schumpeter, 1934) and have more opportunities to access extra resources. Given the opposing arguments and mixed empirical results, this study proposes that organizational size will not be significantly related to public entrepreneurial tendencies.

Characteristics of the Managerial StructureThe managerial aspect of public entrepreneurship should be able to promote entrepreneurial hands-on managerial processes and behaviors (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990), given that managerial characteristics should focus on factors that influence employees’ empowerment and managerial behaviors for cultivating entrepreneurial management. Autonomy and participatory deci-sion making directly affect employees’ empowerment. On the other hand,




performance-based rewards and specialization influence personal and orga-nizational behaviors and attitudes for adopting entrepreneurial actions.

Autonomy. Autonomy refers to an independent action or decision making by an individual or a team intended to bring a vision to fruition (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). As the commitment of public managers to public service has been verified by many studies (Rainey, 1983), the provision of public service would be motivated by allowing more autonomy for public managers, espe-cially when services are less routinized tasks. In general, public organizations have been strictly constrained in the areas of personnel, purchasing, and bud-geting and accounting (Rainey & Bozeman, 2000) because of legislative and political oversight and rules, so the magnitude of autonomy discussed here does not mean offering unlimited and uncontrolled autonomy for public man-agers as it does in private sector practices. Rather, autonomy for public entre-preneurship may occur on procedural and managerial occasions. Offering more managerial autonomy would stimulate positive reactions toward risk-taking (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998), innovative, and proactive orientation in the public sector (Forster et al., 1996; Ramamurti, 1986).

Participatory decision making. Empirical research has found that entrepre-neurial organizations tend to be more participative in decision-making pro-cesses (Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989) because diffusing the power of decision making to all levels of employees could enhance entrepreneurial actions, espe-cially for innovative activities (Hage & Aiken, 1970; Miller & Friesen, 1982). Andrews, Boyne, Law, and Walker (2007) found that employee involvement in decision making can make executive managers identify opportunities effectively for better service delivery. Rainey and Bozeman (2000) also asserted that employee involvement in the policy decision-making cycles is an impor-tant aspect to increasing work satisfaction. Therefore, participatory decision making would have a positive impact on encouraging innovative approaches, action-oriented attitudes, and even risk-taking behaviors.

Performance-based rewards. The appropriate use of performance-based reward systems encourages managers to try more entrepreneurial activities (Kanter, 1983), but reward expectancy for good performance has been con-sistently low in public organizations, generally because of rule enforcement and rigid managerial processes (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). Compared to their private counterparts, who prefer the benefits of monetary rewards, pub-lic managers tend to place lower value on financial rewards (Sadler, 1999) and higher value on contribution to others and on “self-sacrifice, responsibil-ity and integrity” (Rainey & Bozeman, 2000, p. 448). Therefore, performance-based reward systems offering nonfinancial rewards (e.g., employee recognition and promotion) and emotional rewards (e.g., self-sacrifice, self-satisfaction)



Kim 11

could play a significant role in generating entrepreneurial behaviors among public employees. Assigning rewards based on employee performance rat-ings in the public sector could lead to innovative and proactive attitudes, but could also cause public mangers to avoid any nonguaranteed actions from risky practices.

Specialization. Many studies have argued that professional employees gen-erally recognize the needs for changes, so that an organization with a high proportion of specialists could be more innovative (Hage & Aiken, 1970). Because high levels of professional information and technical expertise cause a decrease in uncertainty level when risky and innovative opportunities are introduced in public agencies, higher specialization would contribute to sup-porting risk-taking (Berman & West, 1998; Moon, 1999) and innovative pro-pensities (Hage & Aiken, 1970). Public managers at the professional level also tend to be more action oriented when entrepreneurial strategies are implemented. Thus, higher specialization among employees could result in positive interactions of all three entrepreneurial attributes.

Characteristics of the Cultural StructureCultural characteristics influence the understanding, development, and main-tenance in entrepreneurial organizations of value creation through innovation and change, commitment and personal responsibility, and emphasis on the future (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990) for not only employees but also organi-zations themselves in terms of norms and values. Morris and Kuratko (2002) further noted that creating an effective entrepreneurial culture is not simply a matter of creating certain values but a choice among conflicting values. In this study, organizational culture for public entrepreneurship was focused on identifying factors that affect organizational missions and identities as defined by Moon (1999), as well as employees’ commitment and responsibility (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). However, accountability, performance objec-tives, and goal ambiguity factors would have an impact on organizational commitment to common values and beliefs.

Accountability. Lack of accountability to citizens and managers is a major obstacle to practicing public entrepreneurship (Morris & Jones, 1999) because entrepreneurial characteristics identified as “an unwillingness to fol-low rules and stay within bounds and a preference for action” need to hold accountability (deLeon & Denhardt, 2000, p. 92). As Bellone and Goerl (1992) discussed, a strong theory of public entrepreneurship should be supported by a strong commitment to accountability as a civic-regarding entrepreneurship. Accountability permits a more efficient allocation of organizational resources




by lowering transaction costs and increasing the flexibility of decisions, and it facilitates organizational decisions to search for new alternatives. In the absence of commitment to accountability, government could easily be exposed to negative reactions from political entities as well as citizen groups when entrepreneurial opportunities are concerned. Thus, stimulating entre-preneurial efforts in the public sector will require higher accountability to stakeholders.

Goal ambiguity and multiplicity. A widespread assumption of public agen-cies’ goal ambiguity is generally accepted in the literature (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Rainey, 1993; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000), but studies of the relation-ship between goal ambiguity and entrepreneurial orientations have returned different empirical results. One empirical group found that goal clarity enhances the risk-taking and innovative propensities because they allow an organization to tolerate a higher degree of outcome uncertainty for a certain expected probability of goal achievement (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Moon, 1999; Morris & Jones, 1999). However, another group has argued that goal ambiguity generates more opportunities to develop innovative solutions and adopt entrepreneurial processes (Sadler, 1999). For public organizations, goal ambiguity could be an opportunity for the exercise of entrepreneurial discretion (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Ramamurti, 1986) because public organi-zations simultaneously manage competing demands that are positively asso-ciated with goal ambiguity (Chun & Rainey, 2005). When objectives are too strictly developed, organizations tend to be defensive and adopt rigid behav-ioral patterns (Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989). Ambiguous and multiple-goal setting in public organizations can provide room for risk-taking and innova-tive opportunities at the cost of lack of a clear direction. Such ambiguous or multiple goals, however, have a negative impact on the proactive propensity because inconsistent objectives do not provide a clear direction when entre-preneurial opportunities are implemented.

Performance objectives. Performance objectives (Ramamurti, 1986) and a high need for achievement (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) generally give rise to more entrepreneurial opportunities to improve government perfor-mance. Unlike private entrepreneurship’s emphasis on quantitative and resource-controlled performance, performance objectives for public entre-preneurship can focus on outcomes-based performance in pursuing public values, an approach that is similar to a primary characteristic of managing publicness as argued by Bozeman (2007). Therefore, performance objectives oriented toward outcomes-based management and administrative effective-ness could allow for adopting risk-taking, innovative, and proactive practices in the public sector.



Kim 13

Characteristics of the Environmental Structure

External government environments have direct implications for searching entrepreneurial opportunities and implementing their effects (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001). The operating external environment of an organization influences the organization’s involvement and capacity to engage in risky, innovative, and proactive tasks. Most prior studies in orga-nization and management literature confirm the importance of external envi-ronments in adopting entrepreneurial behaviors in the public organization settings.

Political influence. The political environment exercises a critical influence on public sector management (Nutt, 2006; Wanna, Forster, & Graham, 1996), and public organizations are highly regulated by political entities (Hood, Scott, Oli-ver, & Travers, 1999). However, such political requirements may not corre-spond with entrepreneurial practices if these activities do not guarantee successful outputs and positive electoral consequences (Sadler, 1999). As a result, an organization under a higher degree of political influence is subject to greater external control from political authorities, thus limiting the exercise of entrepreneurial opportunities in general (Moon, 1999). Borins (1998a), how-ever, argued that political influence has a positive impact on innovative entre-preneurship. Political influence may have a differing impact depending on the entrepreneurial dimension, for example, a positive impact on innovativeness, but a negative impact on both risk taking and proactiveness.

Legal liability. Legal practices are generally used for financial and adminis-trative control in both public and private sectors (Bovens, 2005), but public organizations have more extensive legal constraints than those of the private sector. As a result, wide-ranging legal liability has generally caused public organizations to avoid the possibility of legal obligations resulting from risky, innovative behaviors (Moon, 1999). A high degree of legal liability in the public sector may limit risky, innovative, and/or proactive practices.

Perceived competition. The reinvention movement in the public sector applied the idea of competition because it was believed to guide the improve-ment of “using resources in new ways to maximize productivity” (deLeon & Denhardt, 2000, p. 92). If an organization recognizes external competition through comparison with other government agencies or other benchmarking organizations, it may lead to the adoption of entrepreneurial actions. Morris and Jones (1999) found that lack of competition among public organizations was ranked as a serious obstacle to behaving entrepreneurially. Therefore, a higher level of perceived competition would generate more positive reactions toward entrepreneurship. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for




hypothesizing the relationships between organizational characteristics and three entrepreneurial dimensions at the state level (see Appendix A).

Data and MethodsSample and Data Collection

This study analyzes public sector entrepreneurship using state government department data in the United States. As a part of the executive structure, state government departments headed by commissioners have more daily interactions with citizens than those in the federal government, so each state has a more detailed written constitution than the federal counterpart to better serve its residents. Within the state organization structure, a state government department is a typical type of organization for investigating the common

Structural Characteristics

- Hierarchy- Formalization - Flexibility- Size

Managerial Characteristics

- Autonomy- Participatory Decision Making - Performance-Based Rewards- Specialization

Cultural Characteristics

- Accountability- Goal Ambiguity & Multiplicity- Performance Objectives

Environmental Characteristics

- Political Influence- Legal Liability- Perceived Competition

Public Entrepreneurship

Risk-taking

Innovativeness

Proactiveness

Figure 1. Conceptual Relationship Framework



Kim 15

characteristics of state government entrepreneurship rather than executive offices, divisions, and other special types.

Data were drawn from the public entrepreneurship survey mailed to 957 heads of state government departments in 48 U.S. states, except Alaska and Hawaii. The self-administered survey questionnaire presented the closed-ended question format that gives a uniform frame of reference for which respondents could consider their answers (Weisberg & Bowen, 1977). To measure the intensity of the respondents’ views, the semantic-differential approach was used along a 7-point Likert-type scale. Because psychological research has indicated that respondents can grasp seven distinctions reliably (Weisberg & Bowen, 1977), a 7-point Likert-type scale is not overly compli-cated for capturing the degree of agreement or disagreement with an item. The questions were grouped by topic to measure the intensity of a respon-dent’s analysis concerning structural, managerial, cultural, environmental, and entrepreneurial practices and organization demographic factors.

Pretesting a survey questionnaire is a vital stage in preparing for a self-administered survey in order to identify and correct weaknesses, ambiguity, and invalidity of questions. This research conducted a two-stage procedure pretest because Converse and Presser (1986) recommend a minimum of two pretests. The first procedure was a review of the questionnaire draft by faculty and doctoral students for detecting content validity of measurement items. After significant changes were made to the questionnaire based on the critiques and suggestions, the second pretest with a new draft was conducted with 29 executive MPA students and 17 MPA students.1 The final survey was redrafted by dropping ambiguous and irrelevant questions in response to the pretest subjects’ comments and the pretest findings.2

The sampling frame was selected from four geographical regions: Southern (296 departments in 13 states); Northeast (211 departments in 12 states); North-Central (210 departments in 12 states); and Western (240 departments in 11 states).3 Of the 957 questionnaires mailed twice to the survey subjects, 334 were returned, including 35 invalid responses.4 The total response rate was about 34.9% (n = 334) and the valid response rate was 31.3% (n = 299), with each region represented by a fairly equal number of respondents.

MeasuresPublic entrepreneurship. Public entrepreneurship is characterized by three

dimensions, which are used as the dependent variables for this study. Risk taking was measured by computing the factor score of responses to four items rated on a 7-point scale (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = somewhat low, 4 = neutral, 5 = somewhat high, 6 = high, 7 = very high). The four items derived from




Morris and Jones (1999) and Bozeman and Kingsley (1998) addressed the following: the degree of risk-taking propensity, the degree of tolerance for failure, the tendency for undertaking high-risk projects, and the employee’s perception on risk taking. The measures of innovativeness evaluated by four items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) derived from Morris and Jones (1999): the degree of the overall organizational innovation, the intensity of searching for new and innovative opportunities, the tendency of emphasizing innova-tive changes, and the degree of fee-for-service operations. Proactiveness was evaluated by three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high), which explored the organization’s tendency to actions: the degree of implementation of new pro-grams and services in the past 3 years, the tendency of implementing admin-istrative procedural changes in the past 3 years, and the degree of initiating new and innovative opportunities in the past 3 years.

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for risk taking and proactiveness were .68 and .72, respectively, but the alpha level for innovativeness was .53. Because the alpha level of .60 is the minimum acceptable standard (Nummally & Bernstein, 1994), the four items for innovativeness needed to be reconsidered. Within the innovativeness structure, the inn4 item had a low item–rest correlation of .14, which is below a minimum acceptable level of .20 (Helfrich et al., 2007), so that item (the degree of fee-for-service operations) was excluded from the scale. After deleting the inn4 item, the Cronbach’s alpha value for innovativeness was finalized at the .68 level. For extracting a feasible factor structure using observed items, this study uses the principal component technique with varimax rotation (Afifi et al., 2004). Each public entrepreneurial dimension was loaded on one factor structure with an eigenvalue greater than 1. Although one of four items for risk taking had a slightly higher unique variance value of .62, it was acceptable as part of the risk-taking loading due to the acceptable levels of eigenvalues greater than 1 and the item value greater than .40.

Structural characteristics. Hierarchy as a layer of authority and communica-tion is a common aspect, so the measures of hierarchy are characterized by this boundary, derived from Morris and Jones (1999) and Rainey and Bozeman (2000). The heads of state government departments were asked to rate the degrees of hierarchy through four items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) used for computing the factor score by varimax rotation: the degree of multiple layers of authority, the extent of structured channels of communica-tion, the degree of hierarchical processes for project approvals, and the degree of required red tape. Formalization was evaluated by three items using a 7-point scale (1 = very low to 7 = very high) in order to investigate the degrees of written forms derived from Bozeman and Kingsley (1998) and Rainey and Bozeman (2000). Respondents were asked to identify as following: the extent of existing organizational regulations and procedures, the level of internal



Kim 17

strictness by rules and regulations, and the degree of emphasis on written rules and procedures. Perceived flexibility was evaluated through three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) measuring the level of organizational flexibil-ity in decision making, the extent of organizational integration of new units or services in the past 3 years, and the degree of experienced organizational changes within the past 3 years. Organizational size was measured by the number of full-time employees in each department.

The Cronbach’s alpha levels for hierarchy (α = .73) and formalization (α = .78) were greater than .70, but the alpha coefficient for flexibility was .50. The fle1 item (the level of organizational flexibility in decision making) was excluded to increase the alpha level because fle1 had the low item–rest correla-tion level of .22. After the fle1 item was deleted, the Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-cient for flexibility was increased to about .60. To verify a feasible factor structure for structural characteristics, three factor loadings were extracted with an eigenvalue greater than 1. Four items for hierarchy were loaded on Factor 2 with higher loadings of .50 and lower uniqueness of .50, except the hie4 item of .57. Three items for formalization were loaded on Factor 3 with higher loadings of .80 and lower uniqueness of .40. Two items for flexibility attained loadings greater than .70 and uniqueness lower than .40 on Factor 3 (see Appendix B).

Managerial characteristics. The two levels of autonomy posited by Bozeman and Kingsley (1998) were rated by respondents in three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high): the degree of organizational independence in determining organizational strategies without any external approvals, the degree of employ-ees’ self-rule in deciding resource allocation, and the level of employees’ authority to determine their job ranges. Participatory decision making was measured by four items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) ranked for nonexecu-tive employees’ participatory opportunities in decision-making processes: the degree of organizational emphasis on encouraging nonexecutive employees’ participation in the decision-making process, the existence of formal institu-tional devices for obtaining the opinions from nonexecutive employees, the degree of nonexecutive employees’ participation in formulating new policies and strategies, and the degree of nonexecutive employees’ participation in budgetary decision processes. Furthermore, performance-based rewards were measured by four items ranked on a 7-point scale. Respondents were asked to rate the degree of financial and nonfinancial incentives as through the following: the availability of financial incentives, the use of promotional opportunities as rewards of high performance, the tendency to recognize high-performing employees, and the offering of educational opportunities as rewards for high performance. Finally, specialization was evaluated by three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high): the degree of managed special tasks, the level of specialized positions matched with specialized job requirements, and




the level of specialization among employees with higher education degrees or specialized licenses.

The Cronbach’s alpha values for participatory decision making (α = .80) and specialization (α = .80) were greater than .80, and the alpha coefficients for rewards (α = .66) and autonomy (α =. 61) were greater than .60, all of which are acceptable as reliable instrument measures. In terms of verification of a feasible factor structure for managerial characteristics, four factor struc-tures were specified with an eigenvalue greater than 1. All 14 items were loaded on appropriate factors with loadings higher than .60 and unique vari-ance lower than .50 (see Appendix B).

Cultural characteristics. The variable of goal ambiguity and multiplicity indi-cates a variety of organizational goals. Bozeman and Kingsley’s (1998) mea-sures for goal clarity were used for developing three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) that measured the degree of the goal and mission clarity, the level of employees’ awareness of organizational goals, and the tendency to have multiple goals. Furthermore, accountability was evaluated through four items for computing the factor score with varimax rotation: the degree of gen-eral accountability to stakeholders and the public, the emphasis on organiza-tional interaction with stakeholders and citizens, the importance of formalized evaluations or citizen surveys, and the frequency of customer surveys or for-malized evaluations. Finally, the variable of performance objectives was mea-sured with three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) measuring the degree of the development on performance objectives, the emphasis on setting measur-able goals, and the emphasis on employee-performance evaluation.

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for performance objectives (α = .82) and accountability (α = .76) were greater than .70, but goal multiplicity had the low alpha value of .51. In the goal multiplicity structure, the mg3 item (the tendency to have multiple goals) had a low item–test correlation of .14, so it was deleted because of lower correlation with other scales. By deleting the mg3 item, the alpha level was raised to .78. For verifying a feasible factor structure for cultural characteristics, three factors were extracted from the cultural cluster with an eigenvalue greater than 1. One of four items for accountability was loaded on the inappropriate factor, the goal multiplicity variable. Because the acc1 item (the degree of general accountability to stakeholders and the public) was developed for accountability, it was elimi-nated from the accountability factor structure. All eight items were loaded properly with satisfying cutoff standards (see Appendix B).

Environmental characteristics. Political influence was originally measured by seven items (1 = very low to 7 = very high), but two items (pi3 and pi6) were not loaded on the designated factor. As a result, both items with higher unique-ness were eliminated from the political influences loading. The five items for



Kim 19

political influence are as follows: the degree of political support needed to obtain authorization for actions, the degree of political intervention in organi-zational decisions, the influence of changing organizational behaviors affected by external interactions, the degree of external environments that change rap-idly, and the influence of public sector reform. Legal liability was evaluated through three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high) that measured the level of rigid financial control in allocating resources to new projects, the tendency to transfer funds to other projects, and the level of prohibition by law of transfer-ring funds. Measures of perceived competition derived from Morris and Jones (1999) formed three items (1 = very low to 7 = very high): the level of facing competition with other government departments for partnering with private and nonprivate entities, the degree of competition with other government departments in delivering public services, and the degree of competition with other government departments in applying for grant projects.

The Cronbach’s alpha levels of political influence (α = .64) and perceived competition (α = .70) were greater than .60, but the alpha value for legal liability was lower than .60. Because the alpha coefficient was close to .60 with high item–test correlation, it was acceptable for inclusion in the legal liability mea-sures. In terms of verification of a feasible factor structure for environmental characteristics, 11 items were loaded on three factor structures as proposed, with the exception of two items addressing political influence (see Appendix B).

ResultsMultiple regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses concern-ing the relationships between organizational characteristics and public entre-preneurship. Before performing the finalized three regression models, this study carefully detected the underlying assumptions of regression and cor-rected the minor problem of homoscedasticity in the innovativeness model. In testing for multicollinearity using the variance inflation factors, none of the inflation factors between 1.11 and 1.37 in the three models have any multicollinearity problems. All three models were quite successful in explaining the impact of the organizational independent variables on risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness (Table 2).

In the risk-taking model (R2 = .304), eight variables are statistically significant at the 5% level on the risk-taking dimension: formalization, hierarchy, flexibility, participatory decision making, autonomy, performance objectives, accountability, and perceived external competition. Except for formalization and hierarchy, which are negatively associated with a risk-taking culture, the other six variables have positive effect on the risk-taking propensity. These results imply that state government departments have




been discouraged, through structural rigidity, from taking risky opportunities for better outcomes (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). The risk-taking model confirms that managerial effectiveness to allow more autonomy and partici-patory decision making for government employees, a cultural setting that has higher accountability and performance objectives, and an external environ-ment that is more competitive with other organizations have led state govern-ment departments to consider risk-taking opportunities. Although previous research has suggested the negative impact of both performance-based rewards and legal liability on risk taking (Moon, 1999), this study found nonsignifi-cant effects for both variables on risk taking.

Table 2. Results of Regression Analysis

Risk-taking modelInnovativeness

modelProactiveness

model

Coefficient p > |t| Coefficient p > |t| Coefficient p > |t|

FormalizationHierarchy -.134** .019 -.063 .237 -.115** .020Flexibility -.119** .027 -.095* .059 -.007 .874Size .126** .020 .289*** .000 .545*** .000Participatory

decision.035 .501 -.032 .503 .026 .557

Specialization .192*** .001 .195*** .000 .031 .523Rewards .078 .161 .028 .597 .160*** .001Autonomy -.009 .867 .088* .083 .033 .481Performance .142*** .009 .150*** .003 .014 .769Objectives .141*** .011 .128** .013 .063 .183Accountability .151*** .006 .187*** .000 .144*** .002Goal

multiplicity.021 .716 .050 .346 -.012 .800

Political influence

.081 .129 .155*** .002 .102** .027

Competition .161*** .002 .104** .034 .032 .479Legal liability -.057 .284 .021 .673 -.015 .747R2 .3015 .4014 .4915Adjusted R2 .2665 .3715 .4664F (p > F) 8.63 (.0000) 13.41 (.0000) 19.33 (.0000)No. of

observations295 295 295

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.



Kim 21

The innovativeness model (R2 = .402) identified the relationships between seven organizational characteristics (flexibility, participatory decision mak-ing, autonomy, performance objectives, accountability, political influence, and perceived competition) and innovativeness that were statistically positive associations at the 5% significance level. The study also found the statistical significance of both hierarchy and performance-based rewards at the 10% level. Furthermore, among those positive effects on innovativeness, this study found that structural flexibility has the strongest effect on promoting innova-tive behaviors in state governments; therefore, in order to respond to innova-tive changes and opportunities, state governments need to incorporate feasible flexibility into the structural settings (Moon, 1999). The results also imply that a means of empowering public employees is one of the effective approaches to stimulating innovative behaviors in state governments. As this study pro-posed, organizational size has no significant impact but indicates a negative influence for innovative tendencies. The innovativeness model, however, does not support the positive impact of goal multiplicity, legal liability, or special-ization for improving the innovative tendency in state governments.

The proactiveness model (R2 = .4916) found that flexibility (p < .001), specialization (p < .001), accountability (p < .001), formalization (p < .05), and political influence (p < .05) have a statistically significant impact on the proactive propensity. These results indicate that flexibility is the most influen-tial factor in encouraging proactive entrepreneurship. This finding confirms that a flexible organizational structure promotes active entrepreneurial actions by linking opportunity to an implementation stage for efficient and effective government. Although the results of this study do not support the previous studies on the positive effects of specialization on risk-taking and innovative behaviors (Berman & West, 1998; Hage & Aiken, 1970), the positive relation-ship between specialization and proactiveness was verified. Because the vari-able of accountability was shown to have a positive influence on the proactive tendency, state governments with a higher degree of accountability could actively implement innovative, risky ideas. In addition, this study found that political influence was positively associated with proactiveness, a finding that contradicts the hypothesis. This result implies that political influence may be a critical factor in supporting proactive entrepreneurial efforts focused on change and improvement. Finally, goal multiplicity, legal liability, and hierar-chy were expected to have negative effects on proactive entrepreneurship, but none of the results for these variables statistically supported these hypotheses. Although the results found no significant impact of organizational size on pro-activeness, it indicated that a large organization may be more competitive than a small organization in terms of proactive accomplishments.




Discussion

In management and public administration literature, usually one or a com-bination of the dimensions of risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness have been emphasized as feasible possibilities to improving performance and serving citizens. Prior empirical research (e.g., Berman & West, 1998; Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998) has verified that any entrepreneurial behaviors could not be undermined simply because of the stereotype of government characteristics and untested links with public values and other concerns. Debatable issues addressing public entrepreneurship still exist, but the search for new opportunities and efficiency does not preclude promoting other worthy public values such as accountability, democracy, and respon-siveness. Entrepreneurial behaviors and activities, however, need to be adjusted before being applied to public sector settings (Boyett, 1996; Cornwall & Perlman, 1990) because the successful adoption of an entrepre-neurial strategy relies on an appropriate fit for the organizational character-istics in terms of structures and processes (Andrews et al., 2007; R. E. Miles & Snow, 1978).

This study ascertained the most significant positive effects of both account-ability and flexibility across the three dimensions of public entrepreneurship. As most empirical studies of entrepreneurship and public management have agreed, the flexibility hypothesis may be the most significant requirement in making more opportunities for stimulating entrepreneurial behaviors. The importance of flexible organizational structures could be continuously emphasized as a means for the effective structural settings to support public entrepreneurship.

Accountability does not offer a promise for improving organizational per-formance in itself, but higher accountability would result in more communi-cation between government and relevant stakeholders, so as to gain a better understanding of the benefits and outcomes of entrepreneurial activities. As Morris and Jones (1999) found, one of the leading comments offered when respondents were asked to suggest the single most important thing for increas-ing more public entrepreneurship is accountability. Being held accountable by citizens and relevant stakeholders would allow state governments to take on risky projects, search for new opportunities, and execute these efforts. In addition, Berman and West (1998) indicated that taking well-defined risks results in improved citizen trust. Developing well-defined entrepreneurial strategies would help government to obtain more accountability from citizens and political entities for entrepreneurial activities. As a result, government should take action to advance accountability management in order to stimu-late public entrepreneurial behaviors.



Kim 23

Analysis of this study confirms a connection between some of the mana-gerial characteristics and public entrepreneurship. The findings suggest that empowering employees by increasing autonomy and participatory decision making is important in adopting risk-taking and innovative tendencies, as has been suggested by prior research (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Forster et al., 1996; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Miller & Friesen, 1982); however, the same does not hold true for proactive behaviors because the government boundaries do not easily allow employees to exercise a full range of employee discretion in implementing unguaranteed nontraditional government tasks. This study also found that the use of performance-based rewards is not significantly related to any of the entrepreneurial dimensions, but the performance-based rewards factor is negatively associated with risk taking, as was originally proposed. This result could imply that emphasizing performance-based rewards may hinder the performance of risk-taking behaviors in state governments.

Moreover, the results indicate that the existence of performance objectives in outcomes-based management cultivates a risk-taking and innovative cul-ture, but not proactive culture, in state government departments. Considering the effect of performance objectives on public entrepreneurial culture, this finding gives state governments an indication to develop performance objec-tive strategies that may cultivate a risk-taking and innovative culture as a means of pursuing public values effectively. The results of the effect of goal ambiguity and multiplicity on entrepreneurial predictability do not support any of the proposed hypotheses, but the expected directional impacts on each of the entrepreneurial dimensions are consistent with the hypothesized rela-tionships. Accordingly, these results still could not confirm the previous mixed empirical arguments on either a positive effect (Chun & Rainey, 2005) or a negative effect (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Moon, 1999) of goal ambiguity and multiplicity on entrepreneurial tendencies. This study, however, can sup-port previous arguments that goal ambiguity and multiplicity are consistently positive influences in developing risk-taking and innovative culture and prac-tices (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Ramamurti, 1986; Sadler, 1999).

With regards to environmental characteristics, this study confirms the sig-nificant positive effects of political influence supporting Borins’s (1998a) argument on accelerating innovative and proactive behaviors in state govern-ments. This finding implies that the successful entrepreneurial practices in the public sector require strong political support as well as positive attitudes toward innovative and proactive efforts. As expected, this study confirms that perceived external competition has a significant association with pursuing risky and innovative alternatives. Supporting the arguments of prior studies (e.g., deLeon & Denhardt, 2000; Morris & Jones, 1999), this finding suggests




that more perceived external competition with other organizations will stimu-late more risk-taking and innovative behaviors in state government depart-ments. Contrary to this study’s hypothesis, legal liability appears to have a positive association with innovativeness although it had a nonsignificant effect on the entrepreneurial characteristics. This result may indicate that legal liability does not strongly restrict state governments from searching for inno-vative opportunities rather than risk-taking and proactive options.

Limitations and Future ResearchAlthough this study conducted a rigorous test to examine the impact of orga-nizational factors on public entrepreneurial activities, possible limitations still exist. The major limitation is driven from its reliance on single, percep-tual data. Using single-source data from the questionnaire method may raise such validity problems as social desirability responses, response bias, and less accurate instrumentation of variables, even though the heads of the state government departments were in better positions to assess most of the aspects of the variables widely because of having assistance from professional admin-istrators. However, some empirical studies (e.g., Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000) have found that individual perceptions are not too biased to make an actual evaluation about agencies’ work and condi-tions. Because there is as yet no proper external measurement of the public entrepreneurial tendencies of the state government departments, in order to minimize the weakness in using the single questionnaire method, the ques-tionnaire was designed carefully and tested rigorously.

In addition, like many other cross-sectional studies, this research has a limitation on external validity for generalizing the results of the research, although survey data for this study were randomly collected across the target population with a fairly equal number of regional respondents. Future longi-tudinal research could provide a richer understanding of the public entre-preneurial tendencies over time. Another limitation would be related to a measurement issue. Because of lack of empirical research on examining orga-nizational determinants to public sector entrepreneurship, some measure-ments were not empirically proved, even though measures in this model were reliable and valid for the empirical test. Future empirical inquiry may take advantage of further measurements of exploratory factors based on more fine-grained conceptualizations.

This study intended to focus on examining organizational determinants for three public entrepreneurial dimensions independently, but there may be possible relationships among the three dimensions independently (Dess,



Kim 25

Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999; Kreiser, Marino, & Weaver, 2002; Miller, 1983) or dependently (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006). Based on further empirical examination of the relationships among these dimensions, future research may be able to investigate whether the concept of entrepreneurship in the public sector should be set up as a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. A sophisticated test such as structural equation analysis needs to be used for evaluating these relational models. Another direction for future research could be to examine the impact of entrepreneurial activities on orga-nizational performance because organizational level entrepreneurship leads to improved performance (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Zahra, 1995).

ConclusionThis study has explored the effects of organizational characteristics on risk taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness. The major contribution of this research to the growing literature on public entrepreneurship and innova-tive management is the examination of the relationships of organizational characteristics across three dimensions of public entrepreneurship by bridg-ing the gap between existing conceptual arguments and empirical practices on entrepreneurship. Most state government departments are aware that the values of public entrepreneurship are generally considered one of the core reinventing approaches, and the outcomes of entrepreneurial activi-ties may be connected to improved performance and service delivery to the public.

Governments at all levels have been diversifying their areas of service activities in responding to the turbulent environmental changes and newly emerging citizen demands. Although public organizations cannot select their own markets and service provision on a large scale, they can search for new markets on a narrow scale, such as changing service groups among citizens or in different geographical areas (Boyne & Walker, 2004). Such change requires public services to be ready to take risks, innovate, and engage in action-oriented behaviors. However, public organizations have traditionally been faced with particular obstacles to innovation (Ho, 2002) and other entre-preneurial behaviors because of lack of incentives and funding, short-term time pressures, and the need for political and public support (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009).

State governments can increase entrepreneurial orientations by setting appropriate organizational structures and strategies, supporting practical managerial and cultural activities (e.g., participatory decision making,




Appendix ASummary of Hypothesized Relationships

Hypothesized relationship with entrepreneurial dimensions

Characteristics Variables Risk taking Innovativeness Proactiveness

Structural Hierarchy Negative Negative NegativeFormalization Negative Negative NegativeFlexibility Positive Positive PositiveSize Positive Negative Positive

Managerial Autonomy Positive Positive PositiveParticipatory

decision making

Positive Positive Positive

Performance-based rewards

Negative Positive Positive

Specialization Positive Positive PositiveCultural Accountability Positive Positive Positive

Goal ambiguity and multiplicity

Positive Positive Negative

Performance objectives


Environmental Legal liability Negative Negative NegativePolitical

influenceNegative Positive Negative

Perceived competition


employee’s empowerment approaches, professional development activities), and responding to external changes and concerns promptly. As Osborne and Plastrik (1997) argued, reinvention and transformation to public entrepre-neurship should be achieved by structural and functional changes toward more opportunity-driven approaches rather than resource-driven strategies. Without the organizational characteristics examined in this study, entrepre-neurial attempts and behaviors cannot be successfully transplanted to the public sector.



27

App

endi

x B

Fact

or L

oadi

ngs

Stru

ctur

al fa

ctor

sC

ultu

ral f

acto

rs

Fact

orVa

rian

ceD

iffer

ence

Fact

orVa

rian

ceD

iffer

ence

Fact

or 1

2.25

648

0.12

435

Fact

or 1

2.38

551

0.16

365

Fact

or 2

2.13

213

0.74

094

Fact

or 2

2.22

186

0.36

070

Fact

or 3

1.39

120

Fact

or 3

1.86

116

Rot

ated

fact

or lo

adin

gs (

orth

ogon

al v

arim

ax)

Rev

ised

rot

ated

fact

or lo

adin

gs (

orth

ogon

al v

arim

ax)

Item

Fact

or 1

Fact

or 2

Fact

or 3

Uni

quen

ess

Item

Fact

or 1

Fact

or 2

Fact

or 3

Uni

quen

ess

hie1

.141

.829

.080

.287

mg1

.246

.139

.832

.228

hie2

.394

.590

.174

.466

mg2

.170

.134

.871

.199

hie3

.160

.781

.066

.361

acc2

–.07

0.7

04.3

16.4

00hi

e4.2

55.5

82–.

168

.568

acc3

.199

.890

.119

.154

fle2

–.04

6–.

042

.844

.284

acc4

.278

.844

.037

.210

fle3

–.00

8.2

11.7

58.3

86ob

j1.9

07.1

53.2

03.1

13fo

r1.8

12.0

76.0

96.3

25ob

j2.9

19.1

98.1

30.1

00fo

r2.8

17.1

54–.

158

.283

obj3

.586

.051

.445

.457

for3

.813

.270

–.02

2.2

66

Man

ager

ial f

acto

rsEn

viro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs

Fact

orVa

rian

ceD

iffer

ence

Fact

orVa

rian

ceD

iffer

ence

Fact

or 1

2.76

596

0.55

135

Fact

or 1

2.35

341

0.41

581

Fact

or 2

2.21

461

0.26

205

Fact

or 2

1.93

760

0.36

504

(con

tinue

d)



28

Man

ager

ial f

acto

rsEn

viro

nmen

tal f

acto

rs

Fact

orVa

rian

ceD

iffer

ence

Fact

orVa

rian

ceD

iffer

ence

Fact

or 3

1.95

255

0.26

417

Fact

or 3

1.57

256

.Fa

ctor

41.

6883

8.

Rot

ated

fact

or lo

adin

gs (

orth

ogon

al v

arim

ax)

Rev

ised

rot

ated

fact

or lo

adin

gs (

orth

ogon

al v

arim

ax)

Item

Fact

or 1

Fact

or 2

Fact

or 3

Fact

or 4

Uni

quen

ess

Item

Fact

or 1

Fact

or 2

Fact

or 3

Uni

quen

ess

pd1

.798

.028

.146

.211

.297

pi1

.644

.185

.075

.545

pd2

.734

.110

.186

.080

.409

pi2

.719

.061

.204

.438

pd3

.845

.021

.106

.134

.256

pi4

.692

.101

.147

.490

pd4

.703

.057

.182

.097

.460

pi5

.661

.187

–.09

9.5

18re

w1

.265

–.01

8.6

61.0

90.4

84pi

7.6

46.0

05.0

15.5

82re

w2

.104

.054

.706

.208

.444

ll1.0

47.0

58.6

10.6

22re

w3

.318

.089

.654

.106

.452

ll2. 0

46–.

150

.660

.540

rew

4.1

49.1

30.6

26.2

46.5

06ll3

.112

.037

.820

.314

aut1

.095

.067

–.01

3.7

38.4

42pe

c1.0

71.7

65–.

086

.403

aut2

.207

.027

.179

.753

.358

pec2

.037

.876

.070

.226

aut3

.345

.150

.214

.608

.444

pec3

.255

.689

–.05

2.4

57sp

e1.0

64.8

65–.

042

.029

.246

spe2

.024

.879

.117

.083

.207

spe3

.049

.789

.054

.023

.372

Not

e: T

he b

old

valu

es p

rese

nt e

ach

fact

or lo

adin

g.

App

endi

x B

(co

ntin

ued)



Kim 29

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Notes

1. Twenty-nine current executive MPA students similarly represent the survey’s tar-get population and 17 current MPA students provide the broader range of respon-dent types.

2. The pretest data set was tested on the variance and reliability of items. Based on calculated mean and standard deviation of all variables, all variables hold suf-ficient variation. The Cronbach’s alpha values of all instrument measures of the pretest data are greater than .65, which standardized items count together as an index.

3. Southern region = Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; Northeast region = Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massa-chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia; North-Central region = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; Western region = Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

4. About 4 weeks after the initial mailing, a second mailing package was sent to nonrespondents, including a revised cover letter that emphasized the usefulness of the study and the importance of their participation along with the survey ques-tionnaire.

References

Afifi, A., Clark, V. A., & May, S. (2004). Computer-aided multivariate analysis (4th ed.). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). The art and science of entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship through social networks (pp. 2-23). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Centralization, organiza-tional strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 57-80.




Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 893-921.

Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller business. Journalof Business Venturing, 2, 79-93.

Bellone, C. J., & Goerl, G. F. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democ-racy. Public Administration Review, 52, 130-134.

Berman, E. M. (1998). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57, 105-112.

Berman, E. M., & West, J. P. (1998). Responsible risk-taking. Public Administration Review, 58, 346-352.

Borins, S. (1998a). Innovating with integrity: How local heroes are transforming American government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Borins, S. (1998b). Lessons from the new public management incommonwealth nations. International Public Management Journal, 1, 37-58.

Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 182-208). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Boyett, I. (1996). The public sector entrepreneur—A definition. Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(2), 36-51.

Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organiza-tions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 231-252.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The “public puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private orga-nizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 197-223.

Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58, 109-117.

Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputation, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 529-557.

Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. B. (2000). Trends in 20th century United States government ethics. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 3, 571-597.

Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1970). The organization makers: A behavioral study of independent entrepreneurs. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.



Kim 31

Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standard-ized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cornelius, B., Landstrom, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurship studies: Dynamic research front of a developing social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 375-397.

Cornwall, J., & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entrepreneurship. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation—Sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 57-81.

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

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

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in orga-nizations: Effects of environment, organization, and top managers. British Jour-nal of Management, 17, 215-236.

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innova-tion adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495-522.

Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5-15.

deLeon, L., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The political theory of reinvention. Public Administration Review, 60, 89-97.

Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneur-ial entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research direc-tions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 85-102.

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Edwards, C., Jones, G., Lawton, A., & Llewellyn, N. (2002). Public entrepreneurship:

Rhetoric, reality, and context. International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 1539-1554.

Eggers, W. D., & O’Leary, J. (1995). Revolution at the roots: Making our government smaller, better, and closer to home. New York, NY: Free Press.

Forster, J., Graham, P., & Wanna, J. (1996). The new public entrepreneurialism. In J. Wanna, J. Forster & P. Graham (Eds.), Entrepreneurial management in the public sector (pp. 1-12). Brisbane, Australia: Center for Australian Public Sector Management.

Fox, J. M. (2005). Organizational entrepreneurship and the organizational perfor-mance linkage in university extension. Columbus: Ohio State University.




Gansler, J. S. (2003). Moving toward market-based government: The changing role of government as the provider. Arlington, VA: IMB Endowment for The Business of Government.

Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 696-706.

Gartner, W. B. (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27-39.

Goodsell, C. T. (1993). Reinvent government or rediscover it. Public Administration Review, 53, 85-86.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1970). Social change in complex organizations. New York, NY: Random House.

Hall, R. H. (1996). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Harbison, F. (1956). Entrepreneurial organization as a factor in economic develop-ment. Quality Journal of Economics, 70, 364-379.

Helfrich, C. D., Li, Y-F., Mohr, D. C., Meterko, M., & Sales, A. E. (2007). Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the competing values framework: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Implementation Science, 2(13), 1-14.

Holzer, M., & Callahan, K. (1998). Government at work: Best practices and model programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ho, A. T-K. (2002). Reinventing local government and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62, 434-444.

Hood, C., Scott, C. J., Oliver, J. G., & Travers, T. (1999). Regulation inside govern-ment: Waste-watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ingram, P., & Clay, K. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 525-546.

Jennings, D. F. (1994). Multiple perspectives of entrepreneurship. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing.

Jennings, D. F., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1989). Functionally modeling corporate entre-preneurship: An empirical integrative analysis. Journal of Management, 15, 485-502.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). Change maters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Keys, P. R. (1988). Administrative entrepreneurship in the public sector. Administra-tion in Social Work, 12, 59-68.

Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, opportunity and profit: Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.



Kim 33

Kreiser, P., Marino, L., & Weaver, M. K. (2002). Assessing the psychometric proper-ties of entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneur-ship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 71-94.

Laurent, A. (2000). Entrepreneurial government: Bureaucrats as businesspeo-ple. Arlington, VA: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.

Llewellyn, N., & Jones, G. (2003). Controversies and conceptual development: Examining public entrepreneurship. Public Management Review, 5, 245-266.

Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17-25.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14, 139-161.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation con-struct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 429-451.

Miles, M. P., & Arnold, D. R. (1991). The relationship between marketing orien-tation and entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 49-65.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manage-ment Science, 29, 770-791.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 544-569.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The thirdlink. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221-235.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Moon, M. J. (1998). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship in the public, pri-

vate, and nonprofit sector: Does organization matter? (Doctoral thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York).

Moon, M. J. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter? Public Administration Review, 59, 31-43.

Moon, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constraint IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 273-291.




Moon, M. J., & deLeon, P. (2001). Municipal reinvention: Managerial values and diffu-sion among municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 327-351.

Morris, M. H., & Jones, F. F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organiza-tions: The case of the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24, 71-91.

Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.

Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 247-259.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Nutt, P. C. (2006). Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 289-318.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: William Patrick.

Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.

Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and individual roles. Administration & Society, 15, 207-242.

Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 447-469.

Roberts, N. C. (1992). Public entrepreneurship and innovation. Policy Studies Review, 11(1), 55-74.

Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 147-175.

Ramamurti, R. (1986). Public entrepreneurs: Who they are and how they operate. California Management Review, 28, 142-158.

Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1996). Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy entrepreneurship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sadler, R. J. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and government business enter-prises: The pre-paradigmatic dance of the chameleon (Doctoral thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia).

Salazar, G. M. (1992). The public entrepreneur: An empirical study. Tallahassee: Florida State University.



Kim 35

Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpaa, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entre-preneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-tice, 30, 399-415.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

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

Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1990). Juggling entrepreneurial style and organizational structure-How to get your act together. Sloan Management Review, 31, 43-53.

Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo-Mossi, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17-27.

Stone, J. B. (1992). Public entrepreneurship in Florida local government administra-tion. Tallahassee: Florida State University.

Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Administration Review, 58, 194-200.

Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 591-615.

Walker, R. M., & Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the U. K. labour government’s public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 371-393.

Wanna, J., Forster, J., & Graham, P. (1996). Entrepreneurial management in the pub-lic sector. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan Education.

Weisberg, H. F., & Bowen, B. D. (1977). An introduction to survey research and data analysis. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

West, D., & Berthon, P. (1997). Antecedents of risk-taking behavior by advertis-ers: Empirical evidence and management implications. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(5), 27-40.

Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 225-247.

Bio

Younhee Kim is an assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University. Her research interests include performance management, public entrepreneurship, and information technology and e-governance.



Documents

Administration & Societyfaculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM601 Fall 2010/Stimulating... · Jones, 1999), market-based practices like public entrepreneurship “provide a great