• Tiada Hasil Ditemukan

technical dimension focuses on the effective production of the core service, whilst the functional dimension focuses on the delivery of the newly developed service. Both of these aspects are interconnected. Hakansson (2014) selected the following five behavioural characteristics from a list of 10 that were considered for further study:

tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. SERVQUAL is a 22-item instrument that was created via ongoing research and has since become one of the most widely used measures for determining how well services are provided in a variety of contexts.

The essential success factors are the main areas that the organisation has to address in order to accomplish its objectives, and one way to do this is through analysing the consequences of those areas. They are considered as vital elements for the effective execution of TQM operations due to the fact that they are required components. Gómez et al. (2017) identified a number of critical factors for total quality management, including customer-centered approach, process management, commitment and leadership, quality planning, facts-based management, continuous improvement, human resources management, work team communication, supplier cooperation, organisational, social, and environmental issues, and related awareness. The TQM CSFs were one of the first issues that researchers looked at within the realm of quality management.

a crucial response to the problem of an organization's lack of innovativeness, which ultimately results in a competitive advantage (Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990).

CE helps businesses achieve, establish, and preserve a competitive edge, which will increase their level of performance. This is accomplished by the adoption of a culture of managed risk-taking (Ireland, Kuratko, & Morris, 2006; Zahra, Filatotchev, &

Wright, 2009). It had also been identified as one of the most essential factors that organisations use to aggressively generate value by recognising and chasing new prospects. This had led to it being regarded as one of the most important variables in the business world (Jacobson, 1992). CE has been acknowledged as an essential component of company strategic management (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999), which is comprised of main components like as proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovation.

These components are used by established organisations (Zahra, 1993).

Despite the fact that CE has been a cause for worry among academics and other people for a very long time (Shamsuddin et al., 2012; Zahra, 1995). There is still some room for interpretation, and this applies not just to the vocabulary that is being used but also to the concept of the construct itself (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). For instance, several terminologies have been adopted in the literature for the purpose of describing CE. These terminologies include 'internal corporate venturing' (Burgelman, 1983; Garud & Van de Ven, 1992; Zajac, Golden, & Shortell, 1991), 'intrapreneurship' (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001, 2003; Rule & Irwin, 1988), 'internal entrepreneurship' (Jansen & Van Wee (Jones & Butler, 1992). Nevertheless, Pullen, van Weerd-Nederhof, Groen, Song, and Fisscher (2009) and Antoncic and Zorn (2004) suggested that the three core entrepreneurial activities that make up CE are corporate venturing, innovation, and organisational rejuvenation. Even if the

immaturity of the subject of corporate entrepreneurship may be to blame for the absence of a definition that is widely accepted (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999), the topic of definition in social sciences is still a source of debate (McKelvey, 1982).

The following is a list of terminology that are often interchanged when referring to corporate entrepreneurship (CE):

The process through which bigger firms enable smaller entrepreneurial organisations to develop into more mature and competitive businesses is referred to as corporate entrepreneurship (Donald F. Kuratko, Hornsby, Naffziger, & Montagno, 1993).

According to Antoncic (2001), the term "intrapreneurship" refers to the process by which employees of a firm organise, develop, and reflect on the development of new ways of doing things that will lead to the improvement or growth of new business. The process comprises looking for new opportunities all the time in respect to the resources that they are in charge of managing.

CE also refers to a collection of operations that are carried out by a company or an individual working within it in order to develop new business or markets through innovation, risk-taking, and taking advantage of market opportunities in order to improve competitive advantage and performance. Specifically, CE refers to the following: (Zahra, 1991).

According to Burgelman (1983), corporate evolution (CE) is the process by which an already established company diversifies its operations via internal growth. The

purpose of this diversification is to embrace opportunities that will enable the firm to expand its scope of operations or make them more efficient.

According to Miller (1983), the concept is defined as an organization's dedication to the innovation of established business practises.

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) may also be defined as a formal and informal activity channel in which a company opens and exploits new possibilities as a consequence of strategy renewal, innovation, and corporate venturing. This kind of entrepreneurship can be found in both large and small businesses (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999).

Corporate entrepreneurship may also be described as the capacity of a corporation to increase its risk-taking, innovation, and proactiveness (Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999).

The greater the number of definitions that exist, the more evidence there is that the concept is necessary, and the greater the number of academics who strive to include it in a variety of settings and organisations (Sharma et al., 1999). In addition to the issue of what CE really is, there is also the difficulty of pinpointing exactly where it is used and what function it serves inside an organisation. CE is a circumstance in which the whole organisation is involved, according to Covin and Miles (1999), however other people claim that individuals and units of organisations may participate in CE (Sharma

& Chrisman 1999). They stated that CE develops solely as a result of the individual's influence on the organisation, and that it is therefore impossible to overlook one aspect because they play a supportive role in ensuring CE's success. They also claimed that it is impossible to overlook one aspect because they play a supportive role in ensuring CE's success. In conclusion, it is commonly understood that an entrepreneur is a person

who launches a new business venture, whereas a creative enterprise (CE) refers to a group of people who generate value by discovering, utilising, and capitalising on opportunities that will enhance the performance of an organisation (Aca, Topal, &

Kaya, 2012).

As a consequence of this, the uncertainty that surrounds the idea of CE has had an effect on the process that it goes through in order to take place. According to Zahra, Nielsen, and Bogner (1999), CE can take place in both a formal and an informal setting. The former can take place as a result of an individual's decision (informal) to participate in entrepreneurial activities within the organisation, while the latter can take place as a result of the architecture of the organisation (formal). The capacity or choice of a person to break organisational norms and values without official or informal clearance from management is the core concept behind the concept of informal CE.

This ability or decision is then communicated to the individual's subordinates or other colleagues. Surprisingly, this is the most important step in the process of developing CE, since an individual's choice is ultimately repurposed for the benefit of the organisation. While this is going on, the official CE need management command and permission in order to carry out entrepreneurial activity inside the organisation. As a consequence of this, the processes, resources, and activities inside the organisation are being planned in a manner that is conducive to innovation and renewal in line with the commitments made by the business (Zahra, Nielsen, & Bogner, 1999). However, the proportion of CE that is considered official is rather low. Informal, on the other hand, is more common as a result of inventiveness or self-interest, and it may subsequently receive the blessing and acknowledgment of the larger institution. The expansion and survival of businesses are driven by economic and environmental changes that nourish

their entrepreneurial settings in order to achieve and maintain global competitiveness (Kazanjian et al., 2017). Further, Kazanjian et al. (2017) state that there is an ongoing need to investigate and uncover relevant factors that contribute to the success of entrepreneurial endeavours. Researchers Mueller et al. (2016) claim that company leaders commonly fail to recognise the factors that have the potential to enhance the performance of their companies. As a direct consequence of this, businesses need to engage in entrepreneurial behaviours and procedures in order to cultivate an entrepreneurial environment. As a consequence of this, having a more in-depth understanding of the behaviours associated with entrepreneurship is vital.

According to Kantur, entrepreneurial behaviours may also be referred to as corporate entrepreneurship. The adoption and propagation of entrepreneurial practises inside corporations has a positive effect on the performance of such businesses. Academics have a better understanding of how corporate entrepreneurship might possibly boost the value of a firm as a result of this argument. It also suggests that the adoption of corporate entrepreneurial strategies is the only method for businesses to adapt to changing market circumstances. Because entrepreneurialism is so commonly seen as essential to the process of economic advancement, the aforementioned considerations also indicate that the only way for businesses to secure a first-mover advantage is to engage in corporate entrepreneurship. Companies who have been successful in creating a dynamic business climate and being creative in their processes are the only ones that have the ability to adapt to changes in the market in a proactive manner and have a high degree of preparedness to take risks. As a consequence of this, having a solid understanding of the phenomena of corporate entrepreneurial activities is absolutely necessary. In its most fundamental sense, the term entrepreneurial

behaviour may be used to both individuals and enterprises. Entrepreneurial conduct can be clearly seen and identified in any given business environment. According to prominent industry experts, the concept of corporate entrepreneurship is recognised as an essential component of organisational culture for the purpose of fostering value creation in the company.

Due to the fact that the purpose of this research is to analyse the effect that corporate entrepreneurship has on improving company performance, it is essential to investigate entrepreneurial behaviours from the perspective of a business (firm). At the level of the business (firm), the idea of entrepreneurial activity has been defined in a number of different ways, some of which include the terms intrapreneurship, intreapreneuring, intercorporate entrepreneurship, corporate venturing, internal corporate entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial strategy. On the other hand, there are a variety of divergent points of view about how the concept of corporate entrepreneurship should be characterised. In a manner of speaking that is similar, Sultana et al. (2019) proposed that corporate entrepreneurship is comprised of three elements:

proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovation. The capacity of a business to foresee the needs and desires of its customers in the future in order to make the most efficient use of its available resources in the process of launching and developing new services and products is referred to as "proactivity." This is very important given that the success of firms is often measured by their ability to acquire first mover advantage. Second, the body of academic research indicates that the behaviour of a firm that incorporates risk-taking is the undertaking or investment in something new, such as new technology. A significant outlay of financial resources is required for such an endeavour, with the possibility that the costs will be comparable regardless of the

outcome. Last but not least, innovation may be defined as an organization's propensity to adapt its practises and embrace new forms of technology and methodology. In addition to the concepts presented above, Umrani and Mahmood (2015) recently provided a definition of corporate entrepreneurship. They characterised it as the practise of entrepreneurial behaviour inside well-established organisations that range in size from midsize to large. As a consequence of this, Heavey and Simsek (2013) concurred with the remark that came before them, stating that corporate entrepreneurship is an effective instrument that may revitalise both small and big businesses. Bierwerth et al. (2015) highlighted the significance of corporate entrepreneurship as a key factor in enhancing the performance of businesses. The authors of the aforementioned study, Kuratko et al. (2017), went on to state that corporate entrepreneurship may result in both financial and strategic gains. These comments provide the impression that corporate entrepreneurship has always played an essential part in boosting the performance of businesses and that this trend has persisted for quite some time. This also demonstrates that companies, both big and small, have viewed corporate entrepreneurship in the past as a means of gaining first mover advantages in their industries. However, the function of businesses in the context of putting corporate entrepreneurship into practise has been understood in a variety of different ways in earlier literature. It is often believed that the will to accomplish certain goals is what drives corporate entrepreneurship. This line of thinking suggests that corporations with an entrepreneurial spirit are more concerned with increasing their profits, return on sales (ROS), and return on assets (ROA).

Other streams of literature on corporate entrepreneurship showed a stunning impact on performance, especially one that is of a subjective character. This was discovered in

addition to the topic that was just discussed. Non-financial success may be impacted by a number of things, including customer satisfaction and the perception of the company's financial performance. In earlier research, there were definite disagreements over the significance of the influence of corporate entrepreneurship.

In light of what has been covered in the two parts that came before this one, it is abundantly evident that corporate entrepreneurship, if properly practised and put into action, has the potential to affect both kinds of company performance (i.e. financial and non-financial). This assertion is supported by more recent research that argues that corporate entrepreneurship increases company performance in all aspects, including financial, non-financial, and combined financial and non-financial aspects. Studies have shown that corporate entrepreneurial activities within a corporation are viewed differently, particularly when it comes to quantifying corporate entrepreneurship. This is in addition to the fact that corporate entrepreneurship has a major impact on business performance in whatever form it may take. The idea of corporate entrepreneurship is no longer limited to the procedures involved in the launch of new businesses. It is now understood to involve the broadening of the company's scope of capabilities as well as the prospects available. According to Bierwerth et al. (2015), the scholars and managers' perspectives on the corporate entrepreneurial process have shifted as a result of the increased interest in corporate entrepreneurial process and practise.

Around the course of the previous three decades, the field of management literature has seen one of the most rapid expansions in the study of entrepreneurship. Miller (2016) proposes three variables that determine the existence of entrepreneurship in a firm and describes how these factors interact with one another. The first aspect to take

into consideration is the characteristics of the leader's personality. The method of making decisions comes in at number two, while the organisational structure of the corporation is third on the list.

In the past, a significant amount of scholarly attention has been paid to the subject of entrepreneurship in order to broaden knowledge through a variety of academic publications, a large body of literature, and the establishment of entrepreneurship departments in management schools. This has been done for the purpose of expanding on existing knowledge. In addition, academics have been conducting a growing and in-depth discussion surrounding the idea of entrepreneurship, which is founded on a variety of theoretical underpinnings (Ghio et al., 2015). As a consequence of this, a number of distinct definitions of entrepreneurship have been presented. These definitions are based on how various studies interpret the responsibilities of an entrepreneur. In other words, there is no universally accepted definition of the term

"entrepreneurship" that can be found in the relevant research. In addition, there is a well-established criteria for defining Xue et al(2021) .'s definitions of entrepreneurialism based on the attributes, roles, and behaviours of the entrepreneur.

In their search for an all-encompassing definition of entrepreneurship, a number of academics placed a strong emphasis on the significance of the formation of new businesses. Others emphasised the importance of being able to recognise opportunities.

Extensive investigation has been conducted on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and organisational success. Numerous research focused their attention on the three key components of the EO construct, which are proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness. Lumpkin and Dess, on the other hand, contend that entrepreneurial orientation (EO) may be best defined by a combination of

five traits. These five characteristics include competitive aggressiveness and autonomy in addition to the three features that were covered in the preceding section.

Hughes and Morgan (2007) explored the connection between entrepreneurial orientations (EO) and early-stage organisational performance in developing high-technology businesses. Specifically, they were interested in the performance of these organisations in their early stages. The participants were selected at random from a pool of one thousand emerging new high-tech businesses based in the United Kingdom. They used the framework for entrepreneurial orientation developed by Zehir et al. (2016), which consists of five different components (EO). At this point in time, only proactiveness and innovativeness were shown to have a favourable connection to the success of the organisation, while risk-taking was discovered to have a negative connection to the performance of the business.

Furthermore, at this level of analysis, there was not much of a correlation between competitive aggressiveness and autonomy and the success of the corporation. As a result of the fact that innovation is a cornerstone in the study of entrepreneurship (Farinha et al., 2018), a significant amount of research has been conducted on the effect that it has on the performance of organisations. In addition to this, specialists are focusing more of their attention on the factors that led to the condition. Migdadi (2019) took a fresh look at the connection between individual mastery and organisational performance through organisational learning and innovation. He did this by examining the phenomenon from a variety of perspectives. They obtained information from 410 different companies located in Spain. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they came to the conclusion that there is a positive correlation, both directly and indirectly,

between personal mastery and organisational performance. This link is mediated by organisational learning and innovation. They found this to be the case. It was shown that a favourable correlation exists between innovative organisational practises and overall performance. It has been determined, on the basis of the results of this research, that organisational learning has a positive influence on organisational performance, both directly and indirectly, via organisational innovation. This was found to be the case.

In order to have a better understanding of the nature of the interplay between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), market orientation, and organisational performance, Morgan and Anokhin (2020) conducted research to determine the influence that culture has on the link between EO, MO, and OP. They also investigated the nature of the link that exists between entrepreneurial orientations and market orientations, as well as the influence that this relationship has on the performance of organisations. In order to carry out a literature assessment on OE and MO, they relied on studies carried out by Hussain and his colleagues (2016). For this aim, a list was compiled that plotted the five nations with the greatest GDP and the five nations with the lowest GDP. They came to the conclusion that entrepreneurial organisations in nations with a collectivist ideology struggle with limited resources. They also reached the conclusion that there was no uniformity in the effect that EO or MO had on the overall performance of the organisation.

Jimenez and Calabr (2019) conducted an investigation on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and the performance of organisations using data collected from 165 Taiwanese business owners working in the securities and futures

industries. In that research, they made an effort to assess whether or not the process of knowledge creation had a mediating function. On the basis of the data, a positive correlation between EO and organisational performance was established. In addition, the process of creating new knowledge was shown to be a significant mediator between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and the performance of organisations.

In a similar vein, Amin et al. (2016) made an effort to determine the EO profiles of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Greece in order to recommend product innovativeness dimensions for a variety of performance potentials. They examined data from 149 different manufacturing companies and came to the conclusion that there are two basic types of entrepreneurs: active and passive. It was observed that both of these groups were developers of new products. In addition to this, they found that the entrepreneurial attitudes of active entrepreneurs were mirrored in the products that were being developed.

Organizations that foster an entrepreneurial culture exhibit distinct and recurrent patterns of entrepreneurial activity. These patterns permeate all levels of the business and serve as a reflection of the top management's thinking about entrepreneurship. It is not enough for a company to merely update a technology or develop a new product line in order to be considered an entrepreneurial company just because it has done it by copying rivals. For a company to be considered entrepreneurial, there must be some degree of proactiveness on their part as well as a willingness to take chances. Corporate entrepreneurship is critical to the expansion of the company since the cultivation of an entrepreneurial culture is the engine that propels organisational performance and ensures a sustainable advantage in the market. It has also been stated that

entrepreneurial processes inside corporations are essential for renewal and innovation in order to enhance both effectiveness and performance (Smythe and Saunders,2020).

Corporate entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is the product of the members of the organisation working together to achieve a common goal.

Luu (2017) proposed that there are three essential aspects of leadership that contribute to the preservation of corporate entrepreneurship. These aspects include management style, adopting proactive steps, and participating in creative behaviour. Additionally, it is believed that the elements are key contributors to the company's overall financial success. Establishing an atmosphere that is founded on corporate thinking and conduct is at the heart of the concept of corporate entrepreneurship. There are many different theories of corporate entrepreneurship, but they all agree that intrapreneurship has a significant effect on the performance and creativity of companies. Kuratko et al. (2017) stressed the need for companies to provide equal weight to internal organisational strategies in the process of creating creative culture. Companies often only pay attention to external elements that are connected to the economy, consumers, and competitors. The idea of corporate entrepreneurship is the basic tenet that helps to foster an environment that is fertile for innovative company performance. As additional forms of assistance for corporate entrepreneurship, proactive market orientation and flexible management techniques are also good ideas to consider.

Scholars, in their research, have identified corporate entrepreneurship as an essential component of profitability, strategy renewal, innovation, and growth (Horváth, 2017).

Corporate entrepreneurship, much like entrepreneurship, does not yet have a single, overarching definition; however, there appears to be consensus regarding its characteristics, which include the following: 1) the creation of a new business within

an already existing business; 2) organisational revolution or resurgence through the revitalization of primary business areas; and 3) revolution and rebirth of an existing organisation. A greater degree of corporate entrepreneurship is required for businesses to achieve a higher level of competitive performance, development, and survival.

This gives rise to the question of which elements contribute more substantially to the successful operation of a company's corporate and entrepreneurial functions. As an example, Van said that encouraging workers to think entrepreneurially and act accordingly is highly crucial in order to assist the growth of corporate entrepreneurship. According to Martinez et al. (2016), it is not always obvious which organisational resources and capabilities encourage entrepreneurial resourcefulness. In a similar vein, the definition of corporate entrepreneurship is fraught with discrepancies (CE). The concept of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) refers to activities, processes, strategies, and behaviours of companies that are advocated for and carried out by personnel working for existing businesses (Stuetzer et al., 2018).

According to Tidd and Bessant (2018), the idea of innovation does not necessarily involve the creativity of products, but rather may encompass a variety of inventive methods of structuring processes, systems, and structures. He continued by explaining that entrepreneurial innovation is a primary force behind economic transformation because it identifies and capitalises on inefficiencies that exist in a market. As a consequence of this, businesses that are not deemed to be product innovators may nonetheless be considered to have entrepreneurial characteristics, which enables these businesses to achieve a competitive advantage and generate returns that are higher than average. One school of thought among academics asserts that previous studies of

corporate entrepreneurship have focused on investigating the beneficial effects that entrepreneurship may have on the efficiency of a company. According to the findings of a large number of studies, corporate entrepreneurship may be described as the guarantee of developing an inventive, proactive, and risk-taking oriented entrepreneurial environment (Kreiser et al., 2019). The philosophy of continuous improvement (CE) is incorporated into the organisation so that it can be more responsive to rapidly changing environmental conditions. This is accomplished by developing one-of-a-kind solutions (i.e. products/services, processes, and organisational structures) and continuously exploiting opportunities while accepting the possibility of failing. According to the findings of the research conducted by Vendrell-Herrero et al. (2020), there is a significant relationship between formalisation and CE. According to the findings, a rise in CE may be achieved by some degree of formalisation, notwithstanding the fact that it may pertain to goods, services, processes, strategies, structures, or behaviours. Anything that is deemed standard under the predominant notion of CE is seen as an innovation. According to Montoro-Sánchez and Soriano (2011), continuing education (CE) is the process that improves a company's capability of acquiring and making use of the creative talents of its personnel.

Innovation, the formation of new businesses, and the identification of business opportunities have continued to be the focal points of study on corporate entrepreneurship. The management of the company need to foster the growth of CE and the effect that CE has on innovation. Several researchers, including Dai et al.

(2014), have previously provided explanations for proactive, risk-taking, and creative company actions. These kinds of behaviours include taking calculated risks and being

creative in the sake of bringing corporate and worldwide success, as well as fostering organisational expansion and professional advancement. There are a few other names for this phenomena, including corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in general. The authors Frederick et al. (2015) used the following criteria to define corporate entrepreneurship: (1) a new business is initiated or started by an established organisation; (2) the new ideas are advocated for by one or more than one individuals;

and (3) an entrepreneurial philosophy permeates the outlook and operations of the whole organisation.

According to Sharma and Chrisman (1999), the idea of corporate entrepreneurship, which at first glance seems to be rather simple, may take many different forms. These forms include administrative, opportunistic, imitative, acquisitive, and incubative business models. According to Frederick et al. (2018), CE may take any one of the following three forms, either singly or collectively: (1) a new strategic direction; (2) an initiative from below; and (3) independent company development. Over the course of the most recent several years, the idea of corporate entrepreneurship has garnered an increasing amount of focus and consideration. The idea of "corporate entrepreneurship" has been used in this context to refer to the actions of a company that are reflective of the entrepreneurial attitude of that company. Corporate entrepreneurship was first described by Hornsby et al. (2013) as a collection of tactics that are implemented by an established business in order to promote the growth and development of the established organisation itself. The authors of the study by Dadzie et al. (2017) came to the conclusion that dynamism, technological prospects, industry development, demand of product, and a keenness on change all play very critical roles in the process of explaining the environmental factors that contribute to the