Corporate Entrepreneurship And Entrepreneurial Architecture: An Analysis Of Dyson And Shoten Essay.

Core Elements of Entrepreneurial Architecture

The concept of corporate entrepreneurship is necessary for the growth and enhancement of innovation within organisational set up (Tseng and Tseng 2019). Again, Urbano et al. (2022) commented that, Corporate Entrepreneurship, otherwise known as Entrepreneurship is the scope that the company develops for new business, services or products. The study by Göcke, Hülsebusch and Menter (2021) The creation of opportunities of new ventures are done from within the organisation. The internal contexts and resources of a company plays a crucial role in successful corporate entrepreneurship (Goldsby et al. 2018). The entrepreneurial reports and audits could be developed to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a company and what they need to do in order to overcome those challenges (Grabara, Hussain and Szajt 2020). In this context, Hampel, Perkmann and Phillips (2020) stated that, the internal and external environment influences the corporate entrepreneurship in building the support system, leadership, human resources and internal architecture. This report is developed to analyze the corporate entrepreneurship aspects for the company Dyson. The CEA audit results has been used as the base for the analysis and recommendations.

According to Boone et al. (2019), the entrepreneurial architecture is the part of the organisational architecture that defines the way of business doing by a company. The interaction between internal and external environment and resources builds the necessary architecture of a company (Kumar and Kumar 2020). Kuratko and Neubert (2018) showed that the entrepreneurial architecture tries to develop the organisational architecture in a way that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial architecture is structured on four pillars- Culture, structure, leadership and strategy (Kuratko and Hoskinson 2018). These four elements in an organisation creates the opportunities for innovation and their successful compilation in the company. According to Ben Arfi and Hikkerova (2021), the corporate architecture can be divided in two types- internal and external architecture. De Waal and Maritz (2019), stated that the internal architecture constitutes of employees, sense of collectivity among the employees, shared strategies of objectives of the company. While the external architecture of a company comprises of company; shared knowledge with the third parties or outsiders, relationships with other clustered small firms and flexibility in organisational structure and work environment (Dhanpat and Schachtebeck 2019).

As discussed in the above part, the four core elements or pillars of entrepreneurial architecture are leadership, structure, organisational culture and strategy of the company (Cunningham, Lehmann and Menter 2021). Leadership is necessary for developing the positive work culture and working frameworks (Khalil et al. 2021). Arshi and Burns (2018) stated that, the leaders are the visionary who contribute in effective communication, strategy development and monitoring the performance. The employees of an organisation look up to the leaders for getting motivation and important information from the management (Burns et al. 2020). Hence, they directly work as the bridging link between the employees and management.

The next important component in entrepreneurial architecture is organisational culture (Mustafa, Gavin and Hughes 2018). All the four pillars in the organisational context are related to each other. Pirhadi and Feyzbakhsh (2021), organisational culture contributes in developing the structure of the company. At the same time, the leaders have their share in developing the organisational culture. Most of the organisations have their set code of conducts that controls the behavioral aspects of the employees. Kreiser et al. (2021), stated that positive organisational culture is instrumental in employee motivation and satisfaction. As seen in the study of Eze (2018), The values, ways of thinking and understanding of specific contexts in the organisation creates the base for organisational culture. A strong organisational culture contributes in collaborative and functional entrepreneurial architecture (Shafique and Kalyar 2018).

Importance of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Managing Environmental Changes

Organisational structure is the activities that constitutes of the task allocation, responsibility determination, coordination and supervising aspects (Jiménez-Barrionuevo, Molina and García-Morales 2019). This is done towards achieving the organisational aims. The operational standards and decisions are made on the basis of the organisational structure. The hierarchical structure of the company denotes the flow of information and responsibilities assigned to the leaders and workers (Castriotta et al. 2021).

According to Dyduch and Bratnicki (2018), the innovation in an organisation starts with change, but this change should not be random. The organisational strategy directs the change towards the set objectives. The importance of strategic approach in entrepreneurial architecture is inevitable. The strategies of innovation in the organisation helps the company move forward. These strategies make sure the effective use of the resources and make the guiding framework for the company.

Business environmental change is ever changing and that makes the competition harder for the organisations working in different sectors. The changes in technology, customers preferences and macro environmental factors influence the business outcomes (Bedoya, Alzate and Giraldo 2018). The entrepreneurial architecture could be stated to be the defense mechanism or coping mechanism for the companies to manage these environmental changes. Hanci-Donmez and Karacay (2019), stated that the innovation and creativity are the main medium for addressing the changes in external and internal environment. The political factors, economic factors, technological or legal factors changes can be managed through having an innovative approach. Market research and working with innovative strategies helps the company getting competitive advantages. Si et al. (2020) stated, the corporate entrepreneurship surges the growth of innovation in the company. The changes are made in the structures and strategies to incorporate the necessary strategic change (Baena-Luna, Martínez-Román and Liñá 2022). The companies start working on the external challenge management through the corporate entrepreneurship.

Dyson Limited, also known as Dyson is the technology company that deals in the consumer electronics industry. The company was established in 1991 in Malmesbury, England. In 2019, the company announced their permanent shift to Singapore. The company designs and manufactures hand dryers, vacuum cleaners, bladeless fans, heaters (dyson-group.com 2022). As per the company report of 2018, it has the employee strength of 12,000. The company headquarters manages the research and development, manufacturing and supply chain management. The company has been associated with the research projects in the scope of collaborating with universities, robotic vacuum cleaners, electric vehicles and medical ventilators. Sustainability and environmental impact of the brand is analyzed and evaluated through the company management (dyson.com 2022).

The company has its global presence in both online and offline stores. The changes in the technology industry is rapid and faster than many other industries. Hence, Dyson has the need for changing their corporate strategies and make it more innovative to survive the market competition. The CEA report, entrepreneurial profile grid of the company shows that it has scores average in three of the main components of entrepreneurial architecture (refer to appendix 3). The organisational structure of company has scored the highest in the audit, while the culture. According to Severo et al. (2021), Leadership and strategy have huge scope of development in this context. The audit shows that the commercial environment for the company is in favour of the innovative measures. This industry is well balanced and caters the innovation and creativity in its scope.

Analysis of Dyson's Entrepreneurial Architecture

The commercial environment of the Dyson market in highly competitive. The changes in the environment is rapid which makes the need of innovation crucial for the company. The CEA audit of the company shows that the leadership or the managers of the company are not well aware of the market conditions (refer to question no 49, 86 and other leadership related questions in CEA audit in appendix 1). The product portfolio is not managed properly. They lack the information regarding the realistic achievable objectives. The employees suffer from the lack of communication as the leaders are not providing enough support systems. There is a lack of strategic thinking among the leaders. Senior managers of the company do not show enough respect to the employees which effects their internal relationship.

According to the CEA report results, the next issue in the organisation is lack of timing for the learning and innovation aspects (refer to appendix 1). The employees needed to be provided with the opportunities and entrepreneurial orientation. The strategic options available to the company is limited. The market is full of competitions and not adapting new strategies can only make the company vulnerable. Decision making and strategic objectives for the company are not clear. The lack of strategic objective in innovation results in lack of direction and outcomes. All these creates the lack of structure in innovation and management support for innovation.

The organisational culture is not employee centric and has a great lack in communication. According to the CEA audit, the company has scored only 59.33 in their organisational culture aspects (refer to appendix 2). The organisational culture lacks the belongingness and collaborative approach. Lack of flexibility is another problem in the organisational culture. The information and knowledge of the organisation is not effectively channelized.

Organisational structure has scored highest in the CEA audit as seen in the entrepreneurial profile grid (refer to appendix 3). There is no doubt in the fact that Dyson has a strong hierarchical structure. They have the panel of experienced and skilled management. The employees in the organisation are selected on the basis of the immediate needs as well as strategic requirements. The company needs to develop new communication channel through the organisational structure. At the same time, the delegation of roles and responsibilities needed to be revised. Entrepreneurship requires innovation and innovation must be supported by positive organisational structure. The Dyson has the structural base for implementing new innovations, but the risk taking in calculative way has not be practiced in the company yet.

The CEA audit is the process that reveals the leadership, structural, cultural and strategic weaknesses and strengths of an organisation (refer to appendix 1). Dyson is operating in the global technology market (dyson-group.com 2022). The company has provided new products to the consumers but still acks in their entrepreneurial ventures. The corporate entrepreneurship is the need of the hour in this industry. Technology and innovation are providing the scope for the companies to excel in their performances in global market. Hence, it is the high time that, the corporate entrepreneurial efforts of the company are given priority and is directed to increase the company’s competitive advantages. The commercial environment for Dyson is highly competitive and ever changing. Therefore, Dyson needs to work in their leadership, structure, strategy and culture of their organisation to get the competitive advantage they need to manage the external environmental challenges.

The organisational culture improvement options for the company could be determined through the application of Cultural Web Theory. As showed in the study of Elsbach and Stigliani (2018), this cultural theory, developed by Johnson in 1992, states that an organisation can have four kinds of cultures- power culture, task culture, Role culture and person culture. Application of this theory to the case of Dyson shows that Dyson is not successful in all the organisational cultural elements. According to Schmitt and Almeida (2020) study, Google is the international tech brand that has introduced task based and people-based culture to boost their innovation. This company is strong in control system, organisational structures and routines, while lack the power, symbol, stories and rituals context (Rezaei, Allameh and Ansari 2018). The top to down communication within the organisation is not developed effectively. People are less important according to the organisational rituals (Felix, Aparicio and Urbano 2018). There is not specific story for the brand that makes its customer relationship. Hence, the options available for the company is to strengthen their employee management relationship, developing stories for the employees who are joining the company and increase the engagement of the employees (Alsafadi et al. 2020).

As opined by Zhang, Zheng and Darko (2018), the leadership theories are varied like transformation, transactional, contingency and situational leadership. The contingency leadership would be best for the company as the commercial market risks and conditions are ever changing (Mokhber, Khairuzzaman and Vakilbashi 2018). According to Maisoni, Yasri and Abror (2019), the international brand Coca Cola has gained success by imposing contingency leadership approach and their trial and error method for organisation management. Dyson could think of changing their leadership aims and visions in the given environment.

The strategic improvement of the company is to be done through adopting completely new innovations. As opined by Yunus and Sijabat (2021), the corporate entrepreneurial changes are based on the creativity and innovative ideas that the company can rely on. Hence, the company should try to adopt the Blue Ocean strategy an enter the market for their product where the competition in negligeable (Leavy 2018). One of the greatest examples of success using the Blue Ocean strategy in technology is the case of Apple. The company built its unique and unavoidable existence in smartphones through eliminating the competitions in high end smartphone and gadgets market (Mohammed, Hawas and Muhaimeedc 2021). The red ocean strategy of working in the same market by beating the competition and exploiting the same markets with changed approaches could also be applied. But this has a higher risk as the market competition is high and the nature of the commercial environment is rapidly changing.

According to Ali and Varo?lu (2022), Mintzberg’s structural archetypes is the theory that relates to the organisational structure. The Dyson management could adopt the professional bureaucracy or divisionlized forms for their structural improvement. This structural archetype that Dyson can work with is professional bureaucracy that has the decentralized mechanism. The case of Amazon could be considered as an example of success through the structured archetype. As commented by Monteiro et al. (2020), The company has decentralized structure for their units and regional structure where the innovative measures are finalized by the regional heads. This structure is most effective for the innovation as the employees get the flexibility for specialized innovation. On the other hand, divisionalized approach in organisational archetype will develop competencies in definitive niches.

The cultural improvement of the company could be evaluated through changes in the employee satisfaction, involvement and engagement. The employees must not feel the lack of belongingness and have a positive relationship with the leaders. The task and people-based cultures are appropriate for the company. The organisational structure evaluation criteria are evaluated on the basis of the autonomy and flexibility provided to the employees. This will also contribute in gauging the leadership strategies. The motivation levels and the effective communication will contribute in overall performance of the company. Finally, the Blue Ocean strategy will be evaluated on the basis of the market profits and outcomes of the company.

• The contingency leadership strategy needed to be adopted by the company as this will help them to overcome the uncertainties of the external environment. Again, the organisational leaders will be able to apply more than one strategy for their employee management. The measures like providing flexibility to the employees, encouraging innovation and providing visions for organisational success will be the part of the contingency leadership technique in Dyson.
• The options that would be most effective in the market strategy development is the Blue ocean strategy. The Blue Ocean strategy would require the company to enter the new market where it do not have the much of the competitors. Dyson has its brand identity in the international market. The company should focus of the developing countries like Nigeria for their business. The costs of the company are reasonable for these country markets and there it can eliminate the high-end competitors through cost leadership.
• Decentralized and professional bureaucracy structural archetype will be effective for the innovative approach in the company. This will not only improve the organisational structure, but will increase the cultural efficiency of the company. The sense of belongingness will be improved when the company would be will give importance to the employee opinions.
• The flexibility in the organisational actions are to be introduced. The most important change that the company needs to cater now is the communication channels. The company should develop their internal communication channels more efficiently so that employees are involved in the process of decision making.

Conclusions

The above discussion shows that Dyson needs to improve their culture, leadership and strategic aspects, along with some minor changes in structural context. The blue Ocean strategy of the company could be implemented with the help of the innovative measures. Organisational leader have to show more innovative approaches to manage the contingency created by the market environment. Again, the organisational culture needs to be decentralized. In order to be more creative in approach, the company needs to be decentralized to certain extend to their power equations. Therefore, the communication and effective leadership is one of the major changes needed in the company. Blue Ocean strategy to enter the developing country market and eliminating the competition is another crucial aspect for the improvement of corporate entrepreneurial endeavours.

References

Ali, M. and Varo?lu, M.A., 2022. Revisiting the Mintzberg, Lawrence, and Lorsch theories about organisational structure, strategy, and environmental dynamism from the perspective of small firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(1), pp.1-15.

Alsafadi, Y., Aljawarneh, N., Ça?lar, D., Bayram, P. and Zoubi, K., 2020. The mediating impact of entrepreneurs among administrative entrepreneurship, imitative entrepreneurship and acquisitive entrepreneurship on creativity. Management Science Letters, 10(15), pp.3571-3576.

Arshi, T. and Burns, P., 2018. Entrepreneurial architecture: a framework to promote innovation in large firms. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 27(2), pp.151-179.

Baena-Luna, P., Martínez-Román, J.A. and Liñán, F., 2022. Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy and Internationalization: A Literature Review. Strategic Entrepreneurship, pp.143-160.

Bedoya, M.A., Alzate, B.A. and Giraldo, L.M., 2018, August. Corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation: The impact on managing capabilities for innovation. In 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

Ben Arfi, W. and Hikkerova, L., 2021. Corporate entrepreneurship, product innovation, and knowledge conversion: the role of digital platforms. Small Business Economics, 56(3), pp.1191-1204.

Boone, C., Lokshin, B., Guenter, H. and Belderbos, R., 2019. Top management team nationality diversity, corporate entrepreneurship, and innovation in multinational firms. Strategic management journal, 40(2), pp.277-302.

Burns, P., 2020. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Castriotta, M., Loi, M., Marku, E. and Moi, L., 2021. Disentangling the corporate entrepreneurship construct: conceptualizing through co-words. Scientometrics, 126(4), pp.2821-2863.

Cunningham, J.A., Lehmann, E.E. and Menter, M., 2021. The organizational architecture of entrepreneurial universities across the stages of entrepreneurship: a conceptual framework. Small Business Economics, pp.1-17.

De Waal, G.A. and Maritz, A., 2019. Analyzing for Effective Entrepreneurship Strategy: A Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation Course. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 64, pp.57-73.

Dhanpat, N. and Schachtebeck, C., 2019, September. Corporate Entrepreneurship: It's a Matter of Engagement. In International Business Conference (Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 178-289).

Dyduch, W. and Bratnicki, M., 2018. Strategizing corporate entrepreneurship for value creation and value capture. International Journal of Contemporary Management, (17 (1)), p.7.

dyson.com, 2022. Dyson: Policy statement. Available at:

https://www.dyson.com/inside-dyson/community/sustainability/environmental-policy

dyson-group.com, 2022. Annual Report: Dyson. Available at: https://www.dyson-group.com/investor-relations.html

Elsbach, K.D. and Stigliani, I., 2018. Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), pp.2274-2306.

Eze, B.U., 2018. Corporate entrepreneurship and manufacturing firms’ performance. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal, 8(1), pp.12-17.

Felix, C., Aparicio, S. and Urbano, D., 2018. Leadership as a driver of entrepreneurship: an international exploratory study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.

Göcke, L., Hülsebusch, K. and Menter, M., 2021. The legitimacy of corporate entrepreneurship: a structured literature review. Management Review Quarterly, pp.1-32.

Goldsby, M.G., Kuratko, D.F., Bishop, J.W., Kreiser, P.M. and Hornsby, J.S., 2018. Social proactiveness and innovation: The impact of stakeholder salience on corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(2), pp.1-15.

Grabara, J., Hussain, H.I. and Szajt, M., 2020. Sustainable university development through sustainable human resources and corporate entrepreneurship: The role of sustainable innovation and work environment. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(54), pp.480-495.

Hampel, C., Perkmann, M. and Phillips, N., 2020. Beyond the lean start-up: experimentation in corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Innovation, 22(1), pp.1-11.

Hanci-Donmez, T. and Karacay, G., 2019. High-performance human resource practices and firm performance: mediating effect of corporate entrepreneurship. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 8, pp.63-77.

Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M., Molina, L.M. and García-Morales, V.J., 2019. Combined influence of absorptive capacity and corporate entrepreneurship on performance. Sustainability, 11(11), p.3034.

Khalil, M.A., Khalil, M.K. and Khalil, R., 2021. Passive but defiant: The role of innovative capabilities in knowledge management and corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.

Kreiser, P.M., Kuratko, D.F., Covin, J.G., Ireland, R.D. and Hornsby, J.S., 2021. Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: extending our knowledge boundaries through configuration theory. Small Business Economics, 56(2), pp.739-758.

Kumar, R. and Kumar, A., 2020. Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship capability and its linkages towards firm performance. In Sustainable Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1771-1796). IGI Global.

Kuratko, D.F. and Hoskinson, S., 2018. Introduction: The challenges of corporate entrepreneurship in the disruptive age. In The Challenges of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Disruptive Age. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Kuratko, D.F. and Neubert, E., 2018. Corporate entrepreneurial leadership: Addressing critical challenges in a disruptive age. In The challenges of corporate entrepreneurship in the disruptive age. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Leavy, B., 2018. Value innovation and how to successfully incubate “blue ocean” initiatives. Strategy & Leadership.

Maisoni, H., Yasri, Y. and Abror, A., 2019. Effect of Organizational Culture, Leadership and Compensation on Employee Engagement in Coca-cola Amatil Indonesia Central Sumatra. Human Resources, 3, p.2.

Mohammed, A.A., Hawas, T.O. and Muhaimeedc, K.A., 2021. The possibility of introducing revolutionary products through the adoption of the blue ocean strategy: An analytical study for a sample of Apple employees. Muthanna Journal of Administrative and Economic Sciences, 11(1).

Mokhber, M., Khairuzzaman, W. and Vakilbashi, A., 2018. Leadership and innovation: The moderator role of organization support for innovative behaviors. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(1), pp.108-128.

Monteiro, W.M., Farias, A.S.D., Val, F., Neto, A.V.S., Sachett, A., Lacerda, M., Sampaio, V., Cardoso, D., Garnelo, L., Vissoci, J.R.N. and Sachett, J., 2020. Providing antivenom treatment access to all Brazilian Amazon indigenous areas:‘every life has equal value’. Toxins, 12(12), p.772.

Mustafa, M., Gavin, F. and Hughes, M., 2018. Contextual determinants of employee entrepreneurial behavior in support of corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 26(03), pp.285-326.

Pirhadi, H. and Feyzbakhsh, A., 2021. Corporate entrepreneurship, its antecedents, process, and consequences: A systematic review and suggestion for future research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 19(2), pp.196-222.

Rezaei, A., Allameh, S.M. and Ansari, R., 2018. Effect of organisational culture and organisational learning on organisational innovation: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 23(3), pp.307-327.

Schmitt, R. and Almeida, F., 2020. Building a culture of continuous innovation: How Pixar and Google address this challenge?. Journal of Management, Economics, and Industrial Organization, 4(1), pp.22-39.

Severo, E.A., Sousa, J.C.D., Montenegro, C.B. and Pimenta, R.C.D.Q., 2021. Corporate entrepreneurship: internal factors of influence in educational institutions under the perception of Generations X and Y. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 29(4), pp.449-474.

Shafique, I. and Kalyar, M.N., 2018. Linking transformational leadership, absorptive capacity, and corporate entrepreneurship. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), p.9.

Si, S., Ahlstrom, D., Wei, J. and Cullen, J., 2020. Business, entrepreneurship and innovation toward poverty reduction. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(1-2), pp.1-20.

Tseng, C. and Tseng, C.C., 2019. Corporate entrepreneurship as a strategic approach for internal innovation performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

Urbano, D., Turro, A., Wright, M. and Zahra, S., 2022. Corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Small Business Economics, pp.1-25. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-021-00590-6.

Yunus, M. and Sijabat, F.N., 2021. A Review on Blue Ocean Strategy Effect on Competitive Advantage and Firm Performance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), pp.1-10.

Zhang, Y., Zheng, J. and Darko, A., 2018. How does transformational leadership promote innovation in construction? The mediating role of innovation climate and the multilevel moderation role of project requirements. Sustainability, 10(5), p.1506.