Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualization

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1344
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Author: Erik Monsen,Jeffrey G. Covin,William J. Wales
• Published date: 01 December 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity

of a multilevel conceptualization

William J. Wales

1

| Jeffrey G. Covin

2

| Erik Monsen

3

1

Department of Management, University at Albany, Albany, New York

2

Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

3

Grossman School of Business, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont

Correspondence

William J. Wales, University at Albany,

Department of Management, 1400

Washington Avenue, Albany, New York

12222.

Email: wwales@albany.edu

Abstract

Research Summary:An original and clarifying conceptualiza-

tion of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is advanced based

upon three fundamental ways in which entrepreneurship

can be manifest as an organizational attribute: as top man-

agement style, organizational configuration, and new entry

initiatives. We leverage this conceptualization to examine

the presumed state of irreconcilable differences between

the Miller (1983)/Covin and Slevin (1989) and Lumpkin and

Dess (1996) conceptualizations of EO. This research pro-

poses that these conceptualizations are reconcilable when

the problem is reframed to consider how EO is manifest as

an organizational attribute at and across multiple levels of

analysis. Like the blind men and the elephant, these works

have drawn attention to different aspects of a broader phe-

nomenon. How EO as a multifaceted organizational attri-

bute shapes future scholarly dialogue is discussed.

Managerial Summary:The concept of entrepreneurial orien-

tation (EO) has been proposed as a way of envisioning what

it means for organizations to “be entrepreneurial.”There is

more than one answer to this question. This paper describes

three principal ways entrepreneurship-as-an-organizational

attribute has been discussed, including illustrative examples

from real-world businesses. One perspective recognizes the

entrepreneurial aspect of organizations by considering top

Received: 20 July 2018 Revised: 31 October 2019 Accepted: 9 November 2019 Published on: 13 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/sej.1344

© 2020 Strategic Management Society

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2020;14:639–660. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sej 639

management style; a second perspective recognizes that

organizations manifest entrepreneurship through a configu-

ration of key organizational elements; and a third perspec-

tive looks to evidence of the organization's entry into new

offerings and domains of operation as indicative of entre-

preneurship. All three manifestations of “being entrepre-

neurial”are part of the current conversation on EO. This

paper recognizes the conceptual legitimacy and practical

interdependence of these distinct perspectives.

KEYWORDS

entrepreneurial orientation, new entry initiatives, organizational

configuration, strategic orientation, top management style

1|INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has become a popular means to describe entrepreneurship as an organizational attri-

bute (Anderson, Kreiser, Kuratko, Hornsby, & Eshima, 2015; Ireland, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009; Rauch, Wiklund,

Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009), yet this development has followed a mostly empirical trajectory. Several conceptualizations

of EO have emerged, producing fragmentation in the literature (Covin & Wales, 2012). The two leading schools of

thought are organized around Miller (1983)/Covin and Slevin (1989, henceforth M/CS) and Lumpkin and Dess

(1996, henceforth LD) (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011). The conceptual differences highlighted between M/CS and LD have

typically focused on how each characterizes organizational entrepreneurship based upon a set of dimensions such as

innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy. In the view of M/CS, a subset

of three covarying dimensions are critical for EO to exist (innovation, proactiveness, and risk-taking), whereas LD

relax the assumption of covariance among a broader set of dimensions (introducing competitive aggressiveness and

autonomy) and view the profile of relevant dimensions for describing a firm as entrepreneurially-oriented as being

contextually dependent. Covin and Lumpkin (2011) suggest that this dimensional line of inquiry has produced

increasingly diminished returns and new conceptualizations of EO are necessary. In its presently divided state,

research examining EO has proceeded in a confusing manner to many scholars.

To resolve this confusion and provide much needed middle-range theorizing (cf. Merton, 1968), we propose a

new and original path that synthesizes the alternative M/CS and LD perspectives on EO. Inspired by the multilevel

conceptual discussion of Wales, Monsen, and McKelvie (2011), this research suggests there are three distinct, yet

complementary ways in which EO is manifest as an organizational attribute at and across different levels of analysis.

We propose that EO can be recognized as a concept which includes entrepreneurial top management style,organiza-

tional configuration, and new entry initiatives. Our conceptualization of EO reframes the conversation surrounding

EO from one focused on identifying the construct's dimensions—a nonproductive path (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011)—to

one recognizing that, fundamentally, “being entrepreneurial”is manifested in several widely-acknowledged ways by

organizations. EO-as-top management style captures the top managerial goals, beliefs, logics, decisions, and commu-

nications which demonstrate organizational commitment to EO. EO-as-organizational configuration captures inter-

nally directed conduct to create complimentary organizational processes, routines, structural choices, and cultural

climates which foster a pattern of entrepreneurial behavior. Finally, EO-as-new entry initiatives captures externally

directed conduct in the pursuit of opportunities for new value creation in the market. While some of these

640 WALES ET AL.