Shifting Strategic Imperatives: A Stages of Leadership Perspective on the Adoption of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Abstract

IntroductionLeadership is a concept that continues to receive widespread attention. Indeed, those with an expressed interest in understanding leadership range from CEOs to social scientists; from politicians to under-employed workers; from scholars to students. This eclectic range of interest could partially explain the ambiguity of meaning and conceptualizations associated with leadership (Janda, 1960). Perhaps Bennis (1959) said it best:Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it... and still the concept is not sufficiently defined. (p. 259)It is beyond the purview of this article to add fire to the leadership definition debate. In particular, there is no intention to question whether leadership is even a scientific construct (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; Miner, 1975). Instead, this article is premised on the notion that leadership is real, that leadership is an integral component of organization effectiveness, and thus, that leadership is strategically oriented, directed at keeping the organization alive. In fact, the foundation of this article is predicated on the argument that the one universal phenomenon of leadership is that the ultimate, intended outcome is organization survival. In the interest of clarity, we recognize that if an organization is surviving, it does not necessarily mean that leadership is occurring. Alternatively, if an organization ceases to survive, that does not necessarily mean that leadership did not exist. The implicit underpinning of this article is that the very core or essence of leadership (however it is defined, practiced, or constructed) is about individuals (i.e., leaders) taking care of the organization to help ensure perpetuity.The Role of Leadership in Organizational SurvivalDuring the Great Recession, which officially ended in the summer of 2009, the net job loss in the United States from business failures totaled 800,000 (Shane, 2012). While the recession may have officially ended, its effects linger and the global financial crisis seems to have no end. The economic environment is tough. Large and small businesses are struggling. Industrial giants like GM and Chrysler have been forced to accept government bailouts. However, a strong argument can be made that the blame for most business failures lies not with the business environment, but with business leadership. An exhaustive examination of potential causes for business failure is beyond the scope of this article. However, given the increased attention devoted to the role of leadership in perpetuating business performance, it is edifying to consider salient catalysts associated with leadership in the context of organizational demise. From an internal perspective, the complacency of leadership may serve as a potential precursor to business failure (Richardson, Nwankwo, & Richardson, 1994). In a general sense, management and leadership may miss the potential warning signs associated with organizational demise (Sherrer, 2003). For example, leadership may fail to recognize ebbs in employee motivation that may contribute to the failure rate of organizations (Richardson et al., 1994). Further, leadership may fail to identify strategic shifts in the external environment of the organization. Indeed, the shifting competitive paradigms, coupled with the internal management of organizational resources, collectively represent significant facets of an organization's operations, and, thus, key variables contributing to the ultimate success of the organization (Bryson, 1988; Kaplan & Norton, 2004; Tushman & Reilly III, 1996)Prior to delving into the role of leadership approaches in response to shifting strategic imperatives and evolving competitive paradigms, it would be useful to briefly review traditional perspectives on leadership. …