Many companies across the globe are facing increasingly intense competition posing profitable growth as a great challenge in the recent times. Based on our study of some Indian companies during the last ten years, we sought an answer to the question: “Why do some companies operating under competitive conditions continue to achieve sustained high performance?” Summarily, this study could identify that the generic issue of successful growth lies in how companies approached what we attempt to define in this paper as ‘value innovation’ or ‘corporate intrapreneurship.’ It was significant to note that the difference in approach between companies was not a matter of selecting one analytical tool or strategic choice over another. The fundamentals and implicit assumptions relating to competition really differed between high and low performers. The low-performing companies took a very conventional ‘business as usual’ approach. These companies can basically be positioned in the ‘paradigm-preserving’ cluster. However, strategic thinking of some companies was dominated by myopic manipulation to attain revenue growth and earn profit. They can be positioned under the ‘paradigmstretching’ cluster. Both paradigms — preserving as well as stretching clusters — are confined to securing a fit or convergence into a standard configuration and proceeding in an incremental manner. The most successful companies did not try either to beat their domestic rivals in the market or indulge in financial manipulations; instead, they came up with a new approach — ‘paradigm breaking,’ i.e., to create industry breakpoints — what we term here as the logic of value innovation or corporate intraprenuership. These companies proposed new concepts to the society, initiated quantum changes, and developed new frontiers in business, technology, products, and markets. They acquired knowledge, both tacit and explicit, deployed it strategically, and utilized it across and between the companies. From the beginning, the concept of intrapreneurship has been grounded in the more widely accepted terminology of the entrepreneur, much of the intent being to compare successful strategies with unsuccessful approaches that yield recommendations for avoiding mistakes. These initial research issues typically involved innovation, origination of idea, the experimentation process, and resource commitment with results indicating two dominant forms of innovation: formal product development and individual initiatives (Jones and Butler, 1992; Balkin and Logan, 1988; Sathe, 1985; Burgelman, 1984). With the absence of intrapreneurial programmes as