The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6204.htm

Factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity in communities
Sibylle Heilbrunn
Department of Business Administration, Ruppin Academic Center, Israel
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity. More specifically the study addresses the following objectives: propose a way to measure entrepreneurial intensity within the community context in order to determine entrepreneurial activity over a period of ten years, detect the factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity, and finally locate Kibbutz communities on the entrepreneurial grid. Design/methodology/approach – Kibbutz communities are the level of analysis. Using a comprehensive questionnaire, a sample of 60 Kibbutzim – constituting 22 percent of the population of Kibbutz communities in Israel – was investigated over a period of ten years. The same questionnaire was administered to the same sample Kibbutzim (Kibbutzim is the plural of Kibbutz) in 1994, 1997 and 2004. Collected data include number and types of enterprises, economic strength, organizational size and age, and features of organizational structure and culture. Findings – Quantitative data analysis revealed a significant increase of entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities in terms of frequency, degree and intensity of entrepreneurship. Organizational size and age have an impact on entrepreneurial intensity as well as the existence of an “entrepreneurial vehicle.” On the entrepreneurial grid Kibbutzim are moving from the incremental/periodic cluster towards the dynamic cluster, but few meaningful breakthroughs can be observed. Research limitations/implications – More research is needed in order to understand the interrelationship between community environments and entrepreneurship. The major research limitation of this paper constitutes the fact that only Kibbutz communities were investigated. Originality/value – The paper utilizes the concept of the entrepreneurial grid for an empirical analysis of community entrepreneurship. Keywords Entrepreneurship, Communities, Israel Paper type Research paper

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 37

Introduction Entrepreneurship is positively associated with economic development (Rocha, 2004). Small- and medium-size businesses are a recognized major business trend in the twenty-first century, a trend existing also in the Israeli economy with a share of 11.8 percent entrepreneurs in the Israeli labor force (by data of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor of Israel, 2005). Thus, research trying to explore the determinants of entrepreneurship at the individual, organizational and national level is of increasing importance. With environments constantly changing and becoming more competitive, organizations have to be flexible, innovative and take advantage of emerging opportunities. Therefore, corporate entrepreneurship has gained growing academic interest. Several studies focus on the impact of corporate entrepreneurship on organizational performance (Kanter, 1984; Rule and Irwing, 1988; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1991). Some scholars explore the characteristics and determinants of corporate entrepreneurship in the framework of small- and medium-sized businesses

Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008 pp. 37-51 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6204 DOI 10.1108/17506200810861249

JEC 2,1

38

(Covin and Slevin, 1989; Covin and Covin, 1990, Wiklund, 1998). Wennekers and Thurik (1999) argue that corporate entrepreneurship improves productivity not only for the organization itself but is also a vehicle for national economic growth and development. This paper attempts to investigate entrepreneurship at the community level. The interrelationship of community development and entrepreneurship has been discussed in the literature. Recent studies state that entrepreneurship is a potential strategy for community development in poor communities (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Anderson, 2002). Following the embeddedness perspective (Granovetter, 1985; Williamson, 1985) entrepreneurship flourishes in communities with mobile resources, where successful entrepreneurs reinvest and success is perceived as a community asset and where change is looked upon positively, rather than negatively (Stevenson, 2000). This study attempts to explore entrepreneurship in Israeli Kibbutzim, a setting combining community and organizational features. Kibbutz communities encompass all spheres of life and can be described as economic, social and ideological entities with an organizational structure differentiated vertically and horizontally (Heilbrunn, 2005). The economic crisis of the 1980s led to processes of change which essentially altered the economic and social outlook of the Kibbutz (Seginer and Schlesinger, 1998). The average age of Kibbutz members as well as the percentage of Kibbutz members older than 55 years increased, the number of children decreased, the percentage of Kibbutz members within the Israeli society dropped from 2.8 percent prior to the crisis in 1994 to 2.1 percent in 2004 (Data of the United Kibbutz Movement), and Kibbutz industries were on gradual decline (Palgi, 2002). Kibbutzim vary as to their exposure to crisis and change, and basically two types of Kibbutzim emerge: collective and differential ones. The former, although also being exposed to processes of crisis and change, hold on to the main ideological features with income of members still allocated to the Kibbutz. The latter type – adopting a more capitalist/materialistic system (Gluck, 1998) – is now characterized by the fact that more than 50 percent of the family income is allocated to family itself (Richman, 2004). In spite of ongoing processes of change during the last decade, Kibbutzim can still be characterized as rather collectivistic in comparison to their external environment. Thus, following Tiessen (1997) it can be expected that in Kibbutz settings variety is generated via processes of adaptation and incremental change (Reich, 1987) and relatively small, equilibrium restoring (Kirzner, 1985) ventures emerge in an incubator like environment. Leverage of resources is accomplishes via adherence to norms based on shared norms, values and goals of Kibbutz members (Wilkens and Ouchi, 1983). Using the concept of entrepreneurial intensity (Morris et al., 1994), which provides a possibility to determine quantitative measurement of entrepreneurship in terms of frequency and degree, entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutzim is measured over time. Within the entrepreneurial grid (Morris et al., 1994) scenarios of entrepreneurial intensity emerge. Kibbutzim can then be located within these scenarios at various points of time. The objectives of the study are: . To propose a way to measure entrepreneurial intensity within the community context in order to determine entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over a period of ten years. . To detect the factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity. . To locate Kibbutz communities on the entrepreneurial grid.

Theoretical framework Entrepreneurial intensity Morris et al. (1994) maintain that economic opportunities arise from organizational innovations. Entrepreneurs exploit opportunities (inputs) and create new ventures (outputs). Thus, within the framework of the organization, the rate of new product introduction distinguishes entrepreneurial from non-entrepreneurial firms (Kanter, 1985; Drucker, 1985; Schuler, 1986). Entrepreneurship is not an either – or phenomenon, but a question of “how often” and “how much” (Morris et al., 1994, p. 26). Thus, entrepreneurial intensity – for any given level of analysis – is a matter of degree, representing a quantitative continuum. The immediate outputs of entrepreneurship are new ventures – following Morris et al. (1994) I maintain that: “. . . it should be recognized that the set of necessary inputs is fairly definite, while the set of possible outputs may or may not happen.” Morris et al. (1994) established an input-output framework describing the intensity of entrepreneurship at the individual and the organizational level. Frequency (the number of entrepreneurial events) and degree (the extent to which events are innovative, risky and proactive) constitute the variables of entrepreneurial intensity (Heilbrunn, 2005). As shown in Figure 1, individuals, organizations or countries can then be placed into an emerging entrepreneurial grid, frequency of entrepreneurship presented at the x-axis and the degree of entrepreneurship represented at the y-axis. Five possible scenarios emerge which the authors label periodic/incremental, continuous/incremental, periodic/discontinuous, dynamic and revolutionary. Thus, organizations can be placed within the grid: organizations launching many entrepreneurial events which are highly innovative, risky and proactive will fit the

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 39

High CONTINUOUS/ INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

Frequency of Entrepreneurship

DYNAMIC

PERIODIC/ INCREMENTAL Low Low

PERIODIC/ DISCONTINUOUS

Degree of Entrepreneurship

High

Source: Morris et al. (1994)

Figure 1. Five categories of entrepreneurial intensity

JEC 2,1

revolutionary segment and organizations launching relatively few entrepreneurial events which rate low on innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness will fit the periodic/incremental segment. Organizational factors of corporate entrepreneurship Since, Kibbutz communities establish the unit of analysis of this paper, its theoretical framework is located within the field of corporate entrepreneurship, which is widely discussed in the entrepreneurial literature (Dess et al., 2003; Ireland et al., 2002; Zahra et al., 2000). A number of studies discuss organizational factors of corporate entrepreneurship (Dess et al., 2003; Zahra et al., 2000; Zahra and Nielson, 2002; Kanter, 1986; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). These studies can be further categorized into contingency approaches (Dess et al., 1997; Zahra, 1993a) and configurational approaches (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005), both dealing with internal and external environmental factors influencing corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance. Organizational resources Slack resources or resource availability are an essential aspect of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin and Miles, 1999; Zajac et al., 1991; Hornsby et al., 2002). In the framework of Kibbutz communities three types of organizational resources are especially important, namely economic strength, membership size and age. For communities such as Kibbutzim, which often exist within socio-economic environments characterized by a very different ideological outlook, age, size and economic strength of the community are of critical importance and often determine survival. Storey (1994) states, that capital availability affects growth and Miles and Arnold (1991) found a positive relationship between size of the organization and corporate entrepreneurship but no significant relationship between age and corporate entrepreneurship. Organizational features Previous studies emphasize different aspects of organizational structure. Management support for new ideas and projects (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), participation in decision making (Barringer and Bluedorn, 1999; Kemelgor, 2002) and autonomy (Sundbo, 1999) are only some examples for structural organizational elements associated with corporate entrepreneurship. The conceptualization of organizational structure in the framework of Kibbutz communities demands for a fit with its organizational nature, taking into consideration that the traditional Kibbutz was ideologically collectivistic with equal allocation of rewards to all members regardless of their inputs. Topol (1996) suggests that “managerialism” is a pattern of Kibbutz organizational structure (such as the introduction of boards of directors, professional non-member managers, and the establishment of profit centers, etc.) and states that increasing “managerialism” represents a transformation process in direction of business orientation, a move towards a more balanced position on the collectivism-individualism continuum. Thus, organizational structure in terms of “managerialism” is expected to have an impact upon entrepreneurial intensity within the Kibbutz community setting. Organizational culture. Organizational culture is described as a key factor of entrepreneurship within a firm (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Culture can encourage or discourage business-related risk-taking (Burgelman and Sayles, 1986) and

40

management support (Brazeal, 1993, Hornsby et al., 1993) and an appropriate reward system (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Kuratko et al., 1990) also constitute elements of organizational culture fostering corporate entrepreneurship (Heilbrunn, 2005). Following Morris et al. (1992) a balanced emphasis between collectivism and individualism will result in higher rates of entrepreneurship than an overemphasis of either pole on the continuum (Heilbrunn, 2005). Thus, in order to account for the Kibbutz community setting in the framework of this study organizational culture is perceived in terms of induced mechanisms of change placing single Kibbutzim on an individualism-collectivism continuum (Getz, 1998). Accounting for the originally collectivistic nature of Kibbutzim and the speculation of Morris et al. (1992) a move towards a more balanced organizational culture would be expected to foster entrepreneurship within the community setting (Heilbrunn, 2005). Institutionalization. Organizations have to integrate innovation as a strategic key element (Schroeder, 1986) within the organizational mainstream. Thus, the likelihood of corporate entrepreneurship to succeed depends not only on the effective management of single projects, but also on the effective management of new stream (Kanter et al., 1990). Zahra (1993b) argues the importance of support mechanisms such as procedures for dealing with new ideas and Hornsby et al. (1990, 1993) stress the need for loose intra – organizational boundaries. Therefore, community organizations must establish “entrepreneurial vehicles” (Kanter et al., 1990) in order to institutionalize the new stream within the mainstream (DiMaggio, 1988). Within the Kibbutz setting entrepreneurial vehicles take the form of entrepreneurship committees, entrepreneurship teams or managers. The study The level of analysis of this study is the Kibbutz community and not the individual entrepreneur. Using a comprehensive questionnaire, a sample of 60 Kibbutzim – constituting 22 percent of the population of Kibbutz communities in Israel – was investigated over a period of ten years. The same questionnaire was administered to the same sample Kibbutzim in 1994, 1997 and 2004. Collected data include number and types of enterprises, economic strength, features of organizational structure and organizational culture, and human capital. Entrepreneurial intensity Following Morris et al. (1994) entrepreneurial intensity is a combination of frequency and degree of entrepreneurship. Thus, the construction of a degree measure compatible with Morris et al.’s (1994) conceptualization, is necessary. The following procedure was applied: First the maximal degree of entrepreneurship for each Kibbutz is calculated. Table I represents the variable profiles of new ventures by types. Based on a former study classifying new business ventures in the Kibbutz framework (Samuel and Heilbrunn, 2001), the parameters of technology, knowledge, capital investment, infrastructure and novelty were chosen to represent the degree of innovation, risk and proactiveness (Samuel and Heilbrunn, 2001, p. 49). Table I shows the rational for the evaluation. Following empirical investigation, each type of venture receives a grade that is based upon an evaluation taking into account the “average” venture representing its type. Thus, for example, the majority of type 6 ventures – personal services such as

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 41

42

JEC 2,1

Criteria for degree

Capital investment 2.5 2.5 2 2 9 6 1 1 4.5 2 1.5 1 1 1 2 1 6 2 1 2

Technology

Infra-structure

Novelty

Degree

Table I. Evaluating the degree of entrepreneurship Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5 Prototype 6 Prototype 7 1 2 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 5

Scope of evaluation

High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) New (2) Old (1) National (2) Organiz. (1) Maxim. ¼ 10 Minim. ¼ 4

beauty parlors and kindergartens ( *) – are characterized by low-capital investment, low level of technology, are based upon existing infrastructure and novel in organizational terms only. Prototype 6 therefore received the degree 4. In accordance with the scope of evaluation, a venture can receive a maximal degree of ten points. Therefore, the maximal degree of entrepreneurship for a Kibbutz with ten ventures is 100 (10 ventures £ degree 10). On this basis it is possible to calculate the actual degree of entrepreneurship for each Kibbutz by taking into consideration the number and the types of ventures of a Kibbutz. Following is the description of one example for clarification: Assume that Kibbutz Alpha has six ventures, two ventures of type 2, two ventures of type 4 and two ventures of type 6. The maximal degree of entrepreneurship for Kibbutz Alpha is 60 (6 £ 10). The actual degree of entrepreneurship for Kibbutz Alpha ¼ (2 £ 6) þ (2 £ 6) þ (2 £ 5) ¼ 34. Entrepreneurial intensity is calculated as the number of ventures per Kibbutz plus the difference between the optimal degree and the actual degree of entrepreneurship. The difference between the optimal and actual degree of entrepreneurship stands for the exploited potential of ventures in terms of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactivity. Thus, the entrepreneurial intensity of a Kibbutz is a calculated combination of the frequency and the degree of entrepreneurship. Factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity The intensity of entrepreneurship in 2004 served as the dependent variable for the second stage of the study. Organizational resources and features established the independent variables and quantitative statistical measures were applied in order to detect the impact of the independent variables upon entrepreneurial intensity of the Kibbutz. Organizational resources Economic strength of the Kibbutzim was evaluated via expert-judgment of office holders (range of judgment from 1 – very weak to 5 – very strong). Organizational size was operationalized in terms of number of residents representing the actual size of the community. Organizational age is the number of years of existence of the Kibbutz. Organizational features Organizational structure is operationalized by means of an index including items that indicate implementation of business orientation and/or managerialism such as accounting procedures, board of directors, etc. The index includes 16 items and is the simple sum of items per Kibbutz, ranking from 0 (a negative answer to all 16 questions) to 16 (a positive answer to all 16 items). The Cronbach’s a result of the index is 0.7682, thus it can be considered reliable (Heilbrunn, 2005). Organizational culture is measured in terms of collectivism versus individualism. The index includes privatization trends in the consumption and work sphere as well as allocation of rewards (Getz, 1998, pp. 16-20). The index includes 12 items and is a simple sum of items per Kibbutz, ranking from 0 (a negative answer to all 12 questions) to 12 (a positive answer to all 12 items). The Cronbach’s a result of the index is 0.7438, thus it can be considered reliable (Heilbrunn, 2005). Institutionalization is a dichotomy variable – indicating whether or not the Kibbutz has established an “entrepreneurial vehicle.”

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 43

JEC 2,1

44

Findings Entrepreneurial intensity and entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over a period of ten years Frequency of entrepreneurship. Table I shows the descriptive statistics of frequency of entrepreneurship in terms of number of ventures per Kibbutz over the period of ten years (Table II). The data reveal that there is a significant increase of average ventures per Kibbutz from 1994 to 1997, and a minor increase of average ventures per Kibbutz between the years 1997 and 2004. In all years there are Kibbutzim with no ventures, but the maximal number of ventures increases over the years, whereas in 1994 the highest venture number is 18 in 2004 one Kibbutz has 35 ventures. Also note that the total number of ventures in the 60 sample Kibbutzim more than doubled in a period of ten years. Degree of entrepreneurship Table III reveals a significant increase as to the calculated degree of entrepreneurship between 1994 and 1997. Minimum stays the same, but maximum increases meaningfully. Between 1997 and 2004 only a minor increase of calculated degree of entrepreneurship can be observed. Entrepreneurial intensity Summing up, the data reveal an increase of overall number of venture in the 60 sample Kibbutzim over ten years, with a dramatic increase between the years 1994 and 1997 and a moderate increase between the years 1997 and 2004. The calculated degree of entrepreneurship per Kibbutz, indicating innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness of the established ventures show a similar trend: a significant increase between the years 1994 and 1997 but no change during the years 1997 and 2004.Entrepreneurial intensity – a function of combined frequency and degree of entrepreneurship per Kibbutz, also shows a dramatic increase between the years 1994 and 1997 and a much more moderate increase between 1997 and 2004 (Table IV). Factors influencing the entrepreneurial intensity Stepwise regression analysis was applied in order to detect which of the independent variables influences entrepreneurial intensity. Stepwise regression removes and adds

1994 Table II. Descriptive statistics of number of ventures per Kibbutz 1994, 1997 and 2004 N (Kibbutzim) Mean (Number of ventures) SD Sum of ventures 60 4.37 3.369 262

1997 60 9.03 5.155 542

2004 60 9.27 5.358 556

Table III. Descriptive statistics for calculated degree of entrepreneurship 1994, 1997 and 2004

1994 N Mean SD 60 22.8 17.43

1997 60 48.03 27.16

2004 60 48.63 28.14

variables to the regression model for the purpose of identifying a useful subset of the predictors (Table V). The results of the regression model indicate that organizational size, organizational age and the existence of an institutionalization mechanism are factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity. In order to further investigate those variables, which have been excluded from the regression model, correlations between the independent variables and the dependent variable were investigated. The correlation analysis revealed that organizational culture and structure correlate significantly with each other (P ¼ 0.648, Sig. ¼ 0.000, N ¼ 60) but do not correlate with the dependent variable. Economic strength correlates positively and significantly with the dependent variable (P ¼ 0.413, Sig. ¼ 0.001, N ¼ 60) and also correlates positively and significantly with organizational size (P ¼ 0.444, Sig. ¼ 0.000, N ¼ 60). Thus, it seems safe to say that economic strength, which correlates positively with entrepreneurial intensity and with organizational size, establishes a kind of “hidden” variable. In other words, the Kibbutzim which are bigger in size are also stronger in terms of evaluated economic strength and have a higher profile of entrepreneurial intensity. Locating Kibbutzim on the entrepreneurial grid Figures 2-4 show the location of the 60 Kibbutzim on the entrepreneurial grid at the years 1994, 1997 and 2004, thus it is possible to observe the overall development of entrepreneurial intensity over a period of ten years. A comparison of the location of the Kibbutzim in 1994, 1997 and 2004 reveals that in terms of the grid, most Kibbutzim remain to be located within the periodic/incremental cluster at all times, thus representing a modest level of entrepreneurship with most entrepreneurial events being only nominally innovative, risky and proactive. Nevertheless, the data also show a general upward movement of entrepreneurial frequency especially in 1997. In other words a group of Kibbutzim is moving into the

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 45

1994 N Mean SD 60 24.5 21.02

1997 60 51.3 30.39

2004 60 54.9 33.77

Table IV. Entrepreneurial intensity of ventures of sample Kibbutzim over a period of ten years

Dependent variable Entrepreneurial intensity

Independent variables (predictors) (Constant) Organizational size Institutionalization Organizational age Excluded independent variables Organizational structure Organizational culture Economic strength

B 2 35.397 0.061 21.094 0.888

b
0.311 0.311 0.239 b in 0.083 0.052 0.186

R2 N

Sig. 0.164 0.008 0.007 0.048 Sig. 0.438 0.651 0.127 0.404 60

Table V. Results of step-wise regression model

JEC 2,1

High

40.00 35.00 Frequency of Entrepreneurship 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00
PERIODIC/ INCREMENTAL PERIODIC/ DISCONTINUOUS DYNAMIC CONTINUOUS/ INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

46

Figure 2. Kibbutzim on the grid 1994

Low

0.00 0.00
Low

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00
High

Degree of Entrepreneurship

High

40 35 CONTINUOUS/ INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

Frequency of Entrepreneurship

30 25 20 15 10 5 PERIODIC/ INCREMENTAL PERIODIC/ DISCONTINUOUS DYNAMIC

Figure 3. Kibbutzim on the grid 1997

Low

0 0.00 Low

50.00 100.00 150.00 Degree of Entrepreneurship

200.00 High

dynamic cluster as a result of increase in entrepreneurial frequency and degree. In 2004 no major changes in comparison to 1997 can be seen, except for one Kibbutz now located in the revolutionary cluster. In terms of Morris et al. (1994) this is a community with a very high level of entrepreneurial intensity, encompassing

High 40 35 Frequency of Entrepreneurship 30 CONTINUOUS/ INCREMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 47

25 20 15 10 5 PERIODIC/ INCREMENTAL PERIODIC/ DISCONTINUOUS DYNAMIC

Low

0 0.00 Low

50.00 100.00 150.00 Degree of Entrepreneurship

200.00 High

Figure 4. Kibbutzim on the grid 2004

many innovative ventures. Via the framework of the entrepreneurial grid it is possible to see the development of entrepreneurial intensity of the Kibbutzim over time. Although the majority of theses communities remain within the periodic/incremental cluster, an upwards tendency towards the dynamic cluster can be observed, indicating an increase of frequency and degree of entrepreneurial activity. It thus seems that Kibbutz communities are adapting to environmental changes and investing in strategies potentially increasing community development. Discussion and conclusion In this paper, I proposed a method to measure entrepreneurial intensity in order to determine entrepreneurial activity of Kibbutz communities over a period of ten years. The concept of entrepreneurial intensity encompasses not only the number of entrepreneurial events, but accounts also for the level of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactivenss. The findings of the study revealed a significant increase of entrepreneurial intensity especially between the years 1994 and 1997. This increase can be explained by external and internal factors influencing the Kibbutz movement during the period in question. The macro-level socio-economic environment in Israel became constantly more competitive, and at the same time, Kibbutz communities underwent processes of change towards a more individualistic organizational climate. The growing entrepreneurial engagement by members of the community reflects the need of the individual within the community to take responsibility for his/her economic future and also reflects the need of the community to generate variety in order to survive in a changing, competitive environment. Kibbutz communities increase the frequency of entrepreneurship over the years but do not manage to increase the degree of entrepreneurship at the same time (see the grid location). This might be due to

JEC 2,1

48

the fact, that they can still be characterized as rather collectivistic in comparison to their external environment. Thus, variety is generated via processes of adaptation and incremental change (Reich, 1987) and relatively small, equilibrium restoring (Kirzner, 1985) ventures emerge. The Kibbutz community acts like an incubator with leverage of resources accomplished via adherence to shared norms, values and goals of Kibbutz members (Wilkens and Ouchi, 1983). Life-style rather than high-growth entrepreneurship (Henderson, 2002) emerges which fits the community setting well. In a previous research on Kibbutz communities, analyzing only the frequency of entrepreneurship, institutionalization established the explanatory independent variable. The presence or absence of an “entrepreneurial vehicle” influenced the number of entrepreneurial events (Heilbrunn, 2005). In this study, the intensity of entrepreneurship was analyzed, taking into account not only the quantitative but also the qualitative aspect of entrepreneurial events. Now organizational resources in terms of size, age and economic strength influence the entrepreneurial intensity of the Kibbutz, meaning that the stronger the community in terms of these resources, the more entrepreneurial activity can be observed. Nevertheless, although theses resources allow for entrepreneurial activity to take place, they do not necessarily increase their degree in terms of innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness. Thus, more than resources are needed in order for the Kibbutz movement to move towards the revolutionary cluster of the grid, indicating high frequency and degree of entrepreneurship. The findings of this paper contribute to the corporate entrepreneurship literature by utilizing the model proposed by Morris et al. (1994) in the framework of communities, thus enabling the analysis of development of entrepreneurial activity over time. The notion of entrepreneurial intensity takes into consideration not only frequency but also degree of entrepreneurship, thereby differentiating quality of entrepreneurial outcome. In accordance with the results of the study, policy makers should consider measures aimed at increasing qualitative rather than quantitative aspects of entrepreneurship, mainly in terms of improving institutionalization in terms of entrepreneurial vehicles. Further research should investigate entrepreneurial intensity in communities other than the Kibbutz. Various kinds of communities could then be compared as to their location on the entrepreneurial grid and as to the factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity. The fact that in the framework of this study only Kibbutzim were investigated constitutes its main limitation.
References Anderson, R. (2002), “Entrepreneurship and aboriginal Canadians: a case study in economic development”, Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-66. Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999), “The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 421-44. Brazeal, D.V. (1993), “Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, pp. 75-90. Burgelman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986), Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Managerial Skills, Free Press, New York, NY. Covin, J.G. and Covin, T.J. (1990), “Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context, and small firm performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 35-50.

Covin, J.G. and Miles, M.P. (1999), “Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 47-63. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 75-87. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25. Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. and Covin, J. (1997), “Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: tests of contingency and configurational models”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 677-95. Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003), “Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 351-78. DiMaggio, P.J. (1988), “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, in Zucker, L.G. (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-22. Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Getz, S. (1998), “Winds of change”, in Leviatan, U., Oliver, H. and Quarter, J (Eds), Crisis in the Israeli Kibbutz, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 13-26. Gluck, Y. (1998), “Individual needs and public distribution in the Kibbutz”, in Leviatan, U., Oliver, H. and Quarter, J. (Eds), Crisis in the Israel Kibbutz, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 119-30. Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-81. Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990), “Guest editors’ introduction: corporate entrepreneurship”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 5-15. Heilbrunn, S. (2005), “The impact of organizational change on entrepreneurship in community settings”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 422-36. Henderson, J. (2002), “Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs”, working paper of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, available at: www.kc.frb.org Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), “Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253-73. Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1990), “Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate environmental environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 49-58. Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 29-37. Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Covin, J.G. (2002), “Antecedents, elements, and consequences of corporate entrepreneurship strategy”, working paper, University of Richmond, Virginia. Kanter, R.M. (1984), The Change Masters, Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Kanter, R.M. (1985), “Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 47, pp. 47-60. Kanter, R.M. (1986), “Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-60.

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 49

JEC 2,1

50

Kanter, R.M., North, J., Bernstein, A.P. and Williamson, A. (1990), “Engines of progress: designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, pp. 415-30. Kemelgor, B. (2002), “A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between selected firms in The Netherlands and the USA”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 14, pp. 67-87. Kirzner, I.M. (1985), Discovery and Capitalist Process, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. Kuratko, D.F., Motagno, R.V. and Hornsby, J.S. (1990), “Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 49-58. Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72. Miles, M.P. and Arnold, D.R. (1991), “The relationship between market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 49-65. Morris, M.M., Lewis, P.S. and Sexton, D.L. (1994), “Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship: an input-output perspective”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Winter, pp. 1-31. Morris, M.H., Pitt, L.F., Davis, D.L. and Allen, J.A. (1992), “Individualism and corporate entrepreneurship: cross-cultural comparison”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1992, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, pp. 552-64. Palgi, M. (2002), “Organizational change and ideology: the case of the Kibbutz”, International Review of Sociology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 389-402. Peredo, A.M. and Chrisman, J.J. (2006), “Towards a theory of community-based enterprise”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 309-28. Reich, R.B. (1987), “Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as a hero”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65, pp. 77-83. Richman, C.L. (2004), “Kibbutzim in constant transition”, Psychology Developing Societies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 125-38. Rocha, H. (2004), “Entrepreneurship and development: the role of clusters”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 363-400. Rule, E.G. and Irwing, D.W. (1988), “Fostering intrapreneurship: the competitive edge”, The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 44-7. Samuel, Y. and Heilbrunn, S. (2001), “Entrepreneurship in the Kibbutz setting: towards a classification of new business ventures”, Journal of Rural Corporation, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-62. Schroeder, D.M. (1986), “A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon competitive strategies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 25-41. Schuler, R.S. (1986), “Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations: implications for organization structure and human resource management practices”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 607-29. Seginer, R. and Schlesinger, R. (1998), “Adolescents future orientation in time and place: the case of the Israeli Kibbutz”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 22, pp. 151-67. Stevenson, H.H. (2000), “Why entrepreneurship has won”, Coleman White Paper USASBC Plenary Address, February 17. Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship entrepreneurial management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 17-27. Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.

Sundbo, J. (1999), “Empowerment of employees in small and medium-sized service firms”, Employee Relations, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 105-27. Tiessen, J.H. (1997), “Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: a framework for international comparative research”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, pp. 367-84. Topol, M. (1996), “Trends of change in Kibbutzim”, Journal of Rural Corporation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 87-102. Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999), “Linking entrepreneurship to economic growth”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-55. Wiklund, J. (1998), “Entrepreneurial orientation as predictor of performance and entrepreneurial behavior in small firms – longitudinal evidence”, Frontier of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Babson Park, MA. Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, pp. 71-91. Wilkens, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983), “Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 468-81. Williamson, O. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, Free Press, New York, NY. Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors of financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: a taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-85. Zahra, S.A. (1993a), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 17, pp. 5-22. Zahra, S.A. (1993b), “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: a taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-40. Zahra, S.A. and Nielson, A.P. (2002), “Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 377-98. Zahra, S.A., Neubaum, D.O. and Huse, M. (2000), “Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 947-76. Zajac, E.J., Golden, B.R. and Shortell, S.M. (1991), “New organizational forms for enhancing innovation. The case of internal corporate ventures”, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 170-84. Further reading Heilbrunn, S. (1999), “Corporate entrepreneurship in the Kibbutz movement”, PhD thesis, University of Haifa, Haifa. Corresponding author Sibylle Heilbrunn can be contacted at: sibylleh@ruppin.ac.il

Entrepreneurial intensity in communities 51

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints