Review of Business Research, Vol. VI, No. 5, 2006 pp.

114-124

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATIONS IN

STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES IN MALAYSIA

Harry Entebang, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Shazali Abu Mansor, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
Chin-Hong Puah, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

The growth of Government Linked Companies (GLCs) in Malaysia has been phenomenal in terms of
investment, production, revenue and range of activities. GLCs constitute a substantial portion of the
Malaysian economy and they have been regarded as instruments of national growth, supplementing
the Government’s efforts to promote the social and economic goals and objectives of the country.
However, the general performance of GLCs continues to be a major concern. Research on these
companies is minimal. This study attempts to determine the level of entrepreneurial orientation in a
sample of GLCs in Malaysia in relation to the dimensions of innovation, risk taking, proactiveness and
aggressive competitiveness. According to the findings of the study, based on a questionnaire survey,
the GLCs show positive entrepreneurial behavior in innovation, proactiveness and competitive
aggressiveness, but are low in their rating for risk taking.

Keywords: Corporate Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Government Linked Companies

1. INTRODUCTION

The Malaysian Government’s involvement in commerce and industry became significant in the mid
1980s following the introduction of its privatization policy. The main objective of this policy was to
reduce the financial burden of the Government and, at the same time, to improve the delivery systems
of goods and services to the general public. Subsequently, more privatized companies and
enterprises were formed when the social and economic benefits of this policy became apparent.
These Government-owned business enterprises are generally known as Government Linked
Companies (GLCs).

A brief review of selected literature indicates that most of these enterprises operate and establish their
dominance in basic and strategic industries of the economy such as manufacturing, financial services,
telecommunications, energy, transportation, tourism, petrol-chemicals and infrastructure development.
GLCs comprise more than one-third of the market capitalization of Bursa Malaysia, the Malaysian
stock market (Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance, 2005).

In the context of globalization and the rapidly changing environment it brought about, at both the
international and national levels, the Malaysian Government began to recognize the significance of
GLCs as strategic tools for achieving economic transformation. A review of various government
reports and publications as well as their financial statements reveals that many of these GLCs are
under-performing with regard to the quality of their goods and services as well as financially. However,
some of the GLCs have shown innovation, customer orientation and competitiveness in their
performance. The purpose of this study is to assess the entrepreneurial intensity of certain State
Government-owned enterprises in Malaysia in terms of innovativeness, competitive aggressiveness,
risk taking, and proactiveness.

2. RESEARCH ISSUES

Organizations in North America and Europe are undergoing unprecedented transformation. The
urgency to deliver high quality products and services due to the intensity of competitive pressures has
forced many corporate leaders to rethink the strategic positioning of their business enterprises. As a
result, corporate entrepreneurship is quickly becoming a weapon of choice for many of these large
companies because it entails both the mindset and skills demonstrated by successful start-up
entrepreneurs, and the inculcation of these characteristics into the culture and activities of the large
companies (Thornberry, 2001).

The East Asian economic crisis of 1997/98 has also compelled many organizations in the countries of
this region to undergo transformation through restructuring, reorganization, reengineering,
downsizing, rightsizing and de-layering. Government-owned enterprises, however, have generally
continued to perform below expectation. Problems such as lack of good management, high fixed
costs, absence of a competitive environment, bureaucracy, continued budgetary support, multiple
non-commercial and other conflicting objectives have contributed to the relatively low profitability and
inefficiency of these enterprises (Akram, 1999). The performance of government-owned enterprises is
still not satisfactory in spite of multifold activities and enormous investment (Singh and Pant, 1995).

In the pursuit of corporate entrepreneurship, different organizations have acted differently. Some
organizations focus more on organizational rejuvenation where they try their best to improve their
internal processes, structures, and capabilities through process and administrative innovations, but
not product innovations. Others place more emphasis on strategic renewal by looking at how they can
compete against their rivals, or redefine domains by proactively seeking to create new product market
positions before their competitors. Some strive for sustained regeneration whereby they develop
cultures, processes, and structures to support and encourage a continuous stream of new products in
their currents markets and introducing them, together with existing products, into new markets (Covin
and Miles, 1999).

In light of the above developments, an investigation into the corporate entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial orientations of GLCs in Malaysia is relevant. Previous studies by Radzi (1992); Siti-
Maimon (1993); and Chang (2000) focused only on the intrapreneurship of non-GLCs in Malaysia.

2.1 The Emergence of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Research on individual entrepreneurship received wide attention among entrepreneurship scholars in

the past. However, there has been a growing interest in corporate entrepreneurship (CE) as a means
for corporations to enhance employees’ innovative abilities and increase corporate success . Some
have argued that CE is an effective means for a firm’s growth and for enhancing corporate value by
creating an environment that supports individual and corporate growth, by providing an opportunity for
employees to use their creative skills, and quickening a company’s response to the market through
creating an organizational culture of inter-functional collaboration (Cheng-An and Su, 2001). CE also
involves extending the company’s domain of competence and exploiting opportunities to promote
entrepreneurial efforts that create new venture streams . However, there is currently a lack of
compelling empirical evidence on the correlation between CE and organizational performance.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Several authors have concluded that the concept of corporate entrepreneurship has taken several
forms . For example, CE can mean corporate venturing or intrapreneurship initiated in established
organizations for purposes of competitiveness and profitability . Others regard CE as strategic
renewal ; fostering innovativeness ; gaining knowledge for future revenue streams ; international
success ; product, process, and administrative innovations (Covin and Miles, 1999); radical product
innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness (Covin, 1991); diversification ; processes through which
individuals’ ideas are transformed into collective actions through the management of uncertainties ;
entrepreneurial behavior inside established organizations (Morris and Kuratko, 2002); managerial
entrepreneurship under which organizations pursue enhancement of customer satisfaction, reduction
of red tape, and promotion of risk-taking activities (Moon, 1999); and organizations that generate a
stream of innovations, systematically and consistently .

The far-reaching impact of globalization, in terms of market, consumers, competitors and

technologies, on businesses has made CE more relevant (Kemelgor, 2002; Adler, 1997). This
phenomenon has forced organizations to rethink how they produce and deliver products and services
(Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997) as stagnation in such an environment leads to erosion of market share
or quick failure (Tellis and Golder, 1996). As a result, organizations around the world continue to
struggle to find new ways to accomplish growth, profitability and competitiveness (Postigo, 2002).
Therefore, in the pursuit of opportunities, a continuous emphasis has been placed on encouraging
entrepreneurial activities in corporations ; Covin and Slevin, 1986; Wortman, 1987; Gartner, 1988; .
Such endeavors will cause corporations to exhibit characteristics associated with the individual
entrepreneur, such as risk taking, innovativeness, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness.

Miller (1983) coined the term “entrepreneurial orientation” (EO) and suggests that EO is a combination
of risk-taking, innovation, and proactiveness. He argued that an entrepreneurial firm is one that
“engages in product market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures and is first to formulate
proactive innovations, beating competitors to the punch”. Later, Covin, (1991) described EO as the
key dimension of entrepreneurship.

While CE continues to be regarded as an effective approach for revitalizing companies and

generating wealth (Mair and Rata, 2004), only limited progress has been made in establishing a
correlation between entrepreneurship in a corporate setting and a firm’s performance (Brandt, 1986;
Cornwall and Perlman, 1990; Wiklund, 1999).

4. CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ITS ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATIONS IN

GOVERNMENT LINKED COMPANIES

The development of CE and its entrepreneurial orientations (EO) has long been recognized by private
sector organizations as a viable means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness
through efforts aimed at the rejuvenation, renewal, and redefinition of organizations, their markets, or
industries (Covin and Miles, 1999). According to Miller (1983), these organizations demonstrated risk-
taking, innovation and proactiveness through efforts such as product market innovation, undertaking
somewhat risky projects, and being first to formulate proactive innovators. Covin (1991) regarded
such an orientation as the key dimension of entrepreneurship.

In this study, we define CE as a firm’s continuous effort to introduce new products or services, and to
apply new methods or strategies in order to improve its performance. EO refers to a firm’s ability to
respond effectively to its opportunities and threats, by utilizing tools such as an appropriate strategic
plan, resources, structure, rewards and culture.

As the presence of GLCs in commerce and industries become more established and significant in
most major sectors of the Malaysian economy, the Government also expects its enterprises to
perform competitively in line with the primary objective of privatizing previous government agencies as
well as the incorporation of GLCs (Mokhtar, 2004). To achieve this outcome, the Government, through
Khazanah Nasional Berhad (Khazanah), its premier investment vehicle, introduced several
performance measures for public-owned companies in 2004 and 2005. The 2004 measures include:
guidelines on key performance indicators and performance-linked compensation, changes in board
and senior management composition, revamping of Khazanah, and the introduction of principles for
the formation of boards of directors, including the exclusion of regulators on the boards of public listed
companies (Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance, 2005).

In July 2005, the Putrajaya Committee summarized and highlighted ten major initiatives to enhance
the performance of GLCs. The initiatives are: enhancing board effectiveness, strengthening director
capabilities, enhancing government linked-investment company monitoring and management
capabilities, improving regulatory environment, clarifying social obligations, reviewing and revamping
procurement, improving capital management, managing and developing human capital, intensifying
performance management and enhancing operational improvement. We consider that such programs,
initiatives and directions fall within the definitions and frameworks of corporate entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial orientations.

4.1 Rationales for Establishing GLCs

There are a number of reasons behind privatization programs. The following are some of them:
reducing government involvement in industry; increasing efficiency; reducing public sector borrowings;
widening share ownership; granting employees share ownership; and gaining political advantage
(Marsh, 1991 and Moore, 1992). Gillis et al. (1987) have outlined the reasons for creating public
enterprises and have grouped them into three separate but inextricably related categories, namely,
primary economic, sociopolitical motives and mixed motives.

In the economic category, the reasons include: savings mobilization, employment objectives, and
capital aggregation, which are regarded as important in the establishment of public firms.
Sociopolitical reasons include social goals, concentration of economic power, and the preferences of
some foreign aid donors. In addition, GLCs are also created when the Government wishes to conduct
some form of commercial enterprise without the usual governmental bureaucratic strictures and red
tape (Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2001). This is because commercialization provides
greater incentives to manage costs and improve the quality of the goods and services provided to the
public at large.

4.2 Background of GLCs in Malaysia

In Malaysia, the establishment of GLCs can be traced back to the 1970s. A total of 82 government-
linked companies, in various key sectors, have been established and put under the direct control of
the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Apart from holding shares directly through the MOF, the Federal
Government has also invested heavily through Khazanah, its premier investment agency, which holds
ownership in 52 profit seeking organizations (Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance, 2005).

On the part of the State Governments, the state-owned enterprises have been initiated and
undertaken either by the State Financial Offices, State Economics Development Corporations
(SEDCs) or the relevant Statutory Bodies in the respective states. Figure 1 shows the ownership
structure of GLCs in Malaysia.

Ministry of Finance (MOF)

Federal Government

Khazanah Nasional Bhd

Government
State Governments State Financial Offices Linked
Companies
(GLCs)
State Economic Development
Corporations, Statutory Bodies

FIGURE 1: OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF GLCS IN MALAYSIA

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this paper, we adopt the terms and definitions taken from Section 4 of the GLC Transformation
Manual produced by the Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance (PCG). The PCG is made
up of five major government public enterprises and headed by the Second Minister of Finance. It has
defined GLCs as companies that have a primary commercial objective and in which the Malaysian
Government has a direct controlling stake. This includes the Government’s ability to appoint members
of the Board of Directors and senior management, and to make major decisions for GLCs either
directly or through Government Linked Investment Companies (GLICs).
We focus our study of GLCs’ entrepreneurial orientations (EO) at State Government level on the four
dimensions of innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness. The scales
developed by ); ); Covin and Slevin (1986); Covin and Slevin (1989); Covin et al. (1990) are employed
with a few variables added to each of the dimensions. According to these authors, an EO consists of
processes, structures, and/or behaviors that can be described as aggressive, innovative, proactive,
and risk taking. It is a combined construct, encompassing a number of dimensions of decision making
styles and practices.

In this study, we have confined our sampling population to companies established by State
Governments through the State Economic Development Corporations (SEDCs) and the State
Financial Offices (FOs). Four out of the thirteen states of Malaysia have been selected, namely,
Sarawak, Pulau Pinang, Selangor, and Sabah, together with Kuala Lumpur, the capital city. Sarawak
and Sabah were selected to represent the GLCs in East Malaysia and the rest were selected because
they represent the most active and established state-owned companies in Peninsular Malaysia.

The primary source of data in this paper is a self-report questionnaire survey of the Chief Executive
Officers (CEOs) of the organizations selected. According to Hambrick , this “key informant” opinion
has been generally highly reflective of the organization as a whole. Each of the four EO dimensions
consists of 5 variables and a total of 20 variables are tested. The survey instrument was presented
mostly in the form of the Likert scale, and each of these scales used a 7-point Likert approach to
measuring a respondent’s answer to an item.

6. RESEARCH FINDINGS

In the initial stage of the study, the five-page questionnaire was sent to 128 CEOs in the target
population. The CEOs were asked to complete the questionnaire by indicating to the best of his/her
knowledge about his/her firm’s entrepreneurial orientations in terms of innovativeness, proactiveness,
risk taking and competitive aggressiveness. Initially only 19 CEOs, or 15% of the total, responded.
Due to this poor response rate, follow-up action was taken in the form of telephone calls and personal
visits. As a result, the number of CEOs who responded to the survey increased to 26, i.e. slightly
above 20%. This response rate could be considered as acceptable given that the five page self-report
questionnaire was all completed by the CEOs of the companies that actually responded. According to
, a 20% forecasted response rate from surveys of top executives is sufficient.

Finally, the data were analyzed using SPSS software. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.923 was
obtained reflecting clarity and reliability of the survey items. Two levels of analysis have been
undertaken to determine the findings. First, descriptive data were analyzed to capture the profile of
the GLCs. This was followed by the inferential statistics using factor analysis to identify the important
factors affecting the performance of the GLCs concerned.

6.1 Profile of GLCs

The total of 26 respondents were all CEOs from GLCs that represent a broad cross-section of public
enterprises. The largest number of respondents came from the manufacturing sector. Table 1 below
shows the profile of these companies.

TABLE 1: PROFILE OF GLCS

 NO SECTOR No of GLCs
1 Manufacturing 6
2 Construction & Development 2
3 Tourism 3
4 Education 1
5 Information & Communication Technology 3
6 Consulting Services 1
7 Hotel & Leisure 1
8 Port & Logistic 2
9 Property Management & Maintenance 3
10 Utilities 2
11 Marketing & Trading 1
12 Financial & Banking Services 1
FIVE OFTHESE COMPANIES WERE FORMED IN THE 1970S WHILE SIX OTHERS WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE 1980S. FOURTEEN
OF THEM WERE INCORPORATED IN THE 1990S AND ONLY ONE WAS FORMED IN 2004. THEY HAVE A TOTAL OF 5,515
EMPLOYEES.

6.2 Factor Analysis

Our analysis was grounded on the following factors. The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy of
0.663 indicates that the data is adequate for factor analysis. Factor analysis was used to group
together variables that are highly correlated. A factor analysis was run with the 20 items capturing
entrepreneurial orientations of GLCs. This analysis involves three steps: (1) extracting factors from a
correlation matrix; (2) deciding how many factors need to be interpreted; and (3) rotating the retained
factors. We then employed a “Varimax” rotation technique to highlight which variables have high
loadings.

Using the Kaiser rule, the number of factors was determined by dropping the least important factors
from the analysis, i.e. all components with Eigenvalues under 0.5. We discovered that nineteen of the
twenty EO items had significant factor loadings (≥ ± 0.5) accounting for 78.7% of the total variance.
This indicates that 95% of the variables are the most important determinant of performance in the
GLCs. Table 2 below shows the rotated principal factors solutions.

TABLE 2: FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION IN GLCS

Factors Sub-Variables’ Variance (% of Explained)

Loading [Eigenvalues]
1. Factor
a. Risk Taking 6 0.882
b. Risk Taking 10 0.841
c. Risk Taking 9 0.819
d. Risk Taking 8 0.798 44.213
e. Innovativeness 4 0.729 [8.843]
f. Proactiveness 14 0.684
g. Innovativeness 5 0.655
h. Competitive Aggressiveness 20 0.640
i. Risk Taking 7 0.602

2. Factor
a. Proactiveness 11 0.820
b. Proactiveness 13 0.724 12.37
c. Proactiveness 12 0.604 [2.474]

3. Factor
a. Innovativeness 2 0.818
b. Innovativeness 3 0.764 9.236
c. Proactiveness 15 0.628 [1.847]
 4. Factor
a. Competitive Aggressiveness 17 0.788 7.076
b. Competitive Aggressiveness 16 0.702 [1.415]

5. Factor
a. Innovativeness 1 0.787 5.808
b. Competitive Aggressiveness 18 0.543 [1.162]

Total Percentage of Variance Explained 78.702

Note: All factor loadings < 0.50 were excluded from the table.

We also examined the correlation among variables using Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the
innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness factors and found that all
items used in this survey are significantly correlated. The results are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3: CORRELATION BETWEEN INNOVATIVENESS, RISK TAKING,

PROACTIVENESS AND COMPETITIVE AGGRESSIVENESS

Innovativeness Risk-Taking Proactiveness Competitive

Aggressiveness
Innovativeness 1
Risk-Taking 0.68** 1
Proactiveness 0.79** 0.51** 1
Competitive 0.55** 0.66** 0.56** 1
Aggressiveness
Note: ** indicates significant at 1% level.

7. DISCUSSIONS

Researchers have long associated entrepreneurship with risk taking. In assessing the corporate
entrepreneurial orientation of the state-owned GLCs in this study with regard to risk taking, the
responses of their CEOs reveal that promotion of risk taking projects and activities is not encouraged.
Normally, actions are taken according to standard procedures; and a strong proclivity for low–risk
projects is acknowledged. In addition, the GLCs prefer to study a problem thoroughly before deploying
resources to solve it. In view of this, we postulate that the GLCs have a propensity to act within the
rules and procedures set by the shareholders. Most GLCs must seek approval from the shareholder,
i.e. the Government, before a decision to undertake a project or not is made. Risk minimization is
ensured by such a way of decision making.

However, when the organizations are confronted with a decision-making situation that involves
uncertainty, they typically adopt a bold, aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of
exploiting potential opportunities. Although the CEOs of the GLCs concerned claim that a bold
aggressive approach is adopted in exploiting potential opportunities, such behavior is, however,
limited by availability of resources. This can be seen from the decision-making practices of the GLCs
under study. Nevertheless, as far as risk taking is concerned, the GLCs’ behavior is in line with the
argument of Morris (1998) that organizational entrepreneurial behavior is characterized by moderate
or calculated risk taking.

Scholars have found that innovation does lead to better business performance (Neely and Hii, 1998).
Our investigation of the entrepreneurial intensity of the State-owned GLCs in terms of innovativeness
reveals that the top management of the GLCs prefers to adapt, for their own use, methods and
techniques that others have developed and proven. Nevertheless, they do favor experimentation and
original approaches to problem solving. Notably, during the past three years, GLCs have marketed
many new lines of products or services, although changes of such product or service lines were
mostly of a minor nature. Our study shows that, in order to ensure their firms’ competitiveness in the
market place, the GLCs have recognized innovation as a significant factor, and thus enhanced its
overall entrepreneurial intensity. However, whether or not the GLCs have generated a stream of
innovations, systematically and consistently, is subject to further study.

Due to increasing competition and ever-changing market conditions in Malaysia, most CEOs of the
GLCs in this study have been proactive in their action and have placed strong emphasis on
continuous improvement in production and service delivery methods. This study also reveals that the
GLCs concerned have a high tendency to be ahead of other competitors in introducing novel ideas or
products and to be the first to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating
technologies etc. In this regard, their ability to initiate actions, which competitors then respond to, is
consistent with the study by Lumpkin and Dess (1996). Lumpkin and Dess regard proactiveness as a
response to opportunities – ‘how firms relate to market opportunities by seizing initiative and leading
in the marketplace.’

From the perspective of competitive aggressiveness, this study finds that generally the GLCs do
actively search for business opportunities. However, they prefer to deal only with customers and
suppliers in the local vicinity. This affects their overall market share. Nevertheless, in dealing with their
competitors, most of the GLCs are very aggressive and intensely competitive, and this finding
supports the work of Venkataraman (1997). Further inquiry into their competitive aggressiveness
reveals that most of the GLCs did not have a well-written policy and strategy to outperform industry
rivals, until recently. Therefore, cutting prices and sacrificing profitability by some of the GLCs in the
past might have been done without positive effects to their long-term growth and their shareholders’
value creation.

8. CONCLUSION

In this preliminary research, we discovered that most of the State Government-owned GLCs have a
strong proclivity for low-risk projects. While this may be a proper basis for determining project
selection, projects with low risks have low returns, and vice versa. Such an approach means less
creation of shareholder value in these GLCs. On the other hand, actions/decisions taken by following
established rules and normal procedures are standard practice within the bureaucratic environment
that these GLCs operate in. However rigid adherence to rules and procedures- leads to less risk
taking, less creativity and the probability of losing high rates of return.

In terms of innovativeness, the GLCs use only proven methods and techniques that others have
developed. This could be viewed as appropriate in view of the fact that they are government-funded
entities. However, to stimulate and inculcate innovativeness among their employees, the GLCs should
develop methods and techniques of their own. In the light of constant market change, introducing
novel, innovative or creative solutions, as suggested by , should become a yearly target for all of the
GLCs. Putting a strong emphasis on continuous improvement in production or service delivery
methods, and a high tendency to be ahead of other competitors in introducing new ideas or products,
are necessary for the attainment of the firm’s goals . Innovative efforts to search for big opportunities
and the aggressiveness to outperform competitors should remain as key strategies of the GLCs.

In summary, although the GLCs’ involved in this study have revealed some degree of innovativeness,
proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness in the way they conduct their businesses, they have a
tendency to avoid risk taking. The CEOs of these GLCs can play a more active role in creating an
organizational environment where risk taking is encouraged. This would be one way that this study
has identified that could contribute to further growth and profitability of government enterprises in
Malaysia.

9. LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This research is an incipient investigation and assessment of corporate entrepreneurship and its
entrepreneurial orientations of State Government-owned GLCs in Malaysia. There are a number of
limitations associated with this research that may influence the generalizability of the results. First, the
research does not include GLCs owned by the Federal Government, even though they comprise more
than one third of the Malaysian stock market capitalization, but is confined to only state-owned
enterprises. Second, the sample might be biased as the population used in this study is limited to the
CEOs of the companies and the data used is based mainly on their responses. The poor response
rate results in a smaller sample for the research. Therefore, a clear and concrete finding of CE and its
EO in GLCs is still subject to further empirical tests. Third, we only assess the EO of GLCs from four
dimensions, namely innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness.
There is a need in future research to examine other aspects of the EO in such GLCs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The authors acknowledge the financial support rendered by UNIMAS through the Fundamental
Research Grant No. 03(44)463/2004(200).

REFERENCES:
Adler, N.J. (1997). International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour, 3rd ed (Cincinnati, OH:
Southwestern).
Akram, T. (1999). Ineffective privatization of public enterprises: The case of Bangladesh: Columbia
University-Department of Economics.
Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Strategic innovation, corporate entrepreneurship and matching outside-in to
inside-out approaches to strategy research. British Journal of Management, 6(Special Issue).
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristic of subsidiary
initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207-229.
Brandt, S. (1986). Entrepreneuring in Established Companies. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Burgelman, R.A. (1991). Intraorganisational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation:
Theory and field research. Organisational Science, 2, 239-262.
Chang, J. (2000). Intrapreneurship and exopreneurship in manufacturing firms: An empirical study of
performance implications. Retrieved 14.4.2006.
Cheng-An, P.T., & Su, L.T. (2001). The driver of corporate entrepreneurship: Opportunity or
Resources.
Chung, L.H.M. & Gibbons, P.T. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship: The roles of ideology and social
capital. Group and Organization Management, 22, 10-30.
Cornwall, J.R., & Perlman, B. (1990). Organisational Entrepreneurship, Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
Covin, J.G. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strategies and
performance. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 439-462.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.
Covin, J.G., & Miles, M.P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47-63.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1986). The Development and Testing of an Organizational-level
Entrepreneurial Scale. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.K., & Covin, T.J. (1990). The content and performance of growth seeking
strategies: A comparison of small firms in high and low technology industries. Journal of
Business Venturing, 5(6), 391-412.
Department of the Parliementary Library, (2001). Government Business Enterprises and Public
Accountability through Parliament, Research Paper No. 18, 1999-2000.
Ferreira, J. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship: A strategic and structural perspective, International
Council for Small Business. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Gaedeke, R.M., & Tootelian, T.H. (1976). The fortune 500 list-an endangered species for academic
research. Journal of Business Research, 4, 283-288.
Gartner, W.B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 19(4), 11-32.
Gillis, M., Perkins, D.H., Roemer, M., & Snodgrass, D.R. (1987). Economics of Development (2nd ed.).
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Guth, W., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editor’s introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Management Journal, 11, 5-15.
Hambrick, D.C. (1981). Environment, strategy, and power within top management teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 253-276.
Herbert, T.T., & Brazeal, D.V. (1998). The future of the corporate: Corporate entrepreneurship on the
fly.
Kemelgor, B.H. (2002). A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between
selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
14, 67-87.
Khandwalla, P.N. (1977). The Design of Organizations (1st ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc.
Kirkman, B.L., & Shapiro, D.L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams:
Toward a model of globalised self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of
Management Review, 22, 730-757.
Knight, G.A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial
orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 213-225.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking to
performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172.
Mair, J., & Rata, C. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship: Linking strategic roles to multiple dimensions
of performance. Working paper, IESE Business School, University of Navarra.
Marsh, D. (1991). Privatisation under Mrs Thatcher: Review of the literature. Public Administration,
69(Winter), 459-480.
McGrath, R.G., Ventakataraman, S., & MacMillan, I.C. (1994). The advantage chain: Antecedents to
rents from internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 351-369.
Md. Radzi, M.N. (1992). Differences in intrapreneurial personality, styles, and climate between
American and Malaysian intrapreneurs. Journal of International Business Entrepreneurship,
1(1), 107-116.
Miles, M.P., Arnold, D.R., & Thompson, D.L. (1993). The interrelationship between environmental
hostility and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 9(4), 12-23.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science,
29(7), 770-791.
Mokhtar, A.H. (2004). Remaking Khazanah and the GLCs. Retrieved 31.3.2006.
Moon, M.J. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter? Public
Administration Review, January/February, 59(1).
Moore, J. (1992). Privatisation everywhere. The world’s adoption of the British experience. London.
Centre for Policy Studies.
Morris, M., & Kuratko, D. (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship. Ed. Harcourt.
Morris, M.A. (1998). Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantage for Individuals, Organizations
and Societies. Westport, CT: Quorum Book.
Neely, A., & Hii, J. (1998). Innovation and Business Performance: A literature Review. The Judge of
Management Studies, University of Cambridge, 15th January.
Postigo, S. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory research in Argentina. Paper
presented at the forum on entrepreneurship in Latin American, Babson College.
Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance. (2005). Catalysing GLC Transformation to Advance
Malaysia’s Development. Putrajaya.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11-27.
Singh, P., & Pant, K. (1995). Management of Public Enterprises (1 st ed). Singapore: SSMB Publishing
Division.
Siti-Maimon, K. (1993). Intrapreneuring and exopreneuring as critical success factors for competitive
advantage. Paper presented at the SME Proceeding of the International Symposium on
Gaining Competitive Advantage through Marketing: Current Issues and Future Challenges for
SME, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Tellis, G.J., & Golder, P.N. (1996). First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduring market
leadership. Sloan Management Review, 31(2), 43-53.
Thornberry, N.E. (2001). Corporate Entrepreneurship: Antidoate or Oxymoron. Retrieved on
20.4.2006.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s
perspective. In J.Katz & J.Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence,
and Growth, 3, 119-138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Whiting, B.G. (1988). Creativity and entrepreneurship: How do they relate? Journal of Creative
Behavior, 22, 178-183.
Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 24(1), 37-47.
Wortman, M.S., Jr. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical
research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259-279.
Zahra, S.A. (1991). Predictor and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: A exploratory
study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259-285.