Vol. 5 No. 1 (2025): Rhombus
INVESTIGACIÓN

The Misunderstanding Between the Strategic Concepts of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

PDF (Español (España))
  • Erick Silesky González
Erick Silesky González
Universidad Latinoamericana de Ciencia y Tecnología (ULACIT)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63058/rhombus.v5i1.277

Published 2025-01-20

Keywords

  • Innovation,
  • Entrepreneurship,
  • Strategies,
  • Competitive Advantage,
  • Market Orientation

How to Cite

Silesky González, E. (2025). The Misunderstanding Between the Strategic Concepts of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Rhombus, 5(1), pp. 23–37. https://doi.org/10.63058/rhombus.v5i1.277

Copyright (c) 2024 Rhombus

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Abstract

Innovation and entrepreneurship strategies provide multiple competitive advantages to people and companies that adopt these practices within their normal internal procedures. Entrepreneurship education strengthens entrepreneurial intention, generation of new ventures and the transition of research and possible innovations to productive commercial sectors ((PDF) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (Edith Penrose, 1959), n.d.). However, despite being complementary strategies (Bamiatzi & Kirchmaier, 2014), they are not the same and neither do they require one of the other. This work investigates the academic definitions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to establish the conceptual basis that helps people and corporations to identify and select a specific strategy that allows them to make efficient use of their resources (Barney, 1991), maximize their competitive advantages and make efficient use of their competitive everything from its university origins. 

Not having these clear concepts usually results in a waste of resources (Barney, 1991), poor performance and bad products, translated into business losses that in turn translate into losses for partners and investors. This study focuses its theoretical base on

Entrepreneurship and Innovation Capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000)of companies. in the context of individual, small and medium-sized enterprises and its university origins. It has been shown that when corporations have these clear concepts, the implementation of strategies is much easier and effective, there is a better use of competitive advantages, execution of resources and better products are introduced, improving the “time to market”.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Alford, P., & Jones, R. (2020). The lone digital tourism entrepreneur: Knowledge acquisition and collaborative transfer. Tourism Management, 81, 104139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104139
  2. Ali, A. (1994). Pioneering versus incremental innovation: Review and research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(94)90118-X
  3. Alum, R. A. (1986). [Review of Review of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, by P. F. Drucker]. Public Productivity Review, 10(1), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380320
  4. Argote, L. & Miron-Spektor, E. (2024). Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.062
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship and regional growth: An evolutionary interpretation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 605–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0228-6
  6. Bamiatzi, V. C., & Kirchmaier, T. (2014). Strategies for superior performance under adverse conditions: A focus on small and medium-sized high-growth firms. International Small Business Journal, 32(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612459534
  7. Banerjee, S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2015). Indirect learning: How emerging-market firms grow in developed markets. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0328
  8. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
  9. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-ambidexterity-into-an-organization
  10. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing Intellectual Property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/000812560304500301
  11. Chong, V. K., & Chong, K. M. (1997). Strategic choices, environmental uncertainty, and SBU performance: A note on the intervening role of management accounting systems. Accounting and Business Research, 27(4), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1997.9729553
  12. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
  13. Daft, R. L. (1982). Bureaucratic versus non-bureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.). Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5 (2). (pp. 129–166). JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068400500206
  14. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 677–695. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088133
  15. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. Harper & Row
  16. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.
  17. Feldman, M. P. (2014). The character of innovative places: Entrepreneurial strategy, economic development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9574-4
  18. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
  19. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability Lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
  20. Hitt, M., Sirmon, D, Li, Y., Ghobadian, A., Arregle, J-L & Xu, K. (2021). Institutions, industries and entrepreneurial versus advantage-based strategies: how complex, nested environments affect strategic choice. Journal of Management and Governance, 25, 147–188 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09504-2
  21. Koehler, F., Bastos, L. C., & Bastos, R. C. (2019). Understand the Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Roots and future. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 7(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss9.1715
  22. Kuratko, D. F. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: Accelerating creativity and innovation in organizations. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press.
  23. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940
  24. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
  25. Miller, A. (1988). A taxonomy of technological settings, with related strategies and performance levels. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090304
  26. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  27. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250030102
  28. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110302
  29. Nonaka, I. (1990). Redundant, overlapping organizations: A Japanese approach to managing the innovation process. California Management Review, 32(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166615
  30. Olshavsky, R. W. (1980). Time and the rate of adoption of innovations. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 425–428. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488744
  31. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley. http://www.cegesti.org/exitoempresarial/publicaciones/publicacion_119_090810_es.pdf
  32. Porter, E. (2018). Where are the start-ups? Loss of dynamism is impeding growth. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/economy/start-ups-growth.html
  33. Robertson, T. S. (1971). Innovative behavior and communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  34. Rogers, E. M. (1976). Communication and development: Critical perspectives. Sage Publications.
  35. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). Theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Transaction Publishers.
  36. Silesky-Gonzalez, E., Lezcano-Calderon, Y., & Mora-Cruz, A. (2024). Effects of education for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention in university students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 21(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-024-01039-4
  37. Spencer, J. W., & Gómez, C. (2004). The relationship among national institutional structures, economic factors, and domestic entrepreneurial activity: A multicountry study. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1098–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00040-7
  38. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
  39. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207