1. The Effects of Corporate Governance Initiatives
on Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance in GLCs
Harry Entebang
Shazali Abu Mansor
Irma Yazreen Md Yusoff
Faculty of Economics & Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Abstract
Prior to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997/98, many large and established organizations in Asia
appeared to have ignored the importance of corporate governance. However, many argued that poor
governance was a major cause of the crises. Admitting this, as well as to protect and enhance
shareholder value and the financial performance of firms the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance
(Code) was issued and this marked a significant milestone in corporate governance initiatives in
Malaysia. Consequently, public listed companies including Government-linked companies (GLCs) have
started to issue a statement on corporate governance which highlights and describes the principles and
best practices of good governance in their organizations. On the other hand, the practices of corporate
governance have led to too much control and ways of restraining corporate decisions. Given this, the
purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which corporate governance initiatives have
influenced corporate entrepreneurship performance in GLCs. While recognizing the importance of
corporate governance, the results of the content analysis suggest that too much corporate governance
appeared to have a negative effect on the extent to which organizations have pursued
entrepreneurial activities.
Keywords: Corporate Governance, Corporate Entrepreneurship Performance, Government-
Linked Companies
Introduction
In the pursuit of competitive advantage, superior financial performance and growth, large and
established organizations appeared to have ignored the significance of practicing corporate
governance to the highest standards. However, since the early 1990s, corporate governance has
received increasing attention from regulatory bodies and practitioners worldwide (Cheung &
Chan, 2004). Even though most studies do not suggest that Asian firms were badly managed
(Claessens & Fan, 2002), scholars and practitioners continue to argue that weak regulatory
systems and poor governance have caused corporate failures of most organizations in Asia. In
fact, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997/98 is regarded as a crisis of corporate governance.
1

2. Recently, the global financial crisis caused by the US subprime problems has once again
triggered the need for conformance on principles of good corporate governance (Santiago, 2009).
On the other hand, for organization to achieve superior performance, instituting and practicing
too much corporate governance may appear to strangle corporate entrepreneurship performance
of the firm (Taylor, 2001). In fact, Taylor observes that after Enron and WorldCom, US
politicians and regulators are convinced that chairmen, CEOs and board of directors have been
too entrepreneurial and they have neglected their attention on corporate governance and hence
argues that corporate governance and entrepreneurship remains a highly controversial subject
(Taylor, 2003).
Using the conceptual perspective of content analysis, this paper examines the extent to which
corporate governance practices may affect or influence entrepreneurial activities/behaviour in
large and established government-linked companies in Malaysia. The outcomes of the semi-
structured interview suggest that corporate governance have significantly influenced corporate
entrepreneurship (CE) performance in these companies.
Literature review and theoretical foundation
Over the last decade, organizations in North America, Europe and Asia have undergone
unprecedented transformation. In Asia particularly, forces like market changes, rapid
technological changes, industry life-cycle, government intervention, uncertainty of the financial
markets and the effects of the Asian 1997/1998 economic crisis, as well as the need to deliver
high quality products and services due to an intensity of competitive pressures resulting from the
implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), have also forced many Asian corporate
leaders to rethink the strategic positioning of their business organizations (Entebang, 2010). In
fact, Dess et al., (1999, p.85) observe that “intensifying global competition, corporate
downsizing and delaying, rapid technological progress, and other organizational factors have
heightened the need for organizations to become more entrepreneurial in order to survive and
prosper.” Subsequently, scholars within the field of strategic corporate entrepreneurship suggest
that to be successful firms must have the capacity to innovate faster than their best competitors
2

3. (Teng, 2007) and stay entrepreneurial (Thornberry, 2006). Consequently, corporate
entrepreneurship is fast becoming a weapon of choice for many large, established companies or
organizations because it entails both the mindset and skills demonstrated by successful start-up
entrepreneurs, and the inculcation of these entrepreneurial characteristics into the culture and
activity/behaviours of the large organizations (Thornberry, 2001).
Nonetheless, in pursuit of superior performance, large and established organizations in Asia
appeared to have ignored the importance of corporate governance. In fact, many argue that poor
governance was a major cause of the crises. Admitting this, the Malaysian Code on Corporate
Governance (Code) was issued in March 2000 and this has marked a significant milestone in
corporate governance initiatives in the country (Securities Commission, 2007).
Corporate governance (CG) refers to the system through which the behaviour of an organization
is monitored and controlled (Cheung & Chan, 2004) as well as by which firms are owned and
managed (Krafft & Ravix, 2005). It outlined the principles and best practices of good governance
and described optimal corporate governance structures and internal processes (Securities
Commission, 2007). In fact, in knowledge-based and advanced economies, new principles of
corporate governance have been oriented towards the maximization of shareholder value (Krafft
& Ravix, 2005). These new principles of CG driven by shareholder value appear to suggest three
things: (a) financial considerations have a central role in the way organizations are governed, (b)
information asymmetries between the different actors (i.e., between management and
shareholders) have to be eliminated, and (c) a contractual structure of organizations have to be
generalized within the firm (OECD, 1999).
However, given the unpredictable market conditions, organizations are exposed to economic and
financial risks and this would eventually destroy shareholders’ value. Hence, the principles of
good corporate governance have been introduced to increase companies’ internal efficiency, and
to favor investments through financial markets (Krafft & Ravix, 2005). In fact, Kraft & Ravix
noted that “maximizing the shareholder value in corporate governance greatly favored the
financing of emerging firms via the stock markets and the acquisition of new knowledge and
competencies on the basis of mergers and acquisitions over the period 1998-1999” (Krafft &
3

4. Ravix, 2005, p.126). Besides, good CG has been recognized as essential for establishing an
attractive investment climate characterized by competitive companies and efficient financial
markets (OECD, 2003). On the other hand, such an emphasis has greatly affected the viability of
companies and this has resulted in over-investment, excess capacity, downsizing, and a sharp fall
in the share price, revenue and profitability (Krafft & Ravix, 2005). Consequently, CG could
have accelerated the process of financial crisis, and contributed high turbulence in firms’
demography and dramatic changes in market shares (Lazonick & O'Sullivan, 2002).
On the other hand, corporate entrepreneurship (CE) refers to entrepreneurial activities within
existing business organizations (Schollhammer, 1982). Later, Antoncic and Hisrich (2004)
appear to share the same view and define CE as entrepreneurship within an established
organization. Alternatively, Zahra (1995) views CE as the sum of an organization’s innovation,
renewal, and venturing efforts. An alternative view is that CE is a process whereby the
organizations engage in diversification through internal development (Burgelman, 1983).
Stevenson, Robert and Grousbeck (1989) also perceive CE as a process which individuals _ either
on their own or inside organizations _ pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they
currently control. Within the same line of thought, CE is further defined as the process whereby
an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new
organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization (Sharma & Chrisman,
1999). However, other scholars suggest that CE is primarily concerned with entrepreneurial
behaviour inside established mid-sized and large organizations (Morris & Kuratko, 2002).
Therefore, corporate entrepreneurship appears to have a multiple definitions (Entebang, 2010),
nonetheless most entrepreneurship scholars seem to agree that CE activities focus primarily on
innovation, strategic renewal and corporate venturing aspects of the organization (Teng, 2007;
Zahra, 1993) which may contribute to organization’s survival and performance (Covin & Slevin,
1989; Drucker, 1985; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983; Zahra, 1993).
Consequently, scholars argue that organizations with high levels of corporate entrepreneurship
are more likely to perform better than those with lower levels of CE (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2004).
In fact, they find that corporate entrepreneurship is strongly, positively and significantly related
to organizational growth, profitability and new wealth. Hence, they argue that corporate
4

5. entrepreneurship appears to be a good direct predictor of organizational performance (i.e., wealth
creation, growth and profitability).
Building on the above literature, it is clear that effective and good corporate governance is
necessary but due to intensifying global competition, rapid technological progress, and other
organizational factors the need for organizations to become more entrepreneurial through
corporate entrepreneurship remain one of the keys to competitive advantage. Therefore, although
managers of organizations are legally responsible to the shareholders (Allen & Gale, 1998),
however, in practice managers do not appear to pursue the interests of shareholders (Berle &
Means, 1932). Given this, the issue between legal rights of shareholders and the de facto control
of managers proposed by Berle and Means led to the conceptualization and development of
agency approach to corporate governance (see also Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
Problem statement
In most emerging economies, government-linked companies (GLCs) or public enterprises (PEs)
still represent a substantial part of gross domestic product (GDP), employment and market
capitalization. Moreover, GLCs are often prevalent in several key sectors of the economy, whose
performance is of great importance to broad segments of the population and to other parts of the
business sector (Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance, 2006). However, the
performance of GLCs continues to be a major concern (Putrajaya Committee on GLC High
Performance, 2005). Therefore, building on corporate entrepreneurship literature there is an
urgent need for these companies to be more entrepreneurial. On the other hand, there has been a
great emphasis to institute corporate governance initiatives by enhancing board effectiveness and
strengthening directors capabilities in GLCs. In most Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) countries, the governance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) for
instance has been regarded as critical to ensure their positive contribution to a country’s overall
economic efficiency and competitiveness. Besides, OECD experience has also shown that good
corporate governance of SOEs is an important prerequisite for economically effective
privatization, since it will make the enterprises more attractive to prospective buyers and enhance
their valuation (OECD, 2005).
5

6. Building on an agency perspective of CG in which the division between financing (risk-taking)
and managing/controlling functions leads to difficulties i.e., principal-agent problems in relation
of managers (the agent) and owners (shareholders) or the principal proposed by Krafft & Rafix
(2005), the key research question of this investigation is to what extend the practices of corporate
governance by GLCs have influenced the corporate entrepreneurship performance in these
companies.
Research design
Building on past literature of CG and CE, pre-determined questionnaires were prepared to
assist/guide the interviewer during the interview. Senior executives or managers in GLCs
involved with CE initiatives or activities in their organizations were identified and approached
for interview. All interviews lasted between forty-five minutes to an hour. To ensure a high
degree of accuracy, all interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed into
Microsoft Word. The data was later converted into Rich Text Format (RTF) and imported to
MAXQDA 2007, qualitative software for processing qualitative data and text analysis. A total of
ten senior managers participated in the exercise.
Since data reduction is a key element of qualitative analysis, effort was made to ensure the
quality of the qualitative data was respected and this was achieved through content analysis
procedures (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). It is argued that the content analysis technique
is recognized for its efficiency and reliability (Namey, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2007). Despite
this, it has been argued that the problem of reliability may still prevail because coding errors can
only be minimized, and not eliminated (Gottschalk, 1995).
Once the data were coded and categorized, data analysis was done by retrieving text based on
categories rather than only single words (Weber, 1990), because categories tend to retrieve more
than single words, drawing on synonyms and conceptually close meanings. Therefore, in this
study, the data was categorized using codes as well as sub-codes based on its themes or concepts
and not numbers/frequencies. Support for the theme and the sub-themes was presented through
use of key relevant quotations or excerpts drawn from the data transcriptions (Zhao, 2005). This
is an established technique used to demonstrate the validity of the findings in qualitative research
6

7. (Whitemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001). Building on descriptive evidence, appropriate explanation
for the situation was highlighted and discussed.
Findings and discussion
The goals of the interview were to find out and examine the perception of senior managers
regarding the extent to which corporate governance initiatives/practices have influenced
corporate entrepreneurship performance in their organizations over the last three years. Upon
examination of the interview transcripts, the results were divided into three major sub-themes,
the significance of corporate governance; challenges in implementing corporate governance, and
the effects of corporate governance on corporate entrepreneurship performance in GLCs. Table 1
depicts the major theme and the sub-themes of the data.
Table 1 Major Theme and Sub-Themes
Major Theme Sub-themes
Corporate Governance  The significance of corporate governance
Initiatives  Corporate governance and its challenges
 Corporate governance and its implications on corporate
entrepreneurship performance
The significance of corporate governance in GLCs
The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997/1998 has served as a wake up call to many multinational
corporations (MNCs) in Asia including GLCs in Malaysia. Further more, the introduction of the
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) aiming to reduce tariff barriers among member countries
through the Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme made
ASEAN a full free trade area in 2008 (Hapsari & Mangunsong, 2006). Recently, the effects of
the credit crunch, the collapse of Wall Street and the increase of fuel prices have become a global
pressure that affects every sector of the global economy. The accumulation of these forces has in
turn become a major global and market force that compels organizations including GLCs to
rethink the way they should conduct their businesses. Given the effects of such phenomena, the
7

8. Code was adopted to enable public organizations including GLCs to set out principles and best
practices on structures and processes that will safeguard shareholders interests and eventually
strengthen their competitiveness. Generally, majority of the managers recognized the importance
of CG in their organizations. For instance, one senior manager stated that, “one of the big
problems within an established organization is that sometimes decisions are being made by one
person and therefore the risk of making wrong decision is higher. That‟s why we need different
people, people with different experiences, people who can look at things differently even though
this may slow down the decision-making processes of the firm. But such checks and balances will
ensure that decisions will be made optimally by collective group of professional managers.
Therefore, given the importance of corporate governance in our organization, we have one key
fundamental operating control document called the Limit of Authority (LOA), where financial
decision by any manager is made within his or her limit of authority”.
Within the financial sector, the importance of effective corporate governance is even crucial.
Banks and other financial institutions are highly regulated merely because they are the
custodians of public money. According to one of the senior managers, “corporate governance in
……(name of bank) involves the entire employees of the organization”. As a result of financial
turmoil in 1997/1998, banks are becoming more prudent. Consequently, the roles of non-
executive directors are becoming highly relevant in ensuring the rights of investors are properly
protected”.
In another organization, a senior manager argues that, “having good corporate governance will
ensure company‟s profitability because good corporate governance indicates that money is spent
wisely on various projects”.
In another company, a manager stated that “corporate governance does give us confidence that
we are doing things right. In fact, we have been recognized by other institutions for having good
corporate governance. On this basis, I do believe that bankers and other financial institutions
have actually invested or granted us loan because they know we have got good corporate
governance in place.
8

9. From the excerpts of the interview, corporate governance initiatives in GLCs are inspired by the
needs to minimize losses through effective checks and balances, protect the rights of investors,
gain confidence among stakeholders and ensure company’s profitability. These initiatives
appeared to concur with the work of Cheung & Chan (2004) where they discovered that a key
aspect of corporate governance in Asia is to improve investor protection and by so doing will
enhance the development of local capital markets and promote foreign direct investment for
long-terms economic prosperity.
Corporate governance and its challenges
Regulators and practitioners tend to argue that good corporate governance initiatives are
demonstrated by strict compliance of rules and other regulatory requirements. By doing so,
companies and organizations will be able to improve their performance, competitiveness and
sustainability. On the other hand, there are numerous challenges at firm or organization level.
One of the senior managers of a listed company argued that as a result of strengthening the roles
of independent directors, although “we have promising project(s) with another associated listed
companies….(name of company), but because of corporate governance issues, at times even we
were the lowest in terms of contract pricing, we still did not get the job(s) and this can be very
disappointing. Hence, for the sake of adhering to the Code, we are losing the opportunity and
this can affect our performance”.
In adopting corporate governance initiatives within an organization, one of the senior managers
pointed out that “corporate governance is good for the country and it is also good for the group
as a whole, however, when we actually apply it, it makes our tasks become more difficult. Given
the size of our organization, we have to go to the Board for approval before we could participate
in any new project especially if the proposed project(s) is RM200 million and above but to us,
this amount is very small. Therefore, by going back to the Board for approval has actually
slowed down the decision-making processes of the company. This doesn‟t help us in a way
because tenders are normally very short, say within a month. On the other hand, we have to
schedule for a meeting to take place for our directors and this is not always easy. Very often than
9

10. not, they want you to show them that the proposed projects will be able to generate some levels
of profit margin. Therefore, this has been a great challenge for us‟.
From the excerpts above, the key challenges of corporate governance initiatives in GLCs
appeared to be in the area of effective implementation, while the issue of board composition
pertaining to number of independent non-executive directors remains a debate among regulators
and practitioners. For instance, Cheung & Chan (2004, p. 19) observed that “the issue of board
composition might not necessarily provide a strong system of checks and balances between the
interest of the major shareholder and that of the minority shareholders. Since directors are
elected by the controlling shareholders, it is unlikely that the number of non-executive directors
will provide an adequate degree of monitoring of the majority shareholders or be able to exert a
strong influence on major corporate decisions. The role of such non-executive directors,
however, may serve an advisory purpose in the decision-making process”. Given this, the study
has advanced our understanding in terms of its practicality.
Corporate governance and its implications on corporate entrepreneurship performance
The key research question of this study is to what extend do corporate governance initiatives
have influenced the corporate entrepreneurship performance in GLCs. Generally, most managers
indicated that the ability to pursue corporate entrepreneurship activity is strongly influenced by
institutionalization of corporate governance framework in their organizations. Although the
ultimate goal of any organization is to enhance shareholders value, through various CE activities
but their abilities to demonstrate proactiveness, risk-taking and innovativeness are constrained by
rules and regulations. As one of the senior managers put it “although we have corporate
governance in place, but we still make losses from our projects in the Middle East. This was
mainly because of different management team and the situation at that time was unpredictable.
Since then, we really need to convince our directors. In fact, construction business is very
challenging, our environment and condition today can be very different from that of tomorrow
and therefore we really need to adapt to changes fast. However, given all these corporate
governance things i.e., rules and restrictions, it is very difficult for us to move on”.
10

11. In fact, another senior manager claimed that the presence of corporate governance in public
organizations does empower “board of directors of the company to challenge every idea
presented to them and this has subsequently put down many good ideas and proposals”. This
argument is consistent with another senior manager in other company. The manager pointed out
that “actually corporate governance plays heavier role than the pursuit of corporate
entrepreneurship activities! This is because doing it right or doing the right things is one of the
main reasons as to why top management is very careful with their decisions especially when it
comes to new venture(s) or other CE initiatives simply because they are answerable to the board.
After all, the company will be putting in a lot of money without seeing any return for several
years. Therefore, I personally feel that given the importance of corporate governance in
minimizing risks associated with new projects or ventures, it does hold back CE activities as far
as venturing into new projects in a new territory is concerned simply because people are afraid
of failures”.
Within an established and diversified group of companies, there is a need for them to strike a
balance between corporate governance and corporate entrepreneurship even though Taylor
(2001, p. 128) has strongly proposed that “board members should focus more on the central task
of the board which is „corporate entrepreneurship‟ — creating conditions for corporate renewal,
encouraging the development of new activities and the elimination of old ones”. However, one of
the senior managers has pointed out that “we have to achieve a balance between governance and
our entrepreneurial activities so that we will not simply risking our capital or money on non
feasible/reliable project(s). In fact, more often than not most people do not see the potentials of
creativity and innovation and these are some of the downside of viewing ideas/proposals from
the perspective of corporate governance. Therefore, corporate entrepreneurship activities tend
to be affected by rigidity of corporate governance…despite this, innovation is part of our vision
and we have to be innovative in everything we do. On the other hand, we also believe that good
corporate governance will drive the shareholders value because it ensures the accuracy of
shareholders value. Nonetheless, overall, corporate governance has a negative effect on our
entrepreneurial performance”.
11

12. In a separate interview with another senior manager, he also argued that corporate governance
has negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship in his organization. However, he recognized
the importance of having good corporate governance while pursuing various corporate
entrepreneurship activities. He stated that “it is the innovation that actually drives our progress
and development”. Building on this, the outcomes of the study appears to be quite consistent
with the work of Taylor (2001).
Conclusion, limitations and future research
Corporate governance (CG) has received considerable attention in recent years among scholars,
practitioners and regulatory bodies especially after the financial crisis in 1997/1998. A review of
the literature on corporate governance and corporate entrepreneurship confirms that, both are
important but for an organization to move forward it needs to strike a right balance. The study
shows that too much corporate governance may have a negative effect on the extent to which
organizations will pursue entrepreneurial activities. Hence, although managers as agents should
conform to the practice of good corporate governance but, at the same time they should not
forget their primary duty i.e., to protect and enhance shareholders values. This can be achieved
by putting more efforts on corporate entrepreneurship activities.
On the other hand, this study has several limitations. Firstly, only ten senior managers
participated in the exercise and this may limit generalizability of the findings. Therefore, one
should be very careful when interpreting the outcomes of the study. In addition, this is a cross
sectional study and for better understanding of the subject, the study should be conducted on
longitudinal basis using an in dept interview instead of the semi-structured approach. Future
research should consider the extent to which the relationship between CG and CE is mediated or
moderated by internal and external organizational factors.
12

13. References
Allen, F., & Gale, D. (1998). Corporate governance and competition. Paper presented at the
Corporate Governance Barcelona, Spain.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and
organizational wealth creation. Journal of Management Development, 23(6), 518-550.
Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York,
Chicago: Commerce Clearing House Inc.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified
major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244.
Cheung, S. Y. L., & Chan, B. Y. (2004). Corporate governance in Asia. Asia-Pacific
Development Journal, 11(2), 1-31.
Claessens, S., & Fan, J. P. H. (2002). Corporate governance in Asia: a survey. International
Review of Finance, 3(2), 71-103.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles Harper & Row.
Entebang, H. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and corporate entrepreneurship performance
of GLCs in Malaysia. Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
Gottschalk, L. A. (1995). Content analysis of verbal behavior: New findings and clinical
applications. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .
Hapsari, I. M., & Mangunsong, C. (2006). Determinants of AFTA Members’ Trade Flows and
Potential for Trade Diversion. Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade
(ARTNeT).
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs
and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics(October), 305-360.
Krafft, J., & Ravix, J.-L. (2005). The governance of innovative firms: an evolutionary
perspective. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(3), 125-147.
Lazonick, W., & O'Sullivan, M. (2002). Corporate governance and sustainable prosperity. New
York: Palgrave.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
Science, 29(7), 770-791.
Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. United States of America:
Harcourt College Publisher.
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2007). Data Reduction Techniques for Large
Qualitative Data Sets [Electronic Version], 137-163. Retrieved 6/2/2009,
OECD. (1999). Principles on corporate governance. OECD online, http://www.oecd.org.
OECD. (2003). Corporte governance in Asia. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2005). OECD guidelines on corporate governance of state-owned enterprises France:
OECD.
Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance. (2005). Catalysing GLC transformation to
advance Malaysia's development. Kuala Lumpur.
13

14. Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance. (2006). Progress Review. Kuala Lumpur.
Russell, R. D. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: a cognitive
mapping approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Santiago, F. (2009). Asia persevers but challenges remain in corporate governance Journal on
Corporate Governance in Asia 6(3), 2.
Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton & K.
H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship
(pp. 209-223). Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice Hall.
Securities Commission. (2007). Malaysian code on corporate governance (Revised 2007).
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.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J., & Grousbeck, H. I. (1989). New business ventures and the
entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Taylor, B. (2001). From corporate entrepreneurship to corporate governance. Journal of Change
Management, 2(2), 128-147.
Taylor, B. (2003). Board leadership: balancing entrepreneurship and strategy with accountability
and control. Corporate Governance 3(2), 3-5.
Teng, B. S. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-
based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1),
119-142.
Thornberry, N. (2001). Corporate entrepreneurship: antidote or oxymoron? European
Management Journal, 19(5), 526-533.
Thornberry, N. (2006). Lead like an entrepreneur. USA: McGrawhill.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whitemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.
Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: a
taxomomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 318-340.
Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of
management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 225-247.
Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1), 25-41.
14