Small Bus Econ

DOI 10.1007/s11187-016-9734-9

Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning

approach
Janice Byrne . Frédéric Delmar .
Alain Fayolle . Wadid Lamine

Accepted: 6 April 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Although training and development is
recognized as an important means to nurture corporate
entrepreneurs in organizations, extant research has
focused primarily on efforts to develop entrepreneur-
ial leaders and nurture business creation in a school or
university setting. We report on the findings of an
inductive case study of corporate entrepreneurship
training in a large multinational corporation. We
explore the learning outcomes which participants
experienced, and outline how an action learning
approach enabled these learning outcomes. Our
emergent model of corporate entrepreneurship
training is based on an episodic view of training,
recognizing that individual, group and situational
influences, need to be considered if a more complete
understanding of what makes for effective training in
this domain is to be developed.
Keywords Corporate entrepreneurs
Training

Education
Action learning
Case study

JEL Classifications L26
M53
O31
I2

J. Byrne (&)
IÉSEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS), Lille-Paris,
Socle de la Grande Arche 1 Parvis de La Défense,
92044 Paris La Défense Cedex, France
e-mail: j.byrne@ieseg.fr
F. Delmar
Sten K. Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship, School of
Economics and Management, Lund University,
P.O. Box 7080, 220 07 Lund, Sweden
e-mail: frederic.delmar@fek.lu.se
A. Fayolle
EMLYON Business School, 23 avenue Guy de Collongue,
69134 Ecully Cedex, France
e-mail: fayolle@em-lyon.com
W. Lamine
Toulouse Business School, 20, bd Lascrosses, BP 7010,
31068 Toulouse Cedex 7, France
e-mail: w.lamine@tbs-education.fr
1 Introduction
In today’s discontinuous, complex and global econ-
omy, organizations must continually adjust, adapt and
redefine themselves (Turner and Pennington III 2015).
Popular press reports over the last decade have
documented how successful and innovative organiza-
tions—such as IBM, Google and 3M—rely on corpo-
rate entrepreneurship (CE) as an effective means for
revitalizing strategy and improving financial perfor-
mance (Garvin and Levesque 2006; Business Week
2010). Corporate entrepreneurship may be defined as
‘the process by which an individual, or a group of
individuals, in an association with an existing organi-
zation, create a new organization or instigate renewal
or innovation with that organization’ (Sharma and

123

Chrisman 1999: 18). It is a process of creativity and
learning, requiring intelligence, reframing and an
ability to see things anew (Zahra 2015). Given the
importance of CE to corporate vitality and wealth
generation in today’s global economy, considerable
research attention has been dedicated to it (Dess et al.
2003; Kuratko et al. 2015). Studies have shown how
fostering managers’ CE competencies—en-
trepreneurial attitudes, attributes, skills and knowl-
edge—can help organizations of all sizes prosper and
flourish in competitive conditions (Brown and Per
Davidsson 2001; Hayton and Kelley 2006; Ireland
et al. 2009; Kuratko et al. 2005; Stevenson and Jarillo
1990) and achieve superior performance (Zahra and
Covin 1995; Zahra 2015).
One approach to encourage and facilitate CE
involves harnessing human resource practices and
policies to foster managers’ CE competencies (Hayton
and Kelley 2006; Haynie et al. 2010; Man et al. 2002;
Morris and Jones 1993; Schuler 1986; Kanter 1983;
Kuratko and Montagno 1989; Schmelter et al. 2010;
Thornberry 2003). Indeed, corporate entrepreneurs
(also called intrapreneurs) are a vital asset for
contemporary organizations and the question of nur-
turing entrepreneurial talent is of growing importance
(Zahra 2015; Hayton and Kelley 2006). Organizations
seeking to promote CE need managers who can
recognize, evaluate and capture entrepreneurial oppor-
tunities (Hayton and Kelley 2006). Individuals may
have ideas but need assistance and encouragement to
turn those ideas into business opportunities (Thorn-
berry 2003). Yet despite the crucial role that
entrepreneurial competencies play in corporate per-
formance (Kuratko et al. 2005; Stevenson and Jarillo
1990), there is a dearth of research which empirically
investigates exactly how CE competencies can be
nurtured and developed (Hayton and Kelley 2006;
Schmelter et al. 2010). In light of this, we engage in an
in-depth case study of corporate entrepreneurship
training (CET).
Before proceeding, we wish to clarify our under-
standing of some key terms. While training refers to a
‘systematic approach to affecting individuals’ knowl-
edge, skills and attitudes in order to improve individ-
ual, team and organizational effectiveness,’
development refers to ‘systematic efforts affecting
individuals’ knowledge or skills for purposes of
personal growth or future jobs and/or roles’ (Aguinis
and Kraiger 2009: 452). Corporate entrepreneurship
123
J. Byrne et al.
training1 is the focus of this paper. While considerable
research has been dedicated to CE and entrepreneur-
ship education and training (EET) separately, little
attention has been paid to CET. Unable to find a clear
and common definition, we thus put forward our own
broad definition of CET as a ‘systematic approach to
improving individuals’ entrepreneurial knowledge,
skills and attitudes within an existing organization.’2
While we acknowledge that training and development
activities for CE competencies may overlap, we use
the term ‘training’ to indicate our focus on one specific
HR intervention as opposed to a number of related
activities.
While extant research acknowledges the impor-
tance of training and developing CE competencies,
few studies have addressed just how these competen-
cies may be nurtured. Indeed, we know very little
about the form and nature of CET programs (Heinonen
2007). Most models and empirical research on
entrepreneurship education and training largely
address efforts to develop entrepreneurial leaders
and nurture business creation in a school or university
setting (Bagheri and Lope Pihie 2011; Kuratko 2005).
Although prior research has identified a number of
individual characteristics of entrepreneurs, corporate
entrepreneurs3 face specific organizational and exter-
nal environments. The corporate entrepreneur’s envi-
ronment thus implies a very different set of challenges,
constraints and opportunities to the entrepreneur
(Hayton and Kelley 2006; Garrett and Holland
2015). Entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs have been
found to think differently (Corbett and Hmieleski
2007), using different learning strategies (Honig 2001)
and role schemas (Garrett and Holland 2015). Fur-
thermore, not all researchers are convinced of the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship education more
generally (Honig 2004; Oosterbeek et al. 2010). We
argue that if (1) CE competencies are increasingly
1
Also called ‘intrapreneurship training’(Kuratko and Mon-
tagno 1989; Thornberry 2003).
2
Looking to research on entrepreneurship education and
training more generally, we can see that there are three broad
types of human capital assets which may emerge from such
interventions: entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, positive
perceptions of entrepreneurship and intentions to start a business
(Martin et al. 2012). In our proposed definition, we group
perceptions and intentions under the broader umbrella term of
‘attitudes’.
3
Sometimes referred to as intrapreneurs here for variety.
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
important in contemporary organizations, (2) intrapre-
neurs face unique challenges and opportunities and (3)
there are still some questions over the utility of
entrepreneurship education and training, then further
understanding, theory-building and empirical research
is needed on CET. Our research justification thus
derives not only from the importance of CET, but also
the lack of viable theory and empirical evidence
surrounding it (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). We
begin with the broad research question: how can training
help managers become corporate entrepreneurs?
We address the lack of research on how CE
competencies can be trained to practicing managers
by presenting an in-depth case study of an action
learning (AL) pedagogy (Revans 1982). We present
AL as an appropriate method for CET given its
capacity to surface tacit knowledge, its focus on
collaborative learning and suitability for tackling
wicked problems (Passfield 2001; Raelin 2006; Pedler
et al. 2005). We describe the six core components of
AL and illustrate how they collectively contribute to
CET success. We use a case study approach to
demonstrate how AL may facilitate the development
of CE competencies for participants.
The setting is a 3-month-long CET program in a
large multi-national company. The ‘developing intra-
preneurs program’ (DIP) was delivered 20 times over
a 7-year period with an average of 24 middle managers
participating each time. The managers in our sample
had diverse functional backgrounds (marketing, engi-
neering, information technology, strategy, finance,
etc.), came from numerous different countries and
cultures and held varied roles in the company. The
program in which they participated recorded consis-
tent positive evaluations and was recognized inter-
nally as a valuable training program. Training research
needs to explore how contextual factors interact with
training design elements to enable or constrain indi-
vidual learning (Baldwin and Magjuka 1997). Open-
ended interviews and observation are of enormous
value in this regard, yielding rich insights into the
relationships between training design and learning
outcomes (Conger 1992). We draw on multiple and
diverse data sources to construct this detailed case
study (participant application forms, participant inter-
views and instructor interviews, program designer
interviews, participant questionnaires, written feed-
back and internal communications). Grounded in this
rich and voluminous data, we built an inductive
process model of CET (Gioia et al. 2012).
We believe that our study lends rich and novel
insights into CET, making two main contributions.
First, we add to the literature on entrepreneurship
education by addressing what are the potential learn-
ing outcomes of CET and how these learning
outcomes may be achieved. We propose a conceptual
model of CET, demonstrating AL as a suitable peda-
gogy and proposing learning outcomes (multidisci-
plinary knowledge, organizational knowledge,
proactive behavior, self-awareness and network con-
nections) not previously theorized. We present nine
new theoretical propositions for further study (Fig. 1).
Secondly, we adopt an ‘episodic view’ of training
(Baldwin and Magjuka 1997) which implies that every
training experience can be viewed as an episode where
‘all parts of an episode will be filtered through past
training experience, experiences of colleagues and
other concurrent organizational activity’ (Baldwin and
Magjuka 1997: 101). From a research point of view,
this means that effects beyond the immediate training
program, such as individual, group and situational
influences, should be considered if a more complete
understanding of what makes for effective training is
to be developed (Mathieu and Martineau 1997). The
beginning of most training episodes is well before any
instruction begins or any trainer is involved (Baldwin
and Magjuka 1997). While previous studies have
focused on the importance of ‘back end’ factors such
as organizational climate, culture and support for
CET, in our study we explore the impact of ‘front end’
training introduction factors (i.e., mandatory or vol-
untary participation, participants’ training goals) and
situational influences (i.e., the group or ‘learning set’
to which participants belong and the management
support they receive during training), on CE learning
outcomes.
In the subsequent sections, we briefly review extant
research on CET. We outline AL theory and describe
the mechanisms that enable managers to learn and
develop through this approach. We then establish why
an AL approach is suited to CET. We go on to describe
our case study approach, detailing our rich data
sources and research method. We relate our findings,
explicating linkages between DIP’s AL features and
CE-related learning outcomes for participants as well
as the individual, group and situational factors which
123
 J. Byrne et al.

Training Introducon

Parcipant selecon
(mandatory/voluntary/selec
ve) (P6)
Goal orientaon (mastery
performance) (P7)

Acon learning approach Learning Outcomes

Problem/task Muldisciplinary knowledge

Learning Set (P1)
Power to take acon Organizaonal knowledge
Commitment to (P2)
learning Proacve behavior (P3)
Reflecve inquiry Self-awareness (P4)
Coaching Network connecons (P5)

Situaonal influences

Learning set composion

(diversity) (P8a and P8b)
Management support (P9)

Fig. 1 A model of corporate entrepreneurship training using action learning

influence them. We conclude by discussing the
implications of our findings.
2 Corporate entrepreneurship training (CET)
Entrepreneurship education and training covers a wide
variety of audiences, objectives, contents and peda-
gogical methods (Fayolle and Gailly 2008: 575). It
was almost three decades ago that Kuratko and
Montagno (1989) first asked the question: ‘what is
intrapreneurship training?’ In the paragraphs which
follow, we draw on prior literature to review some
important educational level issues in CET (See Table 1
for an overview). Drawing on Fayolle and Gailly’s
teaching model framework for entrepreneurship edu-
cation (2008: 572), we catalog extant research in terms
of targets and audiences (who receives CET?), objec-
tives and goals (why is CET delivered?) and methods
used (how is CET delivered?).
Regarding ‘who’ should be the targets of CET, prior
research largely focuses on middle managers (Kuratko
and Montagno 1989; Thornberry 2003) but has also
investigated student populations (Heinonen 2007) and
SMEs (Schmelter et al. 2010). The focus on middle
managers as a key audience is explained by their crucial
role in creating an environment conducive to innovation
and entrepreneurship (Kanter 1983; Kuratko et al. 2005).
Once CE activities are put in place, it is middle managers
who stimulate employee interest and commitment to

123
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach

Table 1 Literature review on CET

Educational question Key concepts References

For whom? (targets, audiences)
Why? (learning objectives, goals)
How? (methods, pedagogies)
Middle managers; students; and SMEs
Mandated or voluntary training
Knowledge
Intrapreneurship; multidisciplinary
knowledge; organizational knowledge; and
specialist knowledge
Skills
Creativity; business planning; innovation; risk-
taking; autonomy; proactiveness; team work;
interpersonal skills; willingness to work with
others; flexibility; and political skills
Lectures; discussions; case studies; small
group activities; project team development;
individual assessment; corporate sponsor
involvement; business plans; symbol cards;
poster construction; and role plays
Kanter (1983), Ginsberg and Hay (1994),
Kuratko (1993), Hornsby et al. (2002),
Thornberry (2003)
Byrne and Fayolle (2009), Hayton and Kelley
(2006), Ireland et al. (2006), Kuratko and
Montagno (1989), Schuler and Jackson
(1987), Schmelter et al. (2010), Thornberry
(2003), Vecchio (2003)
Kuratko and Montagno (1989), Thornberry
(2003), Schmelter et al. (2010), Heinonen
(2007)

these initiatives (Kuratko 1993; Stopford and Baden-
Fuller 1994). Thornberry’s work (2003) differentiated
between middle managers who had been ‘mandated’
to attend the training and employees throughout the
entire organization who volunteered, emphasizing
that it was not always possible to identify in advance
who could be a corporate entrepreneur.
As previously mentioned, Kuratko and Montagno
(1989) were field precursors and their early work
addressed the ‘why’ of CET. Based on their substantial
experience in executive education, they emphasized
how, on a microlevel (Fayolle and Gailly 2008), CET
should bring heightened awareness and understanding
of intrapreneurship, help participants identify inhibit-
ing and facilitating cultural conditions within their
organization (knowledge) as well as develop their
skills in creativity and business planning. Subsequent
work by Thornberry (2003) emphasized the impor-
tance of creativity and business planning skills in CET
but added opportunity identification and development
as another specific skill-based learning objective. In
order to identify and develop opportunities, managers
need multidisciplinary, organizational and specialist
knowledge (Hayton and Kelley 2006) as well as
training in idea implementation and resource acquisi-
tion (Schmelter et al. 2010). Participants should be
encouraged to ‘embrace change as a source of
individual and organizational growth’ (Ireland et al.
2006: 16). In line with this, CET should nurture
innovation, risk-taking, autonomy and proactiveness
among participants (Byrne and Fayolle 2009; Ireland
et al. 2006; Schmelter et al. 2010; Schuler and
Jackson 1987; Thornberry 2003). Entrepreneurial
leaders need social competencies such as team work,
political and interpersonal skills (Vecchio 2003;
Ireland et al. 2006) to help rally individuals round
their idea and obtain commitment. Thus, CE training
and development practices should inculcate a desire
to work well with others, cooperate and be flexible
(Schuler and Jackson 1987). Program participants
also need to learn about the realities of organizational
politics in order to obtain sponsors for their ventures
(Ireland et al. 2006: 16).
In terms of ‘how’ CET should be delivered, the
literature briefly touches on this question. Suggested
training methods included lectures, case studies, team
building exercises, small group activities and class-
room discussions as well as individual assessments
(Kuratko and Montagno 1989; Thornberry 2003;
Schmelter et al. 2010). Emphasizing the importance
of an experiential approach, Heinonen (2007) outlined
how symbol cards, poster construction exercises and
role plays were used in the CET program they
designed for masters’ level students. In organizational
training, corporate sponsors should be involved in the
program as a real and symbolic gesture of manage-
ment support (Kuratko and Montagno 1989; Thorn-
berry 2003). Business plans are another crucial feature

123

and are often of superior quality to those produced in
the course of usual organizational operations (Kuratko
and Montagno 1989; Thornberry 2003). While the use
of business planning in entrepreneurship education has
been questioned more recently (i.e., Honig 2004; Neck
and Greene 2011) for their misrepresentation of the
inductive nature of entrepreneurship, in CET, business
plans introduce the required ‘discipline’ to help
differentiate between good ideas and good opportuni-
ties (Thornberry 2003).
In sum, scant research has addressed CET and that
which does is largely prescriptive in nature (Thorn-
berry 2003; Kuratko et al. 2001). Investigations
empirically demonstrating the link between methods
(how) and learning objectives (why, i.e., knowledge,
skills and attitudes) are lacking. In the paragraphs
which follow, we propose AL as an appropriate
method for encouraging CE competencies. We begin
by describing AL and its key components.
3 Action learning (AL)
Action learning is a process and program used by a
growing number of organizations and individuals
around the world to resolve complex problems and
challenges as well as develop individual and team
skills, knowledge and attitudes (Waddill and Mar-
quardt 2003). First developed by Reginald Revans for
coalmine workers in Wales and England in the 1940s
(Revans 1982), AL has since been extensively used in
leadership and management development programs
across the globe (Vaartjes 2005). While a single
common definition of AL has yet to materialize, it may
be loosely described as ‘learning in and through
action,’ implying that learners (usually practicing
managers) reflect on the action they engage in and its
outcomes (Passfield 2002). Core to an AL approach is
the assumption that learning is generated from human
interaction which occurs as ‘learners engage together
in real time work problems’ (Raelin 2006: 152).
Latterly, it has been summarized by the formula
‘L = P ? Q ? R,’ where learning (L) derives from
programmed or existing ‘knowledge in use’ (P),
questioning (Q) and reflection (R) (Marquardt 1999).
Over the last few decades, AL has spread as an
‘ethos’ (general way of thinking about learning) as well
as method (specific set of practices) (Pedler et al. 2005).
Despite the lack of a core AL definition, and its wide
123
J. Byrne et al.
variation in practice, there is broad agreement on its key
features and principles (Pedler et al. 2005). The six
essential components of AL imply a pedagogical
approach that (1) centers on a real problem or task,
(2) implies a fixed group or ‘learning set’ of members
who (3) engage in reflective inquiry and (4) have a
commitment to learning. These learning set members
(5) should also have power to take action and (6) may
avail of coaching throughout the training (Marquardt
1996, 1999). We now discuss each of these components
in turn before discussing the relevance of AL for CE.
The first component that we discuss is the impli-
cation that AL departs from (1) ‘a problem, project or
challenge, the resolution of which is of high impor-
tance to an individual, team and/or organization’
(Waddill and Marquardt 2003: 411). Real organiza-
tional problems should address ‘major and strategic
difficulties’ and thus call for the implication of a senior
organizational representative in program design (Re-
vans 1982). A ‘real live project’ is thus ‘sanctioned by
organizational sponsors and has potential value not
only to the participant but to the organizational unit to
which the project is attached’ (Raelin 2006: 153). A
distinction is made between a ‘problem’ and a ‘puzzle’
as the latter has a ‘best’ solution which can be solved
by applying programmed knowledge and expert
guidance (Pedler et al. 2005). Action learning is not
for puzzles but rather for situations where there are
numerous courses of action available, and experienced
managers may envisage varying approaches (Revans
2008).
A second essential component of AL(2) is the group
of 4–8 people also known as a ‘learning set,’
composed of members ideally from diverse back-
grounds and/or different parts of the organization. The
learning set holds a number of meetings over a
specified period of time. During these meetings,
participants discuss the practical dilemmas arising
from their actions in the workplace, and they also
discuss the relevance (or irrelevance) of particular
concepts and theories to understanding, explaining
and solving such situations (Raelin 2006). Learning
sets are core to the AL approach and should provide
‘verifiable evidence of deliberated achievement’ (Re-
vans 1998: 10). In coming together to deal with real
and common problems, AL set members become
‘comrades in adversity’ (Revans 1982: 68). The input
and interaction of individual members is primordial to
AL success. Prior research has shown that learning set
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
composition and dynamics strongly influence individ-
ual members’ learning experiences (Jones et al. 2014;
Waddill and Marquardt 2003).
Another essential feature is that (3) AL is a process
that emphasizes questions and reflections. Learning
from pre-existing knowledge (P)—course content,
theories and ideas that are already known or in use—is
of secondary importance. Instead, emphasis is given to
the practical theories that learning set members
(individually and collectively) derive from their
experiences as they engage in action (Vaartjes
2005). Questioning is about posing the right questions
to generate fresh insights—as opposed to searching for
the right answers. Members are purposefully directed
to question ideas that are relevant within the particular
context of learning (Vaartjes 2005). Such questioning
implies deeper reflection, causing people to stop and
think, pull things apart and adopt an open mind to
alternatives (Vaartjes 2005; Marquardt 1999). The
main objective of this reflection mechanism is to raise
awareness of implicit assumptions (Revans 1984).
Needless to say, participants require time and ‘head
space’ to fully engage in this process.
A fourth important component of AL concerns (4)
the participants’ power to engage in follow-up action.
AL supporters claim that no real meaningful or
practical learning occurs until action takes place and
is reflected upon. Action learning set members must
therefore have the power to take action themselves as
opposed to making mere recommendations or propos-
ing ideas (Waddill and Marquardt 2003). Action
learning within an organizational context implies
learning through engagement with ongoing internal
company dynamics. As they pursue their task, partic-
ipants experience the realities of organizational power
and politics, confronting the realities of organizational
procedures, systems and culture (Passfield 2001). It is
participants’ reflection on this real action that provides
the basis for learning and organizational change.
Fifthly (5), AL calls for both individual and team
level commitment to learning. Accomplishing the task
is important but so too is the individuals learning or
development as they engage with it (Waddill and
Marquardt 2003). For AL’s founder, learning was the
over-arching intention of an active learning approach
(Revans 1982). AL gives managers an opportunity to
grow and develop: pushing them outside their comfort
zone to achieve personal learning goals (Passfield
2002). In order for AL to function effectively, managers
need to be open to being outside their comfort zone and
be ready to experience ‘stretch’ conditions—such as
working in unfamiliar conditions or with unfamiliar
methods. Their project work prompts reflection on
practice under these ‘stretch’ conditions, precipitating
questioning, discussion and learning (Revans 1982). Set
membership is an important factor here in that other
members can generate a social influence on the
individual’s commitment to learning because they are
highly dependent on each other for the process to work
(Waddill and Marquardt 2003).
A final component (which is not obligatory,
according to Leonard and Marquardt 2010) is an AL
facilitator or coach (6). Revans (1982) initially
referred to the coach as a ‘learning set advisor,’ but
was not convinced of the utility of an external
individual playing this role. Subsequent research on
AL has attested to the value of coaching in AL, where
learning set members can coach each other (Vaartjes
2005) or an external coach can be introduced (Raelin
1997; Dotlich and Noel 1998). It is the coach’s role to
ensure that time and energy are appropriately chan-
neled to capture the learning and improve the skill
level of the group (Waddill and Marquardt 2003).
4 Action learning (AL) and corporate
entrepreneurship training (CET)
Now that we have outlined what AL involves, we ask
why is AL an appropriate pedagogical method for
developing corporate entrepreneurs? First, the over-
arching objective of AL is learning itself (Revans
1982). Through reflective and inquiry-based practice,
AL programs aim to explicitly develop the individual’s
capacity for learning, surfacing tacit knowledge and
uncovering key assumptions (Passfield 2001; Raelin
1997; Vaartjes 2005). Given the importance of tacit
knowledge (and learning) for innovation—corporate
entrepreneurs need to access and integrate different
sources of knowledge from across the entire organiza-
tion (Kanter 1983; Tushman and Nadler 1986)—we
adhere to the view that any training approach which
maximizes the potential for shared experience, informal
knowledge exchange and vicarious learning fits well
with the competency requirements of corporate entre-
preneurs (Hayton and Kelley ).
Second, AL is a group-based process and gives
considerable power to relationships with other group
123

members. Since its inception, AL has become increas-
ingly associated with team performance on specific
projects set by corporate sponsors (Raelin ). Peers act
as a sounding board for one another and gain key
insights as they interact with their ‘comrades in
adversity’ and exchange operating assumptions (Ar-
gyris and Schön 1996; Revans 1982). They learn—
from themselves and others—how to overcome the
obstacles deterring project accomplishment (Coghlan
and Brannick 2001) and become better equipped to
produce desirable outcomes (Argyris and Schön
1996). This focus on the importance of ‘collective
reflection’ in AL (Revans 1982; Raelin 2006) is in line
with views of CE as a collaborative exercise (Hayton
2005). Action learning can help facilitate CE by
enhancing team player capabilities such as coopera-
tion and idea exchange (Marquardt 2004). CE is a
knowledge creation and conversion process. Organi-
zational efforts which successfully harness knowledge
creation, integration and conversion are the mecha-
nism by which CE succeeds in revitalizing, innovating
and enhancing productivity (Zahra 2015). CE depends
on heterogeneous knowledge. This knowledge
emerges when individuals work collaboratively and
combine their skills, knowledge and cognitions (Zahra
2015). Ultimately, CE is dependent on teams, inter-
action and collaboration (Morris and Jones 1993;
Zahra 2015), and the value of AL executive training is
shaped by the selection, composition and accountabil-
ity of the team involved (Tushman et al. 2007).
Thirdly, while previously we evoked how AL implies
dealing with problems as opposed to puzzles, AL is
particularly well suited to ‘wicked’ problems (Pedler
et al. 2005). Wicked problems are problems that are
difficult to solve, characterized by unclear, incomplete,
contradictory, and/or changing informational require-
ments. They imply an important degree of uncertainty,
which behoove collective engagement in order to deal
with the problem (Grint 2008). Corporate entrepreneurs
need for resource and knowledge exchange forces them
to play ‘boundary spanning’ roles (Hayton and Kelley
2006). Nurturing entrepreneurship and working across
organizational boundaries are typical wicked problems.
Action learning is a good match for such problems: it
addresses problems with no right answers, as opposed to
puzzles for discernible experts (Revans 1982). An AL
approach implies questioning (as opposed to a blind
pursuit of a solution) and emphasizes learning through
deliberate experimentation and risk (Pedler et al. 2005).
123
J. Byrne et al.
Reflection is particularly important when working under
conditions of high uncertainty, perplexing circum-
stances and problem solving and is thus a key compo-
nent of entrepreneurship education (Neck and Greene
2011). An AL approach is thus particularly appropriate
for corporate entrepreneurs given the uncertainties and
complexities of today’s fast changing, culturally diverse
and complex business environment.
Based on our precedent discussion, we present our
model of CET in Fig. 1 below. Our model is composed
of three parts. Firstly, we show the link between AL-
and CE-related learning outcomes. Second, it demon-
strates how training introduction factors (mandatory or
voluntary participation; goal orientations) may influ-
ence an individual’s learning outcomes. Third, the
impact of situational influences (such as learning set
composition and management support) can impact the
learning. This model resulted from the critical induc-
tive analysis of our various data sources (see Fig. 4—
the sources will be outlined in more detail in the
subsequent section), and we begin with the link
between AL and CE learning outcomes, as this was
where our initial investigations led us. In presenting
this model at the beginning of our analysis, we follow
Nag and Gioia (2012) who point to the utility of
presenting the model up front (even if in fact it was the
result of our analysis), in that it provides clarity and
structure for the reader.
5 Method
We seek to explore the impact of CET, investigating
how managers feel they have changed or gained as a
result of their participation in the program and identi-
fying what aspects of the training program contributed
to this. We thus undertook an in-depth case study of a
successful CET program in a large multi-national
technology firm (FreCo) to build theory in this area.
Theory-building research using cases is particularly
well suited to ‘how’ based questions in unexplored
research areas (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). Our
case study was that of the ‘Developing Intrapreneurs
Program’ (DIP) at ‘FreCo,’ a large, multinational,
information technology company. Theoretical sam-
pling—where a case is selected because it is particularly
suitable for illuminating and extending relationships
and logic among constructs (Eisenhardt and Graebner
2007; Edmondson and McManus 2007)—is particularly
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach

Fig. 2 Timeline of 1998: Inial 2004: First April 2008:

April 2009:
training
December
2011:
developing intrapreneurs Privizaon
of FreCo
DIP cohort
begins
Research
study begins
observaon
period ends
research
study ends
program at FreCo

2002: Tender 2006: FreCo January April 2010

for business in-house 2009: Last cohort
school evaluaon of training of DIP (intake
involement program observaon 20)
in period
intrapreneur begins
ship training
program

Fig. 3 Timeline of April 2008:

Literature search March 2009: first October/ December
developing intrapreneurs on corporate
entrepreneurship
round interviews
with parcipants
April 2009: first
round interviews
2011: second round
interviews with
training; meeng finishing the program designers,
program research study at with CE experts and training program
with parcipants
beginining training parcipants,
trainers (DIP 15) (DIP 16) facilitators
FreCo

January 2009: April 2009: second May/June/July

Observaon of round observaon 2009: second round
training program; of training program interviews with
first round (DIP 15; DIP 16) program designers
discussions and and facilitators
interviews with
program designers,
training managers
and facilitators

appropriate here. We believe that this case is particularly
interesting because our research project occurred
following FreCo’s deregulation (see Figs. 2, 3 for the
timelines showing the introduction of DIP at FreCo and
our research study). The organization, a previously
state-owned and bureaucratic structure, was effectively
forced to ‘up its game’ and enter a competitive market
situation: this is the point of departure for this
intrapreneurship training program. We feel this is a
valid reflection of reality where many companies may
engage in CE not out of choice but out of obligation, a
necessary reaction to an environmental challenge.
At the time of the culmination of our field research
(2011), FreCo group recorded revenues of 45 billion
euro and employed over 170,000 staff worldwide. In
the preceeding decade, FreCo had experienced pro-
found structural and market change. Innovation was
deemed crucial to the company’s continued survival.
FreCo introduced a training program, hereafter
referred to as DIP, to encourage intrapreneurship
among their high potential middle managers. The
program ran over a seven-year period and had a strong
reputation internally. The training program was
designed by two top European business schools in
collaboration with the HR department of FreCo. The
program designers adopted an AL approach (Table 2).
Table 3 presents the AL design features of the DIP.
5.1 Data sources
Case study research offers a range of rich insights
through its combination of different perspectives and
different kinds of information (Thomas 2011). In
studying the DIP at FreCo, we drew on a variety of
data sources. We used training observation, question-
naires, program content, brochures and participant
application forms to help build a ‘rich picture’ (ibid
2011) of this particular CET program. Figure 4 and
Table 4 display an overview of the data sources. We
collected written feedback from 163 program partic-
ipants and carried out in-depth interviews with thirteen
program participants and four program designers/fa-
cilitators (n = 17). Interviews followed a semi-struc-
tured format and were on average of 45-min duration.
Interviewees were advised of the broad theme of the
research: ‘what are the outcomes of CET for partic-
ipants?’ Interviews were audio-recorded for transcrip-
tion and analysis.
Our mix of interviewees—participants, program
designers and a HR representation from FreCo—
follows best practice in theory building from
case studies which emphasizes the importance
of gathering accounts from numerous, highly
informed respondents who view the focal phenomena
from different standpoints (Eisenhardt and Graebner

123
 J. Byrne et al.

Table 2 Data collection by period for FreCo’s developing intrapreneurs program (DIP)
Data source Intakes Sample Program stage

Developing intrapreneurs program: data sources by

intake
Partcipant application files (PAF) 15 N = 24 participants Pre-program
Participant interviews (PI) 11–17 N = 13 participants Pre, during, post program
Participant questionnaires (PQ) 6–20 N = 263 respondents Post program
Participant written feedback (PWF) 9–20 N = 163 respondents Post program
Program designer and instructor interviews (PDI) 1–20 N = 4 instructors/program During, post program
designers
Field notes (FN) 15 and N = 230 pages of text During program
16
Internal communications (IC) 1–20 N = 44 pages of text Pre, during and post
program

Table 3 Action learning design of the developing intrapreneurs program at FreCo

Action learning Key criteria DIP
component

A problem Of strategic importance to the group The program was built around the creation of a business plan for
High-level sponsorship a team-based innovation, a ‘new project venture’ (NPV)
Based on theme mandated by corporate sponsor
‘Learning set’ 4–8 members Teams of six members, designed to maximize diversity (age,
diverse backgrounds and/or from gender, job, nationality, educational background)
different parts of the organization
Reflective inquiry Participants encouraged to surface and Teams have to identify an opportunity and create a new product/
questioning insight challenge assumptions; ask questions; service innovation throughout training, the teams worked on
given reflection time their innovation project together—physically (3 block week
sessions) and virtually (via e-mail, shared platforms,
conference calls)
Power to take action Actively ‘do,’ not just make propositions Teams engage with internal and external experts
on strategies Engage with organization: navigate Teams produce a detailed business plan
developed power structures, politics, culture and Teams present at the end of the training period to a high-level
systems jury
Commitment to Managers must be ready to get out of Course content required participants to engage with broad range
learning their comfort zone of knowledge and skills (marketing, finance, strategy, etc.)
Stretch conditions in place For the NPV business plan, DIP participants were strongly
Social influence of other learning set advised by their course facilitators and coach to engage with
members those functions with which they were not familiar
Encouraged to discuss training expectations with learning set at
outset
Coaching Group members and/or external ‘set A dedicated team coach provided continuous feedback on team
advisor’ development and progress—individuals could rely on this
Channel learning mentoring system as much (or as little) as they liked

2007). The participants interviewed came from it is unlikely that they had engaged in collective,
varying hierarchical positions, departments and ‘retrospective sense-making’ or were overly con-
entities within the group (see Appendix 1). As such, cerned with ‘impression management’ which are said

123
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach

5.2 Data collection and analysis

Parcipant
Applicaon
Files (PAF) Phase 1: One member of the research team sat in on
Internal training sessions delivered on the campus of one of the
Parcipant
communi
interviews business schools. Over a year long period (spanning
caons
(PI)
(IC) three different training cohorts), the researcher
observed participants and facilitators during lectures,
Mulple class discussion, interactive sessions, business games
Parcipant sources of and simulations as well as team project work. Module
Instructor
wrien data interviews
slides, handouts and reading materials for all modules
feedback were made available to the research team. Coffee and
(II)
(PWF)
lunch breaks were availed of to chat informally with
session participants, program designers, training facil-
Program itators and FreCo Human Resource personnel. Coach-
Parcipant
designer
quesonnaires led sessions with teams were also observed, as was the
interviews
(PQ)
(PDI) team’s presentation of their final innovation projects to
top company executives and training evaluators. The
Fig. 4 Multiple data sources for case study of FreCo’s researcher also attended ‘wrap-up sessions’ led by
developing intrapreneurs program (DIP)
program designers and facilitators eliciting participant
feedback on their training experience. During this
to bias interview accounts (Eisenhardt and Graebner time, a researcher of our team carried out interviews
2007: 28). Table 4 , Figs. 5 and 6 give more information with nine program participants (intakes 15 and 16),
on the data sources, as well as the timing and seven of whom had completed the training program
populations concerned. recently and three of whom were half way through the

Table 4 Description of data sources

Data source Description

Participant application files (PAF)
Participant interviews (PI)
Program designer and instructor
interviews (PDII)
Participant questionnaires (PQ)
Participant written feedback (PWF)
Internal FreCo communications
(IC)
Field notes (FN)
Applications for the training program included a completed application form stating the
trainees’ expectations, their view of their strengths and weaknesses and motivations for the
training as well as line managers and HR manager supporting statements. The applicants CV
and a PAPI personality test report were also included in the application package
Interviews followed a semi-structured format and were on average of 45-min duration.
Interviewees were advised of the broad theme of the research, that is ‘what are the learning
outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship training?’ Interviews were audio-recorded for
transcription and analysis. The participants interviewed came from varying hierarchical
positions, departments and entities within the group
Interviews followed a semi-structured format and were on average of 45-min duration.
Interviewees were advised of the broad theme of the research, that is ‘what are the learning
outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship training?’ Interviews were audio-recorded for
transcription and analysis
DIP participants completed a questionnaire up to 2 weeks after the completion of the training.
Questionnaire responses were collected from 262 participants from 14 CET program intakes
(6–20) yielding a 78 % response rate (Table 2 shows tabulated responses)
Participants provided written feedback on their training experience within 2 weeks of program
completion. They were asked about their general impressions, thoughts and feelings on the
program. Written feedback from 163 participants was collected (cohorts 9–20)
The research teams were given access to memos, e-mails, reports, brochures related to DIP
which were exchanged between FreCo HR, business school program designers and
participants)
Field notes taken from training program observation (intakes 15 and 16)

123
 J. Byrne et al.

Fig. 5 Data collection by DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP
#1 #3 #5 #7 #9 #11 #13 #15 #17 #19
intake for FreCo’s
developing intrapreneurs
DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP
program (DIP) #2 #4 #6 #8 #10 #12 #14 #16 #18 #20
Applicaon Files
(Intake 15)
Field notes
(intakes 15&16)

Parcipant interviews (intakes 11 to 17)

Parcipant wrien feedback (intakes 9-20)

Parcipant quesonnaires (intakes 6-20)

Program designer and instructor interviews (intakes 1-20)

Internal communicaons (intakes 1-20)

Fig. 6 Data collection and

period covered for FreCo’s
developing intrapreneurs
program (DIP)
• Parcipant applicaon files (PAF)
• Parcipant interviews (PI)
• Internal communicaons (IC)
BEFORE
CET program

• Parcipant interviews (PI)

• Program designer and instructor interviews (PDII)
• Internal communicaons (IC)
DURING • Field notes (FN)
CET program

• Parcipant quesonnaires (PQ)

• Parcipant wrien feedback (PWF)
• Parcipant interviews (PI)
• Program designer and instructor interviews (PDII)
AFTER
CET program • Internal communicaons (IC)

training program. This phase of the research was
extremely useful for contextualizing subsequent data
and allowed us to gain both retrospective and real-time
accounts (Gioia et al. 2012) of the intrapreneurship
training program (DIP). We were also given access to
the completed business plan presentations of each of
the four teams on intake 15.
Phase 2: Participants were invited to provide
written feedback on their training experience within
2 weeks of program completion. They were asked to
write about their general impressions, thoughts and
feelings on the program. In phase 2, we collated the
written feedback from 163 participants (we had access
to cohorts 9–20), which we then input into NVivo, a
qualitative analysis software package. We used
Nvivo10 to help identify and categorize the partici-
pants’ written comments, performing an initial content
analysis. Content analysis is mainly concerned with
identifying and grouping data in terms of its substan-
tive and common sense meaning (Lewis and Ritchie
2003). Two of the researchers began the analysis by
reading and rereading the feedback to become thor-
oughly familiar with the data and identify patterns,
themes and/or surprising features (Hammersley and
Atkinson 1983). We first derived two broad over-
arching themes: learning outcomes and program
features and coded the written feedback accordingly.
Training support later emerged as another thematic
which participants often evoked in their discussion of
their training experience.
Phase 3: While we draw on a number of data sources,
the semi-structured interviews and their analysis serve
as the heart of this research (Gioia et al. 2012). In phase
3, we input the interview transcripts into NVivo
software in order to facilitate data analysis. We
analyzed the interview data following Gioia et al.

123
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
(2012), who advocate a systematic, yet creative,
approach to grounded theory and concept development
in inductive research. For our first-order coding, we
selected participants’ statements and phrases which
addressed our broad research question as well as our
preliminary insights from phase 2. We coded relevant
abstracts, sentences and phrases from the interview
transcripts, keeping informants terms and words in tact
wherever possible (to help maximize creative con-
cepts). We then reviewed these selected phrases/
sentence (or ‘categories’), comparing and contrasting
the many categories identified, in order to reduce the
relevant categories to a more manageable number
(Gioia et al. 2012). We gave these phrases and
sentences category labels and tried to identify a deeper
structure that could potentially explain ‘whats going on
here’ theoretically (Gioia et al. 2012: 20).
In the second-order phase of coding, we ask whether
the emergent themes offer insights that help us describe
and explain the observed phenomenon. We paid
particular attention to new concepts that weren’t
referred to in the existing literature or existing concepts
that struck us because of their pertinence in a new
domain (Gioia et al. 2012). In contrast to first-order
coding (where respondent-cantered terms are used),
with second-order coding, we used researcher centered
concepts, themes and dimensions. In Tables 4, 5 we
present our resulting ‘data structure’ which provides a
graphical representation of how our analysis progressed
from ‘raw data’ to more developed terms and themes
(Gioia et al. 2012).
Phase 4: In this final phase, we sought to gain a
deeper understanding of the differing learning out-
comes which participants evoked. In line with Bald-
win and Magjuka’s (1997) ‘episodic view’ of
organizational training, we decided to consider other
contextual factors which may impact learning out-
comes. As such, we chose to focus on one particular
cohort (intake 15) and review the composition of the
training cohort. We reviewed the 24 applicants CVs,
application forms and supporting application infor-
mation (in some instances, applicants provided PAPI
personality tests). We focused on participants ‘goal
orientation’ (reflected in their application form) and
their ‘learning set diversity’ (reflected in the various
demographic and personal characteristics of their
group members).
Drawing on the participant application forms, we
cataloged individual participants stated training ‘goal
expectations’ to assess their learning orientation. We
also reviewed information contained in the application
form from HR and line managers in support of the
applicants request for training. Two members of the
research team looked at each applicants file and
classified their stated training goals. In line with
Mathieu and Martineau (1997), we classified training
goals as either ‘learning/mastery orientations’ or
‘performance’ orientations. Individuals either per-
ceive situations as opportunities to learn and develop
themselves (mastery orientation) or opportunities to
demonstrate their capabilities and/or attain progress in
their career/job as a result (performance orientation)
(Mathieu and Martineau 1997: 204). For example, one
trainee stated ‘I perceive the program as a great
opportunity and an important contribution to my
personal development…. The cross-functional team-
work is a great opportunity to extend my contacts
network and build new relationships within the
Group.’ This was classified as a ‘performance’ based
training expectation. Another trainee stated ‘I expect
to (1) learn and apply new methods and techniques at
work (2) broaden my perspective and implement
positive changes to my work and environment (3)
improve my abilities in the field of risk-taking,
innovation and creativity.’ We classified this as a
‘learning orientation’ training expectations. Two
members of the research team coded each of the 24
participants application files separately, classifying
each applicant as having either a predominant learning
or performance goal orientation. The researchers
agreed on 83 % of the participant profiles after a first
round of coding and engaged in discussion to reach
agreement over the remaining divergent cases.
We also cataloged the learning set diversity by
assessing members’ educational background, gender,
age, nationality, functional/educational background
and current position. Of the four groups attending the
training in cohort 15, we focused on three groups (as
we held interviews with at least two members of
groups 1, 3 and 4 but no interviews with members of
group 2). While all learning sets were diverse, we rated
group 1 as least diverse and group 4 as most diverse.
Drawing on our multiple sources and extensive data
analysis, we now present our findings in three sections.
First, we begin by presenting participants’ learning
outcomes, evoking links between the AL program
design and learning outcomes. However, one cannot
draw correct conclusions about training effects
123
 J. Byrne et al.

Table 5 Data structure

First-order codes: statements about Theoretical sub-categories Theoretical categories Aggregate theoretical
dimensions

High caliber participants Learning set (team) AL program features Action learning
Commitment of others on team to training approach
Learning from observing others on project team
Other members different nationality/function/
entity
Coach prompt and assistance in self-questioning Coaching component
and self-awareness
Coach assistance for clarifying group norms
Project as a concrete tool (A to Z of business New project venture
planning)
Intensity of team project experience
Learning about marketing; learning about finance Multidisciplinary Knowledge/cognitive Learning outcomes
knowledge outcomes
New understanding of other entities Organizational knowledge
Improved understanding of group strategy and
culture
Working differently in the future Proactive behavior Proactive behavior
Wanting to learn more (intention to) (intention to)
Prepared to face challenges
Open to new possibilities
Feeling pain, emotional discomfort during training Emotional intense, trigger Self-awareness
Observing others emotional outbursts during experience
training
Dealing with conflict
Questioning own approach Self-questioning
Appreciating own strengths and weaknesses
Making good and useful connections (for self, Network connections Network connections
future career)
Making good and useful connections (for job
needs)
Making strong connections, friendships
Lack of internal understanding of training Management support for Management support Situational influences
program requirements training
Heavy work load during training
Richness of cultures and country perspectives Heterogeneous team Learning set
Diverse management functions represented composition
Conflicting ways of communicating
Establishing common values, laying the ground
rules
Training as a gift, reward or privilege Participant selection Participant selection Training introduction
Training selection as arduous, long factors

123
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
Table 5 continued
First-order codes: statements about Theoretical sub-categories
Wanting to learn new skills and knowledge, gain Mastery orientation
personally Performance orientation
Liking the challenge
Want to advance career, make useful connections,
demonstrate value
Frustration with lower value of final presentation
without consideration of key contextual factors prior
to training (Baldwin and Magjuka 1997), including
individual and situational influences (Mathieu and
Martineau 1997). We thus also present some training
introduction factors and situational influences which
we feel are important to understanding participants’
different experiences of an AL approach to CET.
6 Findings
6.1 Learning outcomes
6.1.1 Multidisciplinary and organizational
knowledge
Three types of knowledge have been identified as
especially important for corporate entrepreneurs: spe-
cialized, organizational and multi-disciplinary knowl-
edge (Hayton and Kelley 2006). Our analysis of the DIP
emphasizes two of the above learning outcomes: multi-
disciplinary and organizational knowledge. In the
following paragraphs, we document these two out-
comes, illustrating how AL enabled their emergence.
Our interviews indicated that many participants felt
they had gained knowledge in new domains. They
attributed their learning to both the course content
(programmed knowledge ‘P’ in AL terms), and their
exchanges and questioning with others (‘reflective
inquiry ‘Q’). In terms of course content, the DIP
addressed four core aspects of intrapreneurship:
strategic innovation and project management; leader-
ship and team management; finance and performance
measurement and marketing and supply chain man-
agement. The professional background of the partic-
ipants was very varied (it was not uncommon to have a
financial expert in the same cohort as a complete
finance novice); however, a large majority held
Theoretical categories Aggregate theoretical
dimensions
Goal orientation
engineering or technical qualifications and had limited
management training. DIP participants really appre-
ciated the broad scope of the program and the exposure
to new ‘theoretical knowledge’ and ‘academic con-
tent.’ Many noted how they were exposed to theoret-
ical knowledge in certain disciplines (marketing,
finance) for the first time, while others were happy
to have a ‘business course refresher.’
However, in AL, learning from pre-existing knowl-
edge remains secondary. Instead, the real value lies in
the ‘theories of practice’ that result from group
members’ individual and collective experiences of
action (Vaartjes 2005: 5). Throughout the training
program, DIP teams worked on their new venture
project, which was in line with a general theme
provided by the program designers (for example, the
theme for intake 15 was ‘the economic crisis’). Teams
had to propose a new product or service for the FreCo
group and build a detailed business plan supporting
their idea. This exercise forced team members to
investigate FreCo’s existing activity in a particular
area (through company research and making new
contacts within the group) as well as explore domains
outside of their own expertise. For example, Olivier H,
an engineering graduate working in mergers and
acquisitions, described how it was his ‘job’ to liaise
with experts in the insurance industry as well as legal
experts within the FreCo group (his team’s business
idea was called ‘Peace of Mind’ and involved a
subscription plan for customers in case of future job
loss). Olivier’s engagement with the new project
venture pushed him to discover an entirely new
industry (insurance) as well as develop new contacts
(lawyers), both within and outside the FreCo group.
Being exposed to and working with individuals
from different FreCo entities over a three-month
period gave participants the opportunity to broaden
their understanding of the FreCo group. DIP
123
 J. Byrne et al.

participants made repeated reference to the benefits of Proposition 2 An action learning approach to CET
mixing with those from other departments, divisions maximizes a trainee participants’ opportunity to
and countries in terms of organizational knowledge acquire organizational knowledge.
sharing. Exchanges on company policy and strategy
were frequent and participants relished the opportunity
6.1.2 Proactive behavior
to discuss the groups’ strategic options with other
trainees. One participant from the 11th cohort men-
Our findings show that the DIP training experience
tioned how participating in the training program had
resulted in many participants ‘contriving’ to do things
given him a ‘better understanding of company’s
differently in the future. AL rests on the assumption that
strategy and innovation process.’ In the strategy
humans have an innate capacity for self-directed change
module, a team-based ‘snakes and ladders’ game
(Vaartjes 2005). Margo talks about how she intends to
enabled participants to learn more about FreCo’s
encourage others in her immediate work place to
strategy and structure by questioning their team mates.
change their approach to assessing group business
In-class group discussions surfaced participants’ tacit
propositions. Action learning encourages participants
knowledge as well perceptions of group culture and
to question fundamental assumptions behind their
core FreCo values. FreCo began as a French-owned
practices and the governing values of the system to
company and bought over many small operations in
which they belong (Raelin 2006). Their learning in
Europe and Northern Africa in recent years. Action
action enables attitude change. In Margo’s case, it was
learning facilitates the exchange of multi-dimensional
precisely because she had had the opportunity to create
knowledge and practices between managers (Raelin
a business plan from start to finish that she now knows
2006), relaying and disseminating crucial intelligence
‘how difficult it is, how much effort it takes’ and it is
across organizational boundaries. This training pro-
this experience that has triggered her desire to change
gram gave non-French-based managers the opportunity
her colleagues’ mind set. Radu talks about the realiza-
to get a better understanding of the company and gave
tion that he can ‘do things a different way’ and
French-based managers an insight into the often more
attributes it to the diversity of the group: seeing how
entrepreneurial way things were run in smaller entities.
others see the world broadens one’s action horizon.
To summarize, a broad-based curriculum and the
Proactivity is about initiating changes (Bindl and
new venture project meant that DIP participants were
Parker 2010), and we thus interpret DIP participants’
continuously exposed to different functions and
desire to do things differently (instigating change for
domains. See Table 6 for representative quotes They
themselves and/or others in the workplace) as an
were also obliged to connect with and reach out to a
intention to be more proactive (see Table 6 for
diverse set of organizational (and non-organizational)
representative quotes). Proactive behavior describes
‘others.’ CE requires that individuals learn and make
the self-directed and future-oriented action by individ-
connections from multiple and diverse domains
uals in an organization who aim to affect change (Grant
(Hayton and Kelley 2006; Schmelter et al. 2010),
and Ashford 2008; Parker et al. 2006). Individuals may
and so multi-disciplinary knowledge is crucial. Work-
seek to change a situation (i.e., introduce new work
related knowledge and understanding is another
methods or influence strategy) and/or they may try to
important component of entrepreneurial competence
change themselves, i.e., by acquiring new skills they
(Lans et al. 2008). Organizational initiatives which
deem necessary for a future role (Bindl and Parker
enable individuals to acquire cross-functional and
2010). Raz talks about his new intention to develop
inter-organizational experiences facilitate the knowl-
himself (searching for ways to increase his knowledge)
edge acquisition which corporate entrepreneurs need
but indicates how he also intends to develop his team
to succeed (Hayton and Kelley 2006). Based on our
members, because through the new project venture he
evidence, and the above theoretical arguments, we put
experienced first hand ‘the advantage of having good
forward the following two propositions:
quality people in my team.’ Given the role of proactive
Proposition 1 An action learning approach to CET behavior in implementing innovation (Frese and Fay
maximizes a trainee participants’ opportunity to 2001), it is a desirable learning outcome of CET. The
acquire multidisciplinary knowledge. level of entrepreneurship and pursuit of opportunity

123
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
Table 6 Learning outcomes representative quotes
Multidisciplinary knowledge
Organizational knowledge
Proactive behavior
Emotional intensity and self-
awareness
‘I work in R&D, my background is engineering and for me it’s the first time that I take some
academic courses in marketing. So what I knew about marketing was some stuff I had learned on
my own and I wanted to counter-balance that with some new theoretical and academic
concepts…I’ve opened my eyes to so many different concepts. I am sure that today I can better
understand my finance people, my technical people etc.…’ (Olivier W, France, DIP Intake #15)
‘I am very used to a multicultural environment in my day to day job but usually its with closer
functions, so we have similar jobs in different companies, in different countries, but we still have
common points. Whereas here basically it’s both different countries, different cultures, different
functions and different way of working…it raises the difficulty’ (Pierre, France, DIP intake #15)
‘I took the marketing part for our project which was interesting because I didn’t have anything to do
with marketing before coming to this thing…so it’s a little bit, you are a little bit under stress let’s
say…but I think that in the end it will pay off.’ (Radu, Romania, DIP intake #15)
‘I had to go into real detail and question lots of tiny, particular aspects of the insurance industry that I
knew really nothing about! I have a mainly engineering background…. I now know everything
there is to know about insurance!’ (Olivier H, France, DIP intake #15)
‘As an employee from AcquiredFirm*, I now have a better understanding of the workings of FreCo.
Despite having seen differences in company culture, I found more similarities than expected.’
(Participant, intake 12)
‘they (FreCo Managers) learn about how heterogeneous and how diverse the company is, and this is
an important learning’ (Veronique, program facilitator)
‘I think something good that came from this program is that you realize…due to different people
coming with different experiences…that you can do the things another way and you can do things
that you normally think are impossible to do…’ (Radu, Romania, DIP intake #15)
‘I’ll try to change something,…the way we work…to be more ambitious, to try to find new ways to
do things, to try to be more innovative…. I believe that if you don’t introduce small changes in the
things every day, I think someday you will be lost…(It is important) to be brave, and to be open to
new possibilities, to listen to people…this is really, really important…and (to be) open to others’
opinions…and also to want to be an intrapreneur, and to want to do these things…’ (Aurelio,
Spain, DIP intake #15)
‘Now I understand much better how much effort it is for my internal customers, the business people,
to build a project and to come with the project to the investment committee…how difficult it is,
how much effort it requires, so really I know that I shouldn’t complicate their lives (laughs)!…I
understand it better (now) and I will try to sell it to my team (back at work)…I will try to explain to
them, to share my experiences with them to somehow adjust their way of thinking’ (Margo,
Poland, DIP intake #15)
‘For me, the first criteria of a result would be to have a real opportunity to change and to use more
open ways of interacting with others…I will do that, that’s for sure. And grow the will in me to
want to build good leaders around me…and second, to create really good quality teams because
(here) I really saw the advantage of having good quality people in my team…’ (Razvan, Belgium,
DIP intake #15)
‘(DIP) created the taste, an appetite to learn more…the desire to go further, to investigate or look for
more information in marketing, in strategy…’ (Razvan, Belgium, DIP intake #15)
‘They experienced things that they never would have experienced otherwise. Even stuff that was
very painful for them…. Every conceivable problem was there…and it most cases it caused them a
great deal of problems’ (Paul, DIP facilitator)
‘(this was) a very interesting experience, with emotional highs and lows. We feel that we’ve
experienced something strong together’ (DIP written feedback)
‘Suddenly, it’s a kind of experience where everything is so concentrated that it probably emphasizes
your weaknesses…I would say it’s not pain for nothing, it’s a challenge…I finished (the DIP) in
September and I changed job in July’ (Anne Valerie, DIP 10)
‘In our team we had a colleague from Egypt and I noticed that his way of communicating was very
different. He was very different. He was very direct and for me it was strange at the beginning, I
didn’t feel good…he was saying ‘you do that’ or ‘you can’t do that’ and so we had a little conflict
on the third or second day’ (Margo, DIP intake #15)
123
 J. Byrne et al.

Table 6 continued
Network connections ‘I am pretty sure that we will keep this relationship going with these people after the training
program even if the project doesn’t run, even if the (new venture) project is a failure. If, even if we
get negative feedback from the jury, which is maybe possible, I am sure that what we have built
together is yes about learning but also about networking and human relationships’ (Olivier, France,
DIP intake #15)
‘I managed to meet interesting people and I hope that I will have the opportunity to contact them in
the future for my daily work. I think it would be very useful actually…for advice and
discussion…because I work in such a place that I have contact with all functions in the
organization…but I’m a finance person so I don’t understand everything…in IT for example…and
now I know that I can call Ionut from Romania and he will explain…(laughs)…’ (Margo, Poland,
DIP intake #15)
‘the…thing that’s really helpful I think is to develop a network in such a big group. It’s obviously
very important in FreCo to know people because, I mean, not eh…I would say that transparency is
not so well developed internally so knowing people really helps and I think this can be achieved by
such a program because I would never have met these people without this…and ok, some of them,
maybe it has been difficult but with some others it has been really positive and we also had some
really good collaboration with others so I think this will…I hope this will em…help em, maybe in a
future (career) plan’ (Pierre, France, DIP intake #15
‘They (training participants) really act as a network community. There is still a group of people on
linked-in for example, and they stay in touch. Even if some of them have left the company…’
(Stephane, HR Training Manager, FreCo)
Management support ‘(The programme) helped me to better understand for example my environment at work…you
know? How my boss behaves in such situations, how my colleagues behave, how much support
they give me…very interesting (laughs)…because they don’t! My boss didn’t give me much
(support)… and I’m disappointed…especially seeing as he participated in this program…’ (Margo,
Poland, DIP intake #15)
‘I was very enthusiastic, willing to put in a lot of energy…. I think that between the first and second
session, the three weeks, we didn’t have time a lot to develop things…that period was the most
difficult one because, basically, for me, I have a lot of responsibilities. I had to handle both (work
and training) aspects and sometimes not everybody in the organization has a level of awareness or
understanding that you are doing two things in parallel. So basically for me it was working after ten
in the evening or during the weekend because at work it was not possible. I had to take 1 week off
my holidays—we had a few important (NPV related) meetings…’ (Raz, Belgium, DIP intake #15)
‘I can tell you that no-one in my organization really cared what I was doing. Once they said ok ‘its
confirmed, you are attending, you will attend X dates, Y sessions, …you have to assess yourself
how do-able this is in regards to your work plan because the funny thing is that they tell you ‘ok
you will take this course, eh a week at BSchool 1, a week at BSchool 2, a week at BSchool 1,…you
will have to present (your new venture project) with your team blablabla but it will come on top of
your daily workload…you have to manage your own time and your own constraints within the
project…but when you apply you don’t realize what the impact will be (laughs!). It’s once you are
in the stuff you are ‘oh my god! What did I apply to!?’(Anne Valerie, DIP, intake #10)

within a firm has been found to be critically dependent
on the attitude of individuals within the firm (Stevenson
and Jarillo 1990; Brown and Per Davidsson 2001).
Action learning—through diverse learning sets, action
on real-world problems and reflective inquiry—
prompts CET participants to envisage new possibilities
for action and change. Based on this evidence, we put
forward the following proposition:
Proposition 3 An action learning approach to CET
creates an intention to behave proactively in the
organization.
6.1.3 Emotional intensity and self-awareness
Action learning programs place participants in a
‘vulnerable, reflective position’ as opposed to a
‘control position’ (Raelin 2006). On the DIP, the
innovation project was a significant source of pressure
and stress for many participants. Prior research has
found that project-based approaches in entrepreneur-
ship training enable a certain ‘intensity’ of the learning
experience and often implies significant emotional
commitment from team members (Pittaway and Cope

123
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
2007). We observed how the extremely diverse DIP
teams (learning sets) were often characterized by high
levels of conflict. Margo, a polish finance expert on
intake #15, describes the culture clash she experienced
with another member of her team, conflicting cultural
norms of communication meant she ‘didn’t feel good’
about how he talked to her. Simultaneously, partici-
pants often felt under pressure to perform in the
program and produce a project which would ‘get
noticed,’ while others struggled to complete the
project with a high work load. Participants made
reference to the ‘disruptive’ or unsettling affect that
the program had on them. Anne Valerie (intake #10)
talked about the ‘pain’ she felt during the program.
Another participant describes ‘the pressure’ and how
one participant walked out of a session (Table 6).
Action learning—by being question based rather
than answer based—tells managers a lot about them-
selves (Revans 1984). Learning about oneself is a key
content area for entrepreneurial learning (Cope 2005).
The intensity of the team-based innovation project
prompted participants to reflect on their personal
strengths and weaknesses (i.e., Raz questioned his
ability to persist with an idea when others challenge
him; Anne Valerie questioned her continual need to
build trust in relationships when time is of the essence).
Awakening participants to their entrepreneurial com-
petency strengths and weakness provides focus and
direction for personal development (Lans et al. 2008).
In the DIP, the resident coach helped individuals
work through their personal questioning and even
prompted further reflection. While coaching has been
described as a facultative element of AL (Leonard and
Marquardt 2010), DIP participants attested to its role
in effectively soothing and solving some of the conflict
which arose between learning set members. It is the
AL coach’s role to ensure that the process remains
learner-centered (Raelin 1997), fostering a climate of
open communication and dialog, productive question-
ing and thoughtful reflection (Dotlich and Noel 1998).
Indeed, this was the case in Margo’s team, where the
coach helped team members explicitly identify and
confront their respective expectations for the business
plan. Participants’ accounts flag another crucial role of
the AL coach in CET. Given the level of emotion
which participants may experience, a coach is also
needed to intervene and accelerate participant learn-
ing, ensuring that interpersonal conflict doesn’t cloud
new insights and ideas. The AL coach plays the role of
confronting, challenging, complementing and ques-
tioning learning set members (Dotlich and Noel 1998).
An attentive coach may assist participants develop
their self-awareness.
Participation in the DIP caused many participants to
question their existing habits and work behaviors but
also their role and future within FreCo. It is this
awareness that provides direction for personal devel-
opment. AL implies ‘dealing with who we are and how
we define ourselves, our role and our capacities within
that context’ (Passfield 2001: 39). The importance of
the personal dimension of entrepreneurial learning has
previously been outlined by Cope (2005), who empha-
sized the importance of understanding one’s changing
role within the business as well as heightened aware-
ness of one’s personal needs, objectives, interests and
motivations. Training which gives participants the
opportunity to improve their self-awareness can set
the groundwork for attitude change by triggering deep-
rooted questioning of existing assumptions and values
(Mezirow 1991; Kets de Vries and Korotov 2007).
Given the above evidence and corresponding theoriz-
ing, we put forward the following proposition:
Proposition 4 An action learning approach to CET
creates emotional intensity, fostering participants
self-questioning and reflection which leads to
increased self-awareness.
6.1.4 Network connections
Action learning helps participants develop their net-
working skills (Weinstein 1997) but also helps them
learn how networks ‘work’ in the organization (Cope
2005). The DIP imposed interaction, forcing partici-
pants to look outside as well as in for responses to their
questions. The earlier example of Olivier, the finance
manager who contacted internal and external legal
experts is one such example. AL is an excellent
method for learning new ways to act, interact and
develop new contacts (Davey et al. 2004). DIP
participants reported gains in terms of ‘connections’
that the program brought and how now they had a
wider network on which to draw upon. The potential of
AL to create relationships among training participants
is stronger than in more traditional didactic training.
Participants talked about the strong bonds that formed
between them and their learning set members—their
‘comrades in diversity’ (Revans 1982).
123

These network connections were considered as
positive in terms of future informational requirements
(i.e., Margo ‘Now, I know that I can call Ionut from
Romania and he will explain…(laughs)…’. Of course
while some program participants think about the
network gains in terms of helping with their day-to-
day work requirements, others expressed a more
instrumental appeal to building their personal network
from program contacts. Those based in the traditional
home of FreCo (France) stressed the career and job
opportunities which could be availed of in the future.
Regardless of participant diverse motivations for
maintaining this contact, the program designers,
facilitators and HR manager all stressed how the ties
participants formed with team or broader cohort
members often extended long beyond the program
duration. Action learning is very much a social process
and often results in the establishment of a learning
community that outlives the official project itself
(Revans 1982). The DIP allowed participants to meet
organizational ‘others’ whom they otherwise would
not have had the opportunity to meet. They differed in
terms of their functional role but also their nationality,
organizational entity, department and hierarchical
status. Individuals who create and sustain relation-
ships beyond the perimeters of their formal position
are more likely to trigger entrepreneurial ideas in their
organization (Floyd and Wooldridge 1999). Hence,
organizations need to create the opportunity and space
for diverse employees to engage in knowledge
creation, conversion and integration (Zahra 2015).
Given the above evidence and corresponding theoriz-
ing, we put forward the following proposition:
Proposition 5 An action learning approach to CET
fosters network connections, laying the groundwork
for future knowledge exchange.
6.2 Training introduction factors
6.2.1 Participant selection
Participation in a training initiative may be subject to
employee discretion (voluntary) or considered a
condition of employment (mandatory) (Baldwin and
Magjuka 1997). In the case of the DIP, participating in
this training program was a deliberate voluntary
choice on behalf of the managers. However, once a
manager had chosen this particular program, their
123
J. Byrne et al.
request had to be approved (their selection for training
was not automatic). Applicants were only considered
for the DIP if they had their manager’s support, a
minimum of 4 years’ tenure, and belonged to the
group’s explicitly recognized group of high potential
managers. The selection process involved a detailed
application form (complete with two manager recom-
mendations), a competency test and an interview with
a human resource (HR) representation. It was not
unusual for applicants to wait at least one year for
training approval from HR. The DIP was a costly
program (three residential training weeks implied
flight, hotel and living expenses for 24 participants
each time) and high-level corporate sponsors attended
the final session (to ‘judge’ the final presentations of
the teams innovation projects). This implied substan-
tial financial investment on the part of FreCo.
Accordingly, many FreCo managers felt that they
were lucky to have been ‘chosen’ to participate in this
program, and for some, it was positioned as a ‘reward’
for prior hard work (Raz, DIP#15) or indeed a
‘privilege’ (DIP #14, written feedback). One partici-
pant termed it ‘a company gift’ (Anne Valerie,
DIP#12). Over the years, the program gained a strong
reputation internally. The AL design was different to
other training programs on offer and ensured a high
visibility across the group. In many instances, others
had been recommended the training program by a peer
(i.e., Olivier, Pierre) or their boss (Margo, Radu) and
this had prompted them to apply. The selective nature
of program entry and lengthy approval time height-
ened the program’s notoriety and appeal.
Training researchers are divided with respect to the
impact the mandatory versus voluntary training status
can have on training effectiveness. Making programs
mandatory can send the message that the program is of
utmost importance to decision makers (and thus foster
training motivation), while it can be argued that
voluntary participation implies that the most motivated
employees will attend (Baldwin and Magjuka 1997).
Yet sometimes voluntary programs have been found to
be attended by those who are most interested in avoiding
work (Kanter 1986). In CET, training may be mandated
to all middle managers or offered on an open, voluntary
basis to all staff (Thornberry 2003). The basic assump-
tion being that ‘a lot of ordinary corporate citizens can
learn to act as corporate entrepreneurs with the right
education, training and support’ (Thornberry 2003:
342). We believe that FreCo’s selective approach to
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
choosing participants sent a powerful message to
trainees about the importance of the DIP program to
the FreCo group. The arduous selection process for the
DIP meant that not all those who wanted to complete this
program were in fact given a place on the program. We
argue that the ‘selective’ almost ‘elite’ reputation of the
DIP empowered those who were given the opportunity
to participate in it.
Active learning requires a high level of motivation
and initial enthusiasm from participants (Revans 1982).
In contrast to traditional lecture-oriented executive
education programs, successful AL is anchored in
meaningful exchanges between fully engaged faculty
and participants, as they discuss, argue and debate
issues of crucial importance to them (Tushman et al.
2007). DIP participants repeatedly remarked on the
caliber and diversity of other participants in their
learning set, and many felt privileged to have had the
opportunity to meet such a diverse group of people.
Action learning success is linked to the learning set
composition (Tushman et al. 2007; Revans 1982). A
team of ‘reliable allies’ must consist of individuals who
‘understand what is the challenge to be met, those who
are strongly motivated to meet it, and those who have
the resources to meet it’ (Revans 1982: 68). Applying
an AL pedagogy to CET requires selecting participants
that are enthusiastic and committed to engaging fully in
the program. The feeling of ‘empowerment’ (which the
selective approach induced) was a vital component due
to the intensity of the DIP. The high level of personal
investment which AL implies means that training
participants need to feel empowered and energized
from the outset of training. Based on this evidence, we
propose the following propositions:
Proposition 6 In an action learning approach to
CET, a selective approach to choosing program
participants empowers participants, and empowered
participants are more likely to benefit from the training.
6.2.2 Goal orientation
With respect to goals, individuals begin training
programs with different goal orientations (Baldwin
and Magjuka 1997). Some may seek to increase their
ability and master new tasks through training, exhibit-
ing what is known as a learning or mastery orientation.
While others may seek to maintain positive judgments
about their ability, exhibiting what is known as a
‘performance orientation’ (Mathieu and Martineau
1997). We reviewed the participant application files of
all participants in intake 15 and content analyzed their
submission statements, paying particular attention to
their training expectations. Intake 15 was made up of
25 participants who were divided into four teams (or
‘learning sets’). 57 % of the participants expressed a
learning as opposed to performance-oriented goal
orientation.
We explored how participants’ goal orientation
impacted their training experience. In team 3, Olivier
W spoke about others who got stressed and felt
pressured by the new venture project, while he
emphasized the pleasure he took from completing it.
Based on his participant application file, we profiled
Olivier as having a mastery orientation. Participants
with a mastery orientation appreciate challenging
situations, while those with a performance orientation
may suffer more stress in these circumstances. Inter-
estingly, entrepreneurial goals appeal to individuals
with a learning goal orientation because of the associ-
ated challenge and complexity (Culbertson et al. 2011).
In team 1, Pierre and Margo both exhibited strong
performance tendencies. Margo was frustrated at her
team’s inability to function correctly and experienced
stress because of the training program. She didn’t
think they had necessarily delivered the ‘best quality’
project and was disappointed that they had not
completed what they had agreed at the outset. In
terms of learning outcomes, she stressed network
connections and her intention to behave more proac-
tively in the future. Pierre stressed the multi-disci-
plinary knowledge and network connections that he
had experienced. He expressed regret that there was no
direct career-related follow-up considering this train-
ing program had taken so much energy and personal
investment. Neither Pierre nor Margo evoked self-
awareness as a learning outcome.
We then looked at how an individual’s learning set
members goal orientations impacted their experience.
We found that those who had a strong learning/mastery
orientation were disappointed by the actions of the more
performance-oriented individuals in their learning set
and felt that this sometimes compromised the learning
process. For, example, in team 4, for Aurelio and Radu,
their participation in the DIP was about personal
development and learning new skills and knowledge.
For their team mates (Severine, Veronique and Jerome),
participation in the program was about making
123

connections and demonstrating their ability to produce
viable business projects for FreCo. Aurelio felt that
given the training program took place in France (the
home country of FreCo), the possibility of demonstrat-
ing one’s worth to higher-level management (by way of
the presentation to senior directors at the end of the
program) led French participants to put a greater
emphasis on preparing an excellent end of training
presentation. In doing so, he felt they placed too much
focus on the presentation and lost the real value ‘it’s
about the learning.’ Trainees who approach task situa-
tions as learning opportunities exhibit higher motivation
and enjoy training more than those with performance
goal orientations (Mathieu and Martineau 1997).
It is thought that mastery-oriented entrepreneurs
perform better in the long run than performance-
oriented entrepreneurs, although an individuals’
achievement orientation needs to be taken into account
(Delmar 1996). Mastery-oriented individuals learn from
their experiences and enjoy the challenge and complex-
ity of entrepreneurship (Culbertson et al. 2011). Thus, if
organizations wish to foster more entrepreneurial
competencies in their employees, they should create a
training context in which their managers’ mastery goal
orientations are enhanced and encouraged. Based on
this evidence, we propose the following proposition:
Proposition 7a In an action learning approach to
CET, participants with mastery goal orientations
benefit more from training than participants with
performance goal intentions.
Proposition 7b In an action learning approach to
CET, participants are impacted by the goal orienta-
tions of their learning set.
6.3 Situational influences
6.3.1 Learning set composition
Throughout the program, participants interacted with
others in their broader learning cohort (24 partici-
pants) as well as their immediate team or ‘learning set’
(six participants). DIP cohorts were purposely com-
posed of diverse individuals (age, gender, functional
background, nationality). Diversity is a critical suc-
cess factor for AL (Kim 2002). Mixing with individ-
uals from different functional backgrounds and
entities via the training program facilitated knowledge
exchange and resulted in enhanced multidisciplinary
123
J. Byrne et al.
knowledge for participants. Program participants also
differed with respect to their cultural and national
backgrounds, facilitating opportunities to challenge
existing mental models. While DIP participants all
came from the same company, they often worked for
different entities within the group, each with its own
subculture. This enabled organizational knowledge
exchange.
DIP designers created diverse teams, assuming that
high heterogeneity among team members would
provide for an open exchange of information, which
is particularly important when collaborative efforts are
critical for team effectiveness. However, one should be
vary of overemphasizing the informational component
of members’ interpersonal process determinants of
team effectiveness at the expense of the normative
component (Deutsch and Gerard 1955). In other words,
while heterogeneous team may bring a lot of new
information to the table (informational component),
homogenous teams are beneficial because participants
share the same norms and can work together (normative
component). Team research shows that many times
norm conflicts hinder the advantages of information
sharing, creating stress and conflict among members
(Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch 2009). Many of the
DIP team members reported high level of conflicts,
which were directly related to high levels of diversity
within their team. This diversity could have potentially
mitigated the information sharing.
However, DIP facilitators and the team coach thus
encouraged learning set members to work hard at the
outset to clarify team member expectations as well as
to establish team norms. As Olivier W explained ‘In
the first week, we had very tough conversations about
what we were expecting from the program and how we
work and what we expect from others. Sometimes it
was a little bit difficult, you know, I want that, you
want that and things like that but it was good because it
helped us…we set together a set of values…seven
team members and we had seven values and we
decided to stick to these values during the 4 months
and when taking a decision, we’d say ‘ok, what are the
values?, where do we want to go?’ and we always
came back to this agreement that we made at the
beginning and that saved us…’. Here the coaching
component of AL played a continual role in helping
ensure that DIP teams effectively worked through
their norm conflicts in order to allow for information
sharing to occur.
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
The conflict and tension which participants expe-
rienced as they worked on their new project venture,
opened a space for heightened ‘self-awareness’ to
occur. It is precisely the vulnerable position that AL
puts participants in which simultaneously opens them
up to more realistic expectations, and enables toler-
ance, humility, deep listening, openness to learning
and experience (Raelin 2006). Participants remarked
how they had gained in terms of self-awareness due to
their clashes with other team members. The member-
ship and dynamics of an AL set can have serious
ramifications for the quality of the learning experience
(Jones et al. 2014; Waddill and Marquardt 2003). In
the case of DIP, this ‘self-awareness’ was often a
direct result of feedback with their project team
members. But this implied a concerted effort on behalf
of program designers to facilitate this, as well as a
willingness on behalf of the participants to act as a
coach for each other (Vaartjes 2005). As one program
designer and facilitator emphasized: ‘Their team
mates feedback…was really valuable. And we tried
to promote that as much as we could. And the last
day…it was very personal, we gave them a final
chance to do that and it was very shocking, what
happened. In fact most people said that was the best
part of the program, where they got down to face-to-
face, forced to confront one another and for the first
time, some of these people heard stuff they had never
heard in their lives’ (Paul, program designer and
facilitator). Given the above evidence and corre-
sponding theorizing, we put forward the following
propositions:
Proposition 8a In an action learning approach to
CET, a diverse learning set can increase multidisci-
plinary and organizational knowledge because an
open exchange of information increases team
effectiveness.
Proposition 8b In an action learning approach to
CET, a diverse learning set can impact on the
emotional intensity and opportunity for self-aware-
ness because of the high normative component of team
behavior.
6.3.2 Management support
While our findings point to various learning outcomes
that the training experience may have triggered, many
participants evoked the notion of being overwhelmed
while trying to complete the training program and their
respective work duties simultaneously. During class, it
was not unusual for a manager to leave due to an
urgent work call. Numerous participants stressed the
tension between work and training demands. Some
participants mentioned the explicit unsupportive
behavior of their boss and colleagues (Margo, Radu,
Raz, Anne Valerie) and emerged with a more critical
eye of their work environment as a result. Anne
Valerie (DIP intake #10) was extremely disillusioned
with the lack of consideration for the time and energy
that participants put into the program. This lack of
understanding for what the program involved and the
time required was a common theme and led some
participants to work longer hours or even use their
holiday time to complete the training program
requirements (i.e., Raz, intake #15).
Raz also refers to the resistance to change that he
experienced internally upon beginning to transfer
some learning from the program to his daily job.
Aurelio evokes the difficulties of putting the learning
into action, describing his work environment as
‘difficult, very difficult.’ In Aurelio’s case, he refers
to the Spanish company in which he works which was
taken over by FreCo and has experienced continual
downsizing and change management operations. He
talks of feeling like a ‘sandwich’ where he is stuck ‘in
the middle.’ Indeed, it appears that while participants
may have been favorable and positive about their own
perceived learning from participating in the program,
they remain skeptical about the possibility of putting it
into practice (i.e., Olivier, Pierre). Despite positive
reactions to the learning experiences, the idea that
being a corporate entrepreneur is not possible is very
much related to the ‘reality’ of organizational life at
FreCo. The lack of management support during
training appeared to reinforce these preconceptions.
The nature of AL requires that individuals have the
time to interact with others, engage in action and
reflect on their learning. DIP designers and facilitators
emphasized the need for participating managers to
engage in actions and functions which were ‘out of
their comfort zone.’ In the production of the business
plan, participants were called on to operate cross-
functionally, i.e., for the marketing specialist to work
on the financial part, while the finance expert dealt
with the logistics or supply chain aspects of the
project. Many of our participants discussed their
intention to do this but explained how due to time
123

constraints and pressure from their daily work, they
were unable to carry this through to fruition. For
example, Margo explained how she was disappointed
with the quality of her team’s final new project
venture. She accredited this to the lack of support her
boss gave her, in terms of time to dedicate her attention
to the training program. She want on to explain how
this lack of support limited the possibility to engage in
the peer coaching element of AL: ‘At the beginning we
had this great idea that each team member will coach
another person…so I should be a finance coach and I
should support somebody doing the job, building the
business model…somebody from the team, somebody
really interested in learning finance…and this was the
plan, it was planned like this…however we were short
of time…and the result is I ended up doing the
financial part because it was easier.’ Given the above
evidence and corresponding theorizing, we put for-
ward the following proposition,
Proposition 9 In an action learning approach to
CET, lack of management support during training
negatively influences participant learning outcomes.
7 Final discussion and conclusion
In this paper, we aimed to explore how an AL
approach to CET can enable specific learning out-
comes. We identify five specific learning outcomes
that participants evoked: organizational knowledge;
multi-functional knowledge; intentions to engage in
proactive behavior; increased self-awareness; and new
network connections. We took an episodic view of
training, which implied considering the impact of
training introduction factors and situational influences
on the learning outcomes. In terms of training
introduction factors, AL is a process that emphasizes
questioning and reflection, implying a real investment
on behalf of participants. As such, we identified a
voluntary but selective approach to choosing training
participants as a powerful way to empower trainees at
the outset of training. Participant goal expectations
also play a role in explaining learning outcomes, with
mastery-oriented individuals expressing higher satis-
faction with the program, intentions to engage in
proactive behaviors and heightened self-awareness.
In terms of situational influences, the membership
and dynamics of an AL set can seriously impact the
123
J. Byrne et al.
quality of the learning experience (Jones et al. 2014;
Waddill and Marquardt 2003). Our findings indicated
that diverse teams had a positive impact on learning
outcomes, but that information sharing (which can
sometimes be hindered in diverse teams by a high level
of conflicting norms) could be mitigated by facilitators
and coach efforts to build cohesive learning sets. With
respect to management support, AL implies dealing
with politics, power, procedure, culture and systems
(Passfield 2001). It implies working on wicked
problems (Pedler et al. 2005) requiring sufficient time
and ‘head space’ for participants to fully engage in this
demanding learning process. However, due to the
pressures of daily work, and a lack of a supportive
management structure during training, some partici-
pants struggled to reap the full benefits of the AL
approach.
Prior research has confirmed that entrepreneurship
training should be action based to promote entrepre-
neurial action and business creation (Honig 2004;
Oosterbeek et al. 2010; Rasmussen and Sorheim
2006). More recently, Gielnick et al. (2015) explored
mediators of the relationship between action-based
entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurial action.
Our study adds to previous studies in two ways. First,
contrary to previous studies in entrepreneurship edu-
cation we focus on developmental or learning out-
comes as opposed to performance outcomes (Ng et al.
2009). In other words, we do not use business or new
venture creation as a measure of training success.
Instead, we look at what participants perceive they
have learned and taking an episodic view of training,
we query the ‘front end’ training introduction factors
and situational influences that enabled this learning to
take place. Second, our study raises some interesting
conclusions and questions about the learning set to
which trainees are assigned. Prior research on
entrepreneurship and education focuses on individual
learning outcomes and fails to address how the
composition of the group or team to which they
belong may impact their learning. We build on
Gielnick’s work by focusing on practicing managers
and introducing an individual/team level dynamic
where we look at how the composition of one’s team
(‘learning set’) during training can also influence
learning outcomes. We believe that our study makes a
fundamental contribution to developing a theory of
action learning in CET, lending rich insights into why
and how such an approach works.
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach

Appendix 1: Overview of interview respondents

No. Name Program role Job description Intake Gender Nationality Training
team

1 Pierre Participant R&D Unit Manager, France DIP #15 M French 1

2 Margo Participant Investment Process Manager, Poland DIP #15 F Polish 1
3 Olivier H Participant Business Planning Manager, DIP #15 M French 3
International Business Development,
UK
4 Olivier W Participant Head of Marketing Specifications, DIP #15 M French 3
Innovation Centre, France
5 Raz Participant Director Network Solutions and DIP #15 M Romanian 3
Performance, Belgium
6 Radu Participant Fixed Services Factory Manager, DIP #15 M Romanian 4
Romania
7 Aurelio Participant Corporate SW Factory Director, Spain DIP #15 M Spanish 4
8 Maysa Participant Senior manager, Telesales and Support DIP #16 F Egyptian n/a
9 Boris Participant Product Marketing Manager DIP #16 M French n/a
10 Fabio Participant Director, International Business DIP #16 M Italian n/a
Development, UK
11 Sebastian Participant R&D Business Development, France DIP #16 M French n/a
12 Anne Valerie Participant (Former) Senior Communications DIP #10 M French n/a
Manager, FreCo
13 Nicolas Participant Marketing Manager, France DIP #17 M French n/a
14 Paul Program designer and Consultant, Executive Education DIP #1-20 M American n/a
facilitator Trainer, Facilitator
15 Stephane Program design and Senior FreCo HR Manager DIP #4-20 M French n/a
evaluation
16 Veronique Facilitator Lecturer, Consultant, Executive DIP #3-20 F Canadian n/a
Education Trainer, CE Expert
17 Dan Program designer and Lecturer, Consultant, Executive DIP #1-20 M American n/a
facilitator Education Trainer

References Brown, T. E., & Per Davidsson, J. W. (2001). An operational-

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and
development for individuals and teams, organizations and
society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bagheri, A., & Lope Pihie, Z. A. (2011). On becoming the leader
of entrepreneurial activities: A focus on the impacts of
university entrepreneurship programs. American Journal
of Applied Sciences, 8(9), 884–892.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1997). Training as an orga-
nizational episode: Pre-training influences on trainee
motivation. In J. K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training effec-
tiveness in work organizations. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior:
Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organiza-
tions. In Sheldon Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology. Washington, USA: American
Psychological Association.
ization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneur-
ship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic
Management Journal, 22(10), 953–968.
Business Week. (2010). Corporate America, find your hidden
entrepreneurs’ by Steve Howe on April 06. Accessed
March 6, 2013, from http://www.businessweek.com/
managing/content/apr2010/ca2010046_348670.htm.
Byrne, J., & Fayolle, A. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship
training evaluation: A model and a new research perspec-
tive. Industry & Higher Education, 23(3), 163–174.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in
your own organization. London: Sage.
Conger, J. A. (1992). Learning to lead. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
29, 373–397.
Corbett, A. C., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2007). The conflicting
cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31(1), 103–121.

123

Culbertson, S. S., Smith, M. R., & Levia, P. I. (2011). Enhancing
entrepreneurship: The role of goal orientation and self-ef-
ficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 115.
Davey, C., Powell, J. A., Cooper, I., & Powell, J. E. (2004).
Innovation, construction SMEs and action learning engi-
neering. Construction and Architectural Management,
11(4), 230–237.
Delmar, F. (1996). Entrepreneurial behavior and business
performance. Doctoral Disseration, Stockholm School of
Economics, Stockholm.
Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J.
J., & Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate
entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3),
351–378.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and
informational social influences upon individual judgment.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3),
629.
Dotlich, D., & Noel, J. (1998). Action learning. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in
management field research. Academy of Management
Review, 32(4), 1155–1179.
Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from
cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 50(1), p25–p32.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching
models and learning processes in entrepreneurship educa-
tion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7),
569–593.
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation and
social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: The renewal
of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23(3), 123.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active
performance concept for work in the 21st century. Re-
search in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187.
Garrett, R. P, Jr, & Holland, D. V. (2015). Environmental effects
on the cognitions of corporate and independent entrepre-
neurs. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 369–381.
Garvin, D. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2006). Meeting the challenge
of corporate entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review,
84(10), 102–112.
Gielnick, M. M., Frese, M., Kahara-Kawuki, A., Katono, I. W.,
Kyejjusa, S., Ngoma, M., & Dlugosch, T. J. (2015). Action
and action-regulation in entrepreneurship: Evaluating a
student training for promoting entrepreneurship. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 14(1), 69–94.
Ginsberg, A., & Hay, M. (1994). Confronting the challenges of
corporate entrepreneurship: Guidelines for venture man-
agers. European Management Journal, 12(4), 382–389.
Gioia, D., Corley, K., & Hamilton, A. (2012). Seeking qualita-
tive rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia
methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1),
15–31.
Grant, A., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity
at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Grint, K. (2008). Leadership, management and command—
Rethinking D-day. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Prin-
ciples in practice. London: Routledge.
123
J. Byrne et al.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Early, P. C.
(2010). A situated metacognitive model of entrepreneurial
mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 217–229.
Hayton, J. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship
through human resource management practices: A review
of empirical research. Human Resource Management,
15(1), 21–41.
Hayton, J., & Kelley, D. (2006). A competency-based frame-
work for promoting corporate entrepreneurship. Human
Resource Management, 45(3), p407–p427.
Heinonen, J. (2007). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to
teaching corporate entrepreneurship at university level.
Education and Training, 49(4), 310–324.
Honig, B. (2001). Learning strategies and resources for entre-
preneurs and intrapreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 26(1), 21–35.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model
of contingency-based business planning. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258–273.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. (2002). Middle
managers’ perception of the internal environment for cor-
porate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. (2009). Conceptu-
alizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. En-
trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46.
Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006). A health
audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all
levels: Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(1), 10–17.
Jones, K., Sambrook, S. A., Pittaway, L., Henley, A., & Nor-
bury, H. (2014). Action learning: How learning transfers
from entrepreneurs to small firms. Action Learning:
Research and Practice, 11(2), 131–166.
Kanter, R M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for pro-
ductivity in the American Corporation. New York: Simon
& Schuster, Inc.
Kanter, R. M. (1986). The new workforce meets the changing
workplace: Strains, dilemmas, and contradictions in
attempts to implement participative and entrepreneurial
management. Human Resource Management, 25,
515–537.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Korotov, K. (2007). Creating trans-
formative executive education programs. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 6(3), p375–p387.
Kim, M. (2002) Leadership development using action learning:
CJ case. In Fall proceedings of the Korean Association of
Personnel Administration (pp. 205–227).
Kuratko, D. F. (1993). Intrapreneurship: Developing innovation
in corporations. Advances in Global High Technology
Management, 3, 3–14.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship
education: Development, trends, and challenges. En-
trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate
entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new
global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2),
245–253.
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S.
(2005). A model of middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial
behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6),
699–716.
Training corporate entrepreneurs: an action learning approach
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2001).
Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial
actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy.
The Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 60–71.
Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1989). The intrapreneurial
spirit. Training and Development Journal, 43(10), 83–87.
Lans, T., Hulsink, W., Baert, H., & Mulder, M. (2008).
Entrepreneurship education in a small business context:
Insights from the competence-based approach. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 16(4), 363–383.
Leonard, H. S., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). The evidence for the
effectiveness of action learning. Action Learning:
Research and Practice, 7(2), 121–136.
Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A
guide for social science students and researchers, London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competi-
tiveness of small and medium enterprises: A conceptual-
ization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 123–142.
Marquardt, M. (2004). Harnessing the power of action learning.
T AND D, 58, 26–33.
Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Action learning in action: Trans-
forming problems and people for world-class organiza-
tional learning. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing.
Mathieu, J. E., & Martineau, J. W. (1997). Individual and
situational influences on training motivation. Improving
Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, 193,
221.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information
sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learn-
ing. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morris, M., & Jones, F. (1993). Human resource management
practices and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical
assessment from the USA. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 4(4), 873–896.
Nag, R., & Gioia, D. A. (2012). From common to uncommon
knowledge: Foundations of firm-specific use of knowledge
as a resource. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2),
421–457.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to
experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning
capability for global leader development. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 511–526.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship edu-
cation: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small
Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The
impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship
skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3),
442–454.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling
the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636.
Passfield, R. (2001). Action learning for personal and organi-
zational transformation. In S. Sankaran, B. Dick, R. Pass-
field, & P. Swepson (Eds.), Effective change management
using action learning and action research. Lismore:
Southern Cross University Press.
Passfield, R. (2002). Creating innovation and synergy through a
parallel action learning structure. The Learning Organi-
zation, 9(4), 150–158.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Brook, C. (2005). What has action
learning learned to become? Action Learning, 2(1), 49–68.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Simulating entrepreneurial
learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative
approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2),
211–233.
Raelin, J. A. (1997). Individual and situational precursors of
successful action learning. Journal of Management Edu-
cation, 21(3), 368–394.
Raelin, J. (2006). Does action learning promote collaborative
leadership? Academy of Management Learning & Educa-
tion, 5(2), 152–168.
Rasmussen, E. A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based
entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185–194.
Revans, R. W. (1982). What is action learning? Journal of
Management Development, 1(3), 64–75.
Revans, R. W. (1984). Action learning: Are we getting there?
Management Decision, 22(1), 45–52.
Revans, R. W. (1998). Sketches in action learning. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 11, 23–27.
Revans, R. W. (2008). ABC of action learning. Aldershot:
Gower.
Schmelter, R., Mauer, R., Börsch, C., & Brettel, M. (2010).
Boosting corporate entrepreneurship through HRM prac-
tices: Evidence from German SMEs. Human Resource
Management, 49(4), 715–741.
Schuler, R. S. (1986). Fostering and facilitating entrepreneur-
ship in organizations: Implications for organization struc-
ture and human resource management practices. Human
Resource Management, 25, 607–629.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive
strategies with human resource management practices. The
Academy of Management Executive, 207–219
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), 11–28.
Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. (1990). A paradigm of
entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic
Management Journal, 11(5), 17–27.
Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. (1994). Creating cor-
porate entrepreneurship. Strategic management journal,
15(7), 521–536.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to do a case study: A guide for students
and researchers. London: Sage.
Thornberry, N. E. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Teaching
managers to be entrepreneurs. Journal of Management
Development, 22(4), 329–344.
Turner, T., & Pennington III, W. W. (2015). Organizational
networks and the process of corporate entrepreneurship:
How the motivation, opportunity, and ability to act affect
firm knowledge, learning, and innovation. Small Business
Economics, 45(2), 447–463.
Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation.
California Management Review, 28(3), 74–92.
Tushman, M., O’Reilly, C., Fenollosa, A., & Kleinbaum, A.
(2007). Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a
123

lever in shaping practice and research academy of man-
agement. Academy of Management Learning and Educa-
tion, 6(3), 345–362.
Vaartjes, V. (2005). Integrating action learning practices into
executive coaching to enhance business results. Interna-
tional Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentor-
ing, 3(1), 1–17.
Vecchio, R. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common
trends and common threads. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review, 13, 303–327.
Waddill, D. D., & Marquardt, M. (2003). Adult learning ori-
entations and action learning. Human Resource Develop-
ment Review, 2(4), 406.
123
J. Byrne et al.
Weinstein, W. I. (1997). A dialogue with participants. In A.
Mumford (Ed.), Action learning at work. Gower:
Aldershot.
Zahra, S. A. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship as knowledge
creation and conversion: The role of entrepreneurial hubs.
Small Business Economics, 44(4), 727–735.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the
corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing,
10(1), 43–58.