Small Bus Econ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00304-z Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Maribel Guerrero & José Ernesto Amorós & David Urbano Accepted: 18 November 2019 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Organizations are facing an interesting phe- corporate venturing). Our framework offers insights nomenon in the composition of their workforce: the into corporate venturing determinants for three genera- concurrence of multiple age generations that demand tional cohorts: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Gen- suitable strategies regarding work design, job satisfac- eration Y. Using a sample of 20,256 employees across tion, and incentives. Ongoing entrepreneurship and 28 countries, our findings lend support to the positive strategic management debates require a better under- effect of individual and organizational determinants on standing of the relationship between workplace gener- corporate venturing, as well as how these effects are ational cohorts’ configurations and organizational per- reinforced per generational cohort. Specifically, our formance. We propose a conceptual model for under- results show that younger generations (millennials) standing how a diversified workforce influences some have more propensity to be involved in corporate ven- determinants (i.e., employees’ human capital and atti- turing activities. This study also contributes to thought- tudes, organizational climate, and environmental condi- provoking implications for entrepreneurial organiza- tions) of entrepreneurial organizations’ outcomes (i.e., tional leaders who manage employees from different generations. M. Guerrero : J. E. Amorós School of Business and Economics, Universidad del Desarrollo, Keywords Human capital . Organizational design . Av. Plaza 680, San Carlos de Apoquindo, Santiago, Chile Environmental conditions . Entrepreneurship . Corporate venturing . Generational cohorts . GEM M. Guerrero (*) Newcastle Business School. Northumbria University, 2 Ellison Pl, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom JEL Classifications J24 . M14 . Q5 . L26 . M13 . R23 e-mail: maribel.guerrero@northumbria.ac.uk J. E. Amorós EGADE Business School, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Ave. Carlos 1 Introduction Lazo 100, Santa Fe, 01389 Ciudad de México, Mexico Many organizations around the world are dealing with D. Urbano Department of Business, School of Economics and Business, the irrevocable effect of the heterogeneous composition Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Cerdanyola del Vallés, of their labor force. This phenomenon is strongly related Barcelona, Spain with one of workforce’s composition dynamics: the presence of multiple generations in workplaces given D. Urbano Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research the increasing longevity of the population (King and (CREIS), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Cerdanyola del Bryant 2017; Kooij et al. 2011; Bloom and Van Vallés, Barcelona, Spain Reenen 2010). While there is no consensus in the M. Guerrero et al. literature regarding the definitions of the different gen- et al. 2014; De Meulenaere et al. 2016; von erations (Stewart et al. 2017), current workplaces are Bonsdorff et al. 2018). composed of least three generations: Baby Boomers Inspired by these academic debates, this paper (born 1944–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1980), aims to understand how some determinants (i.e., and Generation Y (born 1981–1995)—well known as employees’ human capital and attitudes, organization- Millennials. To add to this complexity, the “youngest” al climate, and environmental economics conditions) members of the post-millennial generation (born after of entrepreneurial organizations’ outcomes (i.e., cor- 1996), or Generation Z, have recently started to be porate venturing) are influenced by a diversified active members in the labor force. workforce-related with their generational cohorts. The generational composition has relevant socio- We analyzed the most representative generational economic and sociodemographic implications that cohorts in the current workplace: Baby Boomers, definitively shape management disciplines. For ex- Generation X, and Generation Y/Millennials. Using ample, generational cohorts have been crucial for a sample of 20,256 employees across 28 countries; understanding consumer patterns in marketing re- our results provide insights into the statistically sig- search (Müller and Neck 2010). From an organiza- nificant and positive effect of diversified human tional perspective, the labor force composition rep- capital and favorable attitudes toward entrepreneur- resents a challenge that needs to be understood to ship in the employees’ likelihood of participating in define adequate strategies regarding work design, corporate venturing initiatives. Our findings show the incentives/satisfaction, and organizational perfor- moderation role of generational cohorts reinforcing mance (European Commission 2012; Stewart et al. the positive effect of individual determinants (human 2017; Stone and Deadrick 2015; von Bonsdorff et al. capital and attitudes toward entrepreneurship) and 2018). From an entrepreneurship perspective, ongo- organizational determinants (autonomy, meaningful ing academic debates regarding age and entrepre- job, and rewards) of corporate venturing. In particu- neurship have centered on the literature exploring lar, our findings show a positive and significant individuals’ occupational choices. The majority of effect of the interaction of the youngest generation these studies have shown how the identification of of employees (GenY/Millennials) with the highest entrepreneurial opportunities and intentions propensity of being intrapreneurs in their workplaces, increases/decreases with age (Zhang and Acs in contrast to the oldest generations of employees 2018). However, the entrepreneurship field is not (Gen Xers and Baby Boomers). only related to the creation of start-ups and new Our paper has three contributions for this ongoing independent businesses; entrepreneurship can also and recent academic debate: (1) reinforcing the aca- manifest in large and established organizations and demic debate about the effect of human capital and can be performed by employees (Narayanan et al. attitudes toward entrepreneurship on corporate ven- 2009). Therefore, there are still unexplored insights turing for the different generational cohorts (Twenge regarding the influence of employees’ age (or gen- 2010; Costanza et al. 2012; Burton et al. 2016b; erational cohort) on organizational entrepreneurship/ Lyons et al. 2012; Engel et al. 2017); (2) the discus- innovation strategies as well as the effects of this sion about the significant influence of autonomy, influence on performance (Burton et al. 2016a, meaningful job, and rewards on corporate venturing 2016b). The research agenda on age and entrepre- for the different generational cohorts (James et al. neurship at the organizational level demands multi- 2011; Rigtering and Weitzel 2013; Lyons and Kuron disciplinary conceptual and methodological ap- 2014; King and Bryant 2017); and (3) extending the proaches to understand the significant effect of age debate about the influence of environmental condi- on entrepreneurial organizations (Kuratko et al. tions on corporate venturing strategies according to 2015; von Bonsdorff et al. 2018). Some examples the perceptions of the different generational cohorts include the necessity to analyze organizational de- (Twenge et al. 2010; Colombo et al. 2016a; Shane sign (e.g., definition of tasks/roles based on capabil- 2011; Wright and Hitt 2017). ities/attitudes), organizational human resource man- The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: agement (e.g., incentive pay, satisfaction, and career Conceptual framework develops the conceptual frame- promotion), and organizational performance (Bloom work. Methodology presents the methodology used in Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis the study. Findings and discussion discusses the main activities, we identify three theoretical approaches that findings. Finally, Conclusions presents the main conclu- help us to understand the differences per generation and sions, implications for decision-makers, and future lines of their connection with the determinants of corporate ven- research. turing. First, paying attention to the individual, the human capital theory literature explains how the accu- mulation, performance, and productivity of human cap- 2 Conceptual framework ital (knowledge, experiences, and abilities) vary per generations (Becker 1964; Rosenzweig 1990; Becker 2.1 Corporate venturing and employees’ generational 2002; Prskawetz et al. 2008). Empirical studies have cohorts shown the timeline in the accumulation-performance of human capital: the rise in the first 10 years of working The phenomenon of “entrepreneurship within existing life, the maxes out around 30–35 years old, the stability organizations,” or “corporate entrepreneurship,” is under- around 40 years old, and the decline after 50 years old stood as the entrepreneurial behavior of an individual or (Becker 2002; Simpson et al. 2002). The nature of the group of individuals inside an established organization accumulated human capital varies with the advances in who create corporate ventures or initiate renewal/ knowledge/technology observed in each generation to innovation strategies in the organization (Morris, become the determinant of youth/senior entrepreneurs Kuratko and Covin, 2011; Sharma and Chrisman 1999). (Awogbenle and Iwuamadi 2010; Pilkova et al. 2014). Within this perspective, corporate entrepreneurship in- Therefore, the accumulation of specific human capital cludes two entrepreneurial phenomena (Guth and associated with favorable attitudes toward entrepreneur- Ginsberg 1990; Sharma and Chrisman 1999): corporate ship are the elements that define individuals’ career venturing linked to the creation of new business units or choices (Dunn and Holtz-Eakin 2000; Douglas and spinoffs and strategic entrepreneurship linked to strategic Shepherd 2002; Levesque and Minniti 2006). Second, renewal. paying attention to workplaces, the sociological ap- In this study, we analyze the influence of generational proach provides theoretical bases to explain the differ- cohorts on corporate venturing processes. According to ences in work values per generational cohorts. In this Sharma and Chrisman (1999, p. 19), corporate venturing regard, generational differences are defined by the com- represents corporate entrepreneurial efforts to create new plex combination of experiences, the collective culture, ventures within an organization. In this definition, parent and the competition for resources that shared a group of organizations harness implies internal/external means to individuals. This combination of elements produced an create new business models via corporate ventures that impact on the values and motivations of this group of may or not be related to their core business (Narayanan individuals that are observed within the workplace and et al. 2009; Antoncic and Antoncic 2011; Hornsby et al. other activities of life (Parry and Urwin 2011). In this 2013; Srivastava and Agrawal 2010). Moreover, corporate regard, employees born between specific dates can ex- ventures include several strategies and practices for pur- hibit a particular set of work values and attributes asso- suing business opportunities across all levels of the orga- ciated with their expected levels of autonomy, satisfac- nization. There is a consensus that there are three critical tion, and rewards. As a consequence, managers may components behind any corporate venturing strategy: (1) detect the differences in work values or preferences the workforce (i.e., employees) that executes the strategy per generation in the strategic design of jobs/tasks. using their knowledge/skills influenced by their Third, paying attention to environmental conditions, motivations/behaviors; (2) favorable organizational condi- the institutional theory helps to explain the socioeco- tions (e.g., culture and reward systems) that support the nomic differences per generational cohorts that influ- implementation of this strategy; and (3) external condi- ence corporate venturing. Institutions represent the in- tions, such as technology, society, and economic markets visible rules of the game that affects individual and that enhance/diminish the development of corporate ven- organizational behaviors (Scott, 1987, 2013; North ture projects (Ireland et al. 2009; Kuratko et al. 2015; 1990). Each generational cohort has a shared collective Narayanan et al. 2009; Titus Jr. et al. 2017). memory (historical events and experiences) that is main- Given the complexity of understanding the specific tained among peers and drives their values, behaviors, effects of generational cohorts into entrepreneurial and social identities (Hung et al. 2007; Micelotta et al. M. Guerrero et al. 2017; Yusoff et al. 2019). Although generational differ- (Smola and Sutton 2002; Wong et al. 2008) given their ences are not only attributable to an individual’s age, strong experience in leadership positions (Gibson et al. these theoretical approaches that provide some particu- 2009; Rodriguez et al. 2003; Yu and Miller 2005) and larities of each generation’s shared experiences, atti- technical knowledge (Cennamo and Gardner 2008). tudes, and behaviors could influence their human capital Gen Xers also tend to be passionate mentors (Smola and attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Chen and Choi and Sutton 2002) given their technical competence and 2008; Cennamoand Gardner, 2008; Gibson et al. 2009; updated knowledge based on life-long learning Parry and Urwin 2011; Costanza et al. 2012). In the next (Cennamo and Gardner 2008). Gen Yers live in a digital section, we describe some of the determinants that in- world and are “connected” 24 h a day via cell phones, fluence corporate venturing among the different gener- tablets, and computers (Smola and Sutton 2002; Wong ational cohorts and establish hypotheses to test these et al. 2008), college studies (Cennamo and Gardner determinants and the moderating role of the cohorts. 2008), and a digital learning orientation (Gibson et al. 2009). Each generational cohort likely contributes 2.2 Hypotheses strong capabilities and expertise during the execution of corporate venturing activities. Assuming certain par- 2.2.1 Employee-related determinants of corporate ticularities for each generational cohort, we believe that venturing and the influence of generational cohorts employees’ generation could influence how their human capital affects corporate venturing. In this regard, we In general, human capital is a determinant in the propen- suggest the following hypotheses: sity to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Dunn and Holtz-Eakin 2000; Parker 2011). Employees’ human cap- Hypothesis 1: Employees with diversified human ital represents a core competence for entrepreneurial capital are more prone to participate in corporate organizations (Becker 1964; Fuller et al. 2006; Alpkan venturing activities than employees without diversi- et al. 2010; Millan et al. 2014). Pursuing entrepreneurial fied human capital. and innovative opportunities requires human capital from Hypothesis 1a: Youngest generational cohorts posi- diversified/qualified employees (Ireland et al. 2009; tively moderate the effect of employees’ diversified Knudsen and Lien 2015). Extant studies have shown that human capital on corporate venturing activities. human capital has a positive impact on corporate ventur- ing (Parker 2011; Guerrero and Peña-Legazkue 2013; Employees’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship are Guerrero and Peña-Legazkue 2014). More specifically, mental representations of personal and/or environmental research has shown that employees with higher education characteristics (Liñán et al. 2011a, 2011b) that shape are more proactive in solving “problems” due to their their entrepreneurial abilities/skills, self-efficacy, role curiosity (Hayton 2005; Bosma et al. 2010; Millan et al. models perceptions, and risk aversion (Ireland et al. 2014). In addition, employees with prior entrepreneurial, 2009; Khedhaouria et al. 2015). Employees who are investor, and managerial experience are the main deter- more confident in their ability to start a venture are more minants to business opportunities in uncertain, risky, and likely to participate in corporate venture activities than challenging scenarios (Ucbasaran et al. 2009; Bosma employees who do not feel confident in their entrepre- 2013; Alrumaithi et al. 2015). neurial abilities/skills (Guerrero and Peña-Legazkue The entrepreneurship literature on youth and senior 2013). Entrepreneurial employees’ confidence also entrepreneurship has also provided relevant insights increases/decreases based on their perceptions of role regarding the influence of age on the link between models inside/outside the workplace who demonstrate human capital and entrepreneurial activities (Levesque the feasibility of corporate venture activities (Van Auken and Minniti 2006; Awogbenle and Iwuamadi 2010; et al. 2006). Another relevant entrepreneurial attitude is Pilkova et al. 2014). Specific to corporate venturing, associated with employees’ perceptions of risk and fail- the link between employees’ human capital and corpo- ure (Simon et al. 2000). In this regard, when employees rate venturing activities are influenced by the aging perceive business opportunities as achievable, they are perspective (Stevens 2010; Wanberg et al. 2016; more likely to engage in corporate venturing activities Garrett et al. 2017; Stewart et al. 2017). According to promoted by their employers (Guerrero and Peña- this perspective, Baby Boomers are excellent mentors Legazkue 2014). Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Assuming that employees’ attitudes toward entrepre- Previous studies have demonstrated positive relation- neurship are a relevant determinant of corporate ventur- ships between organizational determinants and em- ing, the moderation effect of generational cohorts on ployees’ involvement in corporate venturing activities employees’ attitudes toward corporate venturing plays (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001; Ireland et al. 2009; an important role. For example, Baby Boomers are Narayanan et al. 2009). For example, Kuratko et al. known to take risks, be competitive (Gibson et al. (2005a, 2005b) identified that autonomy, a meaningful 2009), and embrace change (Smola and Sutton 2002). job, and rewards foster employees’ corporate venturing Similar to Baby Boomers and influenced by worldwide activities. An effective intrapreneurial orientation competition (Smola and Sutton 2002), Gen Xers are also among employees involves autonomy to perform their willing to take risks but with certain limitations because jobs and explore opportunities (Hornsby et al. 2002; they saw how their parents’ companies were downsized Alpkan et al. 2010; Bindl and Parker 2010), a meaning- (Eisner 2005). Moreover, Gen Xers tend to be more ful job in relation to their value systems and personal creative and self-sufficient (Gibson et al. 2009), and goals (Dose 1997; Liden et al. 2000; Amabile and they often put forth the effort to become (intra) entre- Kramer 2011; Fairlie 2011), and reward systems preneurs because it is an attractive career path for them. (Hornsby et al. 2002; Fehr and Schmidt 2007; Alpkan On the other hand, Gen Yers typically value skill devel- et al. 2010; Monsen et al. 2010; Bloom et al. 2014). opment, enjoy the challenge of new opportunities and Employees’ perceptions of these three organizational innovations, and display high levels of confidence determinants of corporate venturing are likely to vary (Wong et al. 2008). Gen Yers also tend to be serial across the generational cohorts. For example, Baby entrepreneurs due to their entrepreneurial spirit, Boomers are the largest generational cohort in the work- answer-seeking behavior, personal responsibility, need force and characterized by traditional work values. For for faster feedback, and focus on outcomes (Gibson example, they have strong company loyalty and com- et al. 2009). Based on these generational characteristics, mitment; are hardworking; look for job security and a Gen Yers’ attitudes are likely more entrepreneurial than stable working environment; develop good relationships those of Gen Xers and Baby Boomers due to their Gen with supervisors and co-workers, and value success, Yers’ tendency to be creative, innovative, risk-taking, teamwork, inclusion, and rule challenging (Chen and ambitious, and freedom-seeking (Müller and Neck Choi 2008; Gibson et al. 2009; Smola and Sutton 2002; 2010). Assuming that employees’ attitudes are associat- Wong et al. 2008). Therefore, Baby Boomers have ed with the main components of any corporate venturing difficulty balancing their work and family lives. In this activity, we suggest the following hypotheses: regard, Baby Boomers often find organizational climate with autonomy and economic rewards as the most fa- Hypothesis 2a: Youngest generational cohorts pos- vorable. In contrast, Gen Xers often do not to display itively moderate the effect of employees’ positive loyalty to a particular organization because they tend to attitudes toward entrepreneurship on corporate ven- be more independent and self-sufficient than previous turing activities. generations (Cennamo and Gardner 2008; Parry and Urwin 2011; Wong et al. 2008). In this sense, Gen Xers are more likely to leave a job and seek out more chal- 2.2.2 Organizational determinants of corporate lenging options, a higher salary, improved benefits, and venturing and the influence of generational cohorts immediate and continuous feedback (Gibson et al. 2009). Moreover, Gen Xers are more committed to their By nature, the organizational design/climate is a key personal goals than to organizational goals. Therefore, determinant of corporate venturing activities (Colombo Gen Xers perceive a favorable climate based on mean- et al. 2016b). More concretely, organizational support ingful job and rewards. Gen Yers crave higher salaries, (working time, work conditions/design, rewards sys- flexible work arrangements, and more financial leverage tems, culture, and job security) and organizational (Gibson et al. 2009; Smola and Sutton 2002; Wong et al. values (loyalty, commitment, recognition, involvement, 2008). Furthermore, Gen Yers have a tremendous appe- and motivation) are driving forces of employees’ satis- tite for work and high levels of confidence and are faction and predictors of entrepreneurial opportunities socially active, comfortable with change, and less likely (Grégoire et al. 2010; Antoncic and Antoncic 2011). to see job security as a significant factor in the M. Guerrero et al. workplace. Consequently, Gen Yers often find organi- source of corporate venturing activities (Titus et al., zational climates characterized by a meaningful job as 2017). Third, according to Sahaym et al. (2010), fre- the most favorable. Assuming the influence of em- quent changes in R&D exert pressure on incumbent ployees’ age on their perceptions of organizational de- organizations to actively innovate, explore opportuni- terminants of corporate venturing, we suggest the fol- ties, and assume risks associated with exploiting current lowing hypotheses: knowledge rather than seeking new knowledge. In con- trast, in stable innovation environments, organizations Hypothesis 3: Employees with favorable percep- tend to predict and efficiently manage their R&D activ- tions of their organizational climate are more prone ities due to a lack of pressure. Fourth, labor market to participate in corporate venturing activities than conditions have a substantial effect on the career deci- employees without these perceptions. sion of employed, self-employed, and unemployed in- Hypothesis 3a: Youngest generational cohorts pos- dividuals. For instance, the entrepreneurship literature itively moderate the effect of employees’ favorable has shown that higher unemployment rates negatively perceptions of their organizational climate on cor- affect the individuals’ perceptions of available opportu- porate venturing activities. nities as well as their entrepreneurial actions (Koellinger and Thurik 2012; Hastie 2001). In uncertain labor mar- kets (e.g., higher levels of unemployment), entrepre- 2.2.3 Environmental determinants of corporate neurs behave entrepreneurially in response to their per- venturing and the influence of generational cohorts sonal and professional expectations (McMullen and Shepherd 2006). Concerning generational cohorts, Previous studies have shown that environmental condi- Constanza et al. (2012) argued that each generation tions (e.g., social, cultural, economic, technological, and tends to be influenced by similar environmental condi- political) are relevant determinants of any entrepreneurial tions experienced by individuals throughout their activity (Gnyawali and Fogel 1994; Parker 2012). In cor- lifecycle (childhood, adolescence, and adulthood). The porate entrepreneurship, external or environmental condi- events each generation experiences impact their behav- tions determine the identification of business opportunities iors, actions, and values related to work and and explain of the success/failure of corporate entrepre- entrepreneurship. neurship strategies (Shepherd et al. 2017; Shepherd and Following these arguments, each generation’s expe- Patzelt 2017; Titus et al. 2017). According to Ireland et al. riences also shape the way they face and react to their (2009), Narayanan et al. (2009), and Bosma et al. (2010 current organizational landscape (e.g., competitive in- and 2011), corporate venturing is often a logical response tensity, technological and innovation change, and labor to the presence of environmental conditions like competi- market conditions). For instance, Baby Boomers grew tive intensity, technological change, innovation change up embracing the psychology of entitlement and (from an organizational vision), and labor market condi- expecting the best from life because they were pro- tions (from an employee vision). foundly affected by several social, economic, and polit- First, competitive intensity is often associated with ical events (Gibson et al. 2009; Wong et al. 2008). As a relative parity among organizations competing within result, Baby Boomers are hardworking and loyal, they an industry (Porter 1980). To break out of parity, orga- seek job security and recognition, and they tend to nizations must explore and exploit some basis for com- challenge rules (Yu and Miller 2005). In the current petitive advantage (Ireland et al. 2009). Therefore, or- organizational landscape, Baby Boomers could be ganizations could pivot into an entrepreneurial innova- afraid that uncertainty in the labor market could affect tion that allows them to use resources/capabilities to be their job security or retirement conditions. Gen Xers competitive on distinct and valued bases (Autio et al. grew up with (financial, family, and societal) insecurity, 2014). Second, technological dynamism represents a rapid changes, diversity, a lack of solid traditions, in- source of corporate venturing opportunities, particularly tense worldwide competition, and (corporate and gov- for organizations with technology-based competitive ernment) scandals, and they generally distrust institu- advantages (Parker 2011). Prior studies have shown that tions (Cennamo and Gardner 2008; Smola and Sutton). industries with high levels of R&D intensity character- These conditions explain their lack of loyalty and their istically exhibit technological dynamism that could be a continued search for empowerment and rewards with an Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis entrepreneurial spirit. In the current organizational land- study in more than 70 countries annually (Reynolds et al. scape, Gen Xers adapt to changes and tend to evaluate 2005). More specifically, we used data from the 2012 and the costs/benefits of becoming an entrepreneurial em- 2013 Adult Population Survey (APS).1 We selected these ployee or self-employed (Yu and Miller 2005). Finally, two survey waves primarily because, during these years, Gen Yers grew up under economic uncertainty and the APS survey included a set of questions that captured insecurity (Gibson et al. 2009). They accept diversity information about (1) corporate entrepreneurship activities and are prone to volunteering. As a result, they are likely (e.g., venture creation) and (2) workplace characteristics to become involved in corporate venturing activities if (e.g., perceptions about a meaningful job, autonomy, and they identify a balance between organizational purposes income satisfaction). For us, it was an excellent opportu- and societal objectives in those activities (Kowske et al. nity to capture information at the individual, organization- 2010). Assuming the influence of employees’ age on al, and country levels, thus allowing us to achieve our perceptions of environmental determinants of corporate research objectives. The APS information was venturing, we suggest the following hypotheses: complemented with data at the country level from World Bank Open Data. Our final sample consists of 20,256 Hypothesis 4: Employees who live in countries employees across 28 countries.2 with unfavorable environmental conditions are less prone to participate in corporate venturing activities 3.2 Description of variables than employees who live in countries with favor- able environmental conditions. Our dependent variable, corporate venturing, is a dichot- Hypothesis 4a: Youngest generational cohorts pos- omous variable that captures when an employee has (not) itively moderate the effect of unfavorable environ- undertaken entrepreneurial actions in the last 3 years to mental conditions on corporate venturing activities. create a new venture for an employer that is currently operating in the market. Based on our previous definition of corporate venturing (Sharma and Chrisman 1999), we 2.3 Proposed conceptual model operationalized this variable using three criteria based on the APS survey information (Bosma et al. 2010, 2011; Table 1 summarizes generational trends/patterns associ- Guerrero and Peña- Legazkue, 2013, 2014; Alrumaithi ated with the three determinants of corporate venturing et al. 2015; Guerrero and Peña-Legazkue 2019). First, we strategies discussed in previous studies. We assume that confirmed employees’ involvement in developing intra- generational cohorts likely influence workplace corpo- preneurial activities for their primary employer in the last rate venturing strategies and outcomes (Lamm and 3 years (e.g., employees confirmed their participation in Meeks 2009). corporate entrepreneurship activities implemented by Based on previous arguments, Fig. 1 shows the con- their employer in the last 3 years; entrepreneurial activi- ceptual model proposed in this paper. In summary, we ties included participating in radical/incremental innova- explore whether human capital (H1), attitudes toward tion projects, designing new business units, entering into entrepreneurship (H2), organizational determinants new markets, and exploiting opportunities to create ven- (H3), and environmental conditions (H4) have a direct tures). Second, we confirmed that the employees were effect on corporate venturing as well as whether gener- currently trying to create a new business/venture for their ational cohort has a moderating effect on these employer as part of their regular work (e.g., employees relationships(H1a, H2a, H3a, and H4a). confirmed their participation in creating corporate ven- tures as a part of their daily work in the organization). Third, we confirmed that employees’ new ventures were 3 Methodology operating in the market for fewer than 42 months as of the 3.1 Data collection 1 Unfortunately, the rest of the GEM waves did not include these additional questions. 2 Our data came from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Belgium, Bosnia, Chile, China, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Korea, Lithuania, Malaysia, Namibia, (GEM) project; it is an international research program Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Puerto Rico, Romania, Slovakia, focused on entrepreneurship that conducts a standardized Slovenia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Vietnam. M. Guerrero et al. Table 1 Determinants of corporate venturing per generational cohort Dimensions Baby Boomers Gen Xers Gen Yers Theoretical approaches Employees’ Human capital * Secondary school or * Secondary school or * Undergraduate studies * Human capital: determinants technical undergraduate studies * Digital learning and accumulation, * Technical training * Life-long learning mentors productivity and * Excellent mentors * Crave mentors * Value skill development performance * Leadership experience * Technical competence * Technology Attitudes toward * Competitive * Entrepreneurial effort * Serial entrepreneur * Career choices entrepreneurship * Embrace change * Creativity * Curious/ambitious approach * Embrace growth * Self-sufficient * Seek challenges, innovations, and opportunities *Economic results oriented Organizational Work values * Workaholic * Work/life balance * Multi-tasker * Sociological approach determinants * Company loyalty * Lack of loyalty * Contract mentality * Organizational * Individual freedom * Independent * Crave feedback behaviors * Security oriented * Move for career options * Change jobs frequently * Rule challenging * Diminished by * Material satisfaction dissatisfaction Environmental Conditions * Much social change * Economic uncertainty * Rapid technological * Institutional theory determinants experienced * Much economic change * Insecurity changes * Social identities * Much political change * Rapid change * Social sensitivity * Worldwide openness * Worldwide competition * Uncertainty and insecurity * Digital worldwide Source: Self-devised based on Benson and Brown 2011; Chen and Choi 2008; Cennamo and Gardner 2008; Gibson et al. 2009; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola and Sutton 2002; Hung et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2019; Parry and Urwin 2011; Wong et al. 2008; Zhang and Acs 2018 date of the APS survey (e.g., employees confirmed that their ventures and determine whether the ventures should the ventures they created were operating in the market be classified as new ventures according to the GEM during the last 3.5 years; it helps us to indicate the age of methodology). In summary, our dependent variable, Multi-generational cohorts Employees’ (H1, H2): H1a, H2a Human capital Attitudes toward entrepreneurship Organizational determinants (H3): H3a Autonomy Meaningful Corporate venturing Rewards Environmental determinants (H4): H4a Competitive intensity Technological and R&D dynamism Labor market conditions Fig. 1 Proposed conceptual model. Source: Authors Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis corporate venturing, takes the value 1 when the employ- The fourth set of explanatory variables, at the country ee answered “yes” to the three previous criteria and 0 environmental level, measures the economic environ- otherwise. ment (Ireland et al. 2009; Narayanan et al. 2009; The first set of explanatory variables, at individual Parker 2011; Sahaym et al. 2010; Titus et al., 2017) level, captures employees’ human capital (Alpkan et al. and is composed of Competitive Intensity, measured as 2010; Bosma 2013; Parker 2011; Millan et al. 2014; the natural logarithm of the industry value added per Kuratko et al. 2015), which is composed of a dichoto- country; Technological Intensity, measured as the natu- mous variable that takes the value 1 when the employee ral logarithm of high-technology manufactured exports has a college degree (Higher Education), a dichotomous per country; Innovation Intensity, measured as the natu- variable that takes the value 1 when the employee had ral logarithm of R&D expenditure per country; and entrepreneurial experience in the previous year (Entre- Labor Market Conditions, measured as the natural log- preneurial Experience), a dichotomous variable that arithm of total unemployment per country. takes the value 1 when the employee had investor ex- The generational effect was measured with the vari- perience in the past 3 years (Investor Experience), and a able Multi-Generations (Lamm and Meeks 2009). This dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 when the variable is a categorical variable estimated by the em- employee had managerial experience (Managerial Ex- ployees’ age3: the value 1 for Generation Y (born after perience). The second set of explanatory variables, also 1980), the value 2 for Generation X (born 1965–1980), at individual level, captures employees’ attitudes toward and the value 3 for Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964). entrepreneurship (Bosma 2013; Guerrero and Peña- Finally, a set of control variables was added to our Legazkue 2014; Khedhaouria et al. 2015; Simon et al. model. At individual level, based on previous GEM 2000; Van Auken et al. 2006) and is composed of a studies (Bosma 2013), we included the employees’ age dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 when the measured by the number of years since the date of employee believes he or she has the knowledge, skills, born; the employees’ gender measured by a dichoto- and experience required to start a business (Entrepre- mous variable that takes the value 1 when the employ- neurial Skills); a dichotomous variable that takes the ee reported a male gender; and the employees’ income value 1 when the employee believes that fear of failure measured by a dichotomous variable that takes the would prevent him or her from starting a business (Fear value 1 when the employee reported personal income of Failure); a dichotomous variable that takes the value higher than 68,000 dollars/year. At the organizational 1 when the employee knows someone who has started a level, based on previous GEM studies (Burton et al. business in the past 2 years (Know Entrepreneurs); a 2016a, 2016b), we included variables reported by the dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 when the employees in the data collection. Concretely, two di- employee perceives entrepreneurial opportunities in the chotomous variables collected the employees’ roles next 6 months (Opportunity Perceptions); and a dichot- assumed during corporate venturing activities: leading omous variable that takes the value 1 when the employ- role in the development of (role 1_development) and/ ee has entrepreneurial intentions (Intentions). or leading role in the implementation (role 2_imple- The third set of explanatory variables, are perceptions of mentation). Employees also reported the size of their the individuals from their organizations, was captured employers’ organizations in terms of the number of through the additional questions added in the 2012 and employees that was included in our analysis as a 2013 APS survey about employees’ perceptions of their natural logarithm (InSize) and the employers’ type work environment (Alrumaithi et al. 2015; Hornsby et al. expressed by a dichotomous variable that takes value 2002; Grégoire et al. 2010; Monsen et al. 2010). This set is 1 when the organization was private, otherwise if it composed of three workplace environmental characteris- was public (Orgatype Private). tics: Meaningful Job, measured with a Likert scale (1 = lower to 5 = higher perceptions that he or she has a mean- 3 The GEM methodology ensured a representative sample of the adult ingful job); Job Autonomy, measured with a Likert scale population in each country in terms of age and gender distribution (for (1 = lower to 5 = higher perceptions that he or she can further details, see Reynolds et al. 2005). Therefore, the samples for decide how to do his or her work); and Rewards, measured each country are representative of the adult population and cover our generational cohorts. Moreover, regarding the employees’ sample rep- with a Likert scale (1 = lower to 5 = higher perceptions that resentativeness, employees were the focus of attention during the data- he or she is satisfied with his or her current income). collection process in the analyzed GEM waves. M. Guerrero et al. 3.3 Statistical model 4 Findings and discussion Our dataset captured information at the employee 4.1 Descriptive statistics level (Level 1) and country level (Level 2). With this data, it is possible to implement multilevel Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for the entire moderation effects (Guo and Zhao 2000; Elam sample as well as for each generational cohort. Across 2014). Using Stata software, we conducted a mul- 28 countries6, the prevalence of having created a corpo- tilevel analysis for the binary variables: we used rate venture in the last 3 years is approximately 11%. melogit procedure to capture coefficients and With regard to human capital, on average, 29% have meologit to capture odds ratios (StataCorp 2013). higher education as well as diversified prior experience, We show our results via odds ratios because it is a including managerial (12%), entrepreneurial (3%), and single summary score of the effect, and the prob- investor (6%) experience. The results also reveal that abilities are more intuitive than simple coefficients 25% of employees in the sample intend to create their (see Madanoglu et al. 2019; Mickiewicz et al. own business in the next 3 years, 39% of them know 2019). The odds demonstrate the probability that entrepreneurs, 35% of them perceive business opportu- an outcome (e.g., corporate venturing) will occur nities, 49% of them believe they have entrepreneurial in the presence of a given variable (e.g., each of skills, and 44% of the sample express has a fear of the determinants included in our analysis). For failure. In addition, employees have positive perceptions interpretation, an odds ratio value lower than 1 of their workplaces (three on a five-point Likert scale). indicates a negative coefficient, and an odds ratio The descriptive statistics also show the prevalence of value greater than or equal to 1 indicates a posi- corporate venturing activities per generational cohort. In tive coefficient (Langer 2017). The correlation ma- contrast with their predecessors (Gen Xers and Baby trix reveals that most of the explanatory variables Boomers), Gen Y employees have relevant participation are not highly correlated (Table 2). The mean in corporate venturing activities (12% vs. 9% and 6%, variance inflation factor (VIF) is 1.82, indicating respectively), which was statistically supported7. Fur- that the entire model is moderately correlated.4 thermore, Gen Y employees show more favorable atti- However, as we expected, age5 and generational tudes toward entrepreneurship than their predecessors: cohort are the most highly correlated variables in 32% have intentions to start a business, 44% have this analysis. entrepreneurial role models, 43% have opportunity per- To test our hypotheses, we first ran a general ceptions, 51% believe they have entrepreneurial skills, model with the entire sample (Model 1) and per and 39% have a fear of failure. Interestingly, there are no generational cohort (Models 1a, 1b, and 1c). To substantial differences among generations in their eval- test the moderation effect of the generational co- uations of their organizational climate. Moreover, 31% horts, we then built an interaction among the de- of Baby Boomers have assumed leading roles in the terminant variables to reduce the complexity in the development of corporate venturing ideas respect to analysis of each dimension. Afterwards, we created 10% of Gen X and Y employees. interactions between each determinant of corporate venturing and each generational cohort. We then tested this new mixed-effect logistic model with 6 Appendix 1 shows the employees’ distribution of our sample per the entire sample (Model 2), and the interactions country. In particular, we identify similar patterns. There is a concen- tration of Baby Boomers in the United Kingdom (15%) as well as are shown per determinant dimension (Models 2a, developing economies such as Namibia (6%), Iran (6%) and Chile 2b, 2c, and 2d). (5%). We also observed a concentration of Gen Xers in the United Kingdom (14%) and China (7%). Also, Gen Yers have a presence in central European countries such as Slovakia (7%), Slovenia (7%), Lithuania (7%) and Hungary (6%). 4 7 A rule of thumb is that if VIF > 10 then multicollinearity is high. The Our t-test shows that Gen Yers [0.12; p = 0.001] have more propen- cutoff of 5 is also commonly used to denote moderate correlation sity to be involved in corporate venturing activities than Baby Boomer among independent variables (Aiken et al. 1991). [0.062; p = 0.002] and Gen Xers [0.091; p = 0.001]. The p value for the 5 The square term of age (Age2) presents multicollinearity. For this difference between different generations is less than 0.05, so we reason, we decide to omit this variable in the analyses (Allen 1997). We conclude that the difference in means is statistically significantly discuss this limitation in the conclusions. different from 0 (based on a two-tailed significance level). Table 2 Correlation matrix No. Variables VIF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 test 1 Corporate venturing 1 2 Higher education 1.14 0.0228* 1 3 Managerial experience 1.10 0.4267* 0.0165* 1 4 Entrepreneurial 1.03 0.0819* − 0.0141* 0.0506* 1 experience 5 Investor experience 1.06 0.1013* 0.0341* 0.0834* 0.0666* 1 6 Entrepreneurial 1.25 0.2409* − 0.0064 0.0853* 0.1373* 0.1388* 1 intentions 7 Role models 1.13 0.1694* 0.0583* 0.1356* 0.0790* 0.1327* 0.1783* 1 8 Opportunity 1.15 0.1683* 0.0105* 0.0945* 0.0528* 0.0923* 0.2226* 0.2155* 1 perceptions 9 Entrepreneurial skills 1.23 0.2157* 0.0444* 0.1889* 0.0929* 0.1024* 0.2702* 0.2180* 0.2145* 1 10 Fear of failure 1.04 − 0.0739* 0.0295* − 0.0534* − 0.0145* − 0.0468* − 0.0853* − 0.0213* − 0.0984* − 0.1275* 1 11 Autonomy 1.46 0.0797* − 0.0041 0.0900* 0.0262* 0.0335* 0.0949* 0.0614* 0.0783* 0.0689* − 0.0601* 1 12 Meaningful job 2.14 0.0788* − 0.0097 0.0737* 0.0257* 0.0382* 0.0876* 0.0698* 0.0885* 0.0693* − 0.0675* 0.5309* 1 13 Rewards 2.09 0.0549* − 0.0036 0.0653* 0.0098 0.0377* 0.0373* 0.0471* 0.0602* 0.0480* − 0.0536* 0.4697* 0.7163* 1 14 Labor market 2.16 0.0145* 0.0841* − 0.0072 0.0175* 0.0032 0.0139* − 0.0412* − 0.0205* 0.0428* 0.0501* − 0.0904* − 0.0811* − 0.0602* 1 conditions 15 Technological intensity 2.17 − 0.0504* 0.0610* 0.0197* − 0.0877* − 0.0910* − 0.1703* − 0.0823* − 0.1389* − 0.1688* 0.0908* − 0.0679* − 0.1435* − 0.1010* − 0.1146* 16 Innovation intensity 1.39 − 0.0972* 0.1566* − 0.0489* − 0.0830* − 0.0859* − 0.1974* − 0.0962* − 0.1335* − 0.1862* 0.0867* − 0.1861* − 0.2410* − 0.1966* 0.3215* 17 Competitive intensity 2.00 0.0392* 0.0483* 0.0025 0.0199* 0.0212* 0.0842* 0.0387* 0.0213* 0.0019 − 0.0063 0.1800* 0.2474* 0.2068* 0.2982* 18 Role1_idea 1.16 0.0031 0.0024 0.0061 0.0008 0.0005 − 0.0056 − 0.0009 0.0026 − 0.0038 0.0006 0.0002 − 0.0013 0.0007 0.0048 development 19 Role2_idea 1.16 − 0.0055 0.0018 − 0.0027 0.0010 − 0.0050 − 0.0033 − 0.0027 − 0.0059 − 0.0046 − 0.0054 − 0.0057 − 0.0034 0.0044 0.0031 Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis implementation 20 Age 7.16 − 0.0730* − 0.0076 0.0385* − 0.0233* − 0.0093* − 0.1570* − 0.1014* − 0.0945* − 0.0356* 0.0379* − 0.0328* − 0.0221* 0.0162* 0.0076 21 Age2 7.16 − 0.0722* − 0.0172* 0.0411* − 0.0249* − 0.0101* − 0.1523* − 0.1055* − 0.0890* − 0.0389* 0.0295* − 0.0281* − 0.0200* 0.0180* 0.0033 22 Income_higher 1.10 0.0438* 0.2499* 0.0342* − 0.0089* 0.0653* 0.0195* 0.0782* 0.0547* 0.0793* − 0.0185* − 0.0254* − 0.0635* − 0.0304* 0.0154* 23 Gender_male 1.06 0.0621* − 0.0771* 0.0379* 0.0186* 0.0447* 0.0984* 0.0643* 0.0596* 0.1360* − 0.0771* 0.0279* 0.0277* 0.0138* − 0.0147* 24 Orgatype_private 1.11 0.0628* − 0.1816* 0.0759* 0.0163* 0.0050 0.0770* 0.0379* 0.0356* 0.0824* − 0.0141* 0.0435* 0.0294* 0.0042 − 0.0391* 25 lnSize 1.01 0.0069 0.0097* 0.0060 0.0028 0.0019 − 0.0063 − 0.0011 − 0.0060 0.0053 0.0120* − 0.0116* − 0.0194* − 0.0084 0.0006 26 Country 1.38 0.0224* − 0.0186* − 0.0311* 0.0221* 0.0254* 0.0568* 0.0118* 0.0124* 0.0517* − 0.0111* 0.0786* 0.0708* 0.0904* 0.0833* 27 Generations 7.12 − 0.0721* − 0.0211* 0.0309* − 0.0234* − 0.0082* − 0.1496* − 0.0995* − 0.0909* − 0.0369* 0.0353* − 0.0323* − 0.0221* 0.0157* 0.0095* No. Variables 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 15 Technological intensity 1 16 Innovation intensity 0.5905* 1 M. Guerrero et al. 27 − 0.0354* − 0.1543* 0.0611* 0.0079* 1 4.2 Determinants of corporate venturing activities The results in Table 4 show the directional probability 26 1 (e.g., increasing or decreasing probability of corporate venturing) for human capital, organizational climate, − 0.0278* − 0.0095* − 0.0292* 0.0070 and environmental conditions (Model 1). Taking the 25 1 Baby Boomers as a reference, the results show differ- − 0.0115* ences in Baby Boomers’ propensity to be involved in corporate venturing initiatives compared with Gen Yers 24 1 (1.380; p < 0.100) and Gen Xers (1.282; p < 0.050). − 0.0016 Contrary to previous studies that have studied the rela- − 0.0077 − 0.1598* − 0.1519* − 0.0440* 0.1388* tionship between types of entrepreneurship and age 23 (Bönte et al. 2009; Zhang and Acs 2018), our findings 1 show how the probability of being engaged in corporate − 0.0001 − 0.0035 − 0.0341* − 0.0309* 0.0252* venturing activities decreases with the level of maturity of the generational cohort. 22 − 0.0127* 1 With regard to employee determinants, we observe interesting patterns for human capital and attitudes to- 0.0607* 0.9114* 0.0010 Notes: (1) VIF test was calculated in Stata to measure the degree of multicollinearity; (2) Significant level at the 1% ward entrepreneurship. Exploring human capital, we 21 1 found that managerial experience (1.535; p < 0.010), entrepreneurial experience (1.351; p < 0.100), investor − 0.0053 − 0.0052 0.9880* 0.0647* 0.9273* 0.0020 experience (1.325; p < 0.010), and higher education 20 (1.197; p < 0.010) increase the probability that an em- 1 ployee will be engaged in corporate venturing activities 0.0328* 0.0352* 0.0370* 0.0023 0.0003 − 0.0084* 0.0007 (supporting H1). These findings suggest that human 19 capital from a diversified and qualified workforce rep- 1 resents a core competence for entrepreneurial organiza- − 0.0071 0.3670* tions (Alpkan et al. 2010; Millan et al. 2014) and the role − 0.0615* 0.0046 − 0.0725* 0.0033 0.0007 − 0.0582* 0.0048 0.0046 0.0024 of human capital such as an antecedent of corporate 18 1 venturing activities (Parker 2011; Guerrero and Peña- − 0.0034 − 0.0019 − 0.0051 Legazkue 2013; Guerrero and Peña-Legazkue 2014). − 0.0631* − 0.0580* 0.0419* − 0.0184* 0.0372* − 0.2544* − 0.1230* 0.0748* 0.0205* The analysis of human capital per generation (Models 17 1 1a, 1b, and 1c) shows that, in contrast to their predeces- sors (Baby Boomers and Gen Xers), Gen Yers’ partici- − 0.0004 0.0884* 0.0820* − 0.1032* 0.3516* 0.0850* 0.0111* 0.0045 0.0037 pation in corporate venturing activities is influenced by 16 their higher education (1.270; p < 0.050), managerial experience (1.672; p < 0.010), and previous entrepre- 19 Role2_idea implementation − 0.0008 0.0487* 0.0504* 0.0453* 0.0778* 0.0343* neurial experience (1.536; p < 0.050). Interestingly, in- 0.0026 0.0030 vestor experience increases the probability that Gen 15 Xers engage in corporate venturing activities by approx- imately 1.5 times (1.547; p < 0.050). Similarly, manage- 18 Role1_idea development rial experience increases Baby Boomers’ likelihood of 17 Competitive intensity engaging in corporate venturing activities by approxi- 24 Orgatype_private 22 Income_higher mately 1.6 times (1.674; p < 0.010). These results are in Table 2 (continued) 23 Gender_male 27 Generations line with prior studies that have adopted a multigenera- No. Variables 26 Country tional perspective (Stevens 2010; Stewart et al. 2017) 25 lnSize 21 Age2 20 Age and have shown the main characteristics per generation in terms of human capital, such as Baby Boomers’ strong leadership ability (Gibson et al. 2009; Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Table 3 Descriptive statistics Variable All Generations Gen Yers [20,256 employees] [6821 employees] Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Corporate venturing 0.11 0.02 0.00 1.00 0.12 0.32 0.00 1.00 Higher education 0.29 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.31 0.46 0.00 1.00 Managerial experience 0.12 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00 Entrepreneurial experience 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.18 0.00 1.00 Investor experience 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 1.00 Entrepreneurial intentions 0.25 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.47 0.00 1.00 Role models 0.39 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.44 0.50 0.00 1.00 Opportunity perceptions 0.35 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.43 0.50 0.00 1.00 Entrepreneurial skills 0.49 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.51 0.50 0.00 1.00 Fear of failure 0.44 0.02 0.00 1.00 0.39 0.49 0.00 1.00 Autonomy 3.29 0.04 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.38 1.00 5.00 Meaningful job 3.31 0.02 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.50 1.00 5.00 Rewards 3.23 0.01 1.00 5.00 3.18 1.35 1.00 5.00 Labor market conditions 2.17 0.01 1.13 4.19 2.23 0.73 1.13 4.19 Technological intensity 2.25 0.02 2.30 4.19 2.10 1.36 2.30 4.19 Innovation intensity 0.19 0.09 2.30 4.19 0.10 1.34 2.30 4.19 Competitive intensity 3.27 0.42 11.92 95.49 3.40 1.16 11.92 95.49 Role1_idea development 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00 Role2_idea implementation 0.07 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.23 0.00 1.00 Age 39.00 7.07 18.00 86.00 26.10 3.88 18.00 32.00 Age2 1521.00 49.98 324.00 7396.00 681.21 15.05 324.00 7396.00 Income_higher 0.42 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.49 0.00 1.00 Gender_male 0.55 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.58 0.49 0.00 1.00 Orgatype_private 0.65 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.73 0.44 0.00 1.00 lnSize 4.11 2.11 1.60 6.90 3.91 2.08 1.60 6.90 Variable Gen Xers Baby Boomers [8547 employees] [4888 employees] Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Corporate venturing 0.09 0.29 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 1.00 Higher education 0.32 0.47 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.45 0.00 1.00 Managerial experience 0.11 0.31 0.00 1.00 0.12 0.33 0.00 1.00 Entrepreneurial experience 0.03 0.17 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 1.00 Investor experience 0.06 0.24 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.23 0.00 1.00 Entrepreneurial intentions 0.23 0.42 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.36 0.00 1.00 Role models 0.40 0.49 0.00 1.00 0.31 0.46 0.00 1.00 Opportunity perceptions 0.37 0.48 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.47 0.00 1.00 Entrepreneurial skills 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.45 0.50 0.00 1.00 Fear of failure 0.44 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.43 0.49 0.00 1.00 Autonomy 3.23 1.41 1.00 5.00 3.20 1.46 1.00 5.00 Meaningful job 3.26 1.56 1.00 5.00 3.23 1.62 1.00 5.00 Rewards 3.19 1.34 1.00 5.00 3.24 1.39 1.00 5.00 Labor market conditions 2.25 0.71 1.13 4.19 2.25 0.62 1.13 4.19 Technological intensity 2.16 1.36 2.30 4.19 2.26 1.19 2.30 4.19 M. Guerrero et al. Table 3 (continued) Variable Gen Xers Baby Boomers [8547 employees] [4888 employees] Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Innovation intensity 0.10 1.35 2.30 4.19 0.19 1.19 2.30 4.19 Competitive intensity 3.42 1.21 11.92 95.49 3.19 1.18 11.92 95.49 Role1_idea development 0.11 0.32 0.00 1.00 0.11 0.31 0.00 1.00 Role2_idea implementation 0.08 0.26 0.00 1.00 0.08 0.27 0.00 1.00 Age 40.08 4.52 33.00 48.00 55.03 4.82 49.00 86.00 Age2 1606.40 20.43 324.00 7396.00 3028.30 23.23 324.00 7396.00 Income_higher 0.42 0.49 0.00 1.00 0.39 0.49 0.00 1.00 Gender_male 0.56 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.54 0.50 0.00 1.00 Orgatype_private 0.62 0.49 0.00 1.00 0.53 0.50 0.00 1.00 lnSize 4.20 2.11 1.60 6.90 4.28 2.14 1.60 6.90 Rodriguez et al. 2003; Yu and Miller 2005) and Gen each generation highlights interesting patterns (see Model Xers’ technical competence, experience (Cennamo and 1a, 1b, and 1c). First, the positive effect of entrepreneurial Gardner 2008; Smola and Sutton 2002), and diversified intentions on corporate venturing is 0.81 times higher for human capital (Gibson et al. 2009; Smola and Sutton Baby Boomers (4.062; p < 0.010) than for Gen Xers 2002; Wong et al. 2008). Our insights are also aligned (3.249; p < 0.010) and 1.82 times higher for Baby with the substantive body of research, which has con- Boomers than for Gen Yers (2.241; p < 0.010). Second, sistently demonstrated over time that organizational hi- the effect of entrepreneurial skills on corporate venturing is erarchy has effects on the interest and ability to engage slightly higher in Gen Yers (2.437; p < 0.010) compared in corporate entrepreneurship (Floyd and Lane 2000; with Gen Xers (1.841; p < 0.010) and compared with Baby Hornsby et al. 2009; Ren and Guo 2011). Although Boomers (2.368; p < 0.010). Third, the positive effect of organizational hierarchy is not measured in this study, entrepreneurial role models and perceptions of opportuni- the managerial and leading effects observed in Baby ties on corporate venturing is similar for all generational Boomers provide some highlights about the relevance cohorts (see Table 4). Our findings are similar to prior of hierarchy in the development of corporate venturing studies that have shown the main characteristics per gen- initiatives. Thus, these results support H1a. eration in terms of entrepreneurial attitudes, such as Baby Exploring employees’ attitudes toward entrepreneur- Boomers’ risk-taking and competitiveness; Gen Xers’ ef- ship, we found that fear of failure decreases corporate forts to obtain an attractive career; Gen Yers’ entrepreneur- venturing activities by 24% (0.809; p < 0.010). Employees ial spirit, answer-seeking behavior, personal responsibility, with favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurship, such as need for faster feedback, and focus on outcomes (Eisner intentions to create a business (2.813; p < 0.010), percep- 2005; Gibson et al. 2009; Müller and Neck 2010; Smola tions of having entrepreneurial skills (2.160; p < 0.010), and Sutton 2002). Thus, our findings support H2a. knowing entrepreneurs (1.625; p < 0.010), and perceptions Concerning organizational determinants, our findings of business opportunities (1.540; p < 0.010), are more show some patterns. First, the results lend support to the likely to engage in corporate venturing activities than positive effect of a meaningful job (1.034; p < 0.050) and employees who do not have favorable attitudes toward rewards (1.009; p < 0.100) on corporate venturing initia- entrepreneurship (supporting H2). These results suggest tives. However, we did not find evidence that autonomy the relevance of employees’ attitudes for corporate ventur- affects corporate venturing (Model 1). These results sug- ing activities (Ireland et al. 2009). In fact, reinforcing gest that the employees’ engagement in corporate ventur- employees’ self-efficacy is one strategy implemented by ing is aligned with their work values and personal aspira- organizations with an entrepreneurial orientation (Guerrero tions (McMullen and Shepherd 2006), thus supporting H3. and Peña-Legazkue 2014, 2019; Khedhaouria et al. 2015; One explanation for this finding could be that creating a Simon et al. 2000; Van Auken et al. 2006). The analysis for new venture as part of one’s job is an excellent opportunity Table 4 Mixed-effect logistic regression (based on original variables) Dimensions Corporate venturing Model 1 Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c All generations Gen Yers Gen Xers Baby Boomers Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. Generational cohorts Gen_Baby boomers (reference) (GC) Gen_Xers 1.282 0.159 ** Gen_Yers 1.380 0.273 * Employees’ Higher education 1.197 0.078 *** 1.270 0.130 ** 1.105 0.114 1.171 0.187 human capital Managerial experience 1.535 0.614 *** 1.672 0.172 *** 1.460 0.147 *** 1.674 0.269 *** (HC) Entrepreneurial experience 1.351 0.166 * 1.536 0.290 ** 1.236 0.243 * 1.267 0.397 Investor experience 1.325 0.117 *** 1.302 0.181 * 1.547 0.212 *** 1.045 0.239 Employees’ Entrepreneurial intentions 2.813 0.173 *** 2.241 0.208 *** 3.249 0.314 *** 4.062 0.651 *** attitudes toward Role models 1.625 0.096 *** 1.702 0.159 *** 1.436 0.132 *** 1.716 0.246 *** entrepreneurship (AE) Opportunity perceptions 1.540 0.092 *** 1.515 0.140 *** 1.546 0.145 *** 1.716 0.256 *** Entrepreneurial skills 2.160 0.149 *** 2.437 0.254 *** 1.841 0.200 *** 2.368 0.426 *** Fear of failure 0.809 0.048 *** 0.786 0.075 ** 0.800 0.074 ** 0.827 0.124 Organizational determinants Autonomy 1.004 0.024 0.976 0.036 1.027 0.040 1.042 0.060 * (OD) Meaningful job 1.034 0.030 ** 1.113 0.047 ** 1.004 0.047 1.040 0.076 Rewards 1.009 0.027 * 1.000 0.043 1.087 0.040 ** 0.935 0.071 Environmental determinants Labor market conditions 0.681 0.019 *** 0.716 0.085 * 0.704 0.014 * 0.594 0.146 *** (ED) Technological intensity 0.724 0.022 *** 0.715 0.070 *** 0.706 0.091 ** 0.800 0.123 ** Innovation intensity 0.859 0.027 *** 0.832 0.009 ** 0.862 0.077 * 0.937 0.098 Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Competitive intensity 0.990 0.050 * 0.984 0.005 * 0.991 0.010 * 1.001 0.012 Control variables Role1_idea development 1.182 0.113 ** 1.102 0.168 1.165 0.174 1.506 0.341 ** Role2_idea implementation 0.797 0.098 * 0.901 0.186 0.712 0.133 * 0.794 0.221 Age 1.003 0.063 ** 0.999 0.011 0.976 0.009 ** 0.985 0.013 Income_higher 1.098 0.065 * 1.106 0.101 1.131 0.104 1.010 0.152 Gender_male 1.312 0.078 *** 1.341 0.125 *** 1.283 0.118 ** 1.319 0.197 ** Orgatype_private 1.216 0.013 ** 1.440 0.160 *** 1.257 0.129 * 0.829 0.128 lnSize 1.028 0.013 * 1.021 0.020 1.035 0.021 1.015 0.319 Constant 2.697 0.885 *** 3.027 0.909 *** 1.802 1.025 * 2.574 1.410 * Random effects Country 0.127 0.045 0.099 0.045 0.132 1.056 0.109 0.064 chibar2 91.100 23.690 30.66 7.97 Prob>chibar2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 Model specifications N 20,256.00 6821.00 8547.00 4888.00 Groups 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 M. Guerrero et al. p > |z| to achieve dreams/goals/values using employer resources and sharing risks (Fairlie 2011; Liden et al. 2000). How- Robust ever, reward involves utility maximization, several Baby Boomers S.E. tradeoffs, and opportunity costs (Monsen et al. 2010). Model 1c Therefore, it is not surprising that employees who are more − 777.61 509.98 440.00 0.0000 0.3549 satisfied with their income look for new entrepreneurial p > |z| Odds 22.00 174.6 ratio opportunities as an alternative to maximizing their utility. Our analysis for each generation provides additional in- sights. Model 1a shows that the positive effect of mean- ingful job on corporate venturing is only significant for Robust Gen Yers (1.113; p < 0.050). Model 1b shows that the S.E. positive effect of rewards on corporate venturing is only Model 1b Gen Xers − 1886.52 significant for Gen Xers (1.087; p < 0.050). Model 1c 1096.10 305.30 665.00 0.0000 0.3243 p > |z| Odds 56.00 shows that the positive effect of autonomy on corporate ratio venturing is only significant for Baby Boomers (1.042; p < 0.100). The influence of generational cohort is evident for this dimension, thus supporting H3a. According to Gibson et al. (2009), Baby Boomers look for autonomy, Robust Gen Xers seek options to improve their salary/benefits, and S.E. Gen Yers want to work in a socially active environment. Thus, our results are in line with these prior findings. Model 1a Gen Yers − 1831.67 1088.09 With regard to the environmental dimensions (Model 243.60 431.00 0.0000 0.3396 p > |z| Odds 68.00 ratio 1), unfavorable labor market conditions decrease em- ployees’ engagement in corporate venturing by approxi- *Significance at the 10% level; **Significance at the 5% level; ***Significance at the 1% level mately 46% (0.681; p < 0.010). Similarly, unfavorable conditions associated with technology intensity decreases Robust employees’ engagement in corporate venturing by approx- S.E. All generations imately 38% (0.724; p < 0.010). Likewise, unfavorable conditions associated with innovation intensity (0.859; − 4513.93 Model 1 1398.00 2668.14 149.00 0.0000 0.3368 p < 0.010) decreases employees’ involvement in corporate Odds 723.4 ratio venturing activities by approximately 16%. A plausible explanation for these results is that approximately 69.16% of the employees interviewed for the APS during these waves were living in emerging economies8, which tend to have nascent entrepreneurial innovation ecosys- Corporate venturing Log pseudo likelihood tems (Guerrero and Urbano 2017a, 2017b; Roundy 2017). As a consequence, the absence of favorable environmental Prob > chi2 conditions does not reinforce employees’ involvement in Pseudo R2 Wald chi2 corporate venturing, thus supporting H4. However, from Max. Min. Avg. an organizational perspective, unfavorable environmental conditions could create opportunities to exploit dynamic capabilities and achieve competitive advantages (Ireland et al. 2009; Kuratko et al. 2015). For the different genera- tions, our findings also show the negative influence of Table 4 (continued) environmental conditions. First, the uncertainty in labor market conditions (0.594; p < 0.050) decreases the Baby Dimensions 8 See Appendix 1 for further details about the employees’ distribution per country. Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Boomers’ likelihood of engaging in corporate venturing by Taking Baby Boomers as a reference, Model 2 shows approximately 67% (Model 1a). This generation has been that employees’ engagement in corporate venturing de- profoundly affected by several social, economic, and po- creases with age and increases with diversified human litical events (Gibson et al. 2009; Wong et al. 2008). capital, favorable entrepreneurial attitudes, and favor- Therefore, under unfavorable conditions, this generation able organizational conditions. If we analyze the em- looks for job security (Yu and Miller 2005). Second, ployees’ human capital dimensions, Model 2a shows the uncertainty in the labor market (0.704; p < 0.100) and in positive moderation effect for each generational cohort technology intensity (0.706; p < 0.050) decrease the prob- (1.40; p < 0.100 and 1.34; p < 0.010 for Gen X and Gen ability that Gen Xers are involved in corporate venturing Y, respectively). Model 2a also reveals how this inter- by 42%, respectively (Model 1b). This generation grew up action reinforces the positive effect of human capital on with financial, family, and societal insecurities (Cennamo corporate venturing by 2.1 times (3.52; p < 0.050) and Gardner 2008; Smola and Sutton); therefore, this contrasted to Model 2 (2.25; p < 0.050). By calculating generation prefers avoiding risk in uncertain conditions. the predicted probability of corporate venturing per Third, the uncertainty in innovation intensity (0.832; generational cohort (ranging from 18 to 80 years old) p < 0.010) decreases the Gen Yers’ participation in corpo- and diversified human capital (ranging from 0 to 1), rate venturing by approximately 20% (Model 1c). Interest- Graph A in Appendix 2 exhibits that a Gen Yer employ- ingly, the negative effect of environmental conditions on ee (18–34 years old) who has diversified human capital corporate venturing is lowest for Gen Yers. This generation (e.g., simultaneous managerial, entrepreneurial, and in- grew up under economic uncertainty and insecurities vestor experiences) has a 40% chance of developing in (Gibson et al. 2009) and thus tried to balance organization- corporate venturing activities. Then, a Baby Boomer al purpose and societal objectives (Kowske et al. 2010). employee or a Gen Xer employee who has diversified human capital (values close 1) has a 20–30% chance of engaging corporate venturing activities. Therefore, Gen 4.3 Moderation effect of a generational cohort Yers employees with more diversified human capital have the highest probability of being engaged in corpo- Our results suggest that employees’ engagement in cor- rate venturing initiatives incubated by their employers, porate venture decreases with age. With regard to the while Baby Boomers employees have the lowest likeli- moderation effect of having multiple generations in the hood of being involved in corporate venturing. workplace, Table 5 shows the results for each generation If we analyze the employees’ entrepreneurial atti- (Model 2) and the generational interactions (Models 2a, tudes, Model 2b shows how the moderation effect for 2b, and 2c). Appendix 2 shows graphics that visualize generational cohort (1.16; p < 0.100 and 1.03; p < 0.100 the effects of corporate venturing determinants per gen- for Gen X and Gen Y, respectively) helps to reinforce erational cohorts9. the positive effect of attitudes toward entrepreneurship on corporate venturing (2.50; p < 0.010). By calculating 9 Our interactions include the dependent variable (corporate venturing), the the predicted probability of corporate venturing per explanatory variable (theoretical multilevel: individual, organizational and generational cohort (ranging from 18 to 80 years old) country), and the three-set of generational cohorts (Gen Yers, Gen Xers, and entrepreneurial attitudes (ranging from 0 to 1), and Baby Boomers). Therefore, the use of traditional plots to illustrate interactions represented a complex challenge. Inspired by published studies Graph B in Appendix 2 shows that a Gen Yer employee with complex models in fields such as medicine (Elgendy et al. 2019), (18–34 years old) who has favorable attitudes toward sociology (Mize 2019) and business (Hammer et al. 2018), we used the entrepreneurship (e.g., simultaneous recognizes inten- Stata spotlight for creating graphs to visualize our interactions and solve our tions, role models, skills, opportunities, and failure-aver- complexity. According to Huber (2017), the Stata spotlight helps to visu- alize continuous by continuous interactions with margins and two-way sion) has a 30–40% chance of developing in corporate contours. In this vein, based on Model 2 of Table 5, the graph visualizes the venturing activities. A Gen Xer employee who has impact of different generational cohorts (vertices “x”) and the explanatory favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurship has a 20– variable (vertices “y”) on the probability of employees to be engagement on corporate venturing activities (vertices “z”). As a result, each interaction 30% chance of engaging corporate venturing activities, causes a curvature of the contour lines in the graph (without interaction, the while a Baby Boomer employee has a 10%. In this vein, contour lines would be straight). In other words, the curves in the graph Gen Yers and Gen Xers with favorable attitudes toward reveal how each generational cohort is associated with the predicted probability of corporate venturing for various levels of human capital, entrepreneurship have the highest likelihood of being organizational conditions, and environmental conditions. enrolled in corporate venturing initiatives incubated by Table 5 Mixed-effect logistic regression (based on interactions) Dimensions Corporate venturing Model 2 Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. Interactions HC * GC Baby boomers (reference) Gen_Xers 1.340 0.419 * Gen_Yers 1.404 0.419 * AE * GC Baby boomers (reference) Gen_Xers 1.158 0.437 * Gen_Yers 1.027 0.240 * OD* GC Baby boomers (reference) Gen_Xers 0.999 0.001 Gen_Yers 0.999 0.001 * ED * GC Baby boomers (reference) Gen_Xers 1.000 0.004 * Gen_Yers 1.000 0.003 ** Generational Gen_Baby boomers (reference) cohorts Gen_Yers 1.420 0.247 ** 1.409 0.245 ** 1.428 0.249 ** 1.327 0.257 * 1.363 0.235 * (GC) Gen_Xers 1.277 0.139 ** 1.274 0.139 ** 1.288 0.141 ** 1.303 0.181 ** 1.240 0.135 ** Employees’ Higher education x Managerial 2.255 0.937 ** 3.528 1.049 ** 2.261 0.939 ** 2.219 0.924 ** 3.072 1.246 ** human capital (HC) experience x Entrepreneurial experience x Investor experience Employees’ Entrepreneurial intentions x Role 2.551 0.311 *** 2.553 0.311 *** 2.585 0.472 *** 2.554 0.311 *** 2.979 0.354 *** attitudes toward models x Opportunity perceptions entrepreneurship x Entrepreneurial skills x Fear of (EA) failure Organizational Autonomy x Meaningful job x 1.004 0.006 *** 1.005 0.006 *** 1.004 0.006 *** 1.005 0.009 *** 1.005 0.005 *** determinants Rewards (OD) Environmental Labor market conditions x 0.998 0.008 ** 0.998 0.008 ** 0.998 0.008 ** 0.998 0.008 ** 0.997 0.002 *** determinants Technological intensity x (ED) Innovation intensity x Competitive intensity Control variables Role1_idea development 1.187 0.096 ** 1.187 0.096 ** 1.188 0.096 ** 1.188 0.096 ** 1.196 0.096 ** Role2_idea implementation 0.805 0.085 ** 0.805 0.085 ** 0.804 0.085 ** 0.804 0.085 ** 0.797 0.085 ** Age 1..001 0.005 ** 1..001 0.005 ** 1..001 0.005 ** 1..001 0.005 ** 1..001 0.005 ** Income_higher 1.452 0.070 *** 1.453 0.070 *** 1.452 0.070 *** 1.453 0.070 *** 1.429 0.070 *** Gender_male 1.502 0.076 *** 1.503 0.076 *** 1.502 0.076 *** 1.503 0.076 *** 1.533 0.076 *** Orgatype_private 1.583 0.089 *** 1.584 0.089 *** 1.582 0.089 *** 1.585 0.089 *** 1.589 0.089 *** lnSize 1.023 0.011 ** 1.022 0.011 ** 1.023 0.011 ** 1.023 0.011 ** 1.022 0.011 * Constant 3.314 0.347 *** 3.304 0.348 *** 3.320 0.348 *** 3.297 0.352 *** 3.318 0.348 *** M. Guerrero et al. Table 5 (continued) Dimensions Corporate venturing Model 2 Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| Odds Robust p > |z| ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. ratio S.E. Random effects Country 0.511 0.162 0.510 0.162 0.511 0.162 0.512 0.162 0.510 0.162 chibar2 471.86 471.46 471.89 473.11 471.45 Prob>chibar2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Model N 20,256.00 20,256.00 specifications 20,256.00 20,256.00 20,256.00 Groups 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 Min. 149.00 149.00 149.00 149.00 149.00 Avg. 724.1 724.1 724.1 724.1 724.1 Max. 1398.00 1398.00 1398.00 1398.00 1398.00 Wald chi2 430.65 431.60 430.63 433.34 430.78 Log pseudo − 6157.14 − 6156.49 − 6156.96 likelihood − 6156.21 − 6157.02 Prob > chi2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Pseudo R2 0.1766 0.1767 0.1767 0.1767 0.1767 Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis *Significance at the 10% level; **Significance at the 5% level; ***Significance at the 1% M. Guerrero et al. their employers, while Baby Boomers show the lowest The higher employees’ income also increases the prob- probability toward corporate venturing based on their ability to be corporate entrepreneurs. At the organiza- attitudes toward entrepreneurship. tional level, be involved in the leading role in the devel- If we analyze the organizational determinants, the opment (role 1_development) and/or leading role in the generational moderation effect also reinforced the posi- implementation (role 2_implementation) is positive and tive influence of organizational determinants on corpo- significant. Similarly, the organization size (InSize) and rate venturing (1.00; p < 0.100 for Gen Yers). By calcu- work in private organizations (Orgatype Private) are lating the predicted probability of corporate venturing positive and significant for corporate venturing. per generational cohort (ranging from 18 to 80 years In sum, the moderation models reveal how genera- old) and favorable organizational conditions (ranging tional cohort positively reinforces the effect of each de- from 1 to 150), Graph C in Appendix 2 shows that a terminant on corporate venturing. Appendix 2 visually Gen Yer employee (18–34 years old) who has favorable reveals how the interaction term causes the curvatures of perception of organizational conditions (e.g., autonomy, the contour lines. These curvatures show how the posi- meaningful job, and rewards) has a 30–50% chance of tive effect of generational cohorts on the predicted prob- developing in corporate venturing activities. A Gen Xer ability of corporate venturing differs across levels of employee who has favorable attitudes toward entrepre- corporate venturing determinants (human capital, atti- neurship has a 10–20% chance of engaging corporate tudes, organizational conditions, and environmental con- venturing activities, while a Baby Boomers employee ditions) and vice versa (supporting H1a, H2a, H3b, and has a 10%. The Gen Yers with favorable perceptions of H4b). According to Deloitte (2017), current organiza- the organizational climate are more prone to participate tions need a guide for attracting, developing, and in corporate venturing, while the Gen Xers and Baby retaining millennial talent based on their concerns and Boomers with favorable perceptions of organizational motivations. Based on the answers of 80,000 Gen Yers climate are lower participative on corporate venturing. across 30 countries, the most recent Deloitte Millennial If we analyze the environmental determinants, the Survey (Deloitte 2017) shows that (1) environmental moderation effect of generations on the negative influ- factors influence Millennials’ aspirations (e.g., pessi- ence of environmental determinants on corporate ven- mism is prevalent in developed countries, while opti- turing (0.99; p < 0.100 for both Gen Xers and Gen Yers) mism reigns in emerging countries) and loyalty to em- indicate odds ratio close to 1; therefore, the interpreta- ployers; (2) their perceptions of entrepreneurship are tion could be positive or negative (Model 2c and Model positive, but they believe entrepreneurship does not fully 2d). By calculating the predicted probability of corpo- realize its potential to alleviate the world’s biggest chal- rate venturing per generational cohort (ranging from 18 lenges (e.g., they are more likely to feel empowered to 80 years old) and environmental determinants (rang- while reinforcing a balance between business activities ing from 1 to 150), Graph D in Appendix 2 shows that a and social impact); and (c) their perceptions about work Gen Yer employee (18–34 years old) who has favorable environments are looking for trust, flexible work, loyalty, perception of environmental conditions (e.g., labor mar- significant contributions, creative thinking, and opportu- ket conditions, technological intensity, innovation inten- nities to develop new skills. The Forbes Millennials sity, and competitive intensity) has a 20% chance of Survey of 1332 candidates under 30 years old provides developing in corporate venturing activities. A Gen similar insights about how Gen Yers are motivated by Xer employee or Baby Boomer employee or who has inspiration, ambitions, and optimism (Forbes 2017). favorable perceptions of environmental conditions has a 10% chance of engaging corporate venturing activities. Therefore, the lowest negative effect of environmental 5 Conclusions conditions on corporate venturing is observed in the Gen Yers. The objective of this paper was to provide insights into Related control variables employees’ age is signifi- how employees’ human capital/attitudes, organizational cant in all interactions models, corroborating that determinants, and environmental determinants of corpo- “older” employees in each generational cohort have rate venturing are influenced by employees’ generation- more propensity to be corporate entrepreneurs. Related al cohort. Conducting an exploratory inductive study to employees’ gender male also positive and significant. (Frederick and Monsen 2011), we developed Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis hypotheses about the effects of human capital (H1), Raffiee and Feng 2014; Roach and Sauermann 2015a, attitudes toward entrepreneurship (H2), organizational 2015b; Sieger and Monsen 2015; Zhang and Acs 2018). determinants (H3), and environmental conditions (H4) Our second contribution relates to the organizational on corporate venturing activities as well as the modera- determinants of corporate venturing. Our insights tion effect of having multiple generation in today’s highlighted the influence of work design and climate workplace (H1a, H2a, H3a, and H4a). In this regard, (autonomy, a meaningful job, and rewards) on corporate this paper contributes at least with three contributions to venturing (James et al. 2011; Rigtering and Weitzel the ongoing academic debate on the influence of em- 2013; King and Bryant 2017). Our analysis revealed ployees’ age and corporate entrepreneurship. unique patterns related to organizational determinants The first contribution relates to the effects of human for each generation. Namely, certain particularities were capital and attitudes toward entrepreneurship on corporate more intense for the different generations based on their venturing for different generational cohorts. Our results values/expectations. For example, Gen Yers are looking showed the complexity of exploring the influence of atti- for more meaningful workplaces and are more motivat- tudes (Twenge 2010; Costanza et al. 2012), skills, abilities, ed by rewards, and Gen Xers are more interested in and experience (Burton et al. 2016b; Lyons and Kuron autonomy. Therefore, these insights are very useful for 2014; Lyons et al. 2012; Engel et al. 2017) across gener- strategic managers and human resource teams interested ational cohorts. Although we provided some insights into in creating innovative entrepreneurial teams. For human generational similarities, each generation showed certain resource managers, these insights could guide the (re) particularities in terms of their entrepreneurial skills and design of current tasks/jobs according to organizations’ attitudes, which, in turn, influences the development of goals and the current/future workforce’s human capital. corporate entrepreneurship activities within organizations. For example, unlike for the youngest generation, digita- In our empirical setting, it was very complicated to lization in the workplace is producing intense challenges separate the unique human capital characteristics of each for organizations’ oldest employees, who generally have generational cohort as almost all of these characteristics strong experience but also strong aversion to change. were observed across cohorts. However, the effect This issue implies the need to reconfigure jobs within produced is different. Indirectly, our results updated/ entrepreneurial organizations to foster the development mapped the key competences of the workforce in terms of corporate venturing activities (Gibson et al. 2009; of human capital and attitudes toward entrepreneurship. In Colombo et al. 2016a, 2016b) as well as the incentives this regard, Lyons and Kuron (2014) highlighted that the for employees’ engagement (Bloom and Van Reenen labor force is becoming more independent and self-fo- 2010; Deloitte 2017; Forbes 2017). cused. Younger generations (i.e., Gen Yers) are generally Finally, our third contribution relates to the influence less committed to their organizations, making them more of environmental determinants on corporate venturing. “itinerant” in their careers, and they are pursuing personal It is generally accepted that environmental conditions fulfillment in their work. Thus, employers and other are key determinants of corporate venturing strategies leaders could develop corporate venturing initiatives to (Wright and Hitt 2017). However, our results provide satisfy these “individualistic growth needs.” Having cor- insights into how employees from different generations porate venturing programs could also be a way to generate may perceive environmental conditions similarly/ a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining talent differently (Twenge et al. 2010; Colombo et al. (Lyons and Kuron 2014). Work teams that include indi- 2016a). For policymakers, our results provide some viduals from multiple generations will also likely lead to insights into the effect of external conditions on corpo- workplaces characterized by creativity, flexibility, and a rate venturing. In this regard, governmental programs combination of short- and long-term achievements also need to be configured to support organizations with (Kuratko et al. 2015). Moreover, the analysis of human entrepreneurial orientation and should directly or indi- capital and attitudes per generational cohorts also demand rectly reinforce entrepreneurial ecosystems (Autio et al. new conceptual approaches and empirical evidence about 2014; Ayyagari et al. 2014) with particular emphasis on the career choices’ generational determinants of collectives emerging economies (Roundy 2017). like employees, intrapreneurs, and entrepreneurs and if this In addition to these contributions, we acknowledge characteristics could be “transmitted” by different genera- that this study has several limitations. First, the GEM tions (Hout and Rosen, 2000; Zellweger et al. 2011; survey provided a set of general measures/items and M. Guerrero et al. only included a few questions concerning special topics. Fourth, research on generational cohorts demands For this reason, our proxies for the organizational deter- more theory development using multiple approaches. minants were based on subjective measures, such as In this study, our conceptual framework was supported employees’ perceptions. To overcome this limitation, by previous studies from the strategic management and future work could apply constructs used in previous entrepreneurship pieces of literature and adopting the- studies as well as combine objective measures. Second, ories like human capital, organizational behavior, and given the nature of our dataset, we do not have extended institutional theory. In this vein, future work should information about the employees’ life trajectories in a reinforce our proposed model from mixed theoretical panel approach (Dunn and Holtz-Eakin 2000). There- approaches: sociological and psychological approaches fore, we defined the multigenerational cohorts only by at the individual level (Zhang and Acs 2018); dynamic age category without controlling or contrasting other capabilities and organizational behaviors perspective at elements associated with defining generational cohorts. the organizational level (Lui et al., 2019); and institu- Future work should use robust variables and datasets to tional economics and entrepreneurial identities at the understand generational cohorts. In addition, the results country level (Yusoff et al. 2019). Fifth, based on the illustrate a U-shaped relationship between corporate nature of the dataset, we used mixed-effect logistic entrepreneurship and generational cohorts (Bönte et al. regressions to test our hypotheses as well as interac- 2009). By multicollinearity problems with the main tions for exploring the moderation role of generational explanatory variables (Allen 1997), the analysis did cohorts on the determinants of corporate venturing. not include age square as previous studies (Parker Therefore, more qualitative and quantitative longitudi- 2011; Ganotakis 2012; Ouimet and Zarutskie 2014). nal analyses in future research will help develop a However, contrarily to other previous studies (Bönte better understanding of the complexity of this phenom- et al. 2009; Zhang and Acs 2018), we provided some enon. The implementation of novel statistic techniques insights about how the probability of being involved in (e.g., structural equation models, multi-groups, multi- corporate venturing decreases with the age or genera- level, and experiments) is also needed to understand tional cohorts. However, it implies an in-depth analysis the complexity behind the role of generational cohorts of the generational cohorts of employees and their in- on corporate venturing activities. Sixth, considering volvement in corporate venturing activities in different the substantial body of literature that has related cor- environments. Third, our measures for the external porate venturing and organizational hierarchy (Floyd context should also be improved for different types and Lane 2000; Hornsby et al. 2009; Ren and Guo of economies. By multicollinearity problems with the 2011) and the lack of information about the em- main explanatory variables (Allen 1997), the analysis ployees’ hierarchy limited the analysis of this variable did not include other environmental conditions like the per generational cohort, a natural extension of this GDP per capita (Frederick and Monsen 2011) or the study is exploring in-depth the employees’ trajectory total entrepreneurial activity per country (Monsen et al. and current position within the parent venture (Parker 2012). This limitation opens up opportunities to ana- 2011). This analysis will highlight the relevance of lyze the influence of other environmental conditions hierarchy for promoting, developing and leading en- on corporate venturing using novel instrumental vari- trepreneurial initiatives across diverse generations of ables. Published GEM studies have shown that the employees, intrapreneurs, and entrepreneurs (e.g., the entrepreneurial activity of employees is highest ob- transition from the employee toward entrepreneurial served in countries with lower levels of TEA (Bosma employee or self-employment). 2013). In this respect, it could be interesting to explore the reverse relationship between corporate entrepre- Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the anony- neurship and GDP per capita (Edward et al. 2004; mous reviewers for their insightful comments that contributed Dell et al. 2012), to theorize about the relationship substantially to the development of our manuscripts. between the influence of individual entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial density) on corporate entrepreneurship Finding information David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitive- per country (Bosma et al. 2010, 2013), or to under- ness [project ECO2017-87885-P], the Economy & Knowledge stand the role of gender/labor equalities on corporate Department—Catalan Government [project 2017-SGR-1056] entrepreneurship per country (Ruiz et al. 2019). and ICREA under the ICREA Academia Programme. Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Appendix 1 Table 6 Employees’ distribution per generation and country Country Employees’ distribution Baby Boomers Gen Xers Gen Yers Total Belgium 2% 2% 4% 2% Bosnia and Herzegovina 3% 3% 4% 3% Chile 5% 5% 6% 5% China 1% 7% 5% 7% Croatia 2% 3% 3% 2% Denmark 3% 3% 4% 3% Ecuador 3% 2% 2% 2% Estonia 2% 2% 5% 3% Finland 3% 2% 5% 3% Greece 1% 1% 1% 1% Hungary 4% 5% 6% 5% Iran 6% 4% 2% 4% India 2% 2% 1% 2% Lithuanian 5% 5% 7% 5% Malaysia 5% 5% 3% 4% Nambia 6% 2% 1% 3% Nigeria 2% 1% 1% 1% Peru 4% 2% 2% 3% Philippines 1% 1% 1% 1% Poland 2% 2% 3% 2% Puerto Rico 1% 1% 1% 1% Romania 4% 4% 4% 4% Slovakia 4% 5% 7% 5% Slovenia 3% 5% 7% 0% South Korea 3% 4% 4% 4% United Kingdom 15% 14% 3% 17% Uruguay 4% 3% 4% 4% Vietnam 4% 3% 2% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Authors M. Guerrero et al. Appendix 2 Fig. 2 Marginal effects* between corporate venturing and determi- review the Stata commands developed by Huber (2017), as well as nants per generation. *Methodological note: These graphs were cre- published studies from multiple fields that have used the Stata spot- ated using Stata spotlight that helps to visualize continuous by con- light for explaining models with complex interactions (see Hammer tinuous interactions with margins and two-way contours. For further et al. 2018; Elgendy et al. 2019; Mize 2019) details about how to compute and interpret the Stata spotlight, please Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Bindl U., Parker S. K. 2010. Proactive work behavior: Forward- Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. American adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, Psychological Association: Washington, DC; 567-598. as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and Bloom N., Lemos R., Sadun R., Scur D., Van Reenen J. 2014. The new the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and empirical economics of management. NBER Working Papers. indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2010). Why do management material in this article are included in the article's Creative Com- practices differ across firms and countries? The Journal of mons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the Economic Perspectives, 24(1), 203–224. material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Com- Bönte, W., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2009). The impact of regional mons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory age structure on entrepreneurship. Economic Geography, regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain 85(3), 269–287. permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of Bosma, N. (2013). The global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 143–248. Bosma, N. S., Stam, F. C., & Wennekers, A. R. M. (2010). Intrapreneurship: An international study. Scales: Utrecht References University. Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., Martiarena, A., & Singer, S. (2013). Global entrepreneurship Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regres- monitor special report on entrepreneurial employee activity. sion: Testing and interpreting interactions. US: Sage. London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. Allen, M. (1997). The problem of multicollinearity. In: Burton M. D., Dahl M. S., Sorenson O. 2016a. Do startups create Understanding regression analysis. Springer, Boston, MA. good jobs?. Working Paper. Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., & Kilic, K. (2010). Burton, M. D., Sørensen, J. B., & Dobrev, S. D. (2016b). A careers Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interac- perspective on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory tion with human capital to enhance innovative performance. and Practice, 40(2), 237–247. Management Decision, 48(5), 732–755. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in Alrumaithi, E., Guerrero, M., Peña, I. 2015. The role of em- work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. ployee’s human capital and the work environment on the Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906. creation of organizational spin-offs: Evidence from Spain. Chen, P. J., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: In entrepreneurship, human capital, and regional develop- A study of hospitality management. International Journal of ment. Springer international publishing: UK; 59-74. Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(6), 595–615. Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Quas, A., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2016a). small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. How high-tech entrepreneurial ventures cope with the global US: Harvard Business Press. crisis: Changes in product innovation and internationalization Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct strategies. Industry and Innovation, 23(7), 647–671. refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Colombo, M. G., Rossi-Lamastra, C., & Matassini, B. (2016b). The Venturing, 16(5), 495–527. organizational design of high-tech entrepreneurial ventures. Antoncic, J., & Antoncic, B. (2011). Employee satisfaction, Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 11(6), 427–523. intrapreneurship, and firm growth: A model. Industrial Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 589–607. P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related atti- tudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. 27(4), 375–394. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of con- De Meulenaere, K., Boone, C., & Buyl, T. (2016). Unravelling the text. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108. impact of workforce age diversity on labor productivity: The Awogbenle, A. C., & Iwuamadi, K. C. (2010). Youth unemployment: moderating role of firm size and job security. Journal of Entrepreneurship development programme as an intervention Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 193–212. mechanism. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), Dell, M., Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2012). Temperature shocks 831–835. and economic growth: Evidence from the last half-century. Ayyagari, M., Demirguc-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2014). American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4(3), 66–95. Who creates jobs in developing countries? Small Business Deloitte. (2017). The 2017 Deloitte millennial survey. UK: Deloitte Economics, 43(1), 75–99. Touche Tohmatsu Limited https://www2.deloitte. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. Chicago: The University of com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx- Chicago Press. deloitte-millennial-survey-2017-executive-summary.pdf. Becker, G. S. (2002). The age of human capital. In H. Lauder, P. Dose, J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustra- Brown, J. Dillabough, & H. Halsey (Eds.), Education, glob- tive application to organizational socialization. Journal of alization & social change (pp. 292–295). Oxford, UK: Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 219–241. Oxford University Press. Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2011). Generations at work: Are there career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility differences and do they matter? The International Journal of maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1843–1865. 81–90. M. Guerrero et al. Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human capital, developed economies. International Entrepreneurship and and the transition to self-employment: Evidence from intergen- Management Journal, 9(3), 397–416. erational links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305. Guerrero, M., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2014). The effect of human Edward, M., Satyanath, S., & Sergenti, E. (2004). Economic capital on firm creation: Evidence from Spain (p. 27). shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables ap- Entrepreneurship, People and Organisations: Frontiers in proach. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 725–753. European Entrepreneurship Research. Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017a). The impact of triple Helix agents Management Journal, 70(4), 4–15. on entrepreneurial innovations' performance: An inside look at Elam, A. B. (2014). Gender and entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Publishing. Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 294–309. Elgendy, R., Deschênes, S. S., Burns, R. J., Levy, M., & Schmitz, Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017b). Higher education entrepre- N. (2019). Alcohol consumption, depressive symptoms, and neurial ecosystems: Exploring the role of business incubators the incidence of diabetes-related complications. Journal of in an emerging economy. IRE, 15(2), 175–202. Diabetes, 11(1), 14–22. Guerrero, M., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2019). Renascence after post- Engel, Y., van Burg, E., Kleijn, E., & Khapova, S. N. (2017). Past mortem: The choice of accelerated repeat entrepreneurship. career in future thinking: How career management practices Small Business Economics, 52(1), 47–65. shape entrepreneurial decision making. Strategic Guo, G., & Zhao, H. (2000). Multilevel modelling for binary data. Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 122–144. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 441–462. European Commission. 2012. The 2012 aging report: Guth, W., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors introduction: Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU mem- Corporate entrepreneurship the promise of entrepreneurship as ber states (2010–2060). http://ec.europa.eu/economy_ a field of research. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 5–11. finance/publications/european_economy/2012/2012- Hammer, B., Hinrichs, H., & Schwetzler, B. (2018). Does culture ageing-report_en.htm affect the performance of private equity buyouts? Journal of Fairlie, P. (2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and Business Economics, 88(3–4), 393–469. other key employee outcomes: Implications for human re- Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. source development. Advances in Developing Human Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 653–683. Resources, 13(4), 508–525. Hayton, J. C. (2005). Competing in the new economy: The effect of Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2007). Adding a stick to the carrot? intellectual capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high- The interaction of bonuses and fines. The American technology new ventures. R&D Management, 35(2), 137–155. Economic Review, 97(2), 177–181. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the managers' perception of the internal environment for corpo- organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. rate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273. Forbes. (2017). Forbes Millennials. 30 under 30 survey candidate Hornsby, J., Peña-Legazkue, I., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Guest results. Forbes: US http://info.forbes.com/2017-U30-Survey- editorial: The role of corporate entrepreneurship in the cur- Results.html. rent organizational and economic landscape. International Frederick, H., & Monsen, E. (2011). New Zealand’s perfect storm Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 295–305. of entrepreneurship and economic development. Small Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. Business Economics, 37(2), 187–204. (2009). Managers' corporate entrepreneurial actions: Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt Examining perception and position. Journal of Business responsibility for constructive change and proactive behav- Venturing, 24(3), 236–247. ior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Hout, M., & Rosen, H. (2000). kSelf $ Employment. Family Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1089–1120. Background and Race, Journal of Human Resources, 35(4). Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the perfor- Huber, C. 2017. In the spotlight: Visualizing continuous-by- mance of UK new technology based firms. Small Business continuous interactions with margins and two-way contour. Economics, 39(2), 495–515. Stata news, 32 (1), retrieved June 15, 2019. Https: //www. Garrett R. P., Miao C., Qian S., Bae T. J. 2017. Entrepreneurial stata.com/stata-news/news32-1/spotlight/. spawning and knowledge-based perspective: A meta-analy- Hung, K. H., Gu, F. F., & Yim, C. K. B. (2007). A social sis. Small business economics 1-24. institutional approach to identifying generation cohorts in Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy Jr., E. F. (2009). China with a comparison with American consumers. Generational differences in the workplace: Personal values, Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 836–853. behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Management, 4(3), 1. Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepre- Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46. neurship development: Key dimensions and research implica- James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting tions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 43–43. employee engagement in an age diverse retail workforce. Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Cognitive Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173–196. processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural Khedhaouria, A., Gurău, C., & Torrès, O. (2015). Creativity, self- alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413–431. efficacy, and small-firm performance: The mediating role of Guerrero, M., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapre- entrepreneurial orientation. Small Business Economics, neurial experience on corporate venturing: Evidence from 44(3), 485–504. Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis King, S. P., & Bryant, F. B. (2017). The workplace intergenera- transaction cost perspective. Small business economics, 1- tional climate scale (WICS): A self-report instrument mea- 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-00131-8. suring ageism in the workplace. Journal of Organizational McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action Behavior, 38(1), 124–151. and the role of uncertainty in the theory of entrepreneur. Knudsen, E. S., & Lien, L. B. (2015). Hire, fire, or train: Academy Management Review, 31, 132–152. Innovation and human capital responses to recessions. Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M., & Greenwood, R. (2017). Pathways Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 313–330. of institutional change: An integrative review and research Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the agenda. Journal of Management, 0149206317699522. business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), Mickiewicz, T., Hart, M., Nyakudya, F., & Theodorakopoulos, N. 1143–1156. (2019). Ethnic pluralism, immigration and entrepreneurship. Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., Kanfer, R., & Dikkers, J. Regional Studies, 53(1), 80–94. S. (2011). Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta- Millan, J. M., Congregado, E., Roman, C., Van Praag, M., & van analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 197–225. Stel, A. (2014). The value of an educated population for an Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’(lack of) individual's entrepreneurship success. Journal of Business attitude problem: An empirical examination of generational Venturing, 29(5), 612–632. effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Mize, T. D. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and Psychology, 25(2), 265–279. presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Bishop, J. W. (2005a). Managers’ Science, 6, 81–117. corporate entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction. The Monsen, E., Patzelt, H., & Saxton, T. (2010). Beyond simple International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, utility: Incentive design and trade-offs for corporate employ- 1(3), 275–291. ee-entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate 34(1), 105–130. entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global Monsen, E., Mahagaonkar, P., & Dienes, C. (2012). economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 245–253. Entrepreneurship in India: The question of occupational tran- Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005b). sition. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 359–382. A model of middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Müller S., Neck H. 2010. Generation impact: Student preferences Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699–716. to start social or traditional ventures. In United States Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. D. (2009). Workplace fun: The moder- Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. ating effects of generational differences. Employee Relations, Conference Proceedings. United States Association for 31(6), 613–631. Small Business and Entrepreneurship; 157. Langer, W. (2017). How to assess the fit of multilevel logit models Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate with Stata?. In German Stata Users' Group meetings 2017 venturing and value creation: A review and proposed frame- (no. 05). Stata users group. work. Research Policy, 38(1), 58–76. Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of ageing on North, D. (1990). Institutions. Cambridge: Institutional Change entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press. 21(2), 177–194. Ouimet, P., & Zarutskie, R. (2014). Who works for startups? The Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination relation between firm age, employee age, and growth. of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the Journal of Financial Economics, 112(3), 386–407. relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34. Liñán, F., Santos, F. J., & Fernández, J. (2011a). The influence of Parker, S. C. (2012). Theories of entrepreneurship, innovation and the perceptions on potential entrepreneurs. International business cycle. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(3), 377–394. Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 373–390. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011b). Regional varia- values: A review of theory and evidence. International tions in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96. university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Pilkova, A., Holienka, M., & Rehak, J. (2014). Senior entrepre- Regional Development, 23(3–4), 187–215. neurship in the perspective of European entrepreneurial en- Liu, J., Zhu, Y., Serapio, M., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2019). The new vironment. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 523–532. generation of millennial entrepreneurs: A review and call for Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press. research. International Business Review. https://doi. Prskawetz, A., Bloom, D. E., Lutz, W. 2008. Population ageing, org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.05.001. human capital accumulation, and productivity growth. Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., Ng, E. S., & Kuron, L. K. (2012). Population Council. Comparing apples to apples: A qualitative investigation of Raffiee, J., & Feng, J. (2014). Should I quit my day job?: A hybrid career mobility patterns across four generations. Career path to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, Development International, 17(4), 333–357. 57(4), 936–963. Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the work- Ren, C. R., & Guo, C. (2011). Middle Managers' strategic role in place: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. the corporate entrepreneurial process: Attention-based ef- Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157. fects. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1586–1610. Madanoglu, M., Memili, E., & De Massis, A. (2019). Home-based Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., family firms, spousal ownership and business exit: A Servais, I., et al. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: M. Guerrero et al. Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. StataCorp, L. P. (2013). Stata multilevel mixed-effects reference Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231. manual. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and Stevens, R. H. (2010). Managing human capital: How to use knowledge employee behaviour as antecedents for intrapreneurship. management to transfer knowledge in today’s multi-generational International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, workforce. International Business Research, 3(3), 77. 9(3), 337–360. Stewart, J. S., Oliver, E. G., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2015a). Founder or joiner? The role Managing millennials: Embracing generational differences. of preferences and context in shaping different entrepreneur- Business Horizons, 60(1), 45–54. ial interests. Management Science, 61(9), 2160–2184. Stone, D. L., & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and opportu- Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2015b). Founders and joiners. nities affecting the future of human resource management. Science, 348(6240), 1200–1201. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 139–145. Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading Titus Jr., V., House, J. M., & Covin, J. G. (2017). The influence of generation X: Do the old rules apply? Journal of Leadership exploration on external corporate venturing activity. Journal Organizational Studies, 9(4), 67–75. of Management, 43(5), 1609–1630. Rosenzweig, M. R. (1990). Population growth and human capital Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on investments: Theory and evidence. Journal of Political generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Economy, 98(5), S38–S70. Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210. Roundy P. T. 2017. Small town” entrepreneurial ecosystems: Implications for developed and emerging economies. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. Journal of entrepreneurship in emerging economies, 2-2. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and Ruiz, L. E., Amorós, J. E., Guerrero, M. 2019. Does gender matter on extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values de- corporate entrepreneurship? A cross-country study. In academy creasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142. of management proceedings (Vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 12908). Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2009). The extent and Briarcliff manor, NY 10510: Academy of management. nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepre- Sahaym, A., Steensma, H., & Barden, J. (2010). The influence of neurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 99–115. R&D investment on the use of corporate venture capital: An Van Auken, H., Fry, F. L., & Stephens, P. (2006). The influence of industry-level analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, role models on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of 376–388. Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(02), 157–167. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. von Bonsdorff, M. E., Zhou, L., Wang, M., Vanhala, S., von Administrative science quarterly, 493–511. Bonsdorff, M. B., & Rantanen, T. (2018). Employee age Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, inter- and company performance: An integrated model of ageing ests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. and human resource management practices. Journal of Shane, S. (2011). The great recession’s effect on entrepreneurship. Management, 44(8), 3124–3150. Economic commentary N° 2001–04. Federal Reserve Bank Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., Hamann, D. J., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Age of Cleveland: Cleveland. and reemployment success after job loss: An integrative model Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a recognition of the and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4), 400. definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 23(3), 11–27. Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do Shepherd, D. A., Mcmullen, J. S., & Ocasio, W. (2017). Is that an they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportu- Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890. nity beliefs for strategic action. Strategic Management Wright, M., & Hitt, M. A. (2017). Strategic entrepreneurship and Journal, 38(3), 626–644. the. SEJ: Development and Current Progress. Strategic Shepherd D. A., Patzelt H. 2017. Researching the generation, Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1255. refinement, and exploitation of potential opportunities. In Yu, H. C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X generation and trailblazing in entrepreneurship. Springer international pub- baby boomers compared in different cultural contexts. lishing; 17-62. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 35–50. Sieger, P., & Monsen, E. (2015). Founder, academic, or employee? Yusoff, A., Ahmad, N. H., & Abdul Halim, H. (2019). Unravelling A nuanced study of career choice intentions. Journal of Small agropreneurship activities among Malaysian gen Y: Social Business Management, 53(S1), 30–57. institutional factors as enablers. International Journal of Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive, Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(3), 457–479. biases, risk perception and venture formation: How individ- Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., & Halter, F. (2011). Should I stay or should I uals decide to start companies. Journal of Business go? Career choice intentions of students with family business Venturing, 15(2), 113–134. background. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 521–536. Simpson, P. A., Greller, M. M., & Stroh, L. K. (2002). Variations in human capital investment activity by age. Journal of Zhang, T., & Acs, Z. (2018). Age and entrepreneurship: Nuances from Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 109–138. entrepreneur types and generation effects. Small Business Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0079-4. Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Srivastava, N., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Factors supporting corporate jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Vision, 14(3), 163–171. affiliations.