
































Microsoft Word - mbrector,+151_Final.docx


 

VOL. 10, NO. 2 
FALL 2021 

 

Entrepreneurial Orientation among Arts Managers in 
Western Australia 

Alistair Campbell 
Edith Cowan University 

Helen Rusak 
Edith Cowan University 

ABSTRACT: As a region, Western Australia is the largest and most isolated state in 
Australia, and supports a community of vibrant arts organizations. The arts is widely 
recognized for its creativity and innovation, but what about the managers of these 
organizations, are they equally innovative, or entrepreneurial? Rusak (2016) explored 
this question and found that their Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) matched the 
three core dimensions of Innovativeness, Proactiveness, and Risk-taking, but the 
study did not include the other two EO dimensions of Autonomy and Competitive 
Aggressiveness. It did however observe that “arts companies don't generally try to 
take offensive postures or aggressive responses to competitive threats and rather 
work collaboratively.” 

There are at least two possibilities here: it could be a passive aversion to 
competitive aggression, or a more deliberate counterbehavior of collaboration. 
Either of these would appear to contradict the EO construct, in particular the 
expectation that all EO dimensions covary, which makes it interesting from a theory 
perspective. This paper explores this challenge to the EO theory in some detail, using 
software-aided analysis to tease out the finer nuances in this dimension of 
Competitive Aggressiveness. While the sample size and its geographical confines 
limit the generalizations that can be made, there is evidence that in this sample of 
Arts Managers, the Arts could be a powerful contextual modifier to the expectations 
of EO theory. In this context, the dimension of Competitive Aggressiveness has not 
simply been altered or toned-down, it has been replaced by a polar opposite. 
 
KEYWORDS: Entrepreneurial Orientation, Corporate Entrepreneurship, arts 
management, collaboration, Western Australia. 
DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.10.2.151 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

2 

Introduction 
This article follows on from a previous study focused on Western Australia which found that 
arts managers exhibit many of the traits of entrepreneurial managers (Rusak, ). This pilot 
study used the established construct of Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) but explored only the 
three most salient dimensions of innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness, given the 
context of Corporate Entrepreneurship (Rauch et al., ), and found clear indications of 
entrepreneurship among arts managers. 

While this result would not surprise those who are familiar with arts managers and their 
organizations, the article also suggested that unlike entrepreneurs, managers in the arts are more 
likely to collaborate instead of competing with each other. Collaboration, however, runs counter 
to the fuller EO construct, which expects that entrepreneurial companies will compete 
aggressively to win their space in the market. Lumpkin & Dess () express it as: “the distinct 
idea of ‘beating competitors to the punch,’ suggested by Miller's () definition of an 
entrepreneurial firm.” They also note that this EO dimension “was highly correlated with 
entrepreneurship across all levels of risk.” 

Rusak's () article sought to identify the presence and extent of entrepreneurship, but 
the suggestion of cooperation rather than competition challenges the EO theory—a challenge 
that remains untested, since this was outside the focus of that study. 

This research will therefore extend to all five dimensions of EO to get a better overall 
perspective, and to identify whether certain of these EO dimensions stand out or are perhaps 
less frequently observed in the specific context of arts management. In particular, competitive 
behavior will be explored in more detail (Hughes-Morgan, Kolev, McNamara, ), as will its 
possible contrast with collaboration. To increase the depth and rigor of this study, a software-
based thematic analysis (Campbell, ) will be employed to help tease out the finer details in 
the data. 

Research Aim and Objectives 

The aim of this research can therefore be stated as: 
To explore the behavior of arts managers in established arts organizations in terms of the 

five dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation as well as the extent to which this behavior 
agrees with the conventional expectations of an Entrepreneurial Orientation. 

The objectives are then: 
• To examine all five dimensions of EO in the context of arts organizations using 

software-based thematic analysis 
• To determine the relative presence of each of the five EO dimensions 
• To examine the EO dimension of Competitive Aggressiveness among arts managers, 

in particular its substitution with collaboration as suggested in previous research 
• To compare the behavior of arts managers with the expectations of the EO theory 
Before continuing to the analysis section of the article, the following sections provide some 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

3 

contextual background to the research project. 

Entrepreneurial Orientation 

In the field of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) has become a useful and 
well-established construct. Anderson, et al. () summarize it thus: 

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO)—a firm’s strategic posture towards entrepreneurship—has 
become the predominant construct of interest in strategic entrepreneurship research. 

EO has been used to identify entrepreneurial activity across a range of contexts (Dess & 
Lumpkin, ; Lumpkin & Dess, , ), and its underpinning construct has five 
dimensions: Autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and Competitive 
Aggressiveness (Covin, Green, & Slevin, ; Dess & Lumpkin, ; Morris et al., ; 
Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, ). Within these five dimensions are three core 
dimensions originally posited by Miller (): innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness. 
These three dimensions were later extended (clarified) by Lumpkin & Dess () to include 
the dimensions of Autonomy and Competitive Aggressiveness. 

Arts Management and Cultural Entrepreneurship 

Arts management and Cultural Entrepreneurship are different in that the latter creates new 
businesses that are centered around art and culture, while the former begins to emerge as the 
organizations grow and mature. The two concepts, however, start to overlap when considering 
the Entrepreneurial Orientation of arts managers. Rather than focusing on the artists being 
managed (who are undoubtedly innovative and creative), the focus of this research is on the 
managers themselves and the ways in which they are creative and innovative as they manage 
and grow the organization. 

Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) is also known as intrapreneurship or corporate 
venturing and differs only in the organizational context where managerial innovation and 
creativity are observed. While entrepreneurship typically refers to the creation of a new venture 
or startup, CE involves innovating within the strictures of an established organization (Morris, 
Kuratko, & Covin, ). It therefore provides a bridging framework within which to investigate 
these twin concepts of arts management and cultural entrepreneurship. This echoes the 
observation by Konrad, et al. that “it may be necessary to act managerially to overcome 
established structures in an arts organization, whether new or old, or in a small or medium-
sized enterprise. . .  [which] calls for integration of entrepreneurial and managerial thinking in 
the context of arts and culture” (, p. ). 

In this study, the aim is to examine the management of established arts organizations and 
to explore the extent to which arts managers display an entrepreneurial flair in their 
management style. The aspect of entrepreneurship is certainly in focus, but the topic is also 
firmly located in management. This is distinct from either the creative startup arts company or 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

4 

the creativity and innovation that is evident in a range of art forms, not least in the performing 
arts. 

Introducing the concept of entrepreneurship is not new in the arts, as the creation of art is 
an act of innovation in itself. A new work of art or even the remounting of an old work in a new 
context is an act of “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, ) and while artists may not be 
thinking in an economic paradigm, arts managers, in bringing the work to public attention, may 
well be. Discussions of entrepreneurship have entered the arts marketing discourse with a focus 
upon the role of creativity and innovation (Fillis & Rentschler, ; Konrad et al., ; 
Rentschler, , , ; Rentschler, Radbourne, Carr, & Rickard, ). Throsby () 
highlights the importance of entrepreneurial rhetoric associated with the economies of the 
creative industries, and the economies of creative industries have become the focus of arts 
policies, with the emphasis on new technologies, creativity, and innovation (Aageson, ; 
Charles & Franco, ; Florida, , , , ; Landry, ; Leadbeater, ). Arts 
entrepreneurship literature and courses on how to promote oneself as an artist are abundant 
(Beckman & Essig, ; Hausmann, ; Henry, ) with the entire journal Artivate and 
associated conferences dedicated to entrepreneurial theory and practice. 

Thus, while the role of entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly important in the 
discussion of arts leadership and strategy (Bilton & Cummings, ; Brown & Palantine, ; 
Colbert, ; Hagoort, ; Hagoort & Kooyman, ; Preece, ), the concept of 
entrepreneurship within the arts is still ubiquitous and colloquially understood, and to focus it 
academically, it is important to use well-established theoretical frameworks. EO and CE are 
therefore useful extant constructs in the literature that help delimit the research boundaries 
effectively. 

Context of the Research 

In addition to introducing the terms cultural entrepreneurship and arts management as defined 
above, the context of this research is more clearly delineated by separating out the management 
functions in arts organizations and disaggregating them from the more creative or 
entrepreneurial functions that are also found in arts organizations.  

Arts entrepreneurship can be considered as consisting of four main functions: 
• The creation of a work of art 

o This requires creativity, skill, talent, practice, dedication, insight, and many 
other things; incorporates collective activity (Becker, ) 

• The creation of a new business venture in the arts 
o This is entrepreneurship, also termed new venture creation 
o Particularly in the arts, this could include social or cultural 

entrepreneurship, where value creation and business success are not simply 
measured in dollar-terms 

• The management of an established arts organization 
o Requires experience and training in traditional management skills 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

5 

o Management skills: accounting, marketing, economics, legal, 
organizational behavior, funding, communication, digital skills, 
management theory, etc. 

o This function also requires an appreciation of (passion for) the arts 
• An Entrepreneurial Orientation to the management of an established arts 

organization 
o This goes beyond good management, and requires innovative approaches 
o It requires entrepreneurial management approaches, but within the 

confines of an established organization 
o This the field of Corporate Entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship) 
o Only this function is the focus of this research 

The term established arts organization locates this paper firmly in the field of Corporate 
Entrepreneurship and also helps to place the creation of either a new arts venture or the creation 
of a new work of art outside the research focus. 

The Research Sample 

The organizations for this research were chosen using purposive sampling, to select expert views 
across the diversity of arts management activity in Western Australia (WA), with a range in size 
and role to reflect the cultural landscape of this state. Those selected for the study were senior 
managers of established companies in WA who had held influential positions in the arts for 
more than two decades. Being key arts managers, these subjects not only contribute the richness 
of their own personal experiences, but their outlooks are also to some extent an aggregate of the 
views of the many organizations, roles, and stakeholders with whom they interact. The leaders 
represented have considerable influence within the WA arts scene, and their years of national 
and international experience in major arts roles range from twenty to thirty years. A fuller 
description of the research cohort is provided in the appendix at the end of the article. 

Prior to working in the organizations mentioned in the appendix, members of the sample 
group have also had previous experience in a range of other organizations including: Perth 
Festival, West Australian Symphony Orchestra, State Government of WA, Australia Council 
for the Arts, Ausdance, Australian Business Arts Foundation, Australian, and Yirra Yaakin, to 
name a few. They have worked as arts-industry leaders in the areas of management, advocacy, 
business development, corporate relations, cultural policy, and orchestra experience. The long-
standing nature of the arts organizations above also fits within the context of Corporate 
Entrepreneurship for this study. 

The in-depth interviews were semistructured and lasted thirty to forty minutes each. Ethics 
approval for the research was provided by ECU ethics committee and the participants were 
required to provide informed consent. Information provided to interviewees outlined the 
process and topic of the research, which was defined as Corporate Entrepreneurship in WA arts 
organizations. It also outlined the research aim, which was to identify what innovations may be 
occurring in arts management in WA to overcome challenges faced by arts managers. The 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

6 

participants were offered the opportunity to review transcripts for accuracy and ultimately 
provided only minor corrections. They were also offered the opportunity to remain anonymous 
or to withdraw at any stage; all agreed to be identified with no participant withdrawing. The 
data was gathered for a conference paper and publication, and the participants were informed 
that the data would provide the basis for future research. 

At this stage, it is important to reiterate that it is the creativity and innovation of arts 
managers being explored, as distinct from the creativity and innovation of the performers they 
manage. Again, the focus of this study is the entrepreneurial behavior of the managers, which 
needs to be clearly delineated from the artistic process inherent in the arts. 

Analysis 
The researchers created a searchable database containing full transcripts of the in-depth 
interviews, for a total of thirty-seven pages of transcripts and nearly twenty thousand words. 
Using NVivo® software, they analyzed the database for the presence of the five EO dimensions, 
also using the software to assess the extent to which each dimension was represented in the text.. 

To properly identify the dimensions of EO, clear and unambiguous definitions of each are 
required. These are summarized in Table . 
 
Table 1. Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation 

Dimension Definition 
Autonomy Independent action by an individual or team aimed at bringing forth a business concept 

or vision and carrying it through to completion. 
Innovativeness A willingness to introduce newness and novelty through experimentation and creative 

processes aimed at developing new products and services, as well as new processes. 

Proactiveness A forward-looking perspective characteristic of a marketplace leader that has the 
foresight to seize opportunities in anticipation of future demand. 

Competitive 
aggressiveness 

An intense effort to outperform industry rivals. It is characterized by a combative posture 
or an aggressive response aimed at improving position or overcoming a threat in a 
competitive marketplace. 

Risk-taking Making decisions and taking action without certain knowledge of probable outcomes; 
some undertakings may also involve making substantial resource commitments in the 
process of venturing forward. 

Sources: Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. 
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(1): 7–24; Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. 1996. Clarifying the 
Entrepreneurial Orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management 
Review 21(1): 133–172; Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. 
Management Science 29: 770–791. 

During the analysis itself, more complete explications, which have several paragraphs on 
each EO dimension, were used to calibrate each meaning more rigorously. Based on the 
founding EO literature (Lumpkin & Dess, , ; Miller ; Covin, Green, & Slevin, 
; Dess & Lumpkin, ; Morris et al., ; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, ), 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

7 

short summary descriptions of each EO dimension are extracted below. 

The Five EO Dimensions 

Autonomy 
The freedom of individuals and teams to exercise their creativity and explore promising ideas. 
It is the independent action that is key here, which includes the ability and the will to be self-
directed. These are actions that are free of stifling organizational constraints and show an 
independent spirit that drives initiatives through to completion. Sometimes it can be observed 
as organizational support for new ideas or just the freedom to think and do things differently 
without undue organizational intrusion. 

Innovativeness: 
Innovativeness engages in and supports new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative 
processes that may result in new products or services. Innovations can be quite radical, or less 
so, but all innovations embody a departure from existing practices and transcend the current 
state of the art. 

Risk-taking 
Risk has various meanings, such as: venturing into the unknown, committing assets, or 
borrowing heavily. All of these embody a sense of uncertainty and could be personal risk, social 
risk, or psychological risk. The essence of this EO dimension is that one is taking action, seizing 
an opportunity, despite the very real possibility that the outcome will not be successful, but 
always with the entrepreneurial hope that it will in fact succeed. 

Proactiveness 
The focus here is on taking initiative and anticipating future trends and developments. It is 
useful to consider the opposite behavior, being reactive, where only when things change does 
the manager take action. In contrast, entrepreneurial proactiveness looks at the future of the 
organization and its environment, and then puts in plans and actions to reduce potential risks 
and, more importantly, take advantage of anticipated future developments. 

Competitive Aggressiveness 
This EO dimension describes an aggressive stance and intense competition. Competitive 
aggressiveness means intensely challenging competitors in order to outperform industry rivals. 
This may be head-to-head confrontation, entering a market that a competitor has identified, or 
lowering prices as a competitive challenge. There is also a willingness to use unconventional 
methods of competing, such as analyzing and targeting a competitor's weaknesses. 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

8 

Identifying EO Dimensions in the Data 

The detailed definitions of the five EO dimensions (Lumpkin & Dess, , ; Rauch et al., 
) were used to identify possible passages that matched the theme of the particular EO 
dimension being sought. Once NVivo® had identified all potential passages associated with a 
particular dimension, the researchers then sifted through all the identified passages to 
determine whether the software had properly identified an appropriate passage. This involved 
careful checking of the context of the passage in the transcript and critically examining the 
meaning against the applicable EO definition (Campbell, ). 

If the passage was found to be a match with the EO dimension being sought, it was coded 
(marked) within the document and stored in what NVivo® identifies as nodes (or themes). While 
this approach to thematic analysis is simpler than other forms, the convenience and efficiency 
of software markup does not affect the rigor of thematic analysis since the researcher's critical 
judgement is still central to the process. 

After all the applicable passages had been identified and coded, five nodes were thus created 
from the data, each containing a number of passages that aligned with the five individual 
dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation. 

Relative Significance of Each EO Dimension 

Shortly after the paradigmatic article on EO was published (Miller ), it was generally 
accepted that the dimensions of EO would covary—so in a given context, all dimensions would 
be observed as equally high, or all would be low (Stetz, Howell, Stewart, Blair, & Fottler, ). 
However, Rauch et al. () later highlighted the possibility that contextual factors may modify 
the relative significance of specific EO dimensions. In that paper ,they examined firm size, 
industry context, and national culture in an attempt to identify possible contexts that might 
modify individual EO dimensions. 

Given the possibility of contextual modifiers, the relative significance of the  nodes 
identifying the various EO dimensions in this qualitative database is now examined. The results 
are shown in table  below. 

Table 2. The five dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation 

Node Passages Interviewees  
Autonomy   less significant 
Innovativeness   very significant 
Risk-taking   significant 
Proactiveness   significant 
Competitive 
Aggressiveness 

  not significant 

 
The column labeled “Passages” indicates the number of passages that fit the definition of 

each EO dimension. As it shows, Competitive Aggressiveness is very much less prevalent than 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

9 

any of the other EO dimensions. This result is in strong agreement with notions suggested by 
Rusak's () research and is a compelling indicator that the arts-management context 
modifies the EO landscape quite significantly. Autonomy is the next-least prevalent dimension, 
and the restrictive nature of a Corporate Entrepreneurship environment would be a contributor 
to this result. Both of these findings will be discussed in more detail later. 

The next column labeled “Interviewees” indicates how many of the interviewees mentioned 
that particular EO dimension. So, for example, four of the interviews mentioned the EO 
dimension of risk-taking across a total of twenty-one passages. This provides a further indicator 
of the relative significance of the EO dimensions. Graphing the two columns in table  helps to 
illustrate the significance of all the EO dimensions relative to each other, as shown in chart . 

The bottom left corner of the chart shows few passages and few interviewees mentioning 
the EO dimension and therefore represents weak support from the database. In contrast, those 
in the top right corner show strong representation from the data—there are many passages 
representing those EO dimensions and many of interviewees have mentioned them. Relative 
significance therefore increases diagonally from bottom-left (lesser significance) to top-right 
(higher significance) on the chart (Campbell, ). 

From the compact representation of the results in Chart  it is clear that Competitive 
Aggressiveness is not well represented when compared to the other EO dimensions. In contrast, 
Innovativeness is unmistakably a dimension that stands out from the rest, showing a strong 
prevalence among these arts managers. 

Overall, most of the EO dimensions are prevalent in this database, and importantly the core 
three—innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking—are clearly observed. It is therefore 
evident that the arts organizations represented by the interviewees display a strong and 
widespread Entrepreneurial Orientation. 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

10 

Competitiveness versus Collaboration 

Chart  indicates that competitiveness appears to be an insignificant factor in managing arts 
organizations. At first glance, one might be tempted to think that perhaps a number of 
industries rely on collaboration, which seems to be more prevalent within the arts and finds 
expression in the many associations, advocacy councils, and affiliations in the arts, especially in 
the creation of works of art (Becker, ). 

However, collaboration among competitors does not accord with normal models of 
management or entrepreneurship, particularly within the extant construct of EO. Trying to 
imagine any sort of cooperation and mutual support in the fast-food industry, for instance, 
quickly makes it clear that arts companies are in a very different relationship with each other. 
Whereas a ballet company and a nearby theatre company would likely try and coordinate their 
individual events to avoid a clash, in contrast to this, fast-food outlets would typically go out of 
their way to compete head-on by co-locating, staging price wars, and generally trying to 
convince customers that their offering is better than anyone else's. Rusak () observed this 
difference as “arts companies don't generally try to take offensive postures or aggressive 
responses to competitive threats and rather work collaboratively.” Many authors in the arts have 
referred to the presence of collaboration in the arts (Becker , Colbert , Konrad et al 
) but this is typically during the creation of art, rather than in the management style of 
organizations. 

It is also important to point out that the type of collaboration typically examined occurs 
among arts companies trying to attract the same kind of customer—someone with an interest 
in the arts. So this collaboration happens despite them being in competition for the arts-lovers' 
custom. However, the view appears to be that if someone can be attracted to attending, for 
instance, a baroque music concert on one evening, they will be more likely (not less) to visit an 
art gallery on another occasion. 

Additional Analysis—Collaboration within the Arts 

In order to explore this atypical collaborative behavior a bit further, a second phase of thematic 
analysis was conducted on the same qualitative database. This time it was to discover whether 
there was empirical evidence that the interviewees directly mentioned this sort of collaborative 
practice, or whether it was simply that competitiveness was very seldom mentioned. In other 
words, was there simply a passive absence of competitive aggression, or was there a more active 
presence of collaboration? It is important to make this distinction, as active collaboration would 
indicate a significant difference between arts organizations and the expectations of conventional 
competitive entrepreneurship. 

To reexamine the qualitative database, the researchers again selected suitable search words 
that might identify passages in the transcripts that indicated collaborative behavior specifically. 

While examining possible passages for collaborative activity, it quickly became apparent 
that there was a lot of collaboration going on, but that some of it concerned collaboration with 
corporate donors and private sponsors. This sort of collaboration with funding organizations, 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

11 

banks, and so on is typical of any business, and this is not the sort of collaboration that is of 
interest for this specific aspect of the research. It therefore became necessary to narrow the 
concept of collaboration so that it made sense in this particular research context. 

The rationale for seeking out collaborative activity here, was to contrast it with the EO 
dimension of Competitive Aggressiveness (Hughes-Morgan, Kolev, and McNamara ) to 
determine whether this dimension would set arts organizations apart from the rest. The focus 
in this second part of the analysis, however, was to contrast collaborative behavior with the EO 
dimension of Competitive Aggressiveness and to seek out possible evidence of collaboration 
among arts companies competing for the same customers. As explained above, in essence, these 
arts companies are competing for the same dollar from someone interested in the arts. The 
evidence being sought, is that they choose to collaborate, rather than to compete aggressively 
against each other for that dollar (as EO theory expects). 

With this definitional distinction clarified, the search for collaborative activity among arts 
companies in the database resumed. As before, each passage identified by NVivo® was critically 
examined to see if it matched the meaning—in this case “collaboration among competing arts 
companies.” Those that matched were coded into a new node called collaboration. 

In all, twenty-one passages identified the type of collaboration among arts companies that 
was being sought. Significantly, all the interviewees mentioned this theme as well, and the 
previous chart is now redrawn to include this second-phase result. As is evident in chart  below, 
this places the new node, collaboration, on par with all of the EO dimensions that were found 
to be significant, and even ahead of some. 

In the context of the EO construct, this is an unusual finding, and one that therefore 
differentiates these entrepreneurial arts managers from entrepreneurial managers found in 
other industries, so a careful examination and discussion is called for. 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

12 

Discussion of Results 
In analyzing the question of an overall Entrepreneurial Orientation among arts managers in 
Western Australia, the resounding verdict is yes—there is a distinct entrepreneurial flavor to the 
way these arts managers operate their established organizations. They are innovative, proactive, 
and autonomous risk-takers. The results showed a pervasive confirmation of the EO construct 
among the interviewees, albeit some dimensions of EO were less significantly represented than 
others. EO itself is a robust construct, tried-and-tested over decades of research in diverse 
contexts, and therefore a reliable instrument on which to base this positive verdict (Rauch et al., 
, Anderson, et al ). 

Governments at all levels—local, state, and federal—go to great lengths to support 
entrepreneurial activity in their regions, and the benefits are widely acknowledged (e.g. Luke, 
Verreynne, & Kearnis ). The economic benefits are readily observed in two broad areas, 
namely wealth-creation and growth (Throsby ). Wealth-creation results in employment 
and increased living standards, and this applies to arts organizations as much as any other 
business context. However, for arts organizations, the concept of growth goes beyond the 
financial aspects such as revenue and profit and includes a range of nonfinancial or social 
benefits. The arts industry is well-recognized for the value it brings to society (e.g. Florida, , 
, , ) and in terms of growth this could be growing the audience for that artform 
into a new sector, targeting a new demographic, or increasing customer engagement. However, 
what is not so well-recognized is that arts companies also have the potential to stimulate 
economic growth in financial terms. Particularly in the economic recovery efforts after the 
COVID- pandemic, governments are looking for ways to stimulate growth and employment, 
and entrepreneurship is one of the major solutions that has a track record of successful 
economic growth (Aageson , Throsby , Luke, Verreynne & Kearnis ). 

While it is not possible to infer from our geographically limited sample that all arts 
managers are entrepreneurial, casual observation at both national and international levels 
suggests this may well be true. What we can say, however, is that the findings of this research 
present the Western Australian government with an opportunity to grow the economy by 
investing in and supporting the arts in this state. These WA arts organizations are 
entrepreneurial, and nurturing them would encourage economic growth, bringing with it not 
only wealth-creation but also growth in nonfinancial societal benefits. In the context of a post-
pandemic recovery, it could be argued that the social benefits are in fact more important than 
the financial benefits. Future research will be required to confirm if this Entrepreneurial 
Orientation is more widespread among arts managers. If that is true, then arts organizations 
could present all levels of government with an opportunity to simultaneously grow the economy 
and repair the societal damage resulting from the COVID- pandemic. 

Finding that these arts managers are entrepreneurial affects both the practicing arts 
managers and their boards alike. For the boards who oversee and authorize these creative and 
innovative advances, this is a confirmation that the risks are paying off in new interventions 
which are keeping the organization viable and in the public eye. For the arts managers, it is a 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

13 

validation that they are doing admirably in innovating and managing their organizations 
creatively, and their skillsets are up there with the world of wealth-creating entrepreneurs. It 
appears that managing creative people in turn requires a creative and innovative management 
style—intuitively understandable, and, more importantly, empirically evidenced in this research 
sample. It was previously noticed that Autonomy has a lower significance when compared to 
the other EO dimensions, which can be confirmed by looking at the charts. This result can be 
explained by the corporate context of entrepreneurship in arts management. As noted by 
Morris, et al. () the corporate environment of an established organization is not always 
receptive to new creative ideas or innovative changes to the way things are done. 

Despite these arts managers fitting the entrepreneurial profile exceptionally well, there is 
one particular aspect that sets them apart from the mainstream entrepreneurial manager—they 
collaborate with organizations that could be regarded as their competitors. This is certainly not 
a trait found among entrepreneurial management styles at all (Kuratko, ). There are of 
course many approaches that encourage collaboration within one particular organization, but 
collaboration with rivals is certainly not the norm in traditional management or even 
mainstream entrepreneurship (Dess & Lumpkin, ; Lumpkin & Dess, ; Rauch et al., 
). 

Returning to the four functions of arts managers introduced earlier is useful in this 
discussion. These functions are: 

• The creation of a work of art 
• The creation of a new business venture in the arts 
• The management of an established arts organization 
• An Entrepreneurial Orientation to the management of an established arts 

organization 
This paper focuses on the last of these functions, namely introducing the concept of 

entrepreneurship into the way an established arts organization is managed, involving risk-
taking, being proactive, and innovative. The presence of collaboration among arts companies is 
however a differentiator from the norms of an Entrepreneurial Orientation and the EO 
construct. 

In contrast to the entrepreneurship literature, authors who explore the concepts of arts 
management and cultural entrepreneurship have long embraced collaboration as part-and-
parcel of the culture within arts organizations. Becker () laid the groundwork for this, and 
many authors have since fleshed out these concepts (e.g., Colbert, ; Hagoort, ; 
Aageson, ; Chong, ). This type of collaboration in arts organizations originates as part 
of the creative functions—those that first create the artform and then the new business venture 
that will convey the value of the art to the consumer. This concerns the first two functions of 
arts managers listed above. 

The particular focus of this paper is however the business-development function that 
renews and invigorates the management of established arts organizations. While it is true that 
in smaller arts organizations these functions may reside in one person (Albinsson, ), it is 
nonetheless helpful to separate them out as distinct functions for the purposes of this discussion, 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

14 

in the context of established arts organizations. 
Further examining this focus on the entrepreneurially driven collaboration among 

competing arts organizations, Loots, et al. () also finds that arts managers collaborate more 
than their peers in other industries. Their article examines the creative industries in general, and 
from an economic perspective, but the conclusions are quite similar in many ways to the 
findings of this research. First, managers in the creative industries certainly do not regard 
Competitive Aggressiveness as the only option, with cooperation seen as an equally viable 
option. Second, the article identifies a plausible link between cooperation and a sense of self-
confidence, while a sense of superiority is less likely to be associated with collaboration. 

The arts industry is very much a community, and being creative people, arts workers are 
more inclined to be egalitarian rather than hierarchical (Becker, , Shaw, ). Placing this 
egalitarian milieu within the findings of Loots, et al. () could help explain the preference of 
arts managers for collaboration rather than competition. In an egalitarian environment, success 
is more likely to come to those who are self-confident and collaborative, rather than to those 
with an air of superiority and who choose not to cooperate. 

Contextual modifiers were mentioned earlier (Rauch, et al., ) and the results of this 
research find a behavior of collaboration, which is an antithesis to EO’s Competitive 
Aggressiveness. In this way the behavior of these arts managers is a powerful challenge to the 
theoretical expectations of EO. Rauch, et al. () explored the role of national culture as a 
possible contextual modifier but did not find this to be significant. They comment that: “specific 
EO dimensions (such as Competitive Aggressiveness) may be less valid in certain cultural 
contexts that frown upon high competitiveness“ (Rauch, et al., , p. ). The findings of 
our research suggest that it could be the culture within the arts that is the contextual modifier 
of EO rather than a national culture. Also, the research by Loots, et al. () raises the 
possibility of extending this EO modifier to encompass the broader context of the creative 
industries as a whole. 

The same article identified two other contextual modifiers that affect the dimensions of 
EO. They found that nontechnical firms were less likely to display Competitive Aggressiveness 
than were technology-based firms. They also found that Competitive Aggressiveness was less 
prevalent in micro-organizations, which they defined as having fewer than fifty employees. 
While arts organizations of course use technology in many ways, they could certainly not be 
classified with firms that are technology-based, typified by those originating in Silicon Valley. 
Most arts organizations are also a far cry from the large bureaucratic firms that are typically the 
site of Corporate Entrepreneurship, such as Microsoft or Google. So, arts organizations would 
appear to match both of these contextual modifiers as well. The diminished presence of 
competitive aggression among the arts managers interviewed for this research therefore fits well 
with the findings of Rauch, et al. (). Moreover, the antithetic concept of collaboration (with 
competitors) was found to be a much more prevalent behavior among the arts managers 
surveyed for this research. Finally, while collaboration certainly differentiates these arts 
managers in many ways, it is important to reiterate that the core EO construct is very strongly 
represented in this cohort. So, despite this difference, the overall organizational culture is still 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

15 

fundamentally entrepreneurial. 
There are key benefits and significant implications of the Entrepreneurial Orientation 

among arts managers in this sample from Western Australia, which the authors argue might be 
applied to general management in any arts organization. Such an orientation goes beyond good 
management and initiates significant benefits such as business development, economic growth, 
and wealth-creation. This proactive, initiative-driven, risk-taking approach has an impact on 
the arts organizations themselves, requiring commitment from the managing boards to 
uncertain outcomes of creative projects. In terms of the overall concept of Entrepreneurial 
Orientation, this small sample demonstrates key traits typical of the theoretical construct 
developed and tested by a significant body of entrepreneurship scholars cited in this paper. 
However, the one exception in their entrepreneurial behavior was their inclination to 
collaborate with one another, despite competing for the same scarce dollar. This tendency was 
found among all of those surveyed, and thus presents a fundamental challenge to one of the key 
five dimensions of EO, namely Competitive Aggressiveness. This is a significant finding and a 
clear distinction from the paradigm of the commercial entrepreneur whose motive is profit-
driven, and for whom the literature on EO has identified the centrality of Competitive 
Aggressiveness. The fact that this dimension is missing from the analysis of this sample warrants 
further investigation on whether this is unique to the sample or a more general feature of EO in 
the arts and creative sector. Questions surrounding the collaborative nature of the industry 
despite the scarcity of resources, particularly in a society after COVID—which has ravaged the 
industry—require further investigation. 

Conclusion 
This article has explored the presence of an Entrepreneurial Orientation among arts managers 
in Western Australia and found it to be a well-embedded behavior among the key arts managers 
polled for this research. So, alongside the creativity and innovation evident in the people they 
manage, these arts managers display, to a high degree, a distinct form of creativity and 
innovation in their management style. The added dimension of collaboration within the arts 
managers' skillset is a novel and differentiating behavior, and one that could be valuable in 
managing the arts and perhaps other industries. 

While the sample size and its geographical confines limit the generalizations that can be 
made, there is solid evidence that in this sample of arts managers, the extant theory of 
Entrepreneurial Orientation is presented with a fundamental challenge to one of its key five 
dimensions. Specifically, we found that the dimension of Competitive Aggressiveness has not 
simply been altered or toned-down in this context, it has been replaced by a polar opposite—
collaboration among competitors in the arts space. 

The presence of collaborative behavior by arts managers could be important for a range of 
stakeholders. For arts organizations, their managers, and their boards, it is useful to know that 
while this does not fit the typical entrepreneurial profile of competitiveness, in the arts this is 
not only acceptable but an important behavior in driving the success of an organization. To 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

16 

management and entrepreneurship scholars, collaboration among competitors in the same 
industry is likely to be an interesting quirk at least, and possibly worthy of further research and 
investigation. 

The low prevalence of Autonomy is perhaps also something for arts organizations to 
consider. After all, this result is somewhat expected in an environment of Corporate 
Entrepreneurship, which is typified by long-standing policies, procedures, and habits (Morris, 
et al., ). So, are the current policies and procedures still valid, or do they need to move on 
with the times? Does the arts manager have sufficient Autonomy and organizational support 
when new initiatives are floated? Is the board itself being proactive in generating new ideas, or 
suggesting novel means of delivering their art form? These sorts of forward-looking questions 
will support the entrepreneurial arts manager in achieving success for the organization to the 
benefit of all concerned. 

There is certainly scope for future research, first in extending this study beyond its 
geographical context, second in expanding the study to other creative industries, and third to 
increase the scope of factors that are distinctive to the management of the arts. Overall, the 
results provide useful insights for both academics and practitioners who inform and support 
the arts organizations that so enrich and inspire cultural environments. These arts managers 
and their organizations are entrepreneurial and therefore help to grow economies. This is a 
valuable contribution by the arts not often recognized as part of the innovation and 
entrepreneurship that creates wealth and adds new employment to the economic landscape. 

So while this is certainly a case of Entrepreneurial Orientation being identified in arts 
management, rather than finding the competitive aggression expected by extant models of 
entrepreneurship, there is a twist—we find a culture of collaboration among arts organizations, 
despite competing for the same arts-lover's dollar. 

References 

Aageson, T. H. (2008). Cultural entrepreneurs: 
Producing cultural value and wealth. Cultures and 
Globalization: The Cultural Economy, 2, 92. 

Albinsson, S. (2019). Sing it out loud! The 
entrepreneurship of SME opera enterprises in 
Scandinavia. International Journal of 
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 37, 4 

Anderson, B., Kreiser, P., Kuratko, D., Hornsby, J., & 
Eshima, Y. (2015). Reconceptualizing 
Entrepreneurial Orientation. Strategic Management 
Journal, 36, 1579–96 

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. University of California 
Press. 

Beckman, G. D., & Essig, L. (2012). Arts 
entrepreneurship: A conversation. Artivate: A 
Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 1(1), 1–8. 

Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. (2010). Creative strategy: 
Reconnecting business and innovation. Wiley. 

Brown, R., & Palantine, D. (2004). Performing arts 
entrepreneurship. Palatine. 

Byrnes, W. J. (2014). Management and the arts (5th ed.). 
Focal Press. 

Campbell, A. J. (2020). Let the data speak: Using rigour 
to extract vitality from qualitative data. Electronic 
Journal of Business Research Methods, 18(1), 1–15 

Charles, L., & Franco, B. (2000). The creative city. 
Comedia. 

Chong, D. 2010. Arts management (2nd ed.). Routledge. 
Colbert, F. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership in 

marketing the arts. International Journal of Arts 
Management, 6(1), 30–39. 

Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). 
Strategic process effects on the Entrepreneurial 
Orientation–sales growth rate relationship. 
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81. 

Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of 
Entrepreneurial Orientation in stimulating effective 
corporate entrepreneurship. The Academy of 
Management Executive, 19(1), 147–156. 

Fillis, I., & Rentschler, R. (2005). Using creativity to 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

17 

achieve an entrepreneurial future for arts marketing. 
International journal of nonprofit and voluntary 
sector marketing, 10(4), 275–287. 

Florida, R. (2000). Competing in the age of talent: 
Quality of place and the new economy. Prepared for 
the RK Mellon Foundation, Heinz Endowments, and 
Sustainable Pittsburgh. 
http://creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/Competing_i
n_the_Age_of_Talent.pdf 

Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class and how 
it's transforming work, leisure, community and 
everyday life (paperback ed.). Basic Books. 

Florida, R. (2006). The flight of the creative class: The 
new global competition for talent. Liberal Education, 
92(3), 22–29. 

Florida, R. (2018). New urban crisis: How our cities are 
increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and 
failing the middle class—and what we can do about it. 
Basic Books. 

Hagoort, G. (2003). Art management: Entrepreneurial 
style. Eburon Uitgeverij BV. 

Hagoort, G., & Kooyman, R. (2011). On the principles of 
cultural entrepreneurship: Balancing between 
imagination and financial profit. In C. Ortega Nuere 
(Ed.), New challenges of cultural observatories (pp. 
91–132). Bilbao: University of Duesto. 

Hausmann, A. (2010). German artists between Bohemian 
idealism and entrepreneurial dynamics: Reflections 
on cultural entrepreneurship and the need for start-
up management. International Journal of Arts 
Management, 12(2), 17–29. 

Henry, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the creative 
industries: An international perspective. Edward 
Elgar Publishing. 

Hughes-Morgan, M., Kolev, K., & McNamara, G. (2018). 
A meta-analytic review of competitive aggressiveness 
research. Journal of Business Research, 85, 73–82 

Konrad, E. D., Moog, P., & Rentschler, R. (2018). Special 
issue: Cultural entrepreneurship and new arts 
management. International Journal of Arts 
Management, 20(2), 3–5. 

Kuratko, D. F. (2016). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, 
and practice. Cengage Learning. 

Landry, C. (2012). The art of city making. Routledge. 
Leadbeater, C. (1999). Living on thin air: The new 

economy. Penguin Books Ltd. 
Loots, E., Cnossen, B., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2018). 

Compete or cooperate in the creative industries? A 
quasi-experimental study with Dutch cultural and 
creative entrepreneurs. International Journal of Arts 
Management, 20(2). 

Luke, B., Verreynne, M-L., Kearnis, K. (2007) Measuring 
the benefits of entrepreneurship at different levels of 
analysis. Journal of Management & Organization, 13, 
312–330. 

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the 
Entrepreneurial Orientation construct and linking it 
to performance. Academy of management Review, 

21(1), 135–172. 
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two 

dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation to firm 
performance: The moderating role of environment 
and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 
16(5), 429–451. 

Miller D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in 
three types of firms. Management Science, 29, 770–
791. 

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). 
Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation (Third 
ed.). Cengage Learning. 

Preece, S. B. (2011). Performing arts entrepreneurship: 
Toward a research agenda. The Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, 41(2), 103–120. 

Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. 
(2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business 
performance: An assessment of past research and 
suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory 
and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. 

Rentschler, R. (1998). Museum and performing arts 
marketing: A climate of change. The Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, 28(1), 83–96. 

Rentschler, R. (2001). Entrepreneurship: From denial to 
discovery in nonprofit art museums? (Working 
Paper PONC98). Queensland University of 
Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/50517/ 

Rentschler, R. (2002). The entrepreneurial arts leader: 
Cultural policy, change and reinvention. University of 
Queensland Press. 

Rentschler, R., Radbourne, J., Carr, R., & Rickard, J. 
(2002). Relationship marketing, audience retention 
and performing arts organisation viability. 
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary 
Sector Marketing, 7(2), 118–130. 

Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, 
H. K. (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction 
of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and 
Practice, 15, 13–31. 

Rusak, H. (2016). Corporate Entrepreneurship in the arts 
in Western Australia. The Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, 46(4), 153–163. 

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Creative destruction. Capitalism, 
socialism and democracy, 825. 

Shaw, D. Z. (2015). Egalitarian moments: From Descartes 
to Rancière. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Stetz, P. E., Howell, R., Stewart, A., Blair, J. D., & Fottler, 
M. D. (2000). Multidimensionality of 
entrepreneurial firm-level processes: Do the 
dimensions covary? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship 
Research, 459–469. 
http://fusionmx.babson.edu/entrep/fer/XXXV/XXX
VA/XXXVA.htm 

Throsby, C. D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. 
Cambridge University Press. 

Cover Image Credit: Photo by Werner Du Plessis on 
Unsplash. 



ARTIVATE 10.2 

18 

Appendix : Interviewees: Some Background 
The bios below are provided to give the reader a better understanding of the senior arts 
managers who informed this research. The organizations chosen for the interviews represented 
a range in size and role to reflect the cultural landscape of Western Australia. The leaders 
represented here have considerable influence within the WA arts scene, and each has experience 
ranging from twenty to thirty years in major arts roles. 

Peter Kift is general manager of a small-to-medium indigenous theatre company, Yirra 
Yaakin. He comes from a background as an accountant and musician and has had deep 
involvement with the arts. Some of his previous roles include: state finance director, YMCA 
Victoria; business manager, Film and Television Institute; finance and business manager, 
Department of Economic Development; and president of Kulcha Multicultural Arts WA. 

James Boyd is state manager WA and SA for Creative Partnerships Australia, a service 
organization for arts business development through sponsorship and philanthropy. His 
experience spans member programs, philanthropic giving, sponsorship, public relations, 
marketing and managing the arts. Some of his previous roles include Australia Councils arts 
support officer, and executive manager of development at the West Australian Symphony 
Orchestra. He is a graduate of Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts (WAAPA; arts 
management) and Stanford University Executive Program for Nonprofit Leaders, a BHP Biliton 
postgraduate scholar, and holds a graduate certificate in social impact from University of WA. 

Paul MacPhail is executive director of the state government statutory authority for regional 
arts development, Country Arts WA. He has provided leadership in companies and projects in 
WA for over thirty years in youth, regional, and indigenous performing arts. 

Jenny Simpson is general manager for a small-to-medium youth theatre company, 
Awesome Youth Arts. She has extensive experience as business manager, festival director, 
performer, and teacher. Prior to joining AYT, she was director of the National Folk Festival, 
ACT. She has been treasurer of Canberra Arts Marketing, president of Kulcha Multicultural 
Arts WA, and musical director of choir Mighty Camelot in Mosman Park, WA. 

For many years Shane Colquhoun AM managed the Black Swan State Theatre Company. 
During that time, he was responsible for its transformation from a small-to-medium company 
to a state theatre company and member of the Australian Major Performing Arts Group. 
Following an international career as a professional ballet dancer, he turned to arts management 
after graduating with a degree in arts management from WAAPA over thirty years ago. He has 
since held positions as director of arts funding WA Department for Culture, WA government 
policy advisor, and general manager at West Australian Ballet. 

Henry Boston was executive director of the industry advocacy organization for cultural 
policy, business development and research, Chamber of Arts and Culture WA. He had 
previously been general manager for the Perth Festival, director of the Australia Business Arts 
Foundation, and WA director of Creative Partnerships Australia. 


