INTRAPRENEURSHIP: THE DETERMINANTS BEHIND ITS DYNAMIC

INTRAPRENEURSHIP: THE DETERMINANTS BEHIND ITS DYNAMIC

Rafael Bernardo Ferreira Campos

[email protected]

Dissertation Master in Management

Supervised by Maria Catarina de Almeida Roseira Pedro José Ramos Moreira de Campos

2020

i

Abstract

Organizations operate nowadays in environments increasingly complex and volatile

which forces them to adopt strategies that are constantly revamped and adapted to the new

contexts. Then, employees could be used as key elements in companies’ plans for achieving

innovation and success, by developing their intrapreneurial skills.

The study analyzes the aspects that can influence positively intrapreneurship and test

it empirically by using some measurement instruments. The review of the main literature in

the area of intrapreneurship and the application of the measurement provide accurate

definitions and test the links between the different intrapreneurship dimensions and factors,

namely the importance of some factors in employee’s success and in intrapreneurship.

According to Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra (2002), the majority of the researchers have

developed conceptual schema that have either never been empirically tested or are based on

limited case study analyses. Currently, the literature maintains the same gap and is based on

diverse theoretical approaches (Blanka, 2019).

We concluded that intrapreneurial intention is the most relevant factor for the

development of the intrapreneurial behaviors, followed by the employees’ perception of their

own capabilities. Contrary to the expectations, organizational factors did not emerge as the

main influencers of the intrapreneurial behaviors. Additionally, it was verified that young

employees with less work experience, unemployed people and women tend to be more averse

to intrapreneurship.

Through this research, we produced important practical contributions for decision

makers. The conclusions will allow organizations to understand what factors are relevant in

intrapreneurship efforts and results and to design better strategies to foster intrapreneurship

and to improve company’s outcomes that are increasingly based in employees’ capacities.

Key words: Intrapreneurship, intrapreneurial behavior, intrapreneur attitudes, intrapreneur

characteristics, organizational factors.

JEL-Codes: L26, M21, O31.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ i

List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... iv

List of figures ..................................................................................................................................... v

List of abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... vi

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Literature review ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Intrapreneurship ................................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Individual factors .............................................................................................................. 6

2.2.1 Intrapreneur attitudes ............................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Intrapreneur characteristics ..................................................................................... 8

2.3 Organizational factors .................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Intrapreneurial behavior ................................................................................................ 14

2.5 Intrapreneurial outcomes ............................................................................................... 17

2.6 Control variables ............................................................................................................. 18

2.7 Synthesis of literature reviewed .................................................................................... 19

3. Research objectives and methodology ................................................................................. 20

3.1 Hypotheses and theoretical model ............................................................................... 20

3.2 Questionnaire and measurement scales ....................................................................... 26

3.3 Data collection................................................................................................................. 32

3.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 33

4. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 35

4.1 Sample description .......................................................................................................... 35

4.2 Descriptive statistics ....................................................................................................... 37

4.3 Spearman’s correlations ................................................................................................. 38

4.4 Multiple linear regression ............................................................................................... 41

4.4.1 Moderation analysis ................................................................................................ 49

4.4.2 Mediation analysis ................................................................................................... 49

4.5 Differences between surveyed groups ......................................................................... 50

4.5.1 Kruskal-Wallis H test ............................................................................................. 50

4.5.2 Mann-Whitney test ................................................................................................. 52

5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 53

5.1 Theoretical and practical contribution ......................................................................... 54

iii

5.2 Research limitations ........................................................................................................ 55

References ......................................................................................................................................... 57

Annexes ............................................................................................................................................. 63

Annexes 1: Questionnaire in Portuguese ................................................................................. 63

Annexes 2: Framework of intrapreneurship (Neessen et al., 2019) ..................................... 69

Annexes 3: Multiple linear regression – Model summary ..................................................... 70

Annexes 4: Moderation analysis – Model summary ............................................................... 71

Annexes 5: Mediation analysis – Model summary .................................................................. 72

Annexes 6: Kruskal-Wallis H test results ................................................................................. 73

Annexes 7: Mann-Whitney test results ..................................................................................... 76

iv

List of tables

Table 1 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial attitudes ................................................................. 7

Table 2 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial characteristics ....................................................... 8

Table 3 - Studies addressing organizational factors................................................................... 11

Table 4 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial behaviors ............................................................. 15

Table 5 - Measurement scales used in the questionnaire .......................................................... 27

Table 6 - Cronbach's alpha values................................................................................................ 33

Table 7 - Respondents description .............................................................................................. 36

Table 8 - Means and standard deviations .................................................................................... 37

Table 9 - Spearman's rho correlations ......................................................................................... 39

Table 10 - Multiple linear regression coefficients ...................................................................... 41

Table 11 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 1 ......................................................................... 42







Table 18 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 10 ....................................................................... 48

v

List of figures

Figure 1 – Theorical framework of intrapreneurship ................................................................ 21

vi

List of abbreviations

INO – Innovativeness

INT – Intention

MS – Management support

NET - Networks

ORE – Opportunity recognition and exploitation

PEK – Past experience and knowledge

POC – Perception of their own capabilities

PRO – Proactiveness

R – Resources

RO – Relation to the organization

RT – Risk-taking

RW – Rewards

WD – Work discretion

POC_MOD – Moderating effect of perception of their own capabilities

1

1. Introduction

Intrapreneurship is considered by some researchers simply as entrepreneurship

within existing organizations (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). Intrapreneurs are seen as key

elements in business environment to overcome market instability and ensure the long-term

success of companies (McKinney & McKinney, 1989). Moreover, intrapreneurship, as a

complex phenomenon, can arise in different ways and be influenced by a great number of

factors that will be presented through the study (Figure 1). This report addresses it from the

individual-level and the organizational-level perspectives to give a complete overview of the

theme. Even though, intrapreneurship at individual-level will be specially enhanced due to

the fundamental role of intrapreneurs and their behaviors for companies’ performance

(Neessen, Caniëls, Vos, & de Jong, 2019).

In the 1980s, the environment in which organizations operate began to face serious

changes, characterized by increasing international competition, through the phenomenon of

globalization, and fast technological development. Due to these complex facts, companies

that dominated the market until then in mature industries as steel and automobiles

encountered difficulties adapting their traditional corporate plans and maintaining their

market positions (McKinney & McKinney, 1989). At the same time, this period was marked

by the emergence of new companies with different visions, strategies and processes, as Apple

and Microsoft. As such, the complex environment challenged companies to reinvent

themselves and innovate in order to ensure the business survival and competitiveness. For

these reasons, the role of the entrepreneurial employee gained great importance inside

companies’ strategy as a key element for achieving innovation and success, through the

increasement of organizations’ capability to face internal and external challenges (Farrukh,

2017; McKinney & McKinney, 1989; Reibenspiess, Drechsler, Eckhardt, & Wagner, 2020).

The main aim of this study is to identify the factors that influence intrapreneurship.

We selected factors for each category based on the relevance granted by that previous studies

(Neessen et al., 2019) and in line with Hornsby et al. (2002), who stated that studies intending

to develop this type of measuring tools will enrich literature. Although there are already

articles studying and exploring this area, the results are based in limited case studies or add

small conclusions to the literature (Hornsby et al., 2002). According to more recent studies,

as Blanka (2019), the literature is still missing articles explaining intrapreneurship at the

individual-level and is based on diverse theoretical approaches which fail in showing a

2

detailed overview of the field. The investigation will contribute to select the factors impacting

intrapreneurship and suggest the definitions which can best suit researches in

intrapreneurship. The literature in the field is fragmented, presents diverse definitions for the

concepts and is based on multiple theoretical approaches (Blanka, 2019; Gawke, Gorgievski,

& Bakker, 2019).

Additionally, with the use of the measuring tools to evaluate the factors that are

relevant in intrapreneurship efforts and results, it will be possible to diagnose firms’

intrapreneurial environment and increase practitioners and decision makers’ understanding

of this subject. Until the moment of this research different ways to measure the presented

factors were used and it remains a challenge to analyze intrapreneurship and draw reliable

and useful conclusions (Covin & Wales, 2019). Besides that, at the moment of this

investigation there is not any similar research in Portugal and the number of investigations

for similar economies are scarce. Usually, this type of researches is conducted in USA and,

for this reason, when applying to a cultural context completely different as the Portuguese

the results and conclusions can be affected (Turro, Alvarez, & Urbano, 2016).

In this context, through the analysis of the aspects that influence positively and

negatively intrapreneurship and its empirically test, the study will intend to answer the

following questions:

What is intrapreneurship and what are its dimensions; What are the determinants and

outcomes of intrapreneurship at the individual level?; What organizational factors can

influence the intrapreneurial activity? The answer to these questions will shed light on how

the characteristics and attitudes of intrapreneurs and some organizational factors impact the

intrapreneurship behavior.

In this way, we expect to contribute to increase managers capacity to design more

grounded strategies and improve the company’s outcomes that are increasingly based in

employees’ capacities. By providing managers with findings about the factors that can

potentiate the influence of their employees, it will give them the opportunity to reinforce the

aspects that can have greater importance in companies’ strategy reshape the not so positive

ones.

Besides this section, this report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 reviews the

relevant literature of the topic. Chapter 3 presents the hypotheses which will be tested, the

theorical model and the methodology adopted in this study. Chapter 4 presents and discusses

3

the results obtained from the questionnaire. The investigation ends with chapter 5 showing

the main conclusions of the research.

4

2. Literature review

This chapter discusses the most relevant concepts linked to intrapreneurship

addressed in the literature to get a complete overview on the topic and to clarify the area

under study. To do so, section 2.1 addresses the origins of intrapreneurship and explains the

mains definitions around it, namely at the organizational and individual level. In section 2.2

we present the main attitudes and characteristics of intrapreneurs considered in literature.

Section 2.3 describes how organizations can impact intrapreneurship and section 2.4

describes the intrapreneurial behavior and how it can be manifested. Section 2.5 makes a

brief presentation of the expected results of an intrapreneurial strategy. To conclude the

chapter 2, there is the section 2.6 that expose the control variables considered in the research

and section 2.7 that makes a short synthesis of the literature reviewed.

2.1 Intrapreneurship

The topic of intrapreneurship has been increasingly analyzed by scholars and

managers since the beginning of the 1980’s (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Burgelman, 1983;

Gawke et al., 2019; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Neessen et al., 2019; Pinchot, 2017).

Intrapreneurship is considered a complex phenomenon, a mutually interrelated process

between many actors and many units within and outside of the company (Menzel, Aaltio, &

Ulijn, 2007)

To understand what intrapreneurship is, it is useful to explain the concept of

entrepreneurship, which was in its origin. The first references to this theme can be attributed

to Schumpeter. In 1934, Schumpeter defined the entrepreneur as the personification of

innovation, i.e. the individual who carries out new combinations (introduce new products or

qualities, new production methods, new markets, new suppliers and new organizations of an

industry). The entrepreneurial activity is considered as a third factor of production, next to

labor and land (Hagedoorn, 1996). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor defines it as "any

attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business

organization, or the expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a team of individuals,

or an established business" (GEM, 2019). More recently, intrapreneurship has been referred

to as an integral part of entrepreneurship and analyzed from a behavioral perspective (GEM,

2019).

5

Regarding the concept of intrapreneurship, different terms are used in the literature

to express the same notion, such as corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983; Guth &

Ginsberg, 1990; Hornsby et al., 2002; Sathe, 1989), corporate venturing (Macmillan, Block,

& Narasimha, 1986) and internal corporate entrepreneurship (Jones & Butler, 1992). There

is not a straightforward definition for this phenomenon, which can be identified in many

different ways. Firstly, a simpler definition used for intrapreneurship expresses it as

entrepreneurship within existing organizations (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). However, due to

the complexity of the theme, the current literature of intrapreneurship approaches this issue

through an organizational-level perspective and individual-level perspective.

At the organizational-level, intrapreneurship is contemplated as a process of

corporate renewal in established firms (Fischer, 2011) in which new business opportunities

are recognized and explored. This could involve the development of new products or

services, new markets and technologies (Sathe, 1989). Taking a broader stance, Hornsby et

al. (2002, pp. 254-255) establish “corporate entrepreneurship as embodying entrepreneurial

efforts that require organizational sanctions and resource commitments for the purpose of

carrying out innovative activities in the form of product, process, and organizational

innovations”. This perspective follows a top-down approach that takes in consideration the

initiatives carried out by organizations’ leaders aiming to change the corporate environment

and create flexibility and renewal (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). The final objective is to trigger

a culture and strategy in companies where the employees are perfectly aligned with that and

have the conditions to develop an intrapreneurial behavior. So, the intrapreneurship at the

organizational level expresses itself through the creation of new products or innovations,

new business ventures and processes of self-renewal by the organization as a whole. In the

perspective of Asiaei, Barani, Bontis, and Arabahmadi (2020, p. 3) “intrapreneurship is

treated as a channel through which the organization’s strategic knowledge resources are

mobilized in a more effective way for the ultimate purpose of generating real value for the

company.”

When considering intrapreneurship at the individual-level, the focus is on the

personal characteristics, attitudes and behavior of employees that by consequence influence

the organization. Zampetakis Leonidas (2010, pp. 872-873) defined it as “a process by which

individuals inside organizations pursue opportunities independent of the resources they

currently control, engage themselves at doing new things, and, are willing to escape from

routine in order to pursue opportunities”. Also, intrapreneurship can be defined as a bottom-

6

up process inside companies where there are proactive work-related initiatives of individual

employees. The intrapreneur intends to challenge the organization status quo, go beyond the

standard job description and overcome the organizational hurdles (Rigtering & Weitzel,

2013). “Intrapreneurs are the driving forces behind product development or improvement

and/or market penetration” (Moriano, Molero, Topa, & Lévy Mangin, 2014, p. 105). The

intrapreneurial process globally includes two phases. Firstly, the perception of innovation

potentials, described further as opportunity recognition, and then the exploration of these

innovation potentials within projects (Kreuzer & Weber, 2020).

Based on all presented definitions for intrapreneurship and since throughout this

report will be analyzed the topic under the two perspectives, it is useful to consider a

description that includes both ideas. Then, according to Neessen et al. (2019, p. 551) this

study adopts a definition that reflects the multilevel nature of the concept. “Intrapreneurship

is a process whereby employee(s) recognize and exploit opportunities by being innovative,

proactive and by taking risks, in order for the organization to create new products, processes

and services, initiate self-renewal or venture new businesses to enhance the competitiveness

and performance of the organization.”

The next sections discuss the variables selected to be analyzed throughout the

research.

2.2 Individual factors

2.2.1 Intrapreneur attitudes

Intrapreneur attitudes include the relation to the organization and intention to act

intrapreneurial, and are considered to positively influence the intrapreneurial behavior (Auer

Antoncic, 2011; Hatak, Harms, & Fink, 2015; Urban & Wood, 2015). These factors, studied

by several authors (check Table 1), are furthered in the next paragraphs.

7

Table 1 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial attitudes

Attitudes Authors/ Year

Relation to the organization

(Allen, Adomdza, & Meyer, 2015; Auer Antoncic, 2011; Badoiu,

Segarra-Cipres, & Escrig-Tena, 2020; Carrier, 1996; Chan et al.,

2017; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Farrukh, 2017; Hatak et

al., 2015; Moriano et al., 2014; Park, Kim, & Krishna, 2014;

Rigtering, Weitzel, & Muehlfeld, 2019; Valsania, Moriano, &

Molero, 2016)

Intrapreneurial intention

(Auer Antoncic, 2011; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Hatak et

al., 2015; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Urban & Wood, 2015; Zhao,

Seibert, & Hills, 2005)

Intrapreneur’s relation to the organization can be analyzed through the organizational

identification, intention to quit and relationship quality (Neessen et al., 2019). Organizational

identification was investigated by Moriano et al. (2014) who described it as a psychological

bond that employees develop with the organization that causes a perception of unity or

belonging to the organization. It has a significant and strong impact on intrapreneurial

behavior since employees will be more willing to take risks and pursue innovative actions if

they identify with the organization. When identified with the organization and with its vision

and values, employees will tend to become more loyal, less willing to leave the company and

more disposed to contribute to the organization (Farrukh, 2017). Moriano et al. (2014)

additionally concluded that identification can have some interference on the effects of

leadership on employee’s behavior.

Employee’s intention to quit the company and look for new job opportunities is also

fundamental for building a good relationship with the organization. Companies with more

committed employees will be able to maintain for a longer term their work force and have

sufficient time to develop specific skills in them that will make the difference in the

innovation success (Allen et al., 2015).

Quality relationships between organizations and employees are characterized by the

mutual interest of both parts. Intrapreneurs can be personally motivated by different aspects

as their personal career objectives, temperament, personality, preference for autonomy and

risk tolerance (Carrier, 1996; Chan et al., 2017; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). Additionally,

they can value instrumental reasons, as achieving a reward or fulfil an obligation (Rigtering

8

et al., 2019). Managers should understand and incorporate workers expectations in their

policies and decisions. Likewise, employees will show a consistent behavior committed to

organization strategies and problems (Park et al., 2014). Employees will be more personally

motivated, aligned with organizational context and satisfied with their job (Badoiu et al.,

2020).

Intrapreneurial intention constitutes the desire of an employee to develop new ideas and

projects inside its current organization and that will lead to being considered intrapreneurial

(Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). An interesting finding of Hatak et al. (2015, p. 50) is that “older

employees have a lower intention to act entrepreneurially, and that this intention is lower

when there is a higher degree of job identification”. Additionally, Zhao et al. (2005) included

the factor gender as an influencer in intrapreneurial intentions. Generally, women reported

lower intentions to become entrepreneurs.

2.2.2 Intrapreneur characteristics

The employee characteristics is one of the aspects that will be taken in consideration

as an influencer of intrapreneurial behaviors. As such, we will evaluate the effect of the

perception of own capabilities in the employees’ perspective and past experience and

knowledge. Below, each factor is explained in detail.

Table 2 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial characteristics

Characteristics Authors/ Year

Perception of their own capabilities

(C. C. Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; G. Chen, Gully, & Eden,

2001; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Globocnik & Salomo,

2015; Stull, 2005; Wakkee, Elfring, & Monaghan, 2010; Wang,

Ellinger, & Wu, 2013; Zhao et al., 2005)

Past experience and knowledge

(Asiaei et al., 2020; C. J. Chen, Shih, & Yang, 2009; De Winne

& Sels, 2010; Escriba-Carda, Revuelto-Taboada, Canet-Giner,

& Balbastre-Benavent, 2020; Garcia-Morales, Bolivar-Ramos, &

Martin-Rojas, 2014; Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013; Kelley,

O’Connor, Neck, & Peters, 2011; Moriano et al., 2014;

Moutinho, Au-Yong-Oliveira, Coelho, & Manso, 2016;

9

Pellegrini, Annunziata, Rizzi, & Frey, 2019; Subramaniam &

Youndt, 2005; Sundin & Tillmar, 2008; Urbano & Turro, 2013;

Valka, Roseira, & Campos, 2020; van Dam, Schipper, &

Runhaar, 2010; Wang et al., 2013)

Employees’ perception of own capabilities, seen as confidence and self-efficacy, the literature

links it to intrapreneurial behavior. In accordance with Wakkee et al. (2010, p. 17), self-

efficacy has a significant positive effect on the level of intrapreneurial behavior because

“when a person believes he or she is capable of entrepreneurial behavior this perception will

be reflected in the actual level of this entrepreneurial behavior”. Self-efficacy can be classified

as a motivational construct that interfere in the activities choice, goal levels, persistence and

performance (Zhao et al., 2005). For example, employees tend to make their choices based

on the level of the perceived personal control, opting for going ahead with activities which

they feel efficacious and more competent (C. C. Chen et al., 1998). Woo (2018) added in his

research that career adaptability can increase self-efficacy. Employees with the capability to

adapt their career challenges when the environment is uncertain will be more prepared to

face and manage job challenges of the innovative processes and accomplish challenging

goals. It is expected that employees with strong career adaptability will also be able to use

this feature in their work. Moreover, usually highly self-efficacious employees are more

committed and motivated, accept tasks with a higher level of risk and show more persistence

to fulfill the objectives they set themselves (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015). Finally, Zhao et al.

(2005) concluded that self-efficacy would be potentiated through previous entrepreneurial

work experience and risk propensity. This factor can even moderate the effect of

intrapreneurial intentions in intrapreneurial behaviors. According to Douglas and

Fitzsimmons (2008) individuals who perceive themselves with more capabilities to act

intrapreneurially will show higher intention to develop intrapreneurial behaviors.

Past experience and knowledge are also related to intrapreneurship. Past experience is

considered a path in which individuals accumulate knowledge derived from the experience

of social relationships and their exposure to different beliefs and ideas (Moutinho et al.,

2016). Also referred in literature as a determinant of the intrapreneurial behavior, namely

past intrapreneurial experience that constitutes an important advantage for creating a new

venture; it allows the increasing of the knowledge base, networking capacity of individuals,

10

leadership skills and reinforce the individuals’ self-confidence (C. J. Chen et al., 2009;

Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013). “Individuals with a broad range of work experience will

have greater knowledge about particular industries, markets, technologies, government

regulations and competition than will persons with more limited experience” (Baron, 2006,

p. 112). Moreover, past experiences contribute to the strengthening of intrapreneurs

knowledge and allows the increase of their capacity to recognize opportunities and perceive

the ideas’ future success and utility (Pellegrini et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2013). Pellegrini et al.

(2019) recognized the importance of experience in intrapreneurial employees within

organizations as an intrinsic characteristic of sustainable intrapreneurs. This characteristic

can be especially relevant to overcome the challenges of the first years after the creation of a

business (Asiaei et al., 2020).

In what concerns to knowledge, which includes skills, abilities and knowledge in the

work field, it is expected to contribute to superior performance of employees (van Dam et

al., 2010). Organizations aiming to create and exploit new ideas and innovations are

dependent of employees’ skills and knowledge in the area and as such, they should invest in

training the workforce (Garcia-Morales et al., 2014). More skilled and creative employees

with expertise in their tasks and functions will be sources of greater questioning of the

organization's dynamics, sources of new knowledge and they will be more flexible in

acquiring new skills (Asiaei et al., 2020; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005). Kelley et al. (2011)

suggested that companies can move employees between the different departments and

projects to improve their knowledge capacity to work in high uncertainty environments.

Moreover, according to Sundin and Tillmar (2008), persistence is considerably relevant since

intrapreneurs usually face strong opposition and need to persistently continue their path of

development and implementation of new ideas. Regarding education and training, it

“increases the probability of corporate entrepreneurship” (Urbano & Turro, 2013, p. 388)

and potentiate the probability to develop intrapreneurial behaviors (Moriano et al., 2014).

When individuals have higher levels of knowledge, they will be more capable to perceive

profitable opportunities and exploit them. The combination of new and previous knowledge

could be a tool to foster the introduction of new insights, perspectives and discovery of new

opportunities (De Winne & Sels, 2010). Also, according to the study developed by Valka et

al. (2020), the educational level can influence positively the intrapreneurial behavior through

the increasing in risk-taking disposition. The risk-taking behavior can be also positively

affected when employees have great knowledge about their job market and employment

11

trends (van Dam et al., 2010). By investing in employees’ knowledge companies will increase

the quality of their human capital which will also bring new internal competences, expertise

and security in relying on the internal knowledge (Pellegrini et al., 2019). Knowledge should

be shared between all employees in order to connect the different organization’s domains

and stimulate intrapreneurial behaviors (Escriba-Carda et al., 2020). Moreover,

intrapreneurial behaviors can be promoted through the development of employees’ skills are

task challenges. These tasks constitute generally work assignments that get out of the

required routine tasks and, for this reason, oblige employees to test new abilities and skills,

understand new contexts and develop new behaviors. As such, intrapreneurs will be able to

increase learning, training and potentiate their skills and competencies (Preenen,

Dorenbosch, Plantinga, & Dhondt, 2019).

2.3 Organizational factors

Intrapreneurs when performing their works in companies show a set of behaviors

that are expected to impact positively the organization intrapreneurship. However, the

success of these behaviors relies on the organization context and how the strategies defined

by the organization fit in with their employees (Hornsby et al., 2002; Zampetakis, Beldekos,

& Moustakis, 2009). So, below are detailed the factors, namely management support, rewards

and reinforcements, work discretion and resources, that can potentiate or enhance the

intrapreneurial behaviors.

Table 3 - Studies addressing organizational factors

Organizational factors Authors/ Year

Management support (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Badoiu et al., 2020; Garcia-Morales

et al., 2014; Halme, Lindeman, & Linna, 2012; Hornsby et al.,

2002; Martin-Rojas, Garcia-Morales, & Gonzalez-Alvarez,

2019; Moriano et al., 2014; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Renko, El

Tarabishy, Carsrud, & Braennback, 2015; Stathakopoulos,

Kottikas, Theodorakis, & Kottika, 2019; Stull, 2005; Valsania

et al., 2016; Zampetakis et al., 2009)

12

Management support: since intrapreneurial activities require a certain level of risk and

creativity for employees, management support is seen as an important factor. By supporting,

recognizing and trusting in intrapreneurs initiatives, organizations will facilitate and promote

intrapreneurship through encouraging employees (Neessen et al., 2019). Additionally, top

managers can enhance intrapreneurship by investing in R&D, in employees’ skills and know-

how, in innovation systems and in external technology acquisition (Martin-Rojas et al., 2019).

A study from Zampetakis et al. (2009) argue that the perception from employees about

receiving higher levels of management support can foster an organization's employees

willingness to repay this care through a positive work attitude and behavior that benefit the

organization. Trust in employees decisions can have a reciprocal nature that may result in a

feeling of obligation to compensate the trust through the desired behaviors by managers

(Stull, 2005). On the contrary, in organizations where managers present intolerance to the

intrapreneurial activities, characterized by higher risks, uncertainty and deviation from the

usual company practices, it is expected a negative effect on the innovation progress (Halme

et al., 2012).

The level of management support is dependent of the type of leadership followed.

According to Moriano et al. (2014), transformation leadership, briefly characterized by

leaders who inspire their followers to adopt the vision of the organization, has a positive

impact on intrapreneurial behavior. On the other hand, transactional leadership has a

negative relation with intrapreneurial behavior since it is described as the existence of clear

structures and roles where managers are closely monitoring any deviances and mistakes.

Rewards/reinforcements (Badoiu et al., 2020; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Gawke et

al., 2019; Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Hornsby et al., 2002;

Sebora & Theerapatvong, 2010)

Work discretion (Allen et al., 2015; Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Badoiu et al.,

2020; Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Hornsby et al., 2002;

Moriano et al., 2014; Pellegrini et al., 2019; Reibenspiess et al.,

2020; Stathakopoulos et al., 2019; Stull, 2005; Valsania et al.,

2016)

Resources (Badoiu et al., 2020; Burstrom & Wilson, 2015; Hornsby et al.,

2002; Puech & Durand, 2017; Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013; Stull,

2005)

13

Finally, passive-avoidant leadership does not affect the intrapreneurial behavior. This type of

leadership groups the managers that do not define goals and expectations for employees and

punish them when there are performances below the standards. Usually, this behavior does

not stimulate innovation and creativity. So, for the success of an intrapreneurial strategy is

necessary, in addition to employees with certain characteristics and behaviors and a favorable

context, a leadership style that recognizes and exploits intrapreneurial opportunities. The

leaders will directly influence the company to have a structure adapted to intrapreneurship,

but also will positively induce employees’ behaviors toward intrapreneurial goals and increase

their commitment and identification (Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Renko et al., 2015; Valsania

et al., 2016).

Another important dimension is rewards and reinforcements. Sebora and Theerapatvong

(2010, p. 332) expressed that “the ability to consistently and systematically create a stream of

incremental and radical innovations is wholly dependent on an appropriate creative culture

replete with reward systems and legitimizing processes that encourage the entrepreneurial

spirit”. As such, since the intrapreneurial activity involves risk-taking, rewards will increase

the willingness for employees to be involved in the innovative process. Rewards should be

connected to specific objectives and behaviors in order to encourage employees to develop

the intended attitudes and increase commitment. They should be used as a signal of

recognition and not of behavior control (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015).

Autonomy, i.e. work discretion is characterized by processes of decentralized decision-

making and employees’ freedom to design their work, which it is expected to increase

intrapreneurial activities and self-efficacy of employees (Neessen et al., 2019). Employees

with more autonomy have more freedom to show deviant behaviors and carry out innovative

activities without superior’s approval. This brings a better attitude and motivation for job

performance without imminent personal risk for the intrapreneur (Globocnik & Salomo,

2015). As expressed in the study of Moriano et al. (2014) when companies implement rigid

rules and structures the consequence could be the inhibition of intrapreneurship. In contexts

where managers expect to have intrapreneurial employees that innovate and exploit new

opportunities, the stricter control of employees’ work is an obstacle to the learning and

experimentation needed and can result in negative performances and frustration (Allen et al.,

2015). Also, according to the study developed by Reibenspiess et al. (2020), it is relevant to

14

have structures that go beyond simple processes where employees can give their innovative

ideas and contributions. The organization structure should be prepared to receive the

employee inputs, follow them up in a short period of time, evaluate each suggestion in a

transparent way and give feedback. The inclusion of some of the mentioned factors will have

an expected benefit in employees’ commitment and facilitate intrapreneurial behavior.

Finally, resources are capable to determine positively intrapreneurship. Resources can

encompass the financial resources, the human resources available and time availability.

According to Hornsby et al. (2002, p. 260), “the availability of slack resources usually

encourages experimentation and risk-taking behaviors”. The availability and distribution of

resources between the different levels of the organization, including functions with lower

levels of responsibility, can enhance the development of innovative ideas throughout the

organization structure (Burstrom & Wilson, 2015). Moreover, Puech and Durand (2017)

conducted a study about the qualitative nature of time used or needed by intrapreneurs. It

was concluded that “intrapreneurial activity is thus not just a question of quantity of time

available; it is a question of quality of the time used. And this issue is crucial, particularly

during exploration” (Puech & Durand, 2017, p. 148). In this phase intrapreneurs already

identified the opportunity and are perceiving and exploring it.

2.4 Intrapreneurial behavior

The behavior of employees is affected by the several dimensions that were explained

before. Intrapreneurs play a fundamental role in companies’ performance and for this reason

special emphasis will be given in this study to the intrapreneurship at individual-level. As

such, the importance of innovativeness, proactiveness, opportunity recognition and

exploitation, risk-taking and networks for the organization will be highlighted next.

Intrapreneurial behavior can be considered as a voluntary behavior developed by

employees with the objective of discovering new opportunities and generating new ideas,

creating new products and business lines. However this type of behavior can trigger conflicts

and controversial situations since it often encompasses the performance of unexpected

activities and that deviate from the norm without managers’ permission and formal

legitimacy (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Valsania et al., 2016).

15

Table 4 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial behaviors

Firstly, innovativeness or creativeness appear in the literature as one of the most referred

behaviors. This concept consists in “a set of work behaviors that create, introduce and apply

new ideas within a work role, team or organization in order to benefit job performance, team

performance or the performance of the organization” (Gawke et al., 2019, p. 6). Kollmann

et al. (2017) assume innovativeness as a predisposition to create new ideas and break with

the implemented paradigms and routines. Moreover, these authors highlight the benefits for

organizations of work teams composed by individuals who improve the existing solutions

and make them more efficient (“adaptors”) and individuals who focus on creating ideas and

different processes (“innovators”). The creative process requires employees to act in a

“decidedly entrepreneurial manner” and it has as the expected result the new value creation

(Rigtering et al., 2019).

Behaviors Authors/ Year

Innovativeness (Farrukh, 2017; Gawke et al., 2019; Gomez-Haro, Aragon-

Correa, & Cordon-Pozo, 2011; Kearney, Hisrich, &

Antoncic, 2013; Kollmann, Stockmann, Meves, &

Kensbock, 2017; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Rigtering et al.,

2019; Valka et al., 2020; Valsania et al., 2016)

Proactiveness (Gawke et al., 2019; Gomez-Haro et al., 2011; Kearney et al.,

2013; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Valka et al., 2020; Valsania et

al., 2016)

Opportunity recognition and exploitation

(Baron & Tang, 2011; Fellnhofer, 2017; Urban & Wood,

2015; Urbano & Turro, 2013; Wang et al., 2013)

Risk-taking (Alam, Nasir, & Rehman, 2020; Farrukh, 2017; Gawke et al.,

2019; Gomez-Haro et al., 2011; Kearney et al., 2013;

Kollmann et al., 2017; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Valka et al.,

2020; Valsania et al., 2016)

Networks (Asiaei et al., 2020; Janssen, 2000; Pellegrini et al., 2019;

Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Smith, Rees, & Murray, 2016;

Urbano & Turro, 2013; Wang et al., 2013)

16

About proactiveness, it describes the active behaviors that employees engage without

receiving an explicit instruction or having an explicit work role requirement. Individuals with

this conduct develop anticipatory actions to capitalize on upcoming opportunities rather than

reactively respond to current demands (Gawke et al., 2019). Usually proactive employees are

more resilient to external difficulties that hinder the pursuit of their goals and show a higher

intrapreneurial intention (Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). In the perspective of the organization,

when these entities present a global behavior of proactivity (more aggressive, risky and

competitive market strategies), they tend to be more innovative (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011).

In terms of opportunity recognition and exploitation, the concept consists in the employees’

capacity to observe the environment and recognize opportunities that can bring future

benefits. Then, exploit the verified gaps is a valuable capacity and requires adaptability and

persistence. This process usually starts with the existence of an opportunity or necessity for

changing the current situation (Urban & Wood, 2015). Intrapreneurs observe and exam what

is happening in their area, try to recognize links between them and subsequently recognize

the specific patterns in order to discover a new business opportunity (Baron, 2006).

Companies with a strategy based and oriented to opportunity recognition and exploitation

are closer to have an intrapreneurial strategy and find sustainable innovations and business

success (Fellnhofer, 2017).

Risk-taking “entails taking bold actions and allocating significant personal and

organizational resources in intrapreneurial projects when the outcome is uncertain” (Gawke

et al., 2019, p. 6). In the literature there are different findings about the relationship between

risk-taking and employee intrapreneurship. Due to the diversity of risks that can be associated

to intrapreneurial activity, as reputation damage, lowered social status and job threat, it is

difficult to predict the effect of each type of risk. However, in general, scholars argue that

risk-taking is inherent to intrapreneurial activity (Gawke et al., 2019; Gomez-Haro et al.,

2011). The study conducted by Gawke et al. (2019) concludes for the absence of any

relationship between an employee’s sensitivity to negative outcomes and employee

intrapreneurial behavior. This was justified since most of the negative consequences that may

arise from the performance of the intrapreneur’s tasks usually impact the organization as a

whole and not directly the employee. Additionally, the risk-taking behavior could be

potentiated when managers are more tolerant to higher levels of risk, uncertainty and to

17

greater likelihood of errors arising from the innovation efforts (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011).

Another perspective introduced by Kollmann et al. (2017) is the composition of working

teams. When the groups are composed by employees with different risk sensitivities, risk-

taking may result in relationship conflicts and, by consequence, a negative team efficiency

and performance.

Lastly, networks are also positively related to intrapreneurial outcomes and to the

intention to be intrapreneurial. According to Urbano and Turro (2013, p. 383) “networks are

considered the opportunity structures through which entrepreneurs obtain information,

resources, and social support to identify and exploit opportunities”. Defined as an asset that

resides in an individual’s relationships and consists of the goodwill flowing from friends,

colleagues and other general contacts who provide the necessary power behind ideas

(Janssen, 2000; Urbano & Turro, 2013). Networks can create a competitive advantage for

organizations, improving their knowledge and capabilities, and can provide access to new

opportunities, markets and resources that may not be directly related to their environment

(Smith et al., 2016). Moreover, organizations with the capacity to strategically manage

different sources of knowledge will complement their internal expertise and competences.

Pellegrini et al. (2019) argue that while organization related expertise provides mainly tacit

knowledge on business dynamics and related sustainability challenges, networks can supply

technical knowledge on alternative solutions to deal with these challenges. No company can

be expected to have or develop the sufficient knowledge for innovation within its own

structure (Asiaei et al., 2020).

2.5 Intrapreneurial outcomes

Intrapreneurship takes shape through the combination of all factors previously

explained and translates on three dimensions: innovations/ new products, new business

venturing and self-renewal. The aim of companies that show an intrapreneurial strategy is to

achieve higher rates of internal development, growth and profitability. These are the expected

impacts of intrapreneurship in companies’ performance.

Briefly explaining each of these dimensions based on the definitions presented by

Kearney et al. (2013, p. 336), innovation is considered as “a premier mechanism for

rejuvenating or redefining organizations. Product and service innovation is a fundamental

18

aspect of private sector entrepreneurial organizations”. Regarding the new business

venturing, our study assumes it as the new business creation within an existing organization

(Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). “Venturing can occur throughout the organization and is

more likely when an organization is preoccupied with growth and aims to improve

profitability and competitiveness” (Kearney et al., 2013, p. 336). About self-renewal,

flexibility and adaptability are fundamental. “Renewal requires developing or adopting new

organizational structures that spur innovation and venturing” (Kearney et al., 2013, p. 336).

2.6 Control variables

This research additionally considered some control variables with the aim to verify

the existence or not of any differences in results according to the groups in which the

respondent is inserted. As such, it will be evaluated the impact of gender, age, main

occupation at the moment of the survey, years of professional experience and educational

level. Moreover, respondents will have to indicate the size and type of the organization where

they are currently working or where they worked before. In section 4.1 and table 7 it is

described the sample obtained in the survey.

Some previous researches focused in the influence of these control variables on

intrapreneurship. Adachi and Hisada (2017) concluded that gender impacts the development

of intrapreneurial activities. Taking in consideration individuals with the same characteristics,

women are less involved in intrapreneurship when compared to men. Zhao et al. (2005)

observed that women showed lower intention to be intrapreneur.

In respect to the variable age, Kacperczyk (2012) stated that younger employees are

more willing to assume a risk-taking behavior when developing intrapreneurship. Although,

with the age increment, this disposition tends to decrease. The years of professional

experience will be another parameter to be evaluated in our research. This control variable is

expected to impact intrapreneurship. Wang et al. (2013) include it in their study and referred

that employees with more professional experience are more capable to recognize new

opportunities and be intrapreneurs.

About the education level, literature consider this factor as relevant. Urbano and

Turro (2013) indicated that higher education levels enable knowledge accumulation and, by

consequence, it increases employees’ probability to be intrapreneurs. Additionally, the

19

educational level can also potentiate intrapreneurial behaviors through the increasing in risk-

taking disposition (Valka et al., 2020).

The research from Kacperczyk (2012) studied the effect of organizations size. It was

concluded that large and mature firms register higher levels of intrapreneurship between

employees, since they tend to provide more attractive opportunities for the development of

internal ventures.

In what concerns to the organization type, there are already researches investigating

the factors that impact intrapreneurship in specific organizations. For example, the study

conducted by Stull (2005) addressed the topic of intrapreneurship for the specific case of

nonprofit organizations.

In this way, the results achieved will be analyzed through the Kruskal-Wallis H test

(section 4.5.1) and the Mann-Whitney test (section 4.5.2). These tools will allow us

understand if the demographical and organizational characteristics affect specifically any

variable considered in the research.

2.7 Synthesis of literature reviewed

Currently, the existing studies that develop and validate measurement instruments

focus the attention, in general, in a few factors. Also, when analyzing the intrapreneurial

characteristics and attitudes, it is not possible to find so far studies that analyze all these

aspects with the use of measurement tools. In terms of variables’ definitions and

explanations, there is a great diversity of descriptions which forced the choice of the most

concrete and adequate definitions for this research.

It was thus discriminated in this chapter the main dimensions and factors that

influence intrapreneurship and verified the most relevant methods used to assess their

importance, according to the literature review conducted by Gawke et al. (2019). Therefore,

it will be possible to use the contributions of all the articles analyzed to choose the most

complete measurement tool to be applied in each dimension considered.

20

3. Research objectives and methodology

In this chapter it will be firstly described the theoretical model and the hypotheses

under analysis (section 3.1). Additionally, we will present the questionnaire’s composition

and the measurement instruments selected to evaluate each variable (section 3.2), the process

of data collection (section 3.3), and it will analyze the data collected from the questionnaire

(section 3.4).

3.1 Hypotheses and theoretical model

Considering all the relevant factors mentioned in literature that can influence

intrapreneurship, a framework was constructed to summarize all the interactions established

within the phenomenon under analysis. Figure 1 is inspired on Neessen et al. (2019) that

conducted a literature review in the area and summed up the main dimensions referred for

each category, namely the intrapreneur attitudes, the intrapreneur characteristics, the

organizational factors and the intrapreneurial behaviors. As such, we get an organized

perspective of the topic and a scheme that clarify the aspects that will be analyzed in the

study.

The individual and organizational factors were selected having as criteria their

relevance in the literature. Those that are most referred in the studies found and that are

expected to have more influence on intrapreneurship were selected (Neessen et al., 2019).

The objective was to select the most relevant variables considered in other researches and

integrate them in a single model. Until the moment, there was not any similar research in

Portugal and the number of investigations for similar economies are scarce. Usually, this type

of research is conducted in the USA and, for this reason, when applying to a cultural context

completely different as the Portuguese the results and conclusions can be affected (Turro et

al., 2016). Some variables presented in the original model of Neessen et al. (2019) (annexes

2) have been eliminated (satisfaction, motivation and organizational structure) or merged

with other variables (skills with personal knowledge and past experience). Thus, we obtained

a scheme that aggregates the main variables and removes the scales whose questions would

not bring relevant information for the investigation.

21

Figure 1 – Theorical framework of intrapreneurship

H4

•Perception of their own

capabilities

•Past experience and

knowledge

Intrapreneur characteristics

H6

• Proactiveness

• Innovativeness

Intrapreneurial behavior

•Opportunity recognition

and exploitation

•Risk-taking

•Networks

• Intention

•Relation to the

organization

Intrapreneur attitudes

Indiv

idual

-lev

el

H2a; H2b;

H2c; H2d;

H2e

H1a; H1b;

H1c; H1d;

H1e

H3a; H3b;

H3c; H3d;

H3e

H5a; H5b;

H5c; H5d;

H5e

•Rewards/reinforcements

•Management support

Organizational factors

•Work discretion

•Resources

Org

aniz

atio

n-l

evel

H7a; H7b;

H7c; H7d;

H7e

H8a; H8b;

H8c; H8d;

H8e

H9a; H9b;

H9c; H9d;

H9e

H10a; H10b;

H10c; H10d;

H10e

22

The framework is divided in two parts with the objective to explain the difference

between the two levels of intrapreneurship previously developed. At the individual-level,

intrapreneurship emerges from the influence of each employee. The individual characteristics

and attitudes shape their behaviors and by consequence the organization results. For

companies, it is relevant to understand what individual characteristics of their employees are

influencing the intrapreneurial behavior presented by each one, since they are all exposed to

the same context (Stull, 2005).

Moreover, this evaluates the influence of some organizational factors on

intrapreneurial behaviors. These are elements determined by the organization that affect

individually each worker and can condition intrapreneurial behaviors.

The objective is to test the impact of each factor on the intrapreneurial behaviors and

understand what are the variables more relevant to foster intrapreneurship in organizations.

The relationships to be tested are generically outlined in Figure 1 and will be presented in

the form of hypotheses in this chapter.

A good relationship between organizations and their employees is capable to

motivate the staff and encourage intrapreneurial behaviors. Employees become more loyal

and committed, less willing to leave the company and more disposed to help the organization

achieve its objectives (Farrukh, 2017). Therefore, we formulated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to higher

innovativeness.

Hypothesis 1b: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to higher

proactiveness.

Hypothesis 1c: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to higher

opportunity recognition and exploitation.

Hypothesis 1d: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to a higher risk-

taking behavior.

Hypothesis 1e: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to the

development and use of networks.

In order to present an intrapreneurial behavior it is necessary to intend to contribute

for new ideas and projects (Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). Thus, employees should have the

23

intention to develop these behaviors. For this reason, we will test the described relation

through the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively innovativeness.

Hypothesis 2b: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively proactiveness.

Hypothesis 2c: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively the opportunity

recognition and exploitation.

Hypothesis 2d: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively the risk-taking

behavior.

Hypothesis 2e: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively the development

and use of networks.

The perception level of their own capabilities by an employee is capable to interfere

in their behaviors according to Wakkee et al. (2010). Intrapreneurs feeling more confident

consequently will perceive higher levels of personal control and competence performing

their work (C. C. Chen et al., 1998). In this way, employees who consider themselves to be

capable to succeed in an environment of uncertainty, such as intrapreneurship, are willing to

take the necessary risks and be persistent to accomplish their tasks (Globocnik & Salomo,

2015). Additionally, the perception of the employee own capabilities moderates positively

the relation between intrapreneurial intention and behaviors (Douglas & Fitzsimmons,

2008). So, the following hypotheses will be evaluated:

Hypothesis 3a: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop higher levels of

innovativeness.

Hypothesis 3b: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop higher levels of

proactiveness.

Hypothesis 3c: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop higher levels of


Hypothesis 3d: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop a higher level of

risk-taking behavior.

Hypothesis 3e: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop and use more their

networks.

24

Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perception of their capabilities moderates the relation between their

intrapreneurial intention and their intrapreneurial behaviors.

The past experience as intrapreneur allows the employees to enrich their knowledge

base and networking capacity (Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013). Employees become more

capable to recognize opportunities and highly prepared to exploit them (Pellegrini et al.,

2019). Moreover, skills and knowledge in the work field affect positively the intrapreneurial

behaviors since in these circumstances intrapreneurs are more prepared to deal with the daily

challenges and have the necessary competences to be successful. Also, the experience and

knowledge of employees is part of the elements necessary to develop their self-efficacy

(Pellegrini et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2005). As such, the next hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 5a: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its

innovativeness.

Hypothesis 5b: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its

proactiveness.

Hypothesis 5c: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its


Hypothesis 5d: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its

risk-taking behavior.

Hypothesis 5e: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases the

development and use of its networks.

Hypothesis 6: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its

perception of its own capabilities.

Management support influences intrapreneurial behaviors (Neessen et al., 2019).

Employees receive more support in their work, recognition and trust which stimulate a

positive work attitude and behavior aligned with the organization strategy (Stull, 2005;

Zampetakis et al., 2009). In this way, the following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 7a: Higher levels of management support leads to higher innovativeness.

Hypothesis 7b: Higher levels of management support leads to higher proactiveness.

25

Hypothesis 7c: Higher levels of management support leads to higher opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Hypothesis 7d: Higher levels of management support leads to a higher risk-taking behavior.

Hypothesis 7e: Higher levels of management support leads to the development and use of

networks.

Intrapreneurship involves risk and uncertainty in the job performance. For this

reason, rewards when connected to specific objectives and behaviors work as drivers of

commitment, legitimize processes and encourages involvement in the innovative process

(Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Sebora & Theerapatvong, 2010). Then, it was defined the

following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 8a: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase

innovativeness.

Hypothesis 8b: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase

proactiveness.

Hypothesis 8c: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase


Hypothesis 8d: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase the risk-

taking behavior.

Hypothesis 8e: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase the


Rigid rules and structures are barriers in the innovative process (Moriano et al., 2014).

Since the intrapreneurial activity involves risk and uncertainty, employees are highly

motivated and committed to develop intrapreneurial behaviors with a work environment

which provides more freedom (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015). Autonomy allows employees

to show in some circumstances deviant behaviors, experiment new processes and ideas and

move forward without having to repeatedly waste time waiting for supervisor approval (Allen

et al., 2015; Globocnik & Salomo, 2015). As such, this variable will be tested through the

next hypotheses:

Hypothesis 9a: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher innovativeness.

26

Hypothesis 9b: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher proactiveness.

Hypothesis 9c: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Hypothesis 9d: Higher levels of work discretion lead to a higher risk-taking behavior.

Hypothesis 9e: Higher levels of work discretion lead to the development and use of networks.

The availability of slack financial resources, human resources and time are capable to

stimulate intrapreneurial behaviors (Hornsby et al., 2002). Employees with extra resources

for innovative ideas have the opportunity to fulfill the required daily tasks and dedicate the

rest and sufficient resources to the development of innovative ideas successfully (Badoiu et

al., 2020; Puech & Durand, 2017). This encourage intrapreneurship through experimentation

and risk-taking behaviors (Hornsby et al., 2002). Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 10a: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases innovativeness.

Hypothesis 10b: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases proactiveness.

Hypothesis 10c: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases opportunity


Hypothesis 10d: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases the risk-taking

behavior.

Hypothesis 10e: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases the


3.2 Questionnaire and measurement scales

The questionnaire built was composed by six parts and 100 questions. The first part

presented the study and its goal. In the second part, composed by 16 questions, we evaluated

the relation between employees and organizations through employees’ attitudes. The third

section had 11 questions and asked the participant to evaluate itself and some of its

characteristics. The fourth part with 35 questions had the aim to understand the behavior

and strategy of the organization where the participant works. In the fifth section, it was

evaluated the intrapreneurial behavior of the participants through 29 questions. The last part

consisted in eight questions intended to collect demographic data (age, gender), nationality,

27

main occupation, years of work experience, educational level) and size and type of the

organization.

Besides the scale used to evaluate innovativeness (5-point scale ranging from 1 – never

to 5 - always), the questionnaire measured each factor with Likert-type scales, where 1

represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree. The measurement scales used are

presented below in table 5. With the objective of harmonizing the questionnaire and avoiding

that there were any misunderstandings on the part of the participants, all scales were placed

with five points and with the same orientation (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). In the

case of the innovativeness scale we adapt it from a 7-point scale to a 5-point scale. In order

to evaluate the variable ‘resources’ it was used the questions number 10, 12 and 17 from the

scale used for the management support. The questions indicated allowed us to retain the

necessary information about the variable resources without having to add a specific scale.

Additionally, the questions were changed so that they were formulated in the same way and

it was introduced the feedback collected in the pre-test.

Table 5 - Measurement scales used in the questionnaire

Hypothesis Variable Measurement scale Author H1a; H1b; H1c;

H1d; H1e Relation to the organization

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree)

1. When someone criticizes the organization, it feels like a personal insult.

2. I am very interested in what others think about the organization.

3. When I talk about the organization, I usually say “we” rather than “they”.

4. This organization’s successes are my successes.

5. When someone praises this organization, it feels like a personal compliment.

6. If a story in the media criticized the organization, I would feel embarrassed.

(Mael & Ashforth, 1992)

H2a; H2b; H2c; H2d; H2e

Intention Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. I intend to help with the

development of a new product or new service and new market.

2. I would be happy to be involved in any entrepreneurial behavior of the firm.

(Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017)

28

3. I would take initiative in doing anything that might have high return for the company I am working for, even though the task might be risky.

4. I intend to start a new branch, or a spin-off for the company I am working for.

5. I will encourage others to implement ideas for innovation in the organization.

6. I enjoy having responsibility to transform prototypes or ideas into profitable outcomes.

7. I enjoy pursuing opportunities despite limited resources.

8. I intent to involve in recognizing and creating new opportunities in relation to products, methods, operations, or markets, establishes a strategic vision for the organization.

9. I would prefer to push the senior management team to adopt these opportunities.

10. I will make every effort to peruse the organization’s resources to carry out their ideas.

H3a; H3b; H3c;

H3d; H3e; H4

Perception of their own

capabilities

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. I will be able to achieve most of the

goals that I have set for myself. 2. When facing difficult tasks, I am

certain that I will accomplish them. 3. In general, I think that I can obtain

outcomes that are important to me. 4. I believe I can succeed at most any

endeavor to which I set my mind. 5. I will be able to successfully

overcome many challenges. 6. I am confident that I can perform

effectively on many different tasks. 7. Compared to other people, I can do

most tasks very well. 8. Even when things are tough, I can

perform quite well.

(G. Chen et al., 2001)

H5a; H5b; H5c;

H5d; H5e; H6

Past experience and

knowledge


1. I acquire information from mistakes that happen during work.

2. I can bring information relating to my field to mind very quickly and easily.

3. My knowledge of my field is broad.

(Wang et al., 2013)

H7a; H7b; H7c;

H7d; H7e & H10a;

Management support


(Hornsby et al., 2002)

29

H10b; H10c;

H10d; H10e

&

Resources

1. My organization is quick to use improved work methods

2. My organization is quick to use improved work methods that are developed by workers.

3. In my organization, developing one’s own ideas is encouraged for the improvement of the corporation.

4. Upper management is aware and very receptive to my ideas and suggestions.

5. Promotion usually follows the development of new and innovative ideas.

6. Those employees who come up with innovative ideas on their own often receive management encouragement for their activities.

7. The ‘‘doers’’ are allowed to make decisions on projects without going through elaborate justification and approval procedures.

8. Senior managers encourage innovators to bend rules and rigid procedures in order to keep promising ideas on track.

9. Many top managers have been known for their experience with the innovation process.

10. Money is often available to get new project ideas off the ground.

11. Individuals with successful innovative projects receive additional reward and compensation for their ideas and efforts beyond the standard reward system.

12. There are several options within the organization for individuals to get financial support for their innovative projects and ideas.

13. Individual risk takers are often recognized for their willingness to champion new projects, whether eventually successful or not.

14. People are often encouraged to take calculated risks with new ideas around here.

15. The term ‘‘risk taker’’ is considered a positive attribute for people in my work area.

16. This organization supports many small and experimental projects realizing that some will undoubtedly fail.

17. A worker with a good idea is often given free time to develop that idea.

18. There is considerable desire among people in the organization for

30

generating new ideas without regard to crossing departmental or functional boundaries.

19. People are encouraged to talk to workers in other departments of this organization about ideas for new projects.

H8a; H8b; H8c;

H8d; H8e

Rewards/ reinforcements

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. My manager helps me get my work

done by removing obstacles 2. The rewards I receive are dependent

upon my work on the job. 3. My supervisor will increase my job

responsibilities if I am performing well in my job.

4. My supervisor will give me special recognition if my work performance is especially good.

5. My manager would tell his boss if my work was outstanding.

6. There is a lot of challenge in my job.


H9a; H9b; H9c;

H9d; H9e

Work discretion

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. I feel that I am my own boss and do

not have to double check all of my decisions.

2. Harsh criticism and punishment result from mistakes made on the job.

3. This organization provides the chance to be creative and try my own methods of doing the job.

4. This organization provides freedom to use my own judgment

5. This organization provides the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities.

6. I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job.

7. It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done.

8. I almost always get to decide what I do on my job.

9. I have much autonomy on my job and am left on my own to do my own work.

10. I seldom have to follow the same work methods or steps for doing my major tasks from day to day.


Innovativeness Please indicate your level of frequency of the following statements (1 – Never; 5 – Always) 1. I create new ideas or solutions for

difficult issues.

(Janssen, 2000)

31

2. I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments.

3. I generate original solutions for problems.

4. I try to mobilize support for innovative ideas.

5. I attempt to acquire approval for innovative ideas.

6. I try to make important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas.

7. I transform innovative ideas into useful applications.

8. I introduce innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way.

9. I evaluate the utility of innovative ideas.

Proactiveness Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. I actively attack problems. 2. Whenever something goes wrong, I

search for a solution immediately. 3. Whenever there is a chance to get

actively involved, I take it. 4. I take initiative immediately even

when others don’t. 5. I use opportunities quickly in order

to attain my goals. 6. Usually I do more than I am asked

to do. 7. I am particularly good at realizing

ideas.

(Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, &

Tag, 1997)

Opportunity recognition and exploitation

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. While going about routine day-to-

day activities, I see potential opportunities all around me.

2. I have a special “alertness” or sensitivity toward new opportunities.

3. “Seeing” potential new opportunities does not come very naturally to me.

(Wang et al., 2013)

Risk-taking Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. I boldly move ahead with a

promising new approach when others might be more cautious.

2. I will be willing to give up some salary in exchange for the chance to try out my business idea if the rewards for success were adequate.

(Farrukh, 2017)

32

3. In the course of my work, I will take calculated risks despite the possibility of failure.

4. If large interests are at stake, I regularly go for the big win even when things could go seriously wrong.

Networks Please indicate your level of agreement with the following information (1 – Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) 1. I spend a lot of time and effort at

work networking with others 2. At work, I know a lot of important

people and am well connected 3. I am good at using my connections

and networks to make things happen at work

4. I have developed a large network of colleagues and associates at work who I can call on for support when I really need to get things done

5. I spend a lot of time at work developing connections with others

6. I am good at building relationships with influential people at work

(Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017)

3.3 Data collection

To analyze the different hypotheses, we used an online questionnaire to collect data.

This is the method most frequently used in similar researches (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001;

Farrukh, 2017; Gawke et al., 2019; Hornsby et al., 2002; Kearney et al., 2013; Moriano et al.,

2014; Wakkee et al., 2010).

The questionnaire was originally built in English based on the examples of other

scales already tested in the literature. However, since the survey was applied to Portuguese

employees, it was necessary to translate and adapt all the questions to Portuguese. Finally, to

ensure that our target understand all questions we made a pre-test with nine people. In

general, the meaning of all questions was well understood and where there were some doubts

the suggestions of each respondent were incorporated.

The final questionnaire was launched in the end of May 2020 and the data collection

was concluded in the middle of June. It was disseminated through social networks and direct

emails. The process of sending requests to participate in the questionnaire was progressive

and ended with a total of 310 responses. The questionnaire could be answered by all people

with at least one year of professional experience. It was requested that people currently

33

employed to respond with respect to the company or organization where they are working.

If respondents in that moment were not employed, answers should be given about the last

company or organization where they worked.

3.4 Data analysis

Before testing the hypotheses previously described, it was necessary to verify if the

results achieved follow a normal distribution. The conclusions were drawn taking in

consideration the methods described by Field (2009) and Malhotra, Birks, and Nunan (2017).

We investigated the results from histograms and P-P plots, and we used the skewness level,

the kurtosis level, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test.

According to the skewness level generally all variables are skewed left, showing

negative values of skewness. The exception are the variables opportunity recognition and

resources which are skewed right (positive values of skewness). In terms of the kurtosis level,

all variables present a positive kurtosis value which means a distribution curve more peaked.

The exceptions are the variables resources and networks, with negative kurtosis values, and

risk-taking presenting a kurtosis value of zero. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk

tests, as well as histograms and P-P plots, confirm the deviations from a normal distribution,

presenting for all variables significant values lower than 0.05.

It is also important to check the reliability and internal consistency of the scales used

in the questionnaire. For this purpose we used the Cronbach’s alpha (α), which is commonly

used to measure scales’ reliability (Field, 2009). Values below 0.6 could mean unsatisfactory

levels of internal consistency reliability (Malhotra et al., 2017). The reliability for each variable

was tested separately and we reversed the results of question number three, since the question

was phrased in the negative form. The results are shown in table 6.

Table 6 - Cronbach's alpha values

Variables Cronbach’s alpha

Relation to the organization 0.702

Intention 0.849

Perception of their own capabilities 0.890

Past experience and knowledge 0.687

Management support 0.940

Resources 0.778

Rewards/ Reinforcements 0.830

34

Work discretion 0.904

Innovativeness 0.923

Proactiveness 0.864

Opportunity recognition and exploitation 0.385

Risk-taking 0.777

Networks 0.870

We concluded that all scales reflect reliable internal consistency as all variables

present Cronbach’s alpha values superior to 0.6. The only exception is the variable

opportunity recognition and exploitation which has an alpha of 0.385. This lower value could

be associated to the reduced dimension of the scale, constituted by only three questions.

According to Malhotra et al. (2017) the Cronbach’s alpha could be positively related to the

number of scale items. Furthermore, we evaluate the correlation between the three questions

that are part of the scale to analyze whether the results obtained are related. We only obtained

a significant correlation between the question one and two, which means that the scale

chosen from Wang et al. (2013) may not be able to produce reliable and satisfactory results.

Even so, the scale was maintained in the study and the results obtained will be analyzed with

special care. Besides that, once this is the only parameter below 0.6, globally the questionnaire

shows a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha.

Furthermore, we will analyze in the next chapter the data obtained from the

questionnaire through the means and standard deviations registered for each variable in order

to globally understand the responses trends (section 4.2). It will also be necessary to evaluate

the relationships between each characteristic, attitude and organizational factor with the five

intrapreneurial behaviors. The method to be used will be the Spearman’s correlations (section

4.3). With the purpose to test the hypotheses stated we will resort to the multiple linear

regression (section 4.4) and for the cases where the moderation and mediation effects will be

tested, specific analyzes will be made. Finally, the differences in the results obtained will be

analyzed according to the groups surveyed (control variables) through the Kruskal-Wallis H

test and the Mann-Whitney test (section 4.5).

35

4. Results

This chapter describes the sample obtained through the questionnaire and analyzes

the mean and standard deviations for each variable. Moreover, we will evaluate the

relationships between the different variables through Spearman’s rho () and the effect of

the independent variables in the intrapreneurial behavior variables with the multiple linear

regression. After testing the hypotheses stated, we will use the Kruskal-Wallis H test and the

Mann-Whitney test to investigate if the results achieved are different between the several

groups surveyed. These groups correspond to the control variables previously described in

section 2.6, namely gender, age, main occupation, years of professional experience,

educational level and size and type of the organization.

4.1 Sample description

As previously referred, any person with one year or more of professional experience

could answer the survey. The table 7 describes the respondents’ profile. 310 responses were

achieved, 49.4% of which were men and 50.6% women. Almost all respondents work as

employees in private organizations (64.8% and 81.6% respectively). In terms of age, more

responses were reached from people between 45 and 54 years old (28.4%) and only four

answers were collected from people with 65 or more years old. Furthermore, in average

24.8% of the answers came from people with less than four years of work experience or

from people between 21 and 30 years of experience. The majority of the sample has, in terms

of education level, high school or is undergraduate (35.8% and 35.2% respectively).

36

Table 7 - Respondents description

Sample characteristics Results

Total Percentage

N 310 100% - Male 153 49.4% - Female 157 50.6%

Age - 18 – 24 61 19.7% - 25 – 34 62 20.0% - 35 – 44 62 20.0% - 45 – 54 88 28.4% - 55 – 64 33 10.6% - 65 or older 4 1.3%

Main occupation Unemployed 8 2.6% Student 11 3.5% Student/worker 22 7.1% Independent worker 51 16.5% Employee 201 64.8% Other 17 5.5%

Years of professional experience

- 1 – 3 77 24.8% - 4 – 10 47 15.2% - 11 – 20 58 18.7% - 21 - 30 77 24.8% - Higher than 30 51 16.5%

Education level - Middle school or

lower 18 5.8%

- High school 111 35.8% - Undergraduate 109 35.2% - Pos-graduate 72 23.2%

Size of the organization - Until 10 workers 91 29.4% - Between 11 and 50

workers 64 20.6%

- Between 51 and 250 workers

69 22.3%

- Higher than 250 workers

86 27.7%

Type of organization - Private organization 253 81.6% - Public organization 52 16.8% - Third sector

organization 5 1.6%

37

4.2 Descriptive statistics

The table below (table 8) describes the means and standard deviations of each

variable analyzed in the research.

Table 8 - Means and standard deviations

N Mean Std. Deviation

Attitudes - Relation to the organization (RO) 310 3,897 0.661 - Intrapreneurial intention (INT) 310 3.888 0.619

Characteristics - Perception of their own capabilities

(POC) 310 4.115 0.557

- Past experience and knowledge (PEK)

310 4.227 0.554

Organizational factors - Management support (MS) 310 3.283 0.775 - Resources (R) 310 2.774 0.920 - Rewards/ Reinforcements (RW) 310 3.626 0.805 - Work discretion (WD) 310 3.508 0.810

Behaviors - Innovativeness (INO) 310 3.757 0.688 - Proactiveness (PRO) 310 4.062 0.583 - Opportunity recognition/

exploitation (ORE) 310 3.535 0.624

- Risk-taking (RT) 310 3.290 0.800 - Networks (NET) 310 3.701 0.758

All variables present a mean higher than three (except resources) which corresponds

to a positive sign of the sample for intrapreneurship. The highest means emerged in the

intrapreneurial characteristics. The past experience and knowledge with a mean of 4.227 and

the perception of their own capabilities with 4.115 demonstrate that, on average, the

respondents consider having built a strong knowledge and experience in their work area,

which may positively influence their intrapreneurial performance. Also, on average,

respondents feel confident about their capabilities and with the competences needed to

succeed in their work.

The lowest means appeared for the resources (2.774) management support (3.283)

and for risk-taking (3.290) although they are still above the indifference value of 3. Thus, it

is concluded for the people surveyed that organizations in average are not perceived to

provide financial resources or time specifically for the development of intrapreneurial

38

activities. In the case of management support, respondents do not feel significant support

from the company for the development of intrapreneurial behaviors. About the risk-taking

behavior, that value can denote a more cautions behavior on the part of respondents and

that does not jeopardize their job or company performance.

4.3 Spearman’s correlations

The Spearman’s correlations coefficients serve to evaluate the relationships between

two variables. This method is used when the variables are non-metric and do not assume a

normal distribution (Malhotra et al., 2017). In this way, through the results presented in table

9 we will analyze the existence or not of relationships between attitudes, characteristics and

organizational factors with the intrapreneurial behavior (defined through five variables).

The intrapreneurial behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and

networks manifested a positive and significant relationship with all variables (all values for

the correlation coefficients are lower than 0.01), which indicates that all variables considered

(relation to the organization, intention, perception of their own capabilities, past experience

and knowledge, management support, resources, rewards and work discretion) stimulated

positively the intrapreneurial behavior. About opportunity recognition and exploitation, the

scenario is slightly different. This behavior presents a positive significant relationship

(correlation coefficients lower than 0.01) with intention (=0.463), perception of their own

capabilities (=0.371), past experience and knowledge (=0.450), management support

(=0.193), rewards (=0.294) and work discretion (=0.304). No significant relationship

was found between opportunity recognition and exploitation with the relation to the

organization and resources.

Through Spearman’s correlations we also confirmed the existence of a positive and

significant correlation between the perception of their own capabilities and the

intrapreneurial intention. As such, we can conclude that a self-efficacious employee will have

a greater intrapreneurial intention. Additionally, past experience and knowledge shows a

positive significant relationship with the perception of their own capabilities (=0.577). This

result allows us to conclude that higher levels of past experience and knowledge held by an

employee could increase its perception of their own capabilities and indirectly the

intrapreneurial behaviors.

39

Table 9 - Spearman's rho correlations

RO INT POC PEK MS R RW WD INO PRO ORE RT NET

RO Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.329** 0.185** 0.222** 0.312** 0.202** 0.202** 0.283** 0.229** 0.254** 0.090 0.136* 0. 195**

Sig. (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.113 0.017 0.001

INT Correlation coefficient 0.329** 1.000 0.415** 0.471** 0.458** 0.292** 0.362** 0.415** 0.620** 0.564** 0.463** 0.486** 0.476**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

POC Correlation coefficient 0.185** 0.415** 1.000 0.577** 0.261** 0.144* 0.270** 0.315** 0.459** 0.567** 0.371** 0.282** 0.375**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

PEK Correlation coefficient 0.222** 0.471** 0.577** 1.000 0.229** 0.105 0.217** 0.351** 0.479** 0.550** 0.450** 0.286** 0.323**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

MS Correlation coefficient 0.312** 0.458** 0.261** 0.229** 1.000 0.755** 0.592** 0.607** 0.534** 0.386** 0.193** 0.457** 0.460**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

R Correlation coefficient 0.202** 0.292** 0.144* 0.105 0.755** 1.000 0.446** 0.450** 0.344** 0.231** 0.058 0.354** 0.311**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.064 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.312 0.000 0.000

RW Correlation coefficient 0.202** 0.362** 0.270** 0.217** 0.592** 0.446** 1.000 0.463** 0.424** 0.340** 0.294** 0.323** 0.414**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

WD Correlation coefficient 0.283** 0.415** 0.315** 0.351** 0.607** 0.450** 0.463** 1.000 0.543** 0.409** 0.304** 0.411** 0.423**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

INO Correlation coefficient 0.229** 0.620** 0.459** 0.479** 0.534** 0.344** 0.424** 0.543** 1.000 0.628** 0.519** 0.608** 0.603**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

PRO Correlation coefficient 0.254** 0.564** 0.567** 0.550** 0.386** 0.231** 0.340** 0.409** 0.628** 1.000 0.518** 0.464** 0.524**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000

ORE Correlation coefficient 0.090 0.463** 0.371** 0.450** 0.193** 0.058 0.294** 0.304** 0.519** 0.518** 1.000 0.409** 0.439**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000

40

RT Correlation coefficient 0.136* 0.486** 0.282** 0.286** 0.457** 0.354** 0.323** 0.411** 0.608** 0.464** 0.409** 1.000 0.463**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000

NET Correlation coefficient 0.195** 0.476** 0.375** 0.323** 0.460** 0.311** 0.414** 0.423** 0.603** 0.524** 0.439** 0.463** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 310

41

4.4 Multiple linear regression

To analyze the effect of the independent variables of the research model in the

intrapreneurial behavior (dependent variables), it will be used a multiple linear regression.

This method will be required to test the hypotheses stated before and analyze if the

independent variables are capable to predict the dependent variables. The model summary is

presented in annexes 3 and the table 10 expose the coefficients of each independent variable.

For each group of hypotheses there is a table to sum up if the results obtained supported the

hypotheses stated (tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18).

Table 10 - Multiple linear regression coefficients

Unstandardized

Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B Std.

Error Beta Tolerance VIF

Dependent variable: INO

(Constant) -0.185 0.258 -0.717 0.474

RO -0.051 0.045 -0.049 -1.150 0.251 0.822 1.216

INT 0.413 0.054 0.371 7.645 0.000 0.644 1.552

POC 0.145 0.062 0.117 2.327 0.021 0.600 1.666

PEK 0.172 0.064 0.139 2.706 0.007 0.580 1.724

MS 0.129 0.068 0.146 1.909 0.057 0.261 3.828

RW 0.058 0.044 0.068 1.319 0.188 0.577 1.733

WD 0.195 0.044 0.229 4.432 0.000 0.568 1.761

R -0.037 0.046 -0.050 -0.822 0.412 0.409 2.447

Dependent variable: PRO

(Constant) 0.458 0.228 2.010 0.045

RO -0.015 0.040 -0.017 -0.381 0.703 0.822 1.216

INT 0.249 0.048 0.264 5.217 0.000 0.644 1.552

POC 0.343 0.055 0.327 6.233 0.000 0.600 1.666

PEK 0.204 0.056 0.194 3.624 0.000 0.580 1.724

MS 0.070 0.060 0.093 1.173 0.242 0.261 3.828

RW 0.020 0.039 0.028 0.517 0.605 0.577 1.733

WD 0.044 0.039 0.062 1.143 0.254 0.568 1.761

R -0.013 0.040 -0.021 -0.333 0.739 0.409 2.447

Dependent variable: ORE

(Constant) 0.778 0.280 2.778 0.006

RO -0.109 0.049 -0.115 -2.233 0.026 0.822 1.216

INT 0.326 0.059 0.323 5.553 0.000 0.644 1.552

POC 0.144 0.067 0.129 2.134 0.034 0.600 1.666

PEK 0.221 0.069 0.196 3.197 0.002 0.580 1.724

MS -0.069 0.074 -0.086 -0.937 0.350 0.261 3.828

RW 0.141 0.048 0.181 2.953 0.003 0.577 1.733

WD 0.112 0.048 0.145 2.342 0.020 0.568 1.761

42

R -0.104 0.050 -0.153 -2.098 0.037 0.409 2.447

Dependent variable: RT

(Constant) 0.201 0.359 0.559 0.576

RO -0.112 0.062 -0.092 -1.795 0.074 0.822 1.216

INT 0.449 0.075 0.347 5.965 0.000 0.644 1.552

POC 0.092 0.086 0.064 1.064 0.288 0.600 1.666

PEK 0.053 0.088 0.036 0.593 0.553 0.580 1.724

MS 0.191 0.094 0.185 2.031 0.043 0.261 3.828

RW 0.007 0.061 0.007 0.111 0.912 0.577 1.733

WD 0.093 0.061 0.095 1.527 0.128 0.568 1.761

R 0.072 0.063 0.083 1.136 0.257 0.409 2.447

Dependent variable: NET

(Constant) 0.178 0.334 0.534 0.594

RO -0.018 0.058 -0.016 -0.309 0.757 0.822 1.216

INT 0.313 0.070 0.255 4.469 0.000 0.644 1.552

POC 0.232 0.081 0.170 2.875 0.004 0.600 1.666

PEK 0.018 0.082 0.013 0.223 0.823 0.580 1.724

MS 0.146 0.088 0.149 1.659 0.098 0.261 3.828

RW 0.126 0.057 0.134 2.223 0.027 0.577 1.733

WD 0.130 0.057 0.139 2.289 0.023 0.568 1.761

R -0.017 0.059 -0.021 -0.291 0.771 0.409 2.447

Starting by discussing the influence of the relation with the organization on the

intrapreneurial behavior, we concluded that this variable impacts the behaviors of

opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking; And shows no significant effect on

innovativeness, proactiveness and networks. However, contrary to what was expected, the

results indicate the existence of a negative impact of the relation to the organization. This

means that higher quality relationships between organizations and their employees could

decrease the intrapreneurial behaviors, specially opportunity recognition and exploitation

and risk-taking behaviors. In this way, the hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e are not supported

through the sample obtained. In researches from literature as the one conducted by Moriano

et al. (2014), it is concluded that employees properly aligned with the objectives and values

of their organizations are more likely to take risks and pursue innovative actions. However,

besides this relationship does not occur, we still register a negative effect of the variable on

the opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking behaviors.

Table 11 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 1

Hypotheses Supported/Not supported

H1a: A good relationship between employees and

organizations leads to higher innovativeness. Not supported

43

H1b: A good relationship between employees and

organizations leads to higher proactiveness. Not supported

H1c: A good relationship between employees and

organizations leads to higher opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Not supported

H1d: A good relationship between employees and

organizations leads to a higher risk-taking behavior. Not supported

H1e: A good relationship between employees and

organizations leads to the development and use of

networks.

Not supported

The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way presented a statistically significant and

positive effect with all dependent variables considered as intrapreneurial behaviors

(significance values lower than 0.05). Moreover, the intention was the most relevant variable

in previewing the innovativeness, opportunity recognition and exploitation, risk-taking and

networks. So, we can conclude that employees with higher intention to develop

intrapreneurial behaviors, actually end up transforming their intention in the five behaviors

considered. By consequence, we can conclude that all set of hypotheses 2 are supported as

it is expressed in table 12. The results are consistent with literature (Hatak et al., 2015; Razavi

& Ab Aziz, 2017; Zhao et al., 2005). Two of the authors referred expressed that individual’s

intentions are an essential condition for the implementation of intrapreneurial behaviors

(Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017).



H2a: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way

impact positively innovativeness. Supported

H2b: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way

impact positively proactiveness. Supported

H2c: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way

impact positively the opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Supported

44

H2d: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way

impact positively the risk-taking behavior Supported

H2e: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way

impact positively the development and use of networks Supported

The perception of employees’ own capabilities also showed a positive significant

impact on almost all intrapreneurial behaviors. Self-efficacious employees are more capable

and confident to recognize and exploit new opportunities, develop innovative and proactive

behaviors and potentiate the positive effects of their networks. From all independent

variables considered, the perception of their own capabilities was the most relevant variable

in predicting proactiveness. No significant effect was found between this variable and the

risk-taking behavior. The conclusions for hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d and 3e are exposed in

table 13. In literature, some authors proved the existence of a positive relation between the

perception of employees’ own capabilities and the intrapreneurial behaviors (Globocnik &

Salomo, 2015; Wakkee et al., 2010). For example, Globocnik and Salomo (2015) expressed

that highly self-efficacious people tend to be more confident, committed and persistence,

which is an added value and allows employees to be able to develop intrapreneurial

behaviors, even in difficult circumstances.



H3a: Employees with higher perception of their

capabilities develop higher levels of innovativeness. Supported

H3b: Employees with higher perception of their

capabilities develop higher levels of proactiveness. Supported

H3c: Employees with higher perception of their

capabilities develop higher levels of opportunity


Supported

H3d: Employees with higher perception of their

capabilities develop a higher level of risk-taking behavior. Not supported

H3e: Employees with higher perception of their

capabilities develop and use more their networks. Supported

45

The variable past experience and knowledge revealed a significant and positive effect

on some intrapreneurial behaviors, namely innovativeness, proactiveness and opportunity

recognition and exploitation. This support hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c. Thus, we conclude

that our results are in part in line with previous researches (Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013;

Pellegrini et al., 2019; van Dam et al., 2010). Past experience and knowledge allow employees

to be duly qualified to develop innovative behaviors, to find and explore new opportunities

and obtain results from their anticipatory actions. As already expressed, past experience and

knowledge is recognized as an intrinsic characteristic of sustainable intrapreneurs (Pellegrini

et al., 2019). On the other hand, hypotheses 5d and 5e are not supported.



H5a: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of

an employee increases its innovativeness. Supported

H5b: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of

an employee increases its proactiveness. Supported

H5c: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of

an employee increases its opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Supported

H5d: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of

an employee increases its risk-taking behavior. Not supported

H5e: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of

an employee increases the development and use of its

networks.

Not supported

About the management support, it only showed a significant and positive effect on

risk-taking. For this reason, we deduct that organizations which provide higher levels of

support to their employees for the development of intrapreneurship will foster their capacity

and willingness to take risks. In this way, the hypothesis 7d is supported. According to

Valsania et al. (2016), management support is capable to induce and facilitate employees’

behaviors, as risk-taking, toward intrapreneurial goals. This support can simply be a more

tolerant behavior from managers to the possibility of errors arising from the intrapreneurial

process of their employees (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011). This allows the intrapreneurs to take

46

the necessary risks directly associated to intrapreneurship without putting their job in danger.

The hypothesis 7a, 7b, 7c and 7e are not supported.



H7a: Higher levels of management support leads to

higher innovativeness. Not supported

H7b: Higher levels of management support leads to

higher proactiveness. Not supported

H7c: Higher levels of management support leads to

higher opportunity recognition and exploitation. Not supported

H7d: Higher levels of management support leads to a

higher risk-taking behavior. Supported

H7e: Higher levels of management support leads to the

development and use of networks. Not supported

In respect to the variable rewards, we concluded that it impacts positively the

intrapreneurial behaviors of opportunity recognition and exploitation and networks. The

significance values were lower than 0.05. As such, hypotheses 8c and 8e are supported. This

result demonstrates the relative effectiveness of a reward system on intrapreneurial behaviors

and partially prove the results obtained in the literature (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Sebora

& Theerapatvong, 2010). For example, Sebora and Theerapatvong (2010) stated that rewards

are capable to have a great impact on intrapreneurial activity, through encouraging the

intended behaviors. In contrast, hypothesis 8a, 8b and 8d are not supported.



H8a: Higher levels of rewards associated with

intrapreneurial tasks increase innovativeness. Not supported

H8b: Higher levels of rewards associated with

intrapreneurial tasks increase proactiveness. Not supported

47

H8c: Higher levels of rewards associated with

intrapreneurial tasks increase opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Supported

H8d: Higher levels of rewards associated with

intrapreneurial tasks increase the risk-taking behavior. Not supported

H8e: Higher levels of rewards associated with

intrapreneurial tasks increase the development and use of

networks.

Supported

In what concerns to hypotheses 9a, 9c and 9e the results achieved support them.

The work discretion presented a statistically significant and positive effect on innovativeness,

opportunity recognition and exploitation and networks (significance values lower than 0.05).

Thus, in circumstances where organizations provide flexible structures and the sufficient

freedom to their employees, the three intrapreneurial behaviors considered will be increased.

Some previous researches also achieved similar results (Allen et al., 2015; Globocnik &

Salomo, 2015). Autonomy allows employees to exploit new opportunities, innovate and

make use of their networks without having to wait for supervisor approval and justify some

circumstantial deviant behaviors that occurred during this process. On the other hand,

hypotheses 9b and 9d are not supported. Interestingly, we did not find that greater

autonomy led to greater proactivity, what could mean that respondents do not feel that they

become more proactive because they have a more autonomous work. As such, considering

that no organizational factor impacts positively the proactiveness (hypotheses 7b, 8b, 9b and

10b are not supported), we can conclude that this behavior is intrinsic to each employee and

can not be stimulated by the conditions offered by an organization.



H9a: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher

innovativeness. Supported

H9b: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher

proactiveness. Not supported

48

H9c: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher

opportunity recognition and exploitation. Supported

H9d: Higher levels of work discretion lead to a higher

risk-taking behavior. Not supported

H9e: Higher levels of work discretion lead to the

development and use of networks. Supported

Analyzing the results for resources, we concluded that this variable influence

negatively the opportunity recognition and exploitation. The level of resources available

presented no significant effect on innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and networks.

For this reason, as it is shown in table 18, hypotheses 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d and 10e are not

supported. In literature the studies developed considered the existence of a positive impact

of the variable on intrapreneurial behaviors (Hornsby et al., 2002; Puech & Durand, 2017).

However, the results achieved demonstrate that the resources available for intrapreneurship

have no impact on the considered behaviors and, contrary to what was expected, the effect

is detrimental to the recognition of new opportunities and their exploitation.



H10a: Higher level of resources available for

intrapreneurship increases innovativeness. Not supported

H10b: Higher level of resources available for

intrapreneurship increases proactiveness. Not supported

H10c: Higher level of resources available for

intrapreneurship increases opportunity recognition and

exploitation.

Not supported

H10d: Higher level of resources available for

intrapreneurship increases the risk-taking behavior. Not supported

H10e: Higher level of resources available for

intrapreneurship increases the development and use of

networks.

Not supported

49

4.4.1 Moderation analysis

In order to test the hypothesis 4 previously stated it was necessary to run a specific

analysis. The results achieved are presented in annexes 4.

Firstly, we verified once again that the variables perception of their own capabilities

and intention have significant impact on intrapreneurial behaviors. However, when we add

a third variable to the model, which represents the moderation effect of perception of their

own capabilities in the variable intention, the significance parameter increases to values

higher than 0.05. This means that there is not a significant impact of the moderation effect

on the intrapreneurial behaviors. As such, hypothesis 4: “Employees’ perception of their

capabilities moderates the relation between their intrapreneurial intention and their

intrapreneurial behaviors” is not supported. Contrary to Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2008),

it can not be concluded that employees with higher perception of their own capabilities

develop a higher intention to be intrapreneur, which highly impact the intrapreneurial

behaviors.

4.4.2 Mediation analysis

In literature, as we already exposed, it is expected the existence of a mediation effect.

The relationship between past experience and knowledge and the five variables of the

intrapreneurial behaviors is mediated by the perception of their own capabilities. In order to

analyze the existence of this relationship it was necessary to use the PROCESS tool created

by Andrew F. Hayes on SPSS. This tool generated a group of results that are presented in

annexes 5.

Through the results achieved, we first concluded that there is a positive and

significant impact of past experience and knowledge in the perception of their own

capabilities. Then, analyzing the indirect effect of the variable past experience and knowledge

on the five intrapreneurial behaviors through the perception of their own capabilities, it is

possible to verify the existence of this relationship. With a 95% confidence interval, the

mediation effect was found and impacts all the variables of the intrapreneurial behavior (the

values for boot LLCI and boot ULCI are higher than zero). For this reason, hypothesis 6:

“The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its perception

of its own capabilities” is supported.

50

This result meets the conclusions presented in literature. According to Pellegrini et

al. (2019) and Zhao et al. (2005), employees knowledge and experience are part of the

requirements for the development of their self-efficacy (perception of their own capabilities).

4.5 Differences between surveyed groups

4.5.1 Kruskal-Wallis H test

The Kruskal-Wallis H test will serve in this section to evaluate the differences in the

results between the several surveyed groups. The groups considered correspond to the

control variables already described in the chapter 2.6 and 4.1, except gender. All results

achieved from the Kruskal-Wallis H test are exposed in annexes 6.

Starting by analyzing the influence of age, it was possible to register some differences.

There was a significant effect of age in the variables relation to the organization, past

experience and knowledge, management support, resources, work discretion, innovativeness

and proactiveness (significance values lower than 0.05). For the variables referred, the age

group between 45 and 54 years old reported higher medians in relation to the organization,

past experience and knowledge and proactiveness (the variable proactiveness reported the

same medians for the age group between 45 and 54 and between 55 and 64). For management

support, resources, work discretion and innovativeness the age group of 65 years old or older

registered higher medians, followed by the age group between 45 and 54 years old

(innovativeness reported as second age group with higher median the group between 35 and

44). In these cases, we should be cautious when drawing conclusions since the questionnaire

only received 4 answers of people with more than 64 years old. Additionally, the results

indicate that for the variables where the factor age is significant, the younger respondents

registered lower medians. This fact contradicts some researches previously developed, such

as the research from Kacperczyk (2012), since it is concluded that younger employees tend

to be more disposed to take risks to pursuit intrapreneurial activities.

Analyzing the effect of the main occupation reported by the respondents, it was

possible to verify a significant impact of this control variable in all variables considered,

except in relation to the organization and networks. For the factors indicated the significance

values were lower than 0.05. In general, we verified that independent workers show higher

medians in almost all variables (intention, perception of their own capabilities, past

51

experience and knowledge, management support, resources, rewards, work discretion,

innovativeness and proactiveness) and, by contrast, unemployed respondents the lowest

medians (intention, management support, rewards, work discretion, innovativeness and

proactiveness).

In respect to the years of experience, this aspect only took significant effect in the

risk-taking behavior. The respondents with work experience between 4 and 10 years

presented higher levels of risk-taking behaviors, while the group with less work experience

(1-3 years of experience) showed less this type of behavior. The same result was obtained in

the parameter age, where, contrary to what was expected, younger employees stood out as

being less likely to develop some intrapreneurial behaviors when compared to the other age

groups.

Taking in consideration the education level of the respondents and its impact on the

results of each variable, we concluded that there was a significant effect in the relation to the

organization, perception of their own capabilities, management support and resources. No

significant effect was found in the dependent variables of the intrapreneurial behavior. An

important conclusion retained is the fact that the lower educational level considered (middle

school or lower) presented higher levels of influence (median scores) for all variables with

significant effect. On the contrary, the respondents with higher levels of education showed

lower medians of impact in the variables referred, except in the perception of their own

capabilities (lower impact for the respondents with high school level).

The size of the organization had significant effect in some variables, namely

management support, resources, rewards, work discretion, opportunity recognition and

exploitation and risk-taking. No significant impact was registered in the intrapreneurial

attitudes and characteristics. Moreover, in general terms for the variables considered, the

smaller the size of the organization the greater was the existence of conditions provided by

organizations to develop intrapreneurship. About opportunity recognition and exploitation,

it was more relevant for larger organizations, while organizations with a number of

employees between 11 and 50 registered higher levels of risk-taking. Although, in literature,

Kacperczyk (2012) concluded that larger organizations tend to register higher levels of

individual intrapreneurship.

To conclude this analyzes, we found a significant impact of the organization type for

three organizational factors and one intrapreneurial behavior. In third sector organizations

and private organizations we registered higher levels of management support, rewards, work

52

discretion and risk-taking behavior. By contrast, the organizations from the public sector

presented lower medians scores for all variables referred.

From all variables considered in the research, networks was the only factor that did

not registered any difference in its results according to the diverse control variables

measured.

4.5.2 Mann-Whitney test

The Mann-Whitney test will be used to evaluate the differences in the results

according to respondents’ gender. It was necessary to use this test specifically for control

variable gender since it is only constituted by two groups. The results achieved from the

Mann-Whitney test are exposed in annexes 7.

About the effect of gender in the variables considered, it was registered significant

impacts in some of them. For intrapreneurial intention, past experience and knowledge,

innovativeness, opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking there were a

significant effect (significance values lower than 0.05). In these five variables, male

respondents reported higher levels compared to female respondents (according to median

scores), which means that male respondents presented higher intention to act

intrapreneurially, they have more accumulated past experience and knowledge and they

develop more intrapreneurial behaviors based on innovativeness, on recognizing and

exploiting opportunities and assuming risks performing their works. Some previous

researches indicated similar conclusions. Zhao et al. (2005) concluded that women in general

report lower intention to become entrepreneur and Adachi and Hisada (2017) concluded

that women usually show higher levels of aversion to risk.

53

5. Conclusions

In the context of intrapreneurship, this study explored the determinants behind the

intrapreneurial behavior. We summed up how the characteristics and attitudes of employees

influence a set of behaviors considered as the main components of intrapreneurial behavior.

Moreover, it was investigated how some specific organizational factors can impact the

development of these behaviors. Additionally, we analyzed the existence of relationships

expected in literature between some of the variables considered.

Through this investigation, we provide an explanation of intrapreneurship, how it is

manifested in employees and what are the main relevant factors that managers should be

aware when developing intrapreneurial strategies.

In this way, the results achieved showed that the intrapreneurial intention is the most

relevant factor for the development of the intrapreneurial behaviors. For this reason,

managers should be careful with this specific attitude and take the necessary decisions to

recruit employees with higher intrapreneurial intention or foster this attitude within their

organization. Employees with higher intention to be intrapreneur will be more likely to

develop and have the five behaviors considered in this research as being part of an

intrapreneurial employee.

The self-efficacy characteristic (perception of their own capabilities) was also

indicated as one of the most relevant variables for intrapreneurial behaviors. When

employees are capable to understand their strengths and feel themselves confident to succeed

any environment, it is expected that they will be more predisposed to innovate, to be a

dynamic and proactive element inside the organization and to recognized and explore the

opportunities around. Also, self-efficacious employees will be expected to develop and use

their networks as a tool to achieve their objectives.

It should be noted that, contrary to what was expected, organizational factors did not

emerge as the main influencers of the intrapreneurial behaviors. In the case of resources, it

was even presented as an inhibitor of the opportunity recognition and exploitation behavior.

Perhaps the existence of slack financial resources and time for the development of

intrapreneurship can cause a wrong feeling of success on employees, who, as such, do not

feel that it is necessary to do more than their daily tasks.

Thus, we found that younger employees with less work experience tend to develop

less intrapreneurial behaviors, which contradicts some previous researches. Independent

54

workers tend to present more attitudes and characteristics in favor to intrapreneurship, as

well as behaviors, and be positively influenced by the organizational factors. On the opposite

side are the unemployed, which can indicate that managers value in their employees the

existence of the characteristics and attitudes from an intrapreneur. For this reason, the

absence of these aspects may imply the dismissal of these workers or their non-hiring. The

education level should also be taken into account. Employees with higher education levels

tend to have worst relations to their organizations and consider that there is less management

support and organization resources available.

Finally, gender caused some differences in the results achieved. Men tend to present

higher intention to be intrapreneur, more past experience and knowledge and develop more

behaviors of innovativeness, opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking.

In terms or organization size and type, generally it was found that smaller

organizations from the private and third sectors provide more conditions for

intrapreneurship, in contrast to the biggest organizations and public institutions.

5.1 Theoretical and practical contribution

From the research conducted in this study, we were able to produce important

theoretical and practical contributions. Firstly, it was aggregated the main variables

considered in literature which until now are considered as being the most relevant and with

important influence on intrapreneurship. As such, we analyze the impact of those variables

taking in consideration the same sample and context. This allowed that cultural differences

or different data collection methods did not interfere with the results obtained.

Moreover, until the moment of this research development no similar study has been

carried out in Portugal and there were only a few number of researches in this area made in

countries with a context close to ours, for example Spain. This fact did not allow the

conclusions universally drawn in other investigations to be directly extrapolated to our

context, since the environment could jeopardize the applicability of them. Thus, we

contribute to literature by summing up the main variables, by studying them all together and

by clarifying what could impact economies as the Portuguese.

With the inclusion of the organizational factors impacting the intrapreneurship, we

complemented what was usually done and provide a broader view of the topic. Commonly,

the individual-level and organizational-level were not analyzed together. For example,

55

according to Gawke et al. (2019), this was one of the limitations of their research. This

decision enriched the study and showed that organizations should be aware of their role for

more successful strategies of intrapreneurship. Despite intrapreneurship is carried out by

each element of the organization, the decisions coming from the top of the organizational

structures are capable to determine the intrapreneurs’ success.

In addition, the conclusions from this research increase managers understanding

about what can be relevant for intrapreneurial strategies. With this knowledge, managers are

capable to redefine the organization decisions and structure. As well, the responsible for

human resources management are aware of the characteristics and attitudes that interfere in

the success of intrapreneurship. This could be particularly important when recruiting new

organization elements or for training purposes. Finally, managers can also use the scales

collected in this investigation to measure the levels of each variable in their own

organizations.

5.2 Research limitations

Our study presents some limitations that should be taken into account. The data

obtained was self-reported and there is a threat of being biased due to social desirability

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In order to reduce this threat, the

questionnaire answers were completely anonymous and before each person started, the

questionnaire informs them about it.

Besides that, the data collected refers to residents in Portugal without knowing their

geographical regions or specific areas in which they exercise functions. The sample obtained

is diverse and allows general conclusions to be drawn. Although, it could be interesting to

study specific regions or economy sectors that there is evidence that the behaviors are

different from those obtained in this study. Another possible way will be to analyze the

existence, or not, of differences in the variables that affect intrapreneurship between

countries.

Since for this investigation we take a broad view of the topic, future researches can

start from our conclusions and build a study focused in only some of the variables

considered. One of the difficulties felt during data collection and analysis was the number of

variables and respective number of questions, that ended up making the questionnaire

extensive and a little tiring for the respondents. Furthermore, it would be of great interest

56

conduct an investigation to find if there are more variables with big impact on

intrapreneurship and have not been considered so far.

Additionally, in this research we considered the intrapreneurial behavior as being

composed by five different behaviors. This decision led to a greater number of hypotheses,

making the analysis more complex. Although, future researches can create, as an alternative,

a global score for the intrapreneurial behavior that group all the answers of the five behaviors,

allowing an equally correct but simpler analysis.

Lastly, another perspective that can be followed and with little information on

literature is the impact of intrapreneurial behaviors on company performance. There is a

consensus that intrapreneurship positively influences the results of organizations. However,

it is not studied in depth how the organizations’ performance can be impacted financially or

not financially, either in the short or long term.

57

References

Adachi, T., & Hisada, T. (2017). Gender differences in entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: an empirical analysis. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 447-486. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9793-y

Alam, M. Z., Nasir, N., & Rehman, C. A. (2020). Intrapreneurship concepts for engineers: a systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations and agenda for future research. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1). doi:10.1186/s13731-020-00119-3

Allen, M. R., Adomdza, G. K., & Meyer, M. H. (2015). Managing for innovation: Managerial control and employee level outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 371-379. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.021

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00054-3

Asiaei, K., Barani, O., Bontis, N., & Arabahmadi, M. (2020). Unpacking the black box How intrapreneurship intervenes in the intellectual capital-performance relationship? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 26. doi:10.1108/jic-06-2019-0147

Auer Antoncic, J. (2011). Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 589-607. doi:10.1108/02635571111133560

Badoiu, G. A., Segarra-Cipres, M., & Escrig-Tena, A. B. (2020). Understanding employees' intrapreneurial behavior: a case study. Personnel Review, 18. doi:10.1108/pr-04-2019-0201

Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs "connect the dots" to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104-119. doi:10.5465/amp.2006.19873412

Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. T. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002

Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13(5), 919-961. doi:10.1007/s11846-018-0277-0

Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management - Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349-1364. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349

Burstrom, T., & Wilson, T. L. (2015). Intrapreneurial ambidexterity: a platform project, Swedish approach. Management Research Review, 38(11), 1172-1190. doi:10.1108/mrr-06-2014-0130

Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 5-20. doi:10.1177/104225879602100101

Chan, K. Y., Ho, M. H. R., Kennedy, J. C., Uy, M. A., Kang, B., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Yu, K. Y. T. (2017). Who Wants to Be an Intrapreneur? Relations between Employees' Entrepreneurial, Professional, and Leadership Career Motivations and Intrapreneurial Motivation in Organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02041

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00029-3

58

Chen, C. J., Shih, H. A., & Yang, S. Y. (2009). The Role of Intellectual Capital in Knowledge Transfer. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(3), 402-411. doi:10.1109/tem.2009.2023086

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004

Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2019). Crafting High-Impact Entrepreneurial Orientation Research: Some Suggested Guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3-18. doi:10.1177/1042258718773181

De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2010). Interrelationships between human capital, HRM and innovation in Belgian start-ups aiming at an innovation strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 1863-1883. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.505088

Douglas, E. J., & Fitzsimmons, J. R. (2008). Individual intentions towards entrepreneurship vs intrapreneurship.

Escriba-Carda, N., Revuelto-Taboada, L., Canet-Giner, M. T., & Balbastre-Benavent, F. (2020). Fostering intrapreneurial behavior through human resource management system. Baltic Journal of Management, 19. doi:10.1108/bjm-07-2019-0254

Farrukh, M. (2017). Intrapreneurial behaviour: the role of organizational commitment. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 13(3), 243-256. doi:10.1108/WJEMSD-03-2017-0016

Fellnhofer, K. (2017). Drivers of innovation success in sustainable businesses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1534-1545. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.197

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: SAGE Publications. Fischer, A. (2011). Recognizing opportunities: initiating service innovation in PSFs. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 15(6), 915-927. doi:10.1108/13673271111179280 Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal

initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x

Garcia-Morales, V. J., Bolivar-Ramos, M. T., & Martin-Rojas, R. (2014). Technological variables and absorptive capacity's influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1468-1477. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.019

Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2019). Measuring intrapreneurship at the individual level: Development and validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS). European Management Journal, 37(6), 806-817. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.001

GEM. (2019). How GEM Defines Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1149, accessed in November, 20, 2019.

Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do Formal Management Practices Impact the Emergence of Bootlegging Behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505-521. doi:10.1111/jpim.12215

Gomez-Haro, S., Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(9-10), 1677-1693. doi:10.1108/00251741111183825

Guerrero, M., & Pena-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapreneurial experience on corporate venturing: Evidence from developed economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 397-416. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0260-9

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.001

https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1149

59

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest Editors' Introduction: Corporate Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15.

Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 883-896. doi:10.1093/icc/5.3.883

Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for Inclusive Business: Intrapreneurial Bricolage in Multinational Corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743-784. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01045.x

Hatak, I., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2015). Age, job identification, and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 38-53. doi:10.1108/jmp-07-2014-0213

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers' perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00059-8

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302. doi:10.1348/096317900167038

Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing Internal Corporate Entrepreneurship - An agency theory perspective. Journal of Management, 18(4), 733-749. doi:10.1177/014920639201800408

Kacperczyk, A. J. (2012). Opportunity Structures in Established Firms: Entrepreneurship versus Intrapreneurship in Mutual Funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 484-521. doi:10.1177/0001839212462675

Kearney, C., Hisrich, R. D., & Antoncic, B. (2013). The mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship for external environment effects on performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14, S328-S357. doi:10.3846/16111699.2012.720592

Kelley, D. J., O’Connor, G. C., Neck, H., & Peters, L. (2011). Building an organizational capability for radical innovation: The direct managerial role. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(4), 249-267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.06.003

Kollmann, T., Stockmann, C., Meves, Y., & Kensbock, J. M. (2017). When members of entrepreneurial teams differ: linking diversity in individual-level entrepreneurial orientation to team performance. Small Business Economics, 48(4), 843-859. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9818-6

Kreuzer, C., & Weber, S. (2020). Apprentices’ Errors in Intrapreneurship: Findings from a Large-Scale Assessment. Vocations and Learning, 1-26.

Macmillan, I. C., Block, Z., & Narasimha, P. N. S. (1986). Corporate venturing: alternatives, obstacles encountered, and experience effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(2), 177-191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(86)90013-3

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma matter: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202

Malhotra, N. K., Birks, D. F., & Nunan, D. (2017). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach: Pearson.

Martin-Rojas, R., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Gonzalez-Alvarez, N. (2019). Technological antecedents of entrepreneurship and its consequences for organizational performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 22-35. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.018

McKinney, G., & McKinney, M. (1989). Forget the Corporate Umbrella - Entrepreneurs shine in the rain. Sloan Management Review, 30(4), 77-82.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00059-8

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00059-8

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.06.003

https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(86)90013-3

60

Menzel, H. C., Aaltio, I., & Ulijn, J. M. (2007). On the way to creativity: Engineers as intrapreneurs in organizations. Technovation, 27(12), 732-743. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.004

Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., Topa, G., & Lévy Mangin, J.-P. (2014). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(1), 103-119. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0196-x

Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171-197. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0339-y

Neessen, P. C. M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, B., & de Jong, J. P. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 545-571. doi:10.1007/s11365-018-0552-1

Park, S. H., Kim, J. N., & Krishna, A. (2014). Bottom-Up Building of an Innovative Organization: Motivating Employee Intrapreneurship and Scouting and Their Strategic Value. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(4), 531-560. doi:10.1177/0893318914541667

Pellegrini, C., Annunziata, E., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2019). The role of networks and sustainable intrapreneurship as interactive drivers catalyzing the adoption of sustainable innovation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5), 1026-1048. doi:10.1002/csr.1784

Pinchot, G. (2017). Four defintions for the Intrapreneur. Retrieved from https://www.pinchot.com/perspective/intrapreneuring/

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preenen, P. T. Y., Dorenbosch, L., Plantinga, E., & Dhondt, S. (2019). The influence of task challenge on skill utilization, affective wellbeing and intrapreneurial behaviour. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 40(4), 954-975. doi:10.1177/0143831x16677367

Puech, L., & Durand, T. (2017). Classification of time spent in the intrapreneurial process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(2), 142-151. doi:10.1111/caim.12214

Razavi, S. H., & Ab Aziz, K. (2017). The dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation, transformational leadership, and intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D sector. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(5), 769-792. doi:10.1108/ijebr-10-2016-0337

Reibenspiess, V., Drechsler, K., Eckhardt, A., & Wagner, H.-T. (2020). Tapping into the wealth of employees’ ideas: Design principles for a digital intrapreneurship platform. Information & Management, 103287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103287

Renko, M., El Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A. L., & Braennback, M. (2015). Understanding and Measuring Entrepreneurial Leadership Style. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 54-74. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12086

Rigtering, J. P. C., Weitzel, G. U., & Muehlfeld, K. (2019). Increasing quantity without compromising quality: How managerial framing affects intrapreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 224-241. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.11.002

https://www.pinchot.com/perspective/intrapreneuring/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103287

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.11.002

61

Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 337-360. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0258-3

Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering Entrepreneurship in The Large, Diversified Firm. Organizational Dynamics, 18(1), 20. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(89)90029-6

Sebora, T. C., & Theerapatvong, T. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship: a test of external and internal influences on managers’ idea generation, risk taking, and proactiveness. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 331-350. doi:10.1007/s11365-009-0108-5

Smith, L., Rees, P., & Murray, N. (2016). Turning entrepreneurs into intrapreneurs: Thomas Cook, a case-study. Tourism Management, 56, 191-204. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.04.005

Stathakopoulos, V., Kottikas, K. G., Theodorakis, I. G., & Kottika, E. (2019). Market-driving strategy and personnel attributes: Top management versus middle management. Journal of Business Research, 104, 529-540. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.020

Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 15(7), 521-536. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150703

Stull, M. (2005). Intrapreneurship in nonprofit organizations examining the factors that facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour among employees.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407911

Sundin, E., & Tillmar, M. (2008). A Nurse and a Civil Servant changing institutions: Entrepreneurial processes in different public sector organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(2), 113-124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.03.006

Turro, A., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2016). Intrapreneurship in the Spanish context: a regional analysis. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(5-6), 380-402. doi:10.1080/08985626.2016.1162850

Urban, B., & Wood, E. (2015). The importance of opportunity recognition behaviour and motivators of employees when engaged in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(5), 980-994. doi:10.3846/16111699.2013.799087

Urbano, D., & Turro, A. (2013). Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: an in(ex)ternal approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 379-396. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0261-8

Valka, K., Roseira, C., & Campos, P. (2020). Determinants of university employee intrapreneurial behavior: The case of Latvian universities. Industry and Higher Education, 0(0), 0950422219897817. doi:10.1177/0950422219897817

Valsania, S. E., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2016). Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial behavior: cross-level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification and empowerment. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 131-152. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0333-4

van Dam, K., Schipper, M., & Runhaar, P. (2010). Developing a competency-based framework for teachers' entrepreneurial behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 965-971. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.038

Wakkee, I., Elfring, T., & Monaghan, S. (2010). Creating entrepreneurial employees in traditional service sectors The role of coaching and self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 1-21. doi:10.1007/s11365-008-0078-z

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.03.006

62

Wang, Y. L., Ellinger, A. D., & Wu, Y. C. J. (2013). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: an empirical study of R&D personnel. Management Decision, 51(1-2), 248-266. doi:10.1108/00251741311301803

Woo, H. R. (2018). Personality traits and intrapreneurship: the mediating effect of career adaptability. Career Development International, 23(2), 145-162. doi:10.1108/cdi-02-2017-0046

Zampetakis, L. A., Beldekos, P., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). ‘‘Day-to-day” entrepreneurship within organisations: The role of trait Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Organisational Support. European Management Journal, 27(3), 165-175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.08.003

Zampetakis Leonidas, A. (2010). An exploratory research on the factors stimulating corporate entrepreneurship in the Greek public sector. International Journal of Manpower, 31(8), 871-887. doi:10.1108/01437721011088557

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.08.003

63

Annexes

Annexes 1: Questionnaire in Portuguese

Vai responder a este questionário relativamente a:

Empresa / organização onde trabalha atualmente

Empresa / organização onde teve a sua última experiência profissional

Pense na organização onde trabalha atualmente ou onde exerceu a sua última atividade profissional e... Assinale o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações: (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Quando alguém critica a organização, sinto-o como um insulto pessoal.

Eu interesso-me muito pelo que os outros acham da organização.

Quando falo da organização, normalmente digo “nós” em detrimento de “eles”.

Os sucessos da organização são os meus sucessos.

Quando alguém elogia a organização, sinto-o como um elogio pessoal.

Se fosse partilhada uma história nos media a criticar a organização, eu sentir-me-ia envergonhado/a.

Pense em si e na organização onde trabalha atualmente ou onde exerceu a sua última atividade profissional e... Assinale o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações: (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Pretendo ajudar no desenvolvimento de um novo produto ou serviço e novo mercado.

Gostaria de estar envolvido em qualquer atividade empreendedora da empresa.

Tomaria a iniciativa de fazer qualquer coisa que pudesse ter um retorno elevado para a empresa em que trabalho, mesmo que a tarefa possa ser arriscada.

Tenciono criar uma nova filial ou negócio para a empresa em que trabalho.

Irei encorajar os outros a implementarem ideais para inovar na organização.

Gosto de ter a responsabilidade de transformar protótipos ou ideias em resultados lucrativos.

Gosto de procurar oportunidades apesar dos recursos limitados.

Pretendo envolver-me no reconhecimento e na criação de novas oportunidades para produtos, métodos, operações ou mercados, estabelecendo uma visão estratégica para a organização.

Eu preferia pressionar a gestão de topo a adotar as oportunidades referidas na questão anterior.

Eu farei todos os esforços para avaliar os recursos da organização disponíveis para executar as suas ideias.

Relativamente a si...

64

Assinale o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações: (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Eu sou capaz de alcançar a maioria dos objetivos que estabeleci para mim.

Ao enfrentar tarefas difíceis, tenho a certeza de que irei cumpri-las.

Em geral, eu acho que consigo obter resultados que são importantes para mim.

Eu acredito que consigo ter sucesso em qualquer trabalho a que me dedique.

Eu sou capaz de ultrapassar com sucesso muitos desafios.

Eu estou confiante que consigo executar de forma eficaz muitas tarefas diferentes.

Comparado com outras pessoas eu consigo fazer a maioria das tarefas muito bem.

Mesmo quando as coisas estão difíceis, eu consigo sair-me muito bem.

Relativamente a si... Assinale o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações: (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Eu retiro conclusões dos erros que acontecem durante o trabalho.

Eu consigo pensar de forma muito rápida e fácil em informações relacionadas com a minha área de trabalho.

O meu conhecimento da minha área de trabalho é amplo.


concordo totalmente

A minha organização é rápida a usar métodos de trabalho melhorados.

A minha organização é rápida a usar métodos de trabalho melhorados que são desenvolvidos pelos colaboradores.

Na minha organização o desenvolvimento de ideias próprias é incentivado para que a empresa evolua.

A gestão de topo está ciente e muito recetiva às minhas ideias e sugestões.

A promoção geralmente segue o desenvolvimento de ideias novas e inovadoras.

Os colaboradores que têm a iniciativa de propor ideias inovadoras são geralmente encorajados pela gestão por essas atividades.

Os colaboradores que 'fazem acontecer' (ou doers, em inglês) podem tomar decisões sem passarem por procedimentos elaborados de justificação e aprovação.

Os gestores seniores incentivam os inovadores a desviarem-se das regras e procedimentos rígidos para manter as ideias promissoras no caminho certo.

Muitos gestores de topo são conhecidos pela sua experiência no processo de inovação.

Existe dinheiro disponível com regularidade para obter novas ideias de projetos.

Indivíduos com projetos inovadores bem-sucedidos recebem recompensas e compensações adicionais pelas suas ideias e esforços, além do sistema normal de recompensas.

65

Existem várias opções dentro da organização para que os indivíduos obtenham apoio financeiro para os seus projetos e ideias inovadores.

Os que assumem riscos individuais são frequentemente reconhecidos pela sua vontade de defender novos projetos, sejam eles bem-sucedidos ou não.

As pessoas geralmente são encorajadas a correr riscos calculados com novas ideias.

Correr riscos é considerado um atributo positivo pelas pessoas da minha área de trabalho.

A organização apoia muitos projetos pequenos e experimentais, percebendo que alguns, sem dúvida, falharão.

Um trabalhador com uma boa ideia costuma ter tempo livre para desenvolvê-la.

Há um desejo considerável entre as pessoas na organização de gerar novas ideias sem ter em consideração as fronteiras departamentais ou funcionais.

As pessoas são incentivadas a conversar com trabalhadores de outros departamentos da organização sobre ideias para novos projetos.


concordo totalmente

O meu supervisor ajuda-me a completar o meu trabalho através da remoção de obstáculos.

Os prémios que eu recebo estão dependentes do meu trabalho no emprego.

O meu supervisor irá aumentar as minhas responsabilidades se estiver a ter um bom desempenho no meu trabalho.

O meu supervisor irá dar-me um reconhecimento especial se o meu desempenho no trabalho for especialmente bom.

O meu supervisor diria ao seu chefe se o meu trabalho estivesse espetacular.

O meu trabalho é desafiante.

Pense no seu trabalho atual ou na sua última experiência profissional e... Assinale o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações: (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Sinto que sou o meu próprio chefe e não preciso de confirmar todas as minhas decisões.

Críticas e punições severas resultam de erros cometidos no trabalho.

Esta organização dá-me a oportunidade de ser criativo e tentar os meus próprios métodos para desempenhar o trabalho.

Esta organização dá-me liberdade para usar a minha capacidade de avaliação.

Esta organização oferece-me a possibilidade de fazer algo que utilize as minhas capacidades.

Eu tenho a liberdade para decidir o que faço no meu trabalho.

É basicamente minha responsabilidade decidir como o meu trabalho é realizado.

Quase sempre consigo decidir o que faço no meu trabalho.

Tenho muita autonomia no meu emprego e tenho autonomia para fazer o meu próprio trabalho.

66

Raramente preciso de seguir os mesmos métodos ou etapas de trabalho para realizar as minhas principais tarefas do dia-a-dia.

Pense em si e na organização onde trabalha atualmente ou onde exerceu a sua última atividade profissional e... Assinale o seu grau de frequência das seguintes afirmações: (1) nunca, (2) raramente, (3) às vezes, (4) frequentemente, (5) sempre

Eu crio novas ideias ou soluções para problemas difíceis.

Eu procuro novos métodos de trabalho, técnicas ou instrumentos.

Eu gero soluções originais para os problemas.

Eu tento mobilizar apoio para ideias inovadoras.

Eu tento adquirir a aprovação para ideias inovadoras.

Eu tento que importantes membros da organização se entusiasmem pelas ideias inovadoras.

Eu transformo ideias inovadoras em aplicações úteis.

Eu introduzo ideias inovadoras no ambiente de trabalho de forma sistemática.

Eu avalio a utilidade das ideias inovadoras.

Pense em si e na organização onde trabalha atualmente ou onde exerceu a sua última atividade profissional e... (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Ataco ativamente os problemas.

Sempre que acontece algo de errado procuro uma solução imediatamente.

Sempre que existe a oportunidade de participar ativamente em algo, eu aceito.

Tomo a iniciativa imediatamente mesmo que os outros não.

Aproveito rapidamente as oportunidades para atingir os meus objetivos.

Normalmente faço mais do que me pedem.

Sou particularmente bom/boa a colocar ideias em prática.


concordo totalmente

Ao realizar atividades rotineiras do dia-a-dia vejo oportunidades com potencial à minha volta.

Tenho um "alerta" ou sensibilidade especial para novas oportunidades.

“Ver" potenciais novas oportunidades não surge naturalmente em mim.


concordo totalmente

Sigo em frente com uma nova abordagem promissora quando outros podem ser mais cautelosos.

Estou disposto a trocar parte do meu salário pela oportunidade de experimentar a minha ideia de negócio, se a recompensa para o sucesso for adequada.

No decorrer do meu trabalho, assumirei riscos calculados apesar da possibilidade de falhar.

67

Se há grandes interesses em jogo, eu normalmente vou atrás da grande vitória, mesmo quando existe a possibilidade de correr tudo muito mal.

Pense na sua relação com outras pessoas no trabalho e... (1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)

concordo totalmente

Gasto muito tempo e esforço a interagir com outras pessoas.

No trabalho, conheço muitas pessoas importantes e estou bem conectado.

Sou bom a usar minhas redes de contactos e conexões obter resultados no trabalho.

Desenvolvi uma grande rede de colegas no trabalho, nos quais posso pedir apoio quando realmente preciso fazer as coisas.

Passo muito tempo a desenvolver a minha rede de relações com outras pessoas.

Sou bom a criar relacionamentos com pessoas influentes no trabalho.

Fale-nos um pouco sobre si... Idade

18 – 24

25 – 34

35 – 44

45 – 54

55 – 64

Mais de 64

Género

Masculino

Feminino

Outro

Nacionalidade Ocupação principal

Estudante

Trabalhador estudante

Trabalhador por conta de outrem

Trabalhador independente

Desempregado

Outra Indique quantos anos de experiência tem: Nível de escolaridade – Indique o nível mais elevado que completou

Ensino básico ou inferior

Ensino secundário

Licenciatura

Mestrado

Doutoramento

68

Qual a dimensão da organização onde trabalha ou trabalhou pela última vez

Até 10 trabalhadores

Entre 11 e 50 trabalhadores

Entre 51 e 250 trabalhadores

Mais de 250 trabalhadores Indique em que tipo de organização trabalha ou trabalhou pela última vez

Empresa ou organização do setor público

Empresa ou organização do setor privado

Organização do terceiro setor (entidades sem fins lucrativos)

69

Annexes 2: Framework of intrapreneurship (Neessen et al., 2019)

70

Annexes 3: Multiple linear regression – Model summary

R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error

of Estimate Durbin-Watson


All dependent variables

0.736 0.542 0.530 0.4718 1.929

Independent variable: PRO


0.708 0.501 0.488 0.4172 1.791

Independent variable: ORE


0.587 0.344 0.327 0.5122 1.968

Independent variable: RT


0.587 0.344 0.327 0.6563 1.907

Independent variable: NET


0.606 0.367 0.350 0.6114 2.037

71

Annexes 4: Moderation analysis – Model summary

R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

Estimate

Change statistics

R Square change

F Change df1 df2 Sig. F

Change


INT, POC 0.656 0.430 0.426 0.5212 0.430 115.819 2 307 0.000

INT, POC, POC_MOD

0.660 0.435 0.430 0.5196 0.005 2.880 1 306 0.091

Dependent variable: PRO

INT, POC 0.679 0.461 0.457 0.4296 0.461 131.165 2 307 0.000

INT, POC, POC_MOD

0.679 0.461 0.456 0.4302 0.000 0.097 1 306 0.756

Dependent variable: ORE

INT, POC 0.507 0.257 0.252 0.5399 0.257 53.131 2 307 0.000

INT, POC, POC_MOD

0.508 0.258 0.250 0.5405 0.001 0.223 1 306 0.637

Dependent variable: RT

INT, POC 0.513 0.264 0.259 0.6887 0.264 54.940 2 307 0.000

INT, POC, POC_MOD

0.516 0.266 0.259 0.6886 0.003 1.141 1 306 0.286

Dependent variable: NET

INT, POC 0.525 0.275 0.270 0.6477 0.275 58.259 2 307 0.000

INT, POC, POC_MOD

0.525 0.275 0.268 0.6488 0.000 0.016 1 306 0.899

72

Annexes 5: Mediation analysis – Model summary

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

Constant 1.5758 0.1961 8.0358 0.0000 1.1900 1.9617

PEK 0.6007 0.0460 13.0585 0.0000 0.5102 0.6912

Outcome variable: POC

Indirect effect of PEK on INO

Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

POC 0.1981 0.0492 0.1049 0.2981

Indirect effect of PEK on PRO


POC 0.2639 0.0468 0.1739 0.3548

Indirect effect of PEK on ORE


POC 0.1456 0.0517 0.0456 0.2510

Indirect effect of PEK on RT


POC 0.1737 0.0637 0.0460 0.2993

Indirect effect of PEK on NET


POC 0.2473 0.0625 0.1291 0.3725

73

Annexes 6: Kruskal-Wallis H test results


Age

Kruskal-Wallis H 20.914 10.654 5.013 11.532 12.864 21.800 5.104 15.491 13.724 12.925 5.522 11.066 2.004

Asymp. Sig. 0.001 0.059 0.414 0.042 0.025 0.001 0.403 0.008 0.017 0.024 0.356 0.050 0.849

Mean rank

18 – 24 131.39 124.30 134.40 122.67 132.36 120.07 163.97 126.27 124.91 125.28 140.01 130.80 150.21

25 – 34 126.02 152.37 166.10 164.27 141.02 137.94 150.23 143.98 143.88 143.10 151.57 156.24 148.28

35 – 44 164.74 166.33 159.42 163.20 162.73 163.30 137.40 165.15 167.78 165.81 157.23 176.96 162.01

45 – 54 183.51 166.31 161.23 166.40 173.31 176.17 162.14 169.24 164.85 171.41 157.99 151.85 157.16

55 – 64 164.39 170.68 154.68 160.09 154.55 174.89 160.06 164.45 182.21 171.41 183.44 160.59 156.70

65 or older 147.38 140.88 132.88 123.13 236.75 232.25 205.00 254.00 185.63 167.38 140.63 226.38 200.63

Main occupation

Kruskal-Wallis H 4.821 19.843 16.297 25.396 28.410 12.563 20.038 43.707 22.246 18.892 11.365 20.837 6.650

Asymp. Sig. 0.438 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.045 0.001 0.248

Mean rank

Unemployed 134.69 102.88 118.19 98.63 98.94 122.94 67.25 66.06 87.56 107.69 140.38 136.31 97.06

Student 146.18 107.00 111.86 69.09 139.32 106.59 145.14 89.00 129.77 110.45 135.14 122.18 146.45

74

Student worker 146.05 154.93 149.84 134.95 164.57 153.45 176.77 132.80 139.80 119.25 129.68 172.18 151.45

Indep. worker 176.26 199.29 173.70 193.98 209.46 186.27 191.32 215.70 200.22 193.39 178.68 189.82 177.00

Employee 151.02 148.20 160.97 153.73 141.77 149.83 150.82 146.62 147.59 152.61 150.34 142.87 153.34

Other 174.26 167.35 89.32 170.29 181.32 179.82 124.06 194.41 183.79 174.56 200.65 210.88 155.03

Years of experience

Kruskal-Wallis H 3.715 8.396 2.074 5.383 5.947 6.368 0.728 7.369 8.318 3.588 2.361 9.918 0.293

Asymp. Sig. 0.446 0.078 0.722 0.250 0.203 0.173 0.948 0.118 0.081 0.465 0.670 0.042 0.990

Mean rank

1 – 3 149.70 145.56 144.16 156.12 140.44 141.56 161.37 142.84 148.94 153.58 158.41 139.29 152.41

4 – 10 161.14 184.14 155.99 169.20 179.17 182.59 159.24 165.07 186.35 175.21 148.83 187.13 158.11

11 – 20 144.00 137.85 158.21 134.06 156.03 152.61 154.17 141.77 145.02 142.56 147.17 147.14 152.74

21 – 30 170.08 161.76 157.35 164.31 160.12 157.03 150.81 156.21 145.27 156.60 153.13 151.40 158.79

> 30 150.13 154.73 166.30 153.03 148.84 152.55 151.77 180.33 164.34 153.27 170.30 166.53 155.93

Education level

Kruskal-Wallis H 11.878 2.643 7.920 4.168 13.498 37.736 2.791 5.029 5.631 3.312 2.924 1.545 5.017

Asymp. Sig. 0.008 0.450 0.048 0.244 0.004 0.000 0.425 0.170 0.131 0.346 0.404 0.672 0.171

Mean rank

≤ Middle School 201.44 183.42 204.56 178.92 203.53 201.31 184.17 200.44 202.50 181.06 155.69 176.25 194.86

High school 150.99 148.49 143.39 143.83 170.32 189.67 159.04 153.09 149.17 152.88 144.60 149.58 158.47

Undergraduate 167.71 159.17 155.04 156.94 146.90 137.22 148.10 150.02 153.15 147.49 159.81 157.91 145.40

75

Pos-graduate 132.49 153.76 162.60 165.46 133.65 119.05 154.09 156.26 157.08 165.28 165.73 155.78 156.38

Size of the organization

Kruskal-Wallis H 3.855 4.816 1.946 2.569 22.229 11.580 8.872 17.504 6.116 1.870 8.068 14.189 3.602

Asymp. Sig. 0.278 0.186 0.584 0.463 0.000 0.009 0.031 0.001 0.106 0.600 0.045 0.003 0.308

Mean rank

≤ 10 workers 168.94 165.26 146.58 155.74 181.52 170.68 171.53 181.94 166.83 160.54 149.72 162.58 145.18

11 – 51 156.91 156.70 154.49 140.11 174.81 174.03 167.48 163.16 167.78 154.04 139.89 182.94 172.29

51 – 250 146.51 134.94 153.90 158.78 132.07 139.45 136.93 125.90 146.82 142.76 148.29 127.10 155.33

> 250 workers 145.55 158.74 165.16 162.31 130.33 136.54 142.51 143.43 139.44 159.53 177.14 148.25 152.27

Type of organization

Kruskal-Wallis H 3.406 0.718 4.251 0.276 6.992 1.163 13.308 7.572 2.603 4.362 2.484 7.269 2.600

Asymp. Sig. 0.182 0.698 0.119 0.871 0.030 0.559 0.001 0.023 0.272 0.113 0.289 0.026 0.273

Mean rank

Private org. 156.33 157.27 157.87 155.92 161.19 157.75 163.30 161.40 158.21 158.90 156.87 161.90 156.70

Public org. 145.15 149.18 138.35 151.87 125.83 143.56 114.70 124.66 139.23 134.77 144.11 125.54 144.55

Third sector org. 220.90 131.50 214.20 172.30 176.20 165.80 185.10 177.60 187.70 199.10 204.70 143.40 208.70

76

Annexes 7: Mann-Whitney test results


Gender

Mann-Whitney U 11890.0 9977.5 11405.5 10481.0 10944.5 10597.5 10493.0 11117.0 9837.0 10773.0 9952.0 9353.0 11245.5

Asymp. Sig. 0.878 0.010 0.442 0.049 0.176 0.072 0.054 0.257 0.006 0.115 0.008 0.001 0.331

Mean rank

Feminine 154.73 142.55 151.65 145.76 148.71 146.50 145.83 149.81 141.66 147.62 142.39 138.57 150.63

Masculine 156.29 168.79 159.45 165.50 162.47 164.74 165.42 161.34 169.71 163.59 168.95 172.87 160.50

Date post:	28-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

INTRAPRENEURSHIP: THE DETERMINANTS BEHIND ITS DYNAMIC

Documents