Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
26
Abstract
Considering the growing competitiveness of corporate, Technological Skills
and corporate entrepreneurship has become a competitive advantage for the
organization so that they enable the development and exploration of new
opportunities. This study investigated the effect of Technological capability on
performance through corporate entrepreneurship among staffs of Insurance
Company in Iran. The study hypotheses were developed to determine the
relationship between these variables. The study tests thesis relationships using
data is gathered through questionnaire survey and analysis using with SPSS and
Smart PLS software. The finding of this research indicated that there is a
positive and significant relationship between Technological capability and
performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Corporate entrepreneurship
plays the mediating role between Technological capability and organizational
performance while Technological capability does not have any moderating
influence in the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
Organizational performance.
Keyword: Corporate entrepreneurship, Technological capability, Organizational performance
1. Introduction
In this year in the stream of competitive organization, technological growing fast innovation, distinctive
knowledge development and increased competition indicated as a critical for an organization. Moreover In
today's competitive environment surrounded by rapid technological changes and innovations, technologies and
acquisition of foreign knowledge such as internal improvement are as companies vital critical success
factors.Rapid changes, has created new conditions for the development of the necessary entrepreneurial skills to
create new businesses, use of unused capacity, capacity development and solving social problems caused. The
conditions that support corporate entrepreneurship in a business environment may also create similar situation
for corporate entrepreneurship to be successful within the context of public institutions because scholars have
the opinion that corporate venture progress in a rapidly changing environment (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Zahra,
1993; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Russell, 1999).
Corporate entrepreneurship is best experiment in an environment which is more dynamic, hostile and
incongruous (Zahra, 1991; Nielsen, Peters & Hisrich, 1985). For acquisition to benefits from new technologies,
technical skills of staff must constantly be renewed and improved. Given these potential contributions, scholars
have sought to identify organizational factors stimulating corporate entrepreneurship (Heavey, Simsek, Roche,
& Kelly, 2009; Simsek & Heavey, 2011, Yiu & Lau, 2008). Corporate entrepreneurship is knowledge-intensive
and relies on new knowledge for doing things differently or doing different things manifesting in the forms of
innovation in products and services, processes, systems, strategies and markets (Teng, 2007).
Technological promote based on university researcher among the main sources of new contributions to the
alliance of technological opportunities. Indeed, technological opportunities based on the creation of new
technical knowledge have become an important source of opportunities for promotion industrial innovation
performance (Mansfield, 1995, Bierly et al., 2009, Bishop et al, 2011). Nowadays, technology constitutes one of
the most valuable assets organizations possess, as technology facilitates growth and profitability (Zahra &
Kirchhoff, 2005). Generally, such as the use of IT and organizational abilities and technical skills are
prerequisites for success. In these cases, Technology and Corporate Entrepreneurship comprise an important
Technological Skills on performance through corporate
entrepreneurship (Case study insurance companies)
Haniye Rezaei
Student of MA in Entrepreneurship, University of Isfahan, Iran
Sayyed Mohsen Allameh Assistant Professor of Management, University Isfahan, Iran
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
27
source of competitive advantage for organizations, as they enable the development and exploitation of new
opportunities.
1-2. importance of the study
This study will provide an important comparison of corporate entrepreneurship and Technological capabilities.
Despite a lot of academic work from several researchers, more exploration is needed to understand the effect of
technological capabilities through corporate entrepreneurship on the organization performance among staffs
university of Isfahan in Iran. The field of Corporate Entrepreneurship disquisition has considered as core area
study in management and economic (Malcolm, 2014). Also organization performance in widely diverse manner
as they have different vantage points to view problem. Technology capability is related to complex and
interrelated problems including several technical variable, conceptual and social variable.
1-3. Research Aim
The elementary aims of the study are:
To assess the practice of corporate entrepreneurship and technological capabilities.
Investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and technological capabilities and
organizational performance.
2. Literature review of research
Review of the literature and research in three targets is located. Based on the conceptual model, which has the
independent variable and is dependent on the literature review, the observance, and is as follows:
2-1. Corporate Entrepreneurship
2-1-1. Defining Corporate Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is a broad topic and can be evidenced in various contexts ranging from the most common form
of the autonomous start-up entrepreneur, to entrepreneurship enacted within a corporate context, to public sector
entrepreneurship, and socially excited entrepreneurship (Van Rensburg, 2015). Corporate entrepreneurship is
seen as an effort of promoting innovation from the internal organizational aspect (Chinomona, 2014).
Corporate entrepreneurship is a idiom used to explain "entrepreneurial behavior inside established mid-size and
large organizations" (Morris et al., 2011).The term corporate entrepreneurship refers to entrepreneurial activities
within established firms. Wolcott & Lippitz (2007), another description of corporate entrepreneurship, calling it
" the process by which teams within an established company agreement, train, launch and manage a new
business that is preference from the parent company but leverages the parents assets, market position,
capabilities or other resources"
According to Morris et al. (2011), a primary path achieving high performance would be through corporate
entrepreneurship.
2-1-2. Elements of Corporate Entrepreneurship
Corporate entrepreneurship has four major categories namely:
Corporate venturing
intrapreneuring
Organizational transformation
Industry rule-breaking (Thornberry, 2003).
The above four elements noted by Thornberry (2003) can relate to Barringer & Bluedorn,s (1999), key elements
of corporate entrepreneurship:
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
28
Opportunity recognition
Organizational flexibility
Innovation
Risk taking.
Table 2.1: Mapping of Elements of corporate Entrepreneurship
These elements can again be discussed in a slightly different manner as expressed by Guth & Ginsberg, who
note that the manifestation of the entrepreneurial behavior firms can be assessed by the following factors. (a)
Looking at its ability to innovation, (b) Examining its ability to initiate change and (c) Being able to rapidly
react to changing reflects the organizations flexibility (Goldsmith, 2014).
2-1-3. Dimension supporting corporate entrepreneurship
There are three broad dimensions supporting corporate entrepreneurship in general: internal factors, external
factors, and traits of employees related to corporate entrepreneurship (Srivastava & Agrawal, 2010).
2-1-3-1. Internal factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship
Coman (2014), recommended factors for a successful entrepreneurial organization: risk awareness and
opportunity focus, safe and free environment for employees, flexible network of systems, admitting alteration
and obscurity, empowering employees, flexible network of systems connecting employees, reward and
motivation to encourage innovation, procure chances for individual.
Srivastava & Agrawal, statements the most current factors of Corporate Entrepreneurship (Table 2,2).
Table2,2. Internal factors of corporate entrepreneurship
Thornberry (2003) Barringer & Bluendorn (1999)
Intrapreneuring Opportunity recognition
Corporate venturing Organizational flexibility
Organizational transformation Innovation
Industry rule-breaking Risk-taking
Factors quotation
Rewards and Motivation Fry,1987؛ Block&Ornati 1987
Management Support Hisrich and Peters,1986؛ Sykes
and
Block ,1989
Resource Availability Von Hippel 1978؛ Hisrich et
al.2005؛
Katz and Gartner,1988
Organizational Structure Sykes and Block,1989؛
Schuler,1986
Risk Taking MacMillan et al.1986؛ Bird,1988
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
29
2-1-3-2. external factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship Corporate entrepreneurship is not only a result of the internal space and support of entrepreneurship tendency.
The Zonal formation of a determinate market, comprise of public policies, regional foundation and culture
might have a great influence on the quantity and quality of entrepreneurship. Institutions corresponding advance
strategic patterns and situations that arrangement determinations they make (Coman , 2014).
2-2. Technological capability
The measure of technological capability was developed based on the work of Wang
et al. (2004) and Rush et al. (2007),. Technological capability reconnoiters through science student and problem
solving activities in various areas (Jones, 1997). On the other hand, the technological capabilities are not limited
to physical facilities, projects scientific collected by the staff people skills, Technological capability have ability
to function such as organizations (Lall, 1996). Technological capability includes the knowledge and skills
embedded in people and knowledge embedded in organizational technical systems. Technological capability
facilitates an organisation’s knowledge- vigorous ability to jointly equip different external scientific and
technical resources so successfully develop innovative products and/or productive processes (Jiang, 2014).
organisation’s with a strong technological foundation are better able to identify, convert and exploit new
technological knowledge than those with a weak technological base (Tsai and Hsieh 2009).
Technology capability is as running course to attract and knowledge creation through interaction with
environment and knowledge of the firm. Technological Capability explicate absorb and transfer technology as a
means to achieve higher levels of technology and performance. Briefly the corporate of
2-3. Organization performance
Organizational performance is an indicator of how to achieve organizational goals. Organization performance
embrace the outcome of an organization as measured against its intended goals.
According to Richard et al. (2009), organizational performance containing encompasses three specific parts of
firm outcomes: (a) financial performance, (b) product market performance and (c) stockholder return.
Organization performance is characterized by "the actual outputs or results of an organization as measured
against its intended outputs purpose or goals" (Lyons, 2013). Organizational performance is an analysis of a
company،s performance as compared to goals and objectives. Organizational performance entangled the
reiterate activities to establish organizational targets, conduction of the program toward the objectives
organization and make adjustments to attainment those goals more effectively and efficiently. Those reiterate
activities are much of what leaders and managers intuitively do in their organizations.
2-3-1. Measure Performance
Performance measurements at different organizational levels to control and monitor the constructions process is
essential.an organizational assessment. Organizational performance measure has been a major challenge against
business managers over the years. The problem is related to deficiency of admissible definition of performance
measurement system. According to Neely et al. (1996), performance measurement system as an assortment of
metrics used to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations actions, according to them
performance measurement system can be examined in three stages:( stage 1) the individual measures of
performance, (stage 2) the performance measurement system as a whole and (stage 3) the relationship between
the performance measurement system and the environment in which it operates.
Forza and Salvador define performance measurement as an information system that supports managers in the
performance management process that consists of two main functions: (a) as a power for linking all units of the
organization and (b) improvement processing and transmission information, activities, people،s operation and
business units (Akpabot et al,2015).
2-3-2-Corporate Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance
Corporate entrepreneurship has been found to directly influence the firm ability to generate wealth creation, as
well as growth and profitability (Antonic & Hisrich, 2004). Corporate entrepreneurship has long been
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
30
recognition as "a permanence mean for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness" (Covin & Miles,
1999). Over the last thirty years of academic investigation, it has been commonly established that firms that
conduct themselves in an entrepreneurial manner operate at a higher level of performance than those firms that
are more conservative in nature (Anderson & Yoshihiro, 2013).
A study by Antoncic & Hisrich (2004) found that companies with high levels of corporate entrepreneurship are
more similar to have better organizational performance.
2-4. Background research
2-4-1. Internal Investigation in Iran
Ebrahimpur et al (2012) study entitled, "Investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
business performance Tabriz Petrochemical company" did, and its goal: evaluation relationship between
corporate entrepreneurship and performance. Findings indicate that between factors of corporate
entrepreneurship include innovation, take risk, initiatives and aggressive competition, a direct relationship is
observed. Yadollahi et al (2010) study entitled, " The relationship between structure and corporate
entrepreneurship" Private Bank in Tehran do, and its goal: to investigate relationship between the components
of the organizational structure (formalization, Complexity, centralization ) of entrepreneurship, it was found
there is a significant relationship between dimensions of organizational structures and dimensions of
entrepreneurship( innovation, tack risk, initiative, aggressive competition). As research Akbari et al in 2014
were "Examine the relationship between organizational health and corporate entrepreneurship" they this study
concluded that all organizational health indicators are positive and significant correlation with corporate
entrepreneurship. Vesal et al (2015) study entitled Examine the relationship between corporate
entrepreneurship and acquired factors of entrepreneurship do, Consequences include a significant relationship
between acquired factors of entrepreneurship (psychological empowerment, training, organizational structure
and skills) and corporate entrepreneurship is observed, also the corporate entrepreneurship according to gender,
age and education level investigation and different influence of factors have been established. Arabiuon et al
(2014) In their study entitled " investigate mediating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship
between transformational leadership and organizational performance "findings in this study, a significant
positive correlation between transformational leadership and organizational performance, furthermore a
significant impact variable entrepreneurial orientation mediator relationship between the two. Hadadian et al
(2015),During their research, entitled " Effect of difference and centralization strategies on performance with
regard to the role of intermediary marketing capabilities and technological capabilities" the results indicate that
is positive and significant relationship between difference and centralization strategies performance with
regard to the role of intermediary marketing capabilities and technological capabilities on performance.
2-4-2. External Research in Global
Mehta et al (2014), in research, corporate entrepreneurship, for evaluating locus of control orientation
inventory, inducement profile inventory sixty corporate entrepreneurship was studied. In this study internal
locus of control and attainment inducement are significant feature of entrepreneur.
Camisón et al (2014), they evaluating the alliance between organizational innovation and technological
innovation capabilities, and analyzes their effect on firm performance using a resource-based view theoretical
framework. they indicated that organizational innovation favors the development of technological innovation
competences and that both organizational innovation and technological capabilities for products and processes
can lead to preponderant firm performance .Martín-Rojas (2011) the research titled, " The influence on
corporate entrepreneurship of technological variables" said the support from top managers will directly
influence the organizational learning process and technological distinctive competencies and that corporate
entrepreneurship, leading to higher organizational performance. Son (2014), during his research, entitled " A
proposed Model for Firms Technological Capability Assessment under Uncertain Environment", concluded
that, firms managers can easily evaluate their current technological capability keep track of their technological
growth. Reichert et al (2014), the research entitled," Technological Capability and firm performance", in this
study relationship technological capability and economic performance is positive. In this study there are other
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
31
elements that allow certification the existence of a positive relation between technological capability and firm
performance.
Yu et al (2014), In a study entitled, "Entrepreneurial firms, network competence, technological capability, and
new product development performance" this study indicate positive impression network competency on new
product development and mediator effect technological capability between network competency and new
product development performance. Albu et al (2015), in a study examining the relationship between corporate
entrepreneurship and corporate governance in the case of the Romanian nonfinancial listed companies. Results
in study demonstrate differences between industries and between the corporate entrepreneurship and corporate
governance, moreover study indicate the corporate governance as a controlling and management technique
nurture
3. Conceptual model
The research is prepared to understand the policies of organizations about technological skills on performance
organization through corporate entrepreneurship. Considering previous research, and also according to the
definitions proposed conceptual model in Figure 1 you can see, the variables that influence the expression
above, is presented, which is based on the research hypotheses are formed.
Hypotheses
From the above mentioned model the following main hypotheses are developed:
1 - Technological capability has affected on Corporate Entrepreneurship.
2- Corporate Entrepreneurship has affected on organizational performance.
3- Technological capability has affected on organizational performance.
4-Corporate Entrepreneurship has mediator role in relationship between Technological capability and
organizational performance.
5- Technological capability has a moderating role between the relationship Corporate Entrepreneurship and
organizational performance.
4. Research Method
The current research is a practical one in terms of the type and a descriptive- survey one of correlational type in
terms of data collection. Research statistical population consists of staff insurance company in city of Tehran.
Tools for data collection, was standardized questionnaire. 200 questionnaires had been distributed and 160
questionnaires collected and analyzed. The sampling method has been random Stratified. Using likert's 5-point
scale (1= completely disagree; 5= completely agree). Analysis of a PLS model comprises three stages: (1)
assessment of the measurement model; and (2) testing of the structural model.(3) assessment of the global fit
measure In order to assessment of the measurement model used Item Reliability, Convergent validity and
Discriminant validity. In order to confirm Item Reliability in this research used 3 measures of Cronbach’s alpha,
composite reliability and Loadings. In order to confirm validity of measuring instruments, 2 types of validity
evaluation were used: Convergent validity, Discriminant validity. To confirm Converget validity, Average
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
32
Variance Extracted (AVE) index provides an assessment of convergent validity. assessment of Discriminant
validity in this research used 2 measures of Croos-Loadings and The Fornell-Larcker Criterion.
To assessment of structural model used 3 measures: Model predictability and fit (R2), T Values and Effect Size
(f2). Also To assessment global fit measure used Goodness of Fit (GOF).
4-1. assessment of the measurement model
4-1-1. Item Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, CR and Loadings)
The internal reliability of the items was verified by CR and the Cronbach’s alpha. Nunnally (1978) suggested
that a minimum alpha of 0.6 sufficed for stage of search. In this research Cronbach’s alpha was all much higher
0.6, the constructs were therefore deemed to have adequate reliability.
Table 1-4: Measurement results Item Reliability Alpha, CR
We assess the internal reliability of the PLS model by using the composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha
statistic. All variables Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are more than a minimum value (0.7). Unlike Cronbach’s
alpha assumes implicitly that indexes have the same weights, combined reliability relies on real factorial loads
of each factor, and therefore, it gives a better measure for reliability. Combined reliability must obtain a value
more than 0.7 to reflect inner consistency of factors (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).Hulland, (1999) recommend
factor loadings ≥0.4
Table 2-4: factor Loadings results.
Factors Loadings factors Loadings Factors Loadings
TeC1 5 ./CoE4 650 ./CoE13 59 ./
TeC2 755 ./CoE5 559 ./CoE14 684 ./
TeC3 773 ./CoE6 711 ./CoE15 737 ./
TeC4 712 ./CoE7 623 ./CoE16 657 ./
TeC5 786 ./CoE8 6 ./OP1 719 ./
TeC6 728 ./CoE9 667 ./OP2 765 ./
CoE1 688 ./CoE10 615 ./OP3 865 ./
CoE2 638 ./CoE11 576 ./OP4 830 ./
CoE3 643 ./CoE12 523 ./
As shown in the table, most item loadings were larger than 0.4 and significant.
4-1-2. Convergent validity
The average variance extracted (AVE) index provides an assessment of convergent validity. Fornell and Larcker
(1981) recommend an AVE value ≥0.5. (Table: 1-4).
4-1-3. Discriminant validity
Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that the discriminant validity of the measurement model should be examined
by testing the extent to which a construct shares more variance with its own measures than it shares with other
constructs.
For discriminant validity, AVE square root must be higher than correlations of the factor with the other
factors.(Table 4-4)
AVE Composit Reliability Cronbach’s alpha Variables
559/0 861/0 804/0 Technological capability(TeC)
512/0 913/0 899/0 Corporate Entrepreneurship(CoE)
635/0 873/0 812/0 Organizational performance(OP)
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
33
Table 3-4: Cross Loadings
OP TeC COE Variables
378 ./515 ./668 ./COE1
394 ./246 ./638 ./COE2
39 ./286 ./643 ./COE3
412 ./172 ./650 ./COE4
338 ./125 ./559 ./COE5
473 ./367 ./711 ./COE6
411 ./343 ./623 ./COE7
308 ./404 ./6 ./COE8
302 ./399 ./667 ./COE9
343 ./3 ./615 ./COE10
214 ./213 ./576 ./COE11
158 ./304 ./523 ./COE12
242 ./324 ./59 ./COE13
406 ./337 ./684 ./COE14
492 ./464 ./737 ./COE15
464 ./404 ./657 ./COE16
209 ./5 ./285 ./TeC1
263 ./755 ./398 ./TeC2
311 ./773 ./4 ./TeC3
277 ./712 ./361 ./TeC4
242 ./786 ./363 ./TeC5
277 ./728 ./455 ./TeC6
719 ./284 ./323 ./OP1
765 ./187 ./352 ./OP2
865 ./361 ./561 ./OP3
830 ./318 ./543 ./OP4
As indicated above, Table 3-4, correlations between indicators with own factors higher than correlations
between them and other factors. Thus, we ensured convergent validity. (Own loading are higher than cross
loadings).
Table 4-4: AVE square root and correlation between reflective constructs
4-2. assessment of structural model
4-2-1.T-Value (Hypotheses testing)
Hypotheses invested and path structural model evaluated with structural equation modeling
OP CoE TeC Variables
747/0 Technological capability(TeC)
715/0 534/0 Corporate Entrepreneurship(CoE)
796/0 583/0 371/0 Organizational performance(OP)
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
34
Each path analogous with model hypotheses and numbers indicate path coefficient .significant level of
hypotheses indicated in Table 5-4.
Fig1. Model1: The path coefficients of model
The results of analyzes PLS indicated table 5-4, 6-4.
Table 5-4: Total Effect (Mean, STDEV, T-Values)
Original
Sample
(O)
Sample
Mean
(M)
Standard
Deviation
(STDEV)
Standard Error
(STERR)
T Statistics
(1O/ STERR)
CoE->OP 0/583 0/598 0/071 0/071 9/057
TeC-> CoE 0/535 0/553 0/088 0/088 6/139
TeC->OP 0/311 0/332 0/07 0/07 4/43
Fig.2. Model 2: (T-Values)
Table 6-4: the results of hypotheses tests
Structural path Path Coefficient T-Value Conclution
CoE->OP 0/583 9/57 Supported H2
TeC-> CoE 0/535 6/139 Supported H1
TeC->OP 0/311 4/43 Supported H3
4-2-2. R2 criterion
Prediction power of the structural model is estimated by the R2 values of the dependent latent variables.
Table 6-5 showed R2 value related to dependent latent variables. R2 Values exceeds the minimum value of 0.1
recommended by Falk and Miller (1992: 80).
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
35
Table 7-4: the results of R2
Variables R2
Technological Capability 000/0
Corporate Entrepreneurship 286/0
Organizational performance 340/0
4-3. Analysis the mediating effect of Corporate Entrepreneurship
4-3-1. Sobel test
The Sobel test has been used to of testing the significance of mediation effects. We can confirm H4, that is,
Corporate Entrepreneurship has mediator role in relationship between Technological capability and
organizational performance. Because is significant at p < 0.05. , z-value exceeds 1.96 (p < 0.05) The Sobel test
is measured by the following formula:
Z-value= 𝑎 ∗ 𝑏/ 𝑏2 ∗ 𝑠𝑎2 + 𝑎2 ∗ 𝑠𝑏2 + (𝑠𝑎2 ∗ 𝑠𝑏2) Path Coefficient and Standard Error indicated in table 5-4.with
Z-value= 0/535 ∗ 0/583/ 0/339 ∗ 0/006 + 0/286 ∗ 0/004 + (0/006 ∗ 0/004) Z-value= 5/214
The results of this study are in line with the results of the García et.al(2014) the results have shown a
significant impact of Top Management Support and technological variables on organizational performance
through corporate entrepreneurship
4-3-2. appointment mediating effect intensity
To evaluation measure of the indirect effect, (Variance Accounted For) used VAF. VAF value indicates the
ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect. The VAF is measured by the following formula:
VAF= (𝑎 ∗ 𝑏)/(𝑎 ∗ 𝑏) + 𝑐
VAF= (0/537 ∗ 0/583)/(0/537 ∗ 0/583) + 0/311
VAF=0/501
The VAF value indicates that 50 % of the total effect of Technological capability on Organizational
performance is explained by indirect effect (Corporate Entrepreneurship).
4-4. Analysis the Moderating effect of Corporate Entrepreneurship
Performed model in PLS software and created new moderating variables. Results showed in figure 3.
Fig3. Final drawing model (Path Coefficient)
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
36
Fig4. Final drawing model (T-Value)
We can, t accept H5, that is Technological capability has a moderating role between the relationship Corporate
Entrepreneurship and organizational performance. Because is not significant at p < 0.05. , z-value exceeds
0/513< 1.96 (p < 0.05). The results of research are consistent with the results of the Ortega (2010) study that
showed technological capabilities enhance the relationships between quality orientation and performance, and
cost orientation and performance, sequential.
4-5. assessment of global model
To examination assessment of global model that involve each measurement model and structural model
calculated GOF. Global fit measure (GoF) for PLS path modeling measured of the average communality and
average R2. In this study communality variables in a row for Technological capability: 0/559, Corporate
Entrepreneurship: 0/512 and Organizational performance: 0/635 as well Corporate Entrepreneurship R2 assessed
0/286 and Organizational performance R2
assessed 0/340. Accordingly we obtained a GoF value of 0/421
.calculated variable provides adequate support to validate the PLS model globally
5. Conclusions and Implications
Today technology moreover to helping operational has become a precise part of every business and company, as
well corporate entrepreneurship led to competitive advantage and promotion performance. Therefore firms need
to accumulate and raise capabilities.
The result of first hypothesis (H1), that is Technological capability has affected on Corporate Entrepreneurship.
Standardized regression coefficient for it is 0/535 and T-Value 6/139 As a result, the hypothesis is accepted.
This finding is supported by Camison & villar-Lopes (2014), who believed that organizational innovation helps
the expansion of technological innovation capabilities and that both organizational innovation and technological
capabilities lead to promotion firm performance. The result of the second hypothesis (H2), that is Corporate
Entrepreneurship has affected on organizational performance. Standardized regression coefficient for it is 0/583
and T-Value 9/057 As a result, the hypothesis is accepted. Videlicet can be state that Corporate
Entrepreneurship has a significant impact on Insurance Company performance. This finding is supported by
Bojica & Fuentes (2012). Their results showed that both corporate entrepreneurship and knowledge acquisition
have a positive influence on performance. The result of third hypothesis that is Technological capability has
affected on organizational performance. Indicated significant and positive relationship (β=0/311, p < 0.05 (t=
1.96) t= 4/43 Also This finding is supported by Reichert & Zawislak (2014) Showed that there was a significant
relationship between Technological capability and organizational performance.
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
37
6. Lateral Finding
6-1. Mann-Whitney test
Mann-Whitney named to U test and for testing difference of two independent sampling which it have been
randomly selected. This test examines the following hypothesis:
H0: There is no difference between the two groups
H1: There is a difference between the two groups.
Table 6-1.The results of Mann-Whitney test (Based on gender)
Variables Man-Whitney Z Asymp.sig
COE 000/2546 834/1 -067/0
TeC 000/3048 82/0 -934/0
OP 00/2592 685/1 -092/0
Considering the significant amount all factors more than 0/05, it can be concluded the difference between two
populations (women and men) are not significant. Videlicet gender do not affected on this variables.
2. Kruskal – Walis test
This test used to determine the difference of average between several populations.
Table 2-6: the results of Kuruka – Walis test factors (Based on age)
Variables Chi-square df Asymp.sig
COE 063/7 3 070/0
TeC 846/4 3 183/0
OP 837/2 3 417/0
Since the amount of variables sig more than 0/05, it can be calculated that there is no significant difference
between these factors in the several communities.
Table 3-6.: the results of Kuruka – Walis test factors (Based on education)
Variables Chi-square df Asymp.sig
COE 747/8 5 120/0
TeC 580/11 5 041/0
OP 622/2 5 758/0
According to the amount of COE and TEC sig more than 0/05 As a result difference between these factors in
the several communities is not significant. Furthermore amount of OP sig less than 0/05 consequently difference
between these factors in the several communities is significant.
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
38
Limitations of the study
This study has some limitations that should be considered for future research.
1. The model has been studied within a specific domain of companies (insurance company), and this limit
generalizability to other firms.
2. Limitation in generalization results due to the limitation samples. This means that the study was only among
employees of the insurance company.
3. This study accomplished in a limited period, so, collected data based on distribution of questionnaires and
other data collection method such as interviews, is not.
4. Another limitation related to variables included in the study other factors possible affecting on Organizational
performance and Corporate Entrepreneurship
Applied proposal of Research
1. According to the results to the manager insurance company recommended to concordant with advances in
technology.
2. Managers of insurance companies in their target markets attention to obligation towards employees, clientele
and other factors which they are contacted to create the optimal picture in mind and led to consent and loyalty to
the company.
3. The insurance company must meantime ethical and legal principles, sponsors social events (accidents,…)
actively and this background codify appropriate strategy and policies
4. The insurance companies allocate part of their budget to funds and support of poor and interested to
improving welfare of the community hereby created toward competitors and good feel among clientele.
References
Akbari ,M, Shakiba,H, Ziai, M, (2014). Examine the relationship between organizational health and corporate
entrepreneurship, Journal of Public Administration. ,1(5),PP.1-20.
Akpabot, S., & Khan, Z. (2015). ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PERFROMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS IN
NORTHERN NIGERIA SMALL BUSINESSES. European Scientific Journal, 11(4).
Albu, N., & Mateescu, R. A. (2015). The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Corporate Governance The Case of
Romanian listed Companies. The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, 38(17).
Arabiuon, A, Dehghan, A, and Rezazadeh, A, (2014).investigate mediating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance, periodical of Education Management ,
1(5), pp.1-20.
Bojica, A. M., & Fuentes, M. D. M. F. (2012). Knowledge acquisition and corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from
Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 397-408.
Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities
and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891-2902.
Chinomona, E., Maziriri, E., & Moloi, K. C. (2014). Corporate Entrepreneurship with Innovation in Mind in one
University of Technology in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 20.
Coman, A. (2014). Sustainable value creation through corporate entrepreneurship: A case study of Univan Ship
Management Limited in Hong Kong.
comparison of start-up and adolescent ventures. In L. A. Keister (Ed.), Entrepreneurship.
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2012). ICT in ELT: how did we get here and where are we going?. ELT journal, 66(4), 533-
542.
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
39
Ebrahimpur,H, Salehi , J, and khalili, H., (2012). Investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
business performance Tabriz Petrochemical company, Research Administration., 13(4),pp. 121-138.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
García-Morales, V. J., Bolívar-Ramos, M. T., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2014). Technological variables and absorptive capacity's
influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1468-1477.
Goldsmith, M. (2015). The practice of corporate entrepreneurship and lean six sigma in the South African financial sector
(Doctoral dissertation).
Hadadian,A, Borhani, M, Rahimi, A, (2015). Effect of difference and centralization strategies on performance with regard
to the role of intermediary marketing capabilities and technological capabilities, First International Conference of
economic, Management, Accounting and Social science, PP.1-10.
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Decision comprehensiveness andcorporate entrepreneurship: The
moderating role of managerial uncertaintypreferences and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management Studies,
46(8),1289-1314.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic
management journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Jiang, W. (2014). Business Partnerships and Organizational Performance: The Role of Resources and Capabilities.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Jones, A. (1997). An analysis of student existing technological capability: Developing an initial framework. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 241-258.
Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate innovation and entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
development within organizations South Western/Cengage Learning.
Lall, S. (1996). Learning from the Asian Tigers: studies in technology and industrial policy. London: Macmillan.
Martín-Rojas, R., García-Morales, V. J., & García-Sánchez, E. (2011). The influence on corporate entrepreneurship of
technological variables. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(7), 984-1005.
Mehta, C., & Gupta, P. (2014). Corporate entrepreneurship: a study on entrepreneurial personality of employees. Global
Journal of Finance and Management, 6(4), 305-312.
Ortega, M. J. R. (2010). Competitive strategies and firm performance: Technological capabilities' moderating roles. Journal
of Business Research, 63(12), 1273-1281.
Nielsen, R. P., Peters, M. P., & Hisrich, R. D. (1985). Intrapreneurship strategy for internal markets—corporate, non‐profit
and government institution cases. Strategic management journal, 6(2), 181-189.
Reichert, F. M., & Zawislak, P. A. (2014). Technological Capability and Firm Performance. Journal of technology
management & innovation, 9(4), 20-35.
Reichert, F. M., & Zawislak, P. A. (2014). Technological Capability and Firm Performance. Journal of technology
management & innovation, 9(4), 20-35.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards
methodological best practice. Journal of management.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of business venturing, 10(1), 43-58.
Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship
theory and practice, 17, 5-5.
Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship:
The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 24(2), 45-66.
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of
business venturing, 6(4), 259-285.
Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40
www.ashm-journal.com
40
Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge‐based capital for corporate entrepreneurship effects on
performance: A study of small‐to medium‐sized firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 81-100.
Son, L. N. (2014). A Proposed Model for Firm’s Technological Capability Assessment under Uncertain Environment.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN, 2278-3075.
Srivastava, N., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study. Vision: The
Journal of Business Perspective, 14(3), 163-171.
Teng, B. S. (2007). Corporate Entrepreneurship Activities through Strategic Alliances: A Resource‐Based Approach
toward Competitive Advantage*. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 119-142.
Thornberry, N. E. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Teaching managers to be entrepreneurs. Journal of Management
Development, 22(4), 329-344.
Van Rensburg, D. J. (2015). The Promise of Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Review of Data Analytic Strategies. Business
and Management Research, 4(1), p59.
Wolcott,R. C., & Lippitz, M. J. (2007). The four models of corporateentrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review,
49(1), 75.
Yadollahi, J, Zeirat,O,(2010).The relationship between structure and corporate entrepreneurship (case study Private Bank
in Tehran), Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 5(2),pp.55-80.
Yiu, D. W., & Lau, C. M. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in emerging market firms.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 37-57.
Yu, B., Hao, S., Ahlstrom, D., Si, S., & Liang, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial firms’ network competence, technological
capability, and new product development performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 687-704.
Zahra, S. A., & Kirchhoff, B. A. (2005). TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND NEW FIRM GROWTH: A
COMPARISON OF START-UP AND ADOLESCENT VENTURES$. Research in the Sociology of Work, 15, 101-122.