Corporate entrepreneurship: from intention to action
The role of individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and contextual factors
Masterthesis
August 2018Name: Merel Cornax MSc.
Student number VU: 2582912 Student number UvA: 11153024
Program: Entrepreneurship (joint degree)
Corporate entrepreneurship: from intention to action
The role of individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and contextual factors
A B S T R A C T
This study aims to provide insight in the process from corporate entrepreneurial intention to action. The hypothesized mediating effect of action planning and moderating effects of action planning ability, role clarity, interdependence, autonomy and work pressure are tested in a corporate setting. Results show support for the hypothesized moderation effect of autonomy on the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship. Moreover, a significant, negative moderation effect of role clarity on this relationship has been found. The findings of this study have practical implications for organizations that desire to foster the transformation of corporate entrepreneurial intentions into actions. This study contributes to the literature on corporate entrepreneurship by deepening the understanding of the intention-action relationship in the corporate setting.
Name: Merel Cornax MSc.
Student number VU: 2582912 Student number UvA: 11153024
Program: Entrepreneurship (joint degree)
This masterthesis has been written between May 2017 and August 2018 and signifies my completion of the master Entrepreneurship at the Vrije Universiteit and the University of Amsterdam.
In May 2017, writing this masterthesis came under pressure when I won the ‘CEO for 1 Month’ competition at Adecco Group Nederland and was offered the opportunity to shadow the CEO of the company during the summer. Committed as I am to my studies, I initially was afraid that this would threaten my chance to graduate.
The day after I won the competition, I immediately called my supervisor, dr. Marco van Gelderen, to give him an update about my situation and to ask him for advice. I was a little bit nervous for his reaction and did not know what to expect.
Upon my update, the first thing Marco said through the phone was: “very cool Merel, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”.
I decided to submit a request for postponement at the Examination Board. Despite, Marco still wanted to be my supervisor in the new academic year. He has put great effort in helping me with my research, both with regard to the content and the process.
I highly appreciate Marco’s flexibility, his continuous feedback, his helpfulness and the inspiring conversations we have had. I will never forget one of his quotes: “Your study is important. But it is no shame if you need postponement for writing your thesis because you are an active student who has better things to do.” Marco, bedankt.
Upon the ‘CEO for 1 Month’ competition, I was provided the opportunity to write my masterthesis at Adecco Group Nederland. I would like to thank Hans Pruis, CEO of the company, for this great learning opportunity, for his trust and for our friendship.
Writing this masterthesis has been a pleasure. I am intrigued by the academic field of entrepreneurship and I hope that I can bring this interest with me to the next stage in my career.
Merel Cornax 15th of August, 2018
Table of contents
1. Introduction 6 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Problem statement 7 1.3 Research questions 8 1.4 Contributions 8 1.5 Overview 9 2. Theoretical framework 10 2.1 Corporate entrepreneurship 102.1.1 Defining corporate entrepreneurship 10
2.1.2 Types of corporate entrepreneurship 10
2.1.3 Corporate entrepreneurial action as a result of individual intention 11
2.2 From entrepreneurial intention to action 13
2.3 The influence of individual, team and contextual factors 15 2.3.1 Individual cognitive characteristics: action planning ability 15 2.3.2 Team dimensions: role clarity, interdependence and autonomy 16
2.3.3 Contextual factors: work pressure 19
2.4 Research model 20
3. Methodology 21
3.1 Research design 21
3.2 Data collection and sample 21
3.2.1 Data collection 21
3.2.2 Sample 22
3.2.3 Descriptive statistics 22
3.3 Measures 23
3.3.1 Measurement scales 23
3.3.2 Internal reliability analysis 24
3.4 Data processing 28
3.4.1 Preparing the data 28
3.4.2 Team analysis 28
3.5 Data analysis and interpretation 29
4. Results 30
4.2 Mediation analysis 31
4.3 Moderation analysis 31
4.3.1 Moderation of the intention-action planning relationship 31 4.3.2 Moderation of the mediated intention-action relationship 32
4.3.2 Moderation of the intention-action relationship 32
4.4 Summary of the findings 34
4.5 Additional analysis 34
5. Discussion 35
5.1 Discussion of the results 35
5.1.1 Mediation of the intention-action relationship 35
5.1.2 Moderation of the intention-action planning relationship 36
5.1.3 Moderation of the intention-action relationship 37
5.2 Limitations 39
5.3 Conclusion 40
References 41
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Corporate entrepreneurship, “the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, creates a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization” (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999, p. 18), has become a major field of interest for researchers to examine. It is often linked to organizational performance, e.g. in terms of innovativeness (Baden-Fuller, 1995; Morris, Kuratko, & Covin, 2008), strategic renewal (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990) and developing new ways to gain competitive advantage (Covin & Miles, 1999; Ireland & Webb, 2007). Corporate entrepreneurship distinguishes itself from individual entrepreneurship by its embeddedness in an organization, thus depending on multiple organizational aspects (Kuratko, 2007).
Entrepreneurial behavior, and how it is influenced by other factors, has been extensively investigated. The question why some people engage in entrepreneurial behavior, while others do not, has long been subject of study (e.g. Bird & Schjoedt, 2017; Shaver, 2010; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). A number of researchers has investigated and recognized a distinction between people’s intention to engage in entrepreneurial behavior and the actual entrepreneurial action they take (e.g. Engle et al., 2010; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014) – thereby often building on action models, such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Attention has been paid to antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial intentions and actions in corporate settings. Fini, Grimaldi, Marzocchi and Sobrero (2012), for example, investigated the determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms, whereas Kuratko, Ireland and Hornsby (2001) investigated how entrepreneurial action can be used to form and implement a corporate strategy. Furthermore, research has been conducted on the differences between entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions and their determinants (Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2013). However, only few research has been dedicated to empirical investigation of the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action (e.g. Gielnik et al., 2015; Kautonen, Van Gelderen, & Fink, 2015; Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, & Bogatyreva 2016; Van Gelderen, Kautonen, & Fink, 2015). Moreover, these empirical investigations have predominantly been conducted in the context of independent entrepreneurship, rather than in the corporate setting.
Although entrepreneurship is often seen as the act of an individual, corporate entrepreneurship seldomly relies on one person. It is not only influenced by different organizational aspects and
other people in the organization – it often even involves the entrepreneurial behavior of an entire team. Entrepreneurial behavior in teams is not limited to the actions of the individuals in that team; it also includes the cooperative actions of the team members (Wieber, Thürmer, & Gollwitzer, 2013). Levine and Moreland (1990) define the performance of a group as “the process and outcome of members’ joint efforts to attain a collective goal” (p. 612). Based on the combinations of contributions framework (Hinsz & Ladbury, 2012; Steiner, 1972), Thürmer, Wieber & Gollwitzer (2015) suggest that “collective actions can be conceptualized as individuals’ (group members’) intentional contributions to a group performance that the group combines into its performance” (p. 126).
At the team level, multiple factors can be of influence on entrepreneurial behavior (Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007). West and Anderson (1996), for example, found that a team’s task orientation influences innovation outcomes. Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra (2002) found tolerance for failure as an influential factor for entrepreneurial behavior. And Ensley and Hmieleski (2005) found that group cohesion positively influences the performance of start-up teams - likely through its influence on team members’ motivation and commitment (Klein & Mulvey, 1995). Investigations like these provide valuable insight in how entrepreneurial behavior is influenced by team factors.
1.2 Problem statement
As discussed in the former section, empirical evidence provides support for the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action. Although few empirical research has been dedicated to investigating this relationship, it could provide important insights in when intention leads – or does not lead – to action. Furthermore, even less empirical research on the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action has been conducted in the corporate setting. If organizations want to make use of corporate entrepreneurship to secure or improve their performance, it is crucial for them to know how to enable their employees to turn intentions into action. Since, in the corporate setting, entrepreneurship seldomly relies on one person, it is important to pay attention to the influence of team dimensions when investigating the intention-action relationship. The more organizations are provided with insight into the individual characteristics and organizational (team) dimensions that affect this relationship, the more they can anticipate these effects when facilitating and designing the corporate entrepreneurial process in order to achieve organizational goals.
1.3 Research questions
This study investigates the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting. The aim of the study is to provide insight in how this relationship is affected by individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and contextual factors. The accompanying research question is as follows:
RQ: How do individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and contextual
factors influence the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting?
In order to be able to answer this question, four subquestions need to be answered:
SQ1: Which types of entrepreneurial action in the corporate setting can be
distinguished?
SQ2: Which individual cognitive characteristics are relevant to investigate with regard
to their effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting?
SQ3: Which team dimensions are relevant to investigate with regard to their effect on
the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting?
SQ4: Which contextual factors are relevant to investigate with regard to their effect on
the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting?
1.4 Contributions
By investigating the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting, a research area is entered that is currently under-represented in the literature – which is remarkable, since corporate entrepreneurship, as well as the question how established organizations can be entrepreneurial, receives increasing attention by academics. Since the intention-action relationship has proved its significance in the investigation of the independent entrepreneurial process, empirically investigating its presence in the corporate setting adds to the increasing academic field of corporate entrepreneurship. This research is designed as a longitudinal study, making it possible to investigate causal relationships in the corporate entrepreneurial process. The work of Kuratko (2007) shows that corporate entrepreneurship depends on multiple organizational aspects. Placing the intention-action relationship in the corporate setting allows to investigate how organizational aspects affect the corporate entrepreneurial process even more profoundly. A deeper understanding of the corporate
entrepreneurial process and its influencing factors provides support for organizations and their executives in facilitating and reinforcing entrepreneurial activity. Knowledge of the impact of particular individual and organizational aspects allows to, for example, make organizational rearrangements, improve employee skills or introduce certain (team) interventions (Thornberry, 2003), to ensure that corporate entrepreneurship actually contributes to achieving organizational objectives.
1.5 Overview
This chapter introduced the research matter of this study, the research problem at hand, and the contributions that this study will make to science and practice. Furthermore, it presented the research question and subquestions. The latter will be answered in the following chapter, which provides a theoretical framework for this study by discussing the concepts and their status in literature. Furthermore, this chapter presents the different hypotheses for this study. The subsequent chapter elaborates on the methods, discussing the research design, sampling methods, measures, data collection, data processing and data analysis. The fourth chapter reports on the results of the analyses conducted and provides a summary of the findings. The fifth and last chapter discusses the results and the research process, indicates research limitations and provides recommendations for future research.
2. Theoretical framework
This chapter elaborates on the concepts that are included in the research question: corporate
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intention and action, individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and contextual factors. An answer to the subquestions is given as to which
types of corporate entrepreneurship can be distinguished and which individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and contextual factors are relevant to investigate. Based on the expected effects of the variables discussed, seven hypotheses are presented. The chapter concludes with a research model which visualizes the hypotheses that will be tested.
2.1 Corporate entrepreneurship
2.1.1 Defining corporate entrepreneurship
Various definitions for and descriptions of the content of corporate entrepreneurship exist (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). Covin and Miles (1999), for example, argue that generally, there are three types of phenomena that are associated with corporate entrepreneurship. First, when an organization enters a new business, this is often referred to as ‘corporate venturing’ (e.g. Block & MacMillan, 1993; Venkatraman, MacMillan, & McGrath, 1992). Second, the term ‘intrapreneurship’ is used when an individual or a team of individuals promotes (or ‘champions’) a new idea and pursuits its exploitation (e.g. Kanter, 1982; Shane, 1994). The third phenomenon involves a situation where “an ‘entrepreneurial’ philosophy permeates an entire organization’s outlook and operations” (Covin & Miles, 1999, p. 48) and is often linked to, among other, entrepreneurial management (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), entrepreneurial strategy making (Dess, Lumpkin, & Covin, 1997) and entrepreneurial orientation (Ramachandran & Ramnarayan, 1993). Sharma and Chrisman (1999) developed a definition of corporate entrepreneurship that is based on a review of existing definitions: “the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, creates a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization” (p. 18). This definition suits the present research well, due to its broad orientation, its inclusion of the individual as well as the group of individuals, and its reference to the type of activity – which will be discussed further in 2.1.2.
2.1.2 Types of corporate entrepreneurship
Morris et al. (2008) describe how corporate entrepreneurship reflects itself in organizations through ‘corporate venturing’ or ‘strategic entrepreneurship’. Comparable to how Covin and
Miles (1999) distinguish corporate venturing from other entrepreneurial phenomena, Morris et al. characterize corporate venturing as adding (portions of) new businesses to a company, either through internal, external or cooperative corporate venturing. They differentiate this from entrepreneurial activities that do not necessarily lead to the adding of new businesses, but which involve opportunity- and advantage-seeking behavior from which an organization’s competitive advantage benefits. Strategic entrepreneurship involves innovations that represent “fundamental changes from the firms’ past strategies, products, markets, organization structures, processes, capabilities, or business models” (p. 161) or “bases on which the firm is fundamentally differentiated from its industry rivals” (p. 161). Strategic entrepreneurship can take on the form of strategic renewal, sustained regeneration, domain redefinition, organizational rejuvenation and business model reconstruction (Covin & Miles, 1999; Ireland & Webb, 2007). The present study concentrates on strategic entrepreneurship, rather than on corporate venturing, since the type of activities that are observed involve changes and innovations within the company, rather than the addition of new businesses. More specifically, this research focuses on strategic renewal, since it observes the activities that aim to improve the company’s customer strategy. Strategic renewal is described by Sharma and Chrisman (1999) as follows: “Strategic renewal refers to the corporate entrepreneurial effort that result in significant changes to an organization’s business or corporate level strategy or structure. These changes alter pre-existing relationships within the organization or between the organization and its external environment and in most cases will involve some sort of innovation” (p. 19).
2.1.3 Corporate entrepreneurial action as a result of individual intention
Kuratko et al. (2001) provide an example of how strategic entrepreneurship has led to improved performance for a large healthcare management organization. They argue that, for strategic entrepreneurship to become successful, a strategic plan, a suitable organizational design, an entrepreneurial culture and adequate management and compensation systems are necessary. However, they state that the most important factor when implementing strategic entrepreneurship is reinforcing individuals’ willingness to take action. “Entrepreneurial actions and the corporate entrepreneurship strategy for which they are a foundation result from intentional decisions” (p. 68). The concept of intention forms the central factor in Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior. “Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior” (p. 181). Ingeneral, the strength of the intention to perform a certain behavior predicts the actual performance of the behavior.
The question rises why individual intentions matter in a corporate setting, where an employee is surrounded by company incentives and job requirements that (ought to) regulate the employee’s behavior. A response to this question can be found in the work of Bandura (2001), in which he states that human behavior is not subject of social and material incentives only. “If actions were performed only on behalf of anticipated external rewards and punishments, people would behave like weather vanes, constantly shifting direction to conform to whatever influence happened to impinge upon them at the moment” (p. 7). When people face competing influences – for example, in the context of the present research, having a negative attitude about a certain task in one’s job description – people tend to self-direct the regulation of their behavior, “which may augment or override the influence of external outcomes” (p. 8).
Bandura’s statement can be further explained by taking into consideration the determinants of individual intention as formulated in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Subjective norm, the perceived pressure the individual experiences to perform or not to perform the behavior, constitutes one of the three determinants. In the context of the present research, this determinant can refer to the expectations that the organization has of the individual (expressed in, for example, a job description). However, this subjective norm competes with two other factors in determining the individual’s intention. Attitude towards the behavior (“the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question” (p. 188)) and perceived behavioral control (“the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior”, reflecting “past experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles” (p. 188)) constitute the other two determinants. This combination of determinants form the individual intention, which to a large extent predicts whether the behavior is performed, or not. This construct illustrates the interest of individual intentions for behavior, also within organizations.
The important role of individual intentions within organizations has been highlighted by the outcomes of various empirical investigations (Bock, Zmud, Kim & Lee, 2005; Castaneda, Fernández Ríos & Durán, 2016; Dodoiu, G. (2015); Prestwich & Kellar, 2014; Vardi & Weitz, 2002). A number of investigations have emphasized the importance of intentions for entrepreneurial behavior (Bird, 1988; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Krueger, Reilly & Carsrud, 2000) and corporate entrepreneurial behavior (Belousova, 2011; Fini et al., 2012; Fini & Toschi, L, 2016; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). Although corporate entrepreneurial action is often
perceived to have a more creative and non-routine nature compared to ‘regular’ work activities (Teece, 2012), it appears to emerge from deliberate choices, influenced by intentions that are formed by individual characteristics and contextual variables (Fini et al., 2012). Hence, in the interest of the present research, rationale exists for corporate entrepreneurial behavior to result from intentions to engage in corporate entrepreneurship – emphasizing the importance of incorporating intentions when investigating corporate entrepreneurial action.
2.2 From entrepreneurial intention to action
However, although intention has been evaluated as an important influential factor for (corporate) entrepreneurial behavior, the intention-action relationship is yet an under-represented subject in entrepreneurship research. “In entrepreneurship research, an urgent need exists to empirically and theoretically investigate the intention-behavior link” (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014, p. 9). Recent studies have found that a considerable amount of people who have the intention to start up a new business do not take action upon this intention (Gielnik et al., 2015; Kautonen et al., 2015; Van Gelderen et al., 2015). The identified intention-action gap implies that other factors play a role in whether people translate their intention to engage in entrepreneurial activity in actual entrepreneurial behavior. A response to the entrepreneurial intention-action gap can be found in the recent work of Van Gelderen, Kautonen, Wincent and Biniari (2017), who investigate the process of translating entrepreneurial intention into action in the context of independent entrepreneurship. They achieved to provide insight into the entrepreneurial intention-action relationship by extending entrepreneurial intention models with Gollwitzer’s action phase theory (1990).
The action phase theory consists of four phases. The first phase, the pre-decisional phase, entails deliberation and establishment of preferences of which wishes to pursue. This process is influenced (in accordance with Ajzen (1991)) by desirability (the expected value) and feasibility (one’s own ability and the availability of necessary means and opportunities) of a behavior. Subsequently, the wish one prefers to pursue has to be transformed into a goal intention, in order to move on to the pre-actional phase. This phase entails planning when, where and how to act, forming behavioral intentions. “Whenever people anticipate difficulties with respect to any of these implementational issues, they should commit themselves to one of the many possible ways of initiating, executing, and terminating a relevant course of action” (Gollwitzer, 1990, p. 57). Initiating actions (forming the demarcation line that indicates the transition to the actional phase) depends on one’s commitment to the implementation of a chosen goal, the favorability of the situation and perceived future opportunities. The actional phase is
characterized by one’s action towards goal achievement. Whether one’s goal striving has succeeded is evaluated in the fourth and last phase, the post-actional phase.
Van Gelderen et al. (2017) centered their research on the pre-actional phase of the action phase model, investigating the mediating role of implementation intentions (Figure 1). Implementation intentions are the result of action planning, “the process of linking goal-directed behaviors to certain environmental cues by specifying when, where, and how to act” (Sniehotta, Schwarzer, Scholz & Schüz, 2005) – however, several authors have used the terms implementation intention and action plan interchangeably (Adriaanse, Vinkers, De Ridder, Hox & De Wit, 2011; Bélanger-Gravel, Godin & Amireault; Van Gelderen et al., 2017); the present study uses the term action planning from now on.
Figure 1. The entrepreneurial process from intention to action (based on Van Gelderen et al., 2017)
Van Gelderen et al. (2017) found support for their prediction that action planning mediates the entrepreneurial intention-action relationship. This is supported by previous research on action planning in which evidence has been found for its facilitating role: action planning helps to overcome various challenges and obstacles that people encounter when transforming intentions into action (Gollwitzer, 2014; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Discovering the important role of action planning in the entrepreneurial process contributes substantially to the understanding of the entrepreneurial intention-action relationship.
In the context of the present research, it would be valuable to know whether these findings also apply to the corporate entrepreneurial process. Unfortunately, to the best of the author’s knowledge, yet no research exists on the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action and the potentially mediating effect of action planning in the corporate setting. Since corporate entrepreneurship depends on other factors than independent entrepreneurship due to its embeddedness in an organization (Kuratko, 2007), action planning might play a different role in the corporate entrepreneurial process than it does in the independent entrepreneurial process. However, the challenges that action planning can help to overcome, do not appear to be solely applicable to independent entrepreneurship, but to goal attention in general. They involve “getting started (…); shielding the ongoing goal pursuit by staying on track in the face of competing goals, temptations, and distractions; calling a halt to unsuccessful efforts to reach a desired goal; and preserving energy for the pursuit of subsequent goals” (Van Gelderen et al.,
Entrepreneurial intention Action planning (implementation intention) Entrepreneurial action
2017, p. 5). This provides rationale for the suggestion that action planning may be a determining factor for corporate entrepreneurship, also. To test the potential mediation effect of action planning in the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship, the following hypothesis will be tested:
2.3 The influence of individual, team and contextual factors
As discussed in 2.2, the identified intention-action gap in the entrepreneurial process implies that other factors (than intention only) play a role in whether people translate their entrepreneurial intentions into action. The first factor that is predicted to play a role, which is action planning, has been discussed in the former section. The upcoming sections discuss the individual cognitive characteristics, team dimensions and organizational factors that are relevant to investigate with regard to their potential influence on the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship.
2.3.1 Individual cognitive characteristics: action planning ability
Since it is hypothesized that action planning mediates the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship, it is vital to know if employees evaluate themselves as being able to plan when, where and how to perform a certain action or behavior. As discussed in paragraph 2.2.1, according to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), perceived behavioral control influences one’s intention to perform a certain behavior. However, it also influences the actual performance of the behavior. Ajzen suggests that perceived behavioral control is comparable to Bandura’s (1977, 1982) concept of perceived self-efficacy, which involves “judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). Perceived behavioral control is of substantial importance for the intention-action relationship, since “people’s behavior is strongly influenced by their confidence in their ability to perform it” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 184). Perceived ability to perform a certain action or behavior has been positively associated by other authors with, for example, self-regulation (Miller, Behrens, Greene & Newman, 1993), perseverance (Markman, Baron & Balkin, 2005) and performance (Kukla, 1974). Besides employees’ perceived action planning ability, the actual action planning ability of employees is expected to influence the likelihood that intentions will be translated into action planning. In entrepreneurship research, barely any research has been conducted on the influence of action planning ability on action planning.
H1: Action planning mediates the effect of
However, cognitive ability has been found to positively affect ‘proactive planning’ (Frese et al., 2007). Based on the literature discussed, it is predicted that the more a person is able to generate an action planning, the more likely it is that this person will actually translate intentions into action planning. Hence, the following hypothesis will be tested:
Moreover, since H1 presumes that action planning mediates the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship, it is interesting to investigate whether the potential moderation effect of action planning ability exerts its influence on the actual performance of action. The “degree of detail in the planning of future actions” (Van Gelderen et al., 2017, p. 2) might be subject of one’s ability to plan these actions, and subsequently lead to different outcomes on action. Research that addresses this relationship is scarce, however, Kothe & Poci (2014) investigated the impact of action planning on behavior for individuals with differing levels of planning ability. She found that action planning was only effective for individuals who had a relatively good planning ability already. Taking this into consideration, is it expected that, when a person has a relatively high level of action ability, this increases the likelihood that this person will transform his intentions into actions, because he is able to plan his actions adequately. Hence, the moderation effect of action planning ability will be tested on the indirect effect of intention on action, through action planning. The third hypothesis is as follows:
2.3.2 Team dimensions: role clarity, interdependence and autonomy
Although entrepreneurship is often seen as the act of an individual, corporate entrepreneurship seldomly relies on one person. It is often an outcome of a collaboration between the members of a team within an organization (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). This brings along multiple team dimensions, which can be of influence on entrepreneurial behavior (Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007). The present research incorporates three team dimensions to investigate with regard to their effect on the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship: role clarity, interdependence and autonomy.
H2: Action planning ability positively moderates
the effect of corporate entrepreneurial intention on action.planning.
H3: The indirect effect of corporate entrepreneurial
intention on action, through action planning, is positively moderated by action planning ability.
Role clarity. The first team dimension that appears to be relevant to investigate is role clarity. Role clarity can be defined as “the extent to which the set of activities expected from a person in a given position are clearly expressed” (Jansen & Chandler, 1994, p. 67). It has been negatively associated with entrepreneurial activity by a number of authors. Lemström & Laaksonen (2012), for example, state that a high level of role clarity may narrow the responsibilities of employees, which holds them back from taking on different or novel tasks. This notion is shared by Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick and Kerr (2002), who argue that role clarity fits traditional bureaucracy, rather than entrepreneurial organizations that require flexibility. However, a number of investigations indicate opposite effects of role clarity for entrepreneurial activities. According to Stinchcombe (1965), “the lack of roles, routines, and established patterns of behavior to guide entrepreneurial behavior” (Blatt, 2009, p. 2) makes the entrepreneurial process difficult, since it impedes resilience. “Without a social structure in place, adaptation to changing circumstances becomes particularly challenging” (Blatt, 2009, p. 2). Creating structure and enhancing role clarity facilitates resilience (Weick, 1993), supports innovation (Jansen & Chandler, 1994) and improves the effectiveness of entrepreneurial teams (Gladstein, 1984). Moreover, a lack of clarity about roles and tasks has been found to have a negative effect on employees’ commitment to their tasks (Wincent & Örtqvist, 2006) – while, according to Gollwitzer’s (2012) action phase theory, commitment plays a crucial role in initiating actions upon intentions. Taking the state of literature regarding role clarity into consideration, the present research predicts that role clarity has a positive effect on the process of transforming corporate entrepreneurial intentions into action. The accompanying hypothesis is as follows:
Interdependence.The second team dimension that seems relevant to investigate with regard to its effect on the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship is interdependence. Cummings (1978) describes interdependence (more specifically, task interdependence) as “the degree to which group members need to work closely with others, share material, information, and expertise in order to complete their tasks” (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2006, p. 727). When team members depend on each other, this may cause ‘process losses’ (Steiner, 1972): teams with high interdependence may “inhibit each other’s task performance by providing inaccurate communication, distrusting each other, and delaying the transaction of resources” (Van Der Vegt, Emans & Van De Vliert, 2000, p. 637). In the context of a corporate
H4: Role clarity positively moderates the effect of
entrepreneurial process, it can reasonably be suggested that these negative consequences of high levels of interdependence might thus inhibit teams from moving forward to taking action. On the other hand, positive consequences of interdependence on corporate entrepreneurship have been reported. Interdependence has been found to have a positive effect on entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises by fostering internal knowledge-sharing (De Clercq, Dimov & Thongpapanl, 2015). Moreover, Van der Vegt and Janssen (2003) state that high levels of interdependence lead to more interaction between employees, which stimulates them to implement their ideas. Taking the state of literature regarding interdependence into consideration, the present research predicts that interdependence has a positive effect on the process of transforming corporate entrepreneurial intentions into action. The accompanying hypothesis is as follows:
Autonomy. The third team dimension that seems relevant to investigate with regard to its effect on the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship is autonomy. Autonomy can be defined as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, p. 162). On the one hand, corporate entrepreneurship is often seen as a complex process, involving, among other, multiple stakeholders, organizational and institutional restrictions, technological constraints and need for partnerships – which might require coordinated task integration rather than high levels of autonomy (Morris, Davis & Allen, 1994). On the other hand, autonomy has been claimed to be of great importance for the corporate entrepreneurial process by multiple authors. Kuratko, Hornsby and Covin (2014) have identified autonomy as an important determinant of an organizational environment that is conducive to entrepreneurial behavior. “Research suggests entrepreneurial opportunities are often best recognized by those with discretion over how to perform their work” (p. 39). Morris et al. (1994) state that autonomy is required to for employees to express their creativity and develop new ideas. “Individual autonomy and a sense of ownership of innovation encourage the risk-taking and significant persistence required to implement an entrepreneurial concept” (p. 73). Taking these considerations together, the present study predicts that autonomy has a positive effect on the process of transforming corporate entrepreneurial intentions into action: employees are more likely to convert their
H5: Interdependence positively moderates the effect
entrepreneurial intentions into actions if they have autonomy. The sixth hypothesis of this study is therefore as follows:
2.3.3 Contextual factors: work pressure
Due to its embeddedness in an organization, corporate entrepreneurship depends on multiple organizational aspects. In their research on assessing the determinants of an organizational environment that is conducive to entrepreneurial behavior, Kuratko et al. (2014) state that organizations have to use workplace design elements to develop a suitable interval environment, in order for entrepreneurial activity to become successful. “Conditions in the internal work environment dictate the perceived costs and benefits associated with taking personal risks, challenging current practices, devoting time to unproven approaches, persevering in the face of organizational resistance, and enduring the ambiguity and stress entrepreneurial behavior can create” (p. 39). They identified five dimensions that determine an internal environment that is suitable for entrepreneurial activity: top management support, work discretion, rewards and reinforcements, organizational boundaries and time availability. With regard to the latter, Kuratko et al. state that “a perception that the workload schedules ensure extra time for individuals and groups to pursue innovations” (p. 39) fosters corporate entrepreneurship. Based on the perceived importance of time availability for the corporate entrepreneurial intention-action relationship, the present research incorporates this dimension (in the form of work pressure) as a representative of the internal work environment that forms the context of corporate entrepreneurship.
Work pressure can be defined as “the extent to which jobs are characterized by deadlines, demands, and fast pace” (Crouter, Bumpus, Maguire & McHale, 1999, p. 1453). According to the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Karasek, 1979), work pressure can be seen as a psychological stressor that influences well-being and performance. In their research on the implementation of new ideas in organizations, Foss, Woll and Moilanen (2013) incorporate work pressure as a dimension of the work environment. They predict that work pressure restricts the excitement that employees have in their work, which in turn negatively affects generating and implementing new ideas. Against their expectations, they found a positive effect of work pressure on generating new ideas. According to Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987), the positive effect of work pressure on the development of ideas can be
H6: Autonomy positively moderates the effect of
explained by the challenging nature of the tasks from which the pressure arises. However, in line with Foss et al.’s (2013) prediction, they found work pressure to negatively affect the implementation of new ideas. Taking the state of literature regarding the effect of work pressure on the corporate entrepreneurial process into consideration, the present study predicts that work pressure has a negative effect on transforming corporate entrepreneurial intentions into action. The seventh and last hypothesis for this study is as follows:
2.4 Research model
The hypotheses that will be tested are visualized in the research model depicted in Figure 4.
H7: Work pressure negatively moderates the effect
of corporate entrepreneurial intention on action.
Action planning Action planning Action Action planning ability Role clarity Interde-pendence Autonomy Work pressure H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7
3. Methodology
This chapter elaborates on all methodological elements of this study: the research design, data collection and sample, measurement scales (and accompanying internal reliability analysis), data processing and analysis.
3.1 Research design
The goal of this study is to give insight in the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting, and how this relationship is influenced by team dimensions. This research is conducted in collaboration with Adecco Group Nederland, the Dutch branch of the multinational Adecco Group, respectively counting around 900 and 33,000 fte. Conducting research within Adecco Group Nederland allows for investigating the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action in the corporate setting. The purpose of the entrepreneurial action that forms the context of this study is improving the ‘customer centricity’ of Adecco Group Nederland, e.g. through exploring and exploiting opportunities, developing ideas, engaging in new activities and changing certain behaviors.
In the previous chapter, the theoretical framework, hypotheses have been drawn up that will be tested for statistical significance. To be able to do so, quantitative data has been collected using surveys. Investigating the relationship between intention and action requires considering a period of time in which action can actually occur. This requires measurement at two different points in time. Therefore, the research is designed as a prospective longitudinal study (Matthews & Ross, 2010). Data has been collected at two points in time, in April and June 2018. Two separate surveys have been created: the first survey consisted of background information items and the items for intention, action planning ability, role clarity, interdependence, autonomy and work pressure – whereas the second survey consisted of background information items and the items for action. The surveys were created using the online survey tool Qualtrics.
3.2 Data collection and sample
3.2.1 Data collection
Adecco Group Nederland holds six different labels: Adecco, Pontoon, Lee Hecht Harrison, Badenoch & Clark / Fairlane, Ajilon and Spring. The employees from the latter three labels have been chosen as sample in this study, making up for a total of 150 individuals. This involved
non-probability sampling (Matthews & Ross, 2010), whereby the sample has deliberately been selected in consultation with the HR director and Transformation director of Adecco Group Nederland. When sent to the sample group, both surveys were accompanied by a comprehensive explanation of the investigation and the importance of the sample group’s input. Multiple reminders were sent to the recipients when the deadline for filling out the survey approached. Furthermore, managers of the labels were encouraged to motivate their employees to fill out the survey, through contact by phone, e-mail and face-to-face conversations.
3.2.2 Sample
The final number of respondents that filled out the first survey was 71. The second survey was sent only to the respondents that filled out the first survey. The number of respondents that subsequently also completely filled out the second survey was 21. Although great effort has been put in encouraging employees to fill out the survey, the response rate is low. An explanation for this may be found in the fact that employees of Adecco Group Nederland are asked to participate in company research quite often. Alternatively, employees may have perceived the survey to be too long, or too difficult to fill out. Another reason for not filling out the survey could have been the idea of not receiving an update of the results (which may have happened with past company research at Adecco Group Nederland), which could have withheld employees from investing their time in giving their input.
3.2.3 Descriptive statistics
Figure 3 and 4 provide insight in the background of the employees that filled out the survey.
The majority of the employees that filled out the survey have been employed by Adecco Group Nederland recently (between 2015 and 2018). However, none of the respondents have been working for the company for more than twelve years: among the respondents, the employee that has been working for Adecco Group Nederland for the longest period of time started in 2006. Furthermore, the majority of the employees that filled out the survey work for the brand Ajilon, followed by Spring and Badenoch & Clark / Fairlane. This is not surprising, since the latter two brands employ far less people than Ajilon does.
3.3 Measures
3.3.1 Measurement scales
All items and measurement scales are listed in Table 1.
Intention. To measure entrepreneurial intention, the basis of the scale of Van Gelderen et al. (2017) was used. Their item “Do you intend to take steps to start a business in the next 6 months?” (Van Gelderen et al., 2017, p. 9) was adopted and adjusted to the context of the present study. Three items were created to measure whether the respondent intended to start up new activities, engage in new or different behaviors and search for new ways to improve customer centricity in the next three months. These items were also used to measure the respondent’s perception of his team members’ intentions. Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’.
Action planning. To measure action planning, the implementation intention measurement scale of Ziegelmann, Luszczynska, Lippke and Schwarzer (2007) was adopted and adjusted to the context of the present study. Three items were created to measure whether the respondent had already planned what he was going to do to improve customer centricity, when he was going to do that and where. These items were also used to measure the respondent’s perception of his team members’ action planning. Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’.
Action. To measure whether the respondent took any action and to what extent, three different items (based on action measurement scales of Van Gelderen et al., 2017) were created. The first item measured how many hours the respondent devoted weekly to entrepreneurial action to improve customer centricity in the last three months. Answer options were given on a 5-point scale, consisting of ‘0 hours’, ‘1 hour or less’, ‘2 to 5 hours’, ‘6 to 10 hours’ and ’11 or more hours’. The other two items measured how many action was taken, with answer options on a
4-point scale, ranging from ‘none at all’ to ‘very much’. These three items were also used to measure the respondent’s perception of his team members’ action.
Action planning ability. To measure whether the respondent considered himself as being able to make a plan to improve customer centricity, three items were created with answer options on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’. These three items were also used to measure the respondent’s perception of his team members’ action planning ability. Role clarity. On the basis of the role conflict and ambiguity measurement scale of Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970), four different items were created to measure whether the respondent perceived his role and the roles of his team members to be clear and unambiguous. Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’.
Interdependence. Four items were created to measure interdependence, on the basis of Liden et al.’s (1997) task interdependence scale. These four items measured to what extent team members’ tasks related to each other and to what extent they depend on each other regarding information and materials. Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’.
Autonomy. Four items for autonomy were created on the basis of different autonomy measurement scales (Breaugh, 1999; Murakami, 1997). These items measured to what extent the respondent and his team members can determine ways of working and how much decision freedom they have. Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’.
Work pressure. Four items for work pressure were adopted from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek, et al., 1998) and slightly adjusted to the context of the present study. These items measured perceived work pressure of the respondent, as well as his perception of the work pressure of his team members. Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’.
3.3.2 Internal reliability analysis
Based on the items that were used in the surveys to measure the different variables, a reliability analysis has been conducted to check internal consistency. The outcomes of this analysis are reported in Table 1. Based on this reliability analysis, a number of modifications has been made as to which items are included in the scales:
• When including all four items that were intended to measure Autonomy, Cronbach’s Alpha resulted in 0.445, which is unacceptable. The highest Cronbach’s Alpha (0.637)
was achieved when only including the items recorded in the table. Therefore, the other two items were excluded from the scale.
• When including all six items that were intended to measure IndividualWorkPressure, Cronbach’s Alpha resulted in 0.682, which is acceptable. However, reliability analysis indicated that Cronbach’s Alpha would increase to 0.730 when removing the item “I have enough energy to work on improving customer centricity”. Furthermore, analysis showed that Cronbach’s Alpha seriously decreased due to the items “I have enough time to complete my work” and “I have enough time to work on improving customer centricity”. Therefore, it was decided to only include the three items displayed in the table, which resulted in Cronbach’s Alpha 0.871.
• Similar modifications were made for the TeamWorkPressure scale, which resulted in Cronbach’s Alpha 0.894.
Table 1
Measurement scales and reliability analysis
Items Scale Cronbach’s
Alpha
• Within the next three months, I intend to start up new activities that improve customer centricity. • Within the next three months, I will be actively searching for new ways to improve customer centricity. • Within the next three months, I will engage in new or different behaviors that improve customer
centricity.
Individual
Intention 0.944
• Within the next three months, my team members intend to start up new activities that improve customer centricity.
• Within the next three months, my team members will be actively searching for new ways to improve customer centricity.
• Within the next three months, my team members will engage in new or different behaviors that improve customer centricity.
Team
Intention 0.967
• I have already planned precisely WHAT I will do to improve customer centricity.
• I have already planned precisely WHEN I will engage in activities or behaviors to improve customer centricity.
• I have already planned precisely WHERE I will engage in activities or behaviors to improve customer centricity.
Individual Action Planning
0.957
• My team members have already planned precisely WHAT we will do to improve customer centricity. • My team members have already planned precisely WHEN we will engage in activities or behaviors to
improve customer centricity.
• My team members have already planned precisely WHERE we will engage in activities or behaviors to improve customer centricity.
Team Action Planning
0.959
• I am aware of what the Adecco Group means by customer centricity.
• I have sufficient knowledge and skills to make a plan on how to execute a new idea to improve customer centricity.
• I have sufficient knowledge and skills to make a plan on how to change a certain behavior to improve customer centricity.
Individual
Ability 0.948
• My team members are aware of what the Adecco Group means by customer centricity.
• My team members have sufficient knowledge and skills to make a plan on how to execute a new idea to improve customer centricity.
• My team members have sufficient knowledge and skills to make a plan on how to change a certain behavior to improve customer centricity.
Team
Ability 0.956
• Within my team, it is clear to me which role I have to improve customer centricity.
• Within my team, it is clear to my team members which role they have to improve customer centricity. • Within my team, it is clear to me what is expected from me to improve customer centricity. • Within my team, it is clear to my team members what is expected from them to improve customer
centricity.
• Within my team, it is clear to me for which tasks I am responsible to improve customer centricity. • Within my team, it is clear to my team members for which tasks they are responsible to improve
customer centricity.
• If we introduce a new task within my team to improve customer centricity, it is clear who becomes responsible for this task.
Role
• Many of the tasks I do to improve customer centricity are related to the goals of my team.
• Within my team, tasks performed by team members to improve customer centricity are related to one another.
• I cannot accomplish my tasks to improve customer centricity without information or materials from other members of my team.
• Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials needed to perform their tasks to improve customer centricity.
Interdepen-dence 0.929
• My team members and I, rather than my manager or supervisor, decide who does which tasks within my team to improve customer centricity.
• Most decisions related to improving customer centricity are made by my team members and me, rather than by my manager or supervisor.
Autonomy 0.637
• My team members and I are responsible for determining the means, procedures and schedules with which tasks to improve customer centricity are done.
• My team members and I have little decision freedom while working on improving customer centricity.
Excluded from Autonomy scale
• I have to work fast to complete my tasks. • I have to work hard to complete my tasks. • I have a hectic job.
Individual Work Pressure
0.871
• I have enough time to complete my work.
• I have enough time to work on improving customer centricity. • I have enough energy to work on improving customer centricity.
Excluded from IndividualWorkPressure
scale
• My team members have to work fast to complete their tasks. • My team members have to work hard to complete their tasks. • My team members have hectic jobs.
Team Work Pressure
0.894
• My team members have enough time to complete their work.
• My team members have enough time to work on improving customer centricity. • My team members have enough energy to work on improving customer centricity.
Excluded from TeamWorkPressure scale
• How many hours (on average) did you spend weekly on new activities to improve customer centricity in the last three months?
• How much action, related to activities to improve customer centricity, did you take in the last three months?
• How much did you engage in new or different behaviors that improve customer centricity in the last three months?
Individual
Action 0.799
• How many hours (on average) did your team members spend weekly on new activities to improve customer centricity in the last three months?
• How much action, related to activities to improve customer centricity, did your team members take in the last three months?
• How much did your team members engage in new or different behaviors that improve customer centricity in the last three months?
Team
3.4 Data processing
3.4.1 Preparing the data
Once data was collected, it was prepared for analysis in SPSS. First, the data files resulting from the first and second data collection were combined into one file. Coding was not necessary, since Qualtrics delivers numeric output of data. However, variables with alternative answer directions still needed to be transformed into the opposite direction. Next, new variables were computed to create scales. As discussed above in the measurement section, reliability analysis was executed for each measurement scale (see paragraph 3.2.2). Based on an assessment of Cronbach’s Alpha, a number of modifications were made to the composition of the scales before creating scale variables. Furthermore, Pearson correlations were checked for the scores on the individual and team-oriented items, to assess whether they could be combined into a scale. The items appeared to correlate for each variables, thus their average score has been calculated to compute the final scales. And last, interaction variables were created for the purpose of moderation analysis. To reduce multicollinearity, independent variables were first centered before including them in interaction.
3.4.2 Team analysis
One of the methods initially intended for this study was to use combined individual scores to generate average team responses. Unfortunately, the number of surveys collected does not allow for combining scores of individuals who constitute a team together.
Figure 5. Number of responses per team
As can be observed in Figure 5, eight different teams can be identified from the collected data. The team is the group of colleagues with which an individual works together at the same location (for example, Eindhoven) and for the same brand (for example, Ajilon). For only four
of the teams, two or more respondents can be identified as members. Hereby, it seems relevant to point out that for none of the teams, all team members filled out the survey. This means that (a) there cannot be generated an average team score of all team members for any of the teams and (b) there cannot be made a comparison between the different teams. Taking these concerns into consideration led to the choice to not conduct an analysis at the team level.
To explore whether differences can be found between the total sample and a particular team, an analysis of the individual scores of the team members of Team 2 has been included in the appendix. The choice for Team 2 is based on the combination of the relatively high number of individual responses and the level of interrater agreement (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1993; Rousseau, 1985). A two-way mixed effects model indicates an intra-class correlation (Hallgren, 2012) of 0.748, which can be classified as excellent (Cicchetti, 1994), meaning that the members of Team 2 have corresponding perceptions regarding the variables measured.
3.5 Data analysis and interpretation
To be able to answer the research question, different types of analysis are required. To test the mediation effect of action planning in the intention-action relationship (H1), a mediation analysis is conducted, followed by a moderation analysis to test the moderation effect of action planning ability on the intention-action planning relationship (H2). To test the indirect effect of intention on action, through action planning, moderated by action planning ability (H3), model 9 of the process-macro of Hayes (2013) has been used to conduct a moderated mediated analysis. To test the moderation effect of role clarity, interdependence, autonomy and work pressure on the intention-action relationship (H4 to H7), moderation analysis have been conducted with multiple regression. Effects that have been found are interpreted in terms of their size, direction and significance. The results of the analysis and their interpretation are reported in chapter 4.
4. Results
This chapter elaborates on the results of the data analyses. The first section presents descriptive statistics and an overview of correlations. The second section reports the results of the mediation analysis, involving H1. The third section reports the results of the moderation analysis, involving H2 to H7. The chapter is concluded by a summary of the findings.
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations are reported in Table 2.
Overall, the means of intention (on a 7-point Likert scale) and action (on a 5-point Likert scale) are comparable and not specifically high or low, however, both lie above the median. Contrarily, the mean of action planning lies slightly below the median. The means of role clarity, interdependence and autonomy are also comparable and lie slightly above the median. The mean of action planning ability is relatively high. The highest mean is reported for work pressure. Moreover, for all variables, the reported minimum score is 1.00 – except for work pressure, indicating that zero respondents classify their work pressure at the lowest level. All variables correlate with each other with p < 0.05, except for autonomy with intention, autonomy with action, and work pressure with all seven other variables. This indicates that autonomy is not a significant predictor for intention or action, and that work pressure is not a significant predictor for any of the other variables.
Table 2 Correlation matrix M SD Min. Max. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Intention 4.10 1.73 1.00 7.00 1 2. Action Planning 3.25 1.85 1.00 6.67 .88** 1 3. Role Clarity 4.35 1.67 1.00 6.83 .79** .84** 1 4. Interdependence 3.78 1.99 1.00 7.00 .73** .63** .77** 1 5. Autonomy 3.90 1.92 1.00 7.00 .42 .50** .54* .54* 1 6. Ability 3.83 1.81 1.00 7.00 .66** .50* .74** .80** .51* 1 7. Work Pressure 5.17 1.25 2.17 7.00 .34 .22 .19 .38 .27 .28 1 8. Action 2.67 .82 1.00 4.33 .79** .68** .62** .53* .39 .54* .07 1 Note: N = 21. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
4.2 Mediation analysis
To test H1: Action planning mediates the effect of intention on action, a mediation analysis is conducted. Prerequisites for mediation are significant effects of intention on action, intention on action planning and action planning on action (Baron & Kenny, 1986). These effects are reported Table 3, Model 1. In order for a mediation effect to be present, the condition must be met that the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is reduced when the mediating variable is added to the regression. Results in Table 3, Model 2 show that action planning has a negative, non-significant effect on action when intention is also a predictor, while the p-value of the effect of intention on action increases. Conducting a Sobeltest results in a non-significant value, indicating that the difference in variance explained by intention is not significant. Hence, it is concluded that action planning does not mediate the effect of intention on action, and H1 is rejected.
4.3 Moderation analysis
4.3.1 Moderation of the intention – action planning relationship
To test H2: Action planning ability positively moderates the effect of intention on action
planning, a moderation analysis of action planning ability on the relationship between intention
and action planning is conducted. The results of the regression are recorded in Table 3, Model 3. These indicate a positive moderating effect of action planning ability (0.21) on the relationship between intention and action planning. This is in line with the expectation that action planning ability has a positive influence on translating intentions into action. However, this moderation effect is not significant (p > 0.05). It cannot be concluded that intention is more likely to predict action planning if combined with (higher levels of) action planning ability at
Table 3
Regression coefficients direct and indirect intention-action relationship
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables Direct effect Indirect effect Direct effect Action planning Action Action Action planning
Intention 0.88** 0.79** 0.85* 1.05**
Action Planning 0.68** -0.07 -.12
Intention x
Action planning ability .21*
0.05 level. However, considering that the effect is now significant at 0.10 level, a slightly larger N would most probably have led to significance at 0.05.
4.3.2 Moderation of the mediated intention – action relationship
To test H3: The indirect effect of intention on action, through action planning, is positively
moderated by action planning ability, model 9 of the process-macro of Hayes (2013) has been
used. The model generated bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects. The results are recorded in Table 4.
Table 4
Moderated mediation analysis of the intention – action relationship
Action
Index / Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Action planning ability -0.0029 0.02 -0.41 0.04
Low (2.1733) -0.03 0.14 -0.34 0.24
Moderate (4.8333) -0.03 0.18 -0.38 0.32
High (5.9800) -0.07 0.20 -.041 0.36
Note: 5,000 bootstrap samples. 95% confidence intervals.
Table 5 presents the lower and upper limits of the confidence intervals at low, moderate and high scores of action planning ability. The results indicate a negative effect, which is not in conformity with the expected positive effect. For all levels of action planning ability, zero lies between the confidence intervals, indicating no significant conditional indirect effect. This result provides no evidence for the expectation that the effect of intention on action, through action planning, increases at higher levels of action planning ability. Hence, H3 is rejected.
4.3.2 Moderation of the intention – action relationship
To test H4 to H7, predicting that role clarity, interdependence, autonomy and work pressure
moderate the effect of intention on action, a moderation analysis of these variables on the
relationship between intention and action is conducted. The results of this analysis are recorded in Table 5, Model 2.
The findings do not provide support for H4: Role clarity positively moderates the effect of
intention on action. A significant (p < 0.05) moderation effect of role clarity has been found,
however, this effect is negative (-0.738) instead of positive. This finding suggests that intention is less likely to predict action, if combined with (higher levels of) role clarity. This contradicts
