University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MASTER THESIS
Msc. Business Administration: Small Business and & Entrepreneurship
Name: Edin Smailhodzic
Student number: S2072335
Date: August 15th, 2011
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 2 PREFACE
This Master Thesis is the last stage in finalizing my Master program in Business Administration with the specialization in Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Topic of this thesis relates to traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs and the I-Scan tool, which measures those. The Thesis was supervised by Dr. Chris Streb as 1st supervisor and Prof. Dr. Peter S. Zwart as 2nd supervisor. I would like to thank both supervisors for useful comments and feedback during the writing of the thesis, especially to Dr. Streb for long and prompt email discussions. I would also like to thank Martijn Driessen for providing me with the data on I-Scan, being very helpful and answering many questions.
I would also like to use the opportunity to thank the JOINEU-SEE program for providing me with the Erasmus Mundus scholarship that made it possible to spend wonderful year in Groningen and get good education.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family who provided me with the great support throughout the year. Without them, this would not have been possible.
I hope you will enjoy reading my thesis.
Edin Smailhodzic Groningen, August 2011
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 3 SUMMARY
This thesis investigated the traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs. The purpose was to investigate what are the traits and capabilities important for intrapreneurs. In doing so, the literature was reviewed and also the dataset from the I-Scan.
I-Scan software is the tool that measures traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs at the individual level and also partially organizational factors that have impact on the climate for intrapreneurship in the company. The software is based on the E-Scan, which measures the traits and capabilities of entrepreneurs. Both tools use the same traits and capabilities. This thesis investigated if the traits and capabilities used in the I-Scan are also important for intrapreneurs and what differs intrapreneurs from entrepreneurs.
The literature proves that some of the traits and capabilities used in the I-Scan are important for intrapreneurs. In addition, there were traits and capabilities identified in the literature that are important for intrapreneurs, but are not included in the I-Scan. The literature also shows there are many factors at the organizational level, which are not covered in the I-Scan and that could be added in order to improve it.
On the basis of the literature, statistical analysis were performed to see what traits and capabilities contributed to the intrapreneurial behavior the most. Most of the hypothesis were confirmed except for the need for autonomy, which was not proven to be important for intrapreneurial behavior. In order to compare entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, the correlation analysis were also performed. It was also identified that the other tools that measure intrapreneurship are at the organizational level and are discussed both in the literature review and the discussion part. These tools also represent the basis for the recommendations on how to improve the I-Scan.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 4 Table of Contents PREFACE ... 2 SUMMARY ... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ... 6 1.1 Introduction ... 6 1.2 Thesis structure ... 8 2. DESCRIPTION OF I-SCAN ... 9 2.1 I-Scan ... 9
2.2 Traits and capabilities in I-Scan ... 9
2.3 Conclusion ... 11
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 12
3.1 Literature search... 12
3.2 Intrapreneurship ... 13
3.2.1 Defining intrapreneurship ... 13
3.2.2 Intrapreneurship at organizational level ... 15
3.2.2.1 Conclusion ... 21
3.2.3 Intrapreneurship at individual level ... 21
3.2.3.1 Conclusion ... 25
3.2.4 Traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs ... 26
3.2.4.1 Traits of intrapreneurs ... 27 3.2.4.2 Capabilities of intrapreneurs ... 34 3.2.4.3 Conclusion ... 37 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 40 4.1 Data collection ... 40 4.2 Sample ... 40 4.3 Variables ... 40 4.4 Data analysis ... 42
5. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ... 44
5.1 Correlations ... 44
5.2 Simple regression analysis ... 50
5.3 Multiple regression analysis ... 54
6. DISCUSSION ... 57
6.1 Discussion of the findings ... 57
6.2 Discussion of instruments at organizational level ... 63
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 5
7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 67
8. CONCLUSION ... 68
8.1 Research sub-question 1 ... 68
8.2 Research sub-question 2 ... 68
8.3 Research sub-question 3 ... 69
8.4 Main research question ... 69
REFERENCES... 70
APPENDIXES ... 79
Appendix I ... 79
Appendix II ... 80
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Intrapreneurship has been given a lot of attention in the recent times. With higher competition and globalization, companies are trying to stay competitive. Showing entrepreneurial behavior is important for good performance and sustaining competitive advantage in both large and small companies (Covin & Slevin, 2000). If companies do not show entrepreneurial behavior, they might not be able to successfully compete in the markets in a global economy (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). Intrapreneurship can help to achieve better company performance as it increases opportunities in a competitive environment (Amo & Kolvereid, 2005). Studies are showing how innovativeness, risk taking and readiness to be pioneer can improve performance and value of companies (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).
Intrapreneurship has also received significant attention as a field of research (Dess, Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney & Lane, 2003). Entrepreneurship within organizations has been important field for discussion both for practitioners and researchers (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). Knowledge on intrapreneurship has been expanded, but it is still fragmented (Ireland, Covin & Kuratko, 2009).
Lots of existing research has been focused at the organizational level and factors that foster intrapreneurship (Burgers, Jansen, Van & Volberda, 2009; Hayton, 2005; Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra, 2002).
Although these studies stress the importance of intrapreneurship and factors that should be provided to foster it, they also neglect the role of individual in the process of intrapreneurship (Heinonen & Toivonen, 2007). It is necessary to recognize importance of individuals within the organization and their innovative behavior although many companies neglect the potential of employees (Hornsby, Naffziger, Kuratko & Montagno, 1993). Holt, Rutherford & Clohessy (2007) call for more focus on individual level of intrapreneurship because the activities within the company are initiated by individuals and also in order to analyze intrapreneurship at organizational level, there is a requirement for analysis at the individual level.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 7 characteristics of intrapreneurs. The literature does not provide much assistance to managers to select individuals who are likely to be intrapreneurs (Davis, 1999).
Some authors note that there are no significant differences between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs (Holt et al. 2007) while others describe differences between two (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Jennings, Cox & Cooper, 1994). Holt et al. (2007) study was done through five factors model of personality and it included extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. Jennings et. al (1994) focused on differences between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, but focusing only on elite entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. Corbett & Hmieleski (2007) describe differences regarding social orientation and endurance. Hornsby et al. (1993) suggested that successful intrapreneurs should also possess some traits of entrepreneurs, but did not empirically test the proposition. Hisrich (1990) investigated the differences between entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs and traditional managers on a number of aspects. He notes the differences between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs in time orientation and decision making. Pearce, Kramer & Robbins (1997) developed a construct that distinguishes intrapreneurs from bureaucratic managers, but this study focused only on the effects that manager’s behavior has on subordinates.
Although some attention is given to corporate champions in literature as noted above, not much is known about their traits (Greene, Brush & Hart, 1999).
As mentioned above, there is still discussion if entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs are the same or different. It is also not clear who are the entrepreneurial individuals and what traits and capabilities they possess. Although few studies tried to investigate the traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs (Corbet & Hmieleski, 2007; Hisrich, 1990; Jennings et al., 1994), there is still gap in the knowledge about personality of intrapreneurs, especially in relation to the entrepreneurs.
It is the aim of this thesis to investigate the traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs. For this, it will be helpful to use the dataset from I-Scan software, which was developed by Martijn Drissen to investigate intrapreneurial personality. However, the software has not been validated and it is the same as the software to test entrepreneurial personality, E-scan.
The thesis will make further theoretical contribution to the knowledge about personality of intrapreneur and also evaluate the I-Scan software.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 8 „Do intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs share the same traits and capabilities and is I-Scan proper
tool to assess intrapreneurship?”
In order to get an answer to this main research question, a number of sub questions are used:
1. What traits and capabilities are important to be intrapreneurial at individual level according to the literature?
2. What tests/instruments are in use to assess intrapreneurship and what do they include? 3. What traits and capabilities differ intrapreneurs from entrepreneurs?
1.2 Thesis structure
In this introductory chapter, a brief review is provided on current research and importance of intrapreneurship and a research gap regarding traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs. Objective of the research is explained and research question with relevant sub-questions is presented. Other chapters of the thesis are organized in the following way:
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 9
2. DESCRIPTION OF I-SCAN
2.1 I-Scan
As noted in the introduction, I-Scan is an instrument to measure intrapreneurial personality. It is the same as E-Scan, which was developed by Martijn Driessen as the result of his PhD thesis in 2005. With I-Scan, intrapreneurs can determine their strong and weak traits and capabilities. I-Scan is based on the competence theory and it includes traits and capabilities.
It contains 110 questions on their personality and thinking styles. 94 questions are based on seven point Likert scale and relate to personality. The rest of the questions relate to four different thinking styles. These are namely: pioneer, salesman, manager and expert.
As opposed to E-Scan, I-Scan also contains additional 14 questions, which are related to personal understanding of intrapreneurship of employees and factors that encourage or limit intrapreneurship within an organization. Six questions are open, while the other eight use seven point Likert scale. Answers to these additional questions do not test intrapreneurial traits and abilities of employees, but they can help management of an organization to understand how to further promote intrapreneurship and remove constraints.
After completing the test, employee receives a personal report that contains a spider diagram showing his score against norm profile. Personal report also has results on four thinking styles indicating which style employee has similarities with.
Norm profile is set by the organization management, which wants to use the instrument for testing its employees. Norm profile represents score that they find important for entrepreneurial behavior in their organization. Norm profile can be set for individual traits and capabilities.
2.2 Traits and capabilities in I-Scan
I-Scan covers seven traits and three capabilities. These are the following:
Need for Achievement
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 10 Need for Autonomy
It is a desire to engage in independent action rather than action involving others (Shane, 2003). Need for autonomy can be often a reason for someone to become an entrepreneur.
Need for Power
It is a person’s imperative to be in charge (McClelland, 1961). It is reflected through the need to control and tell others what to do. A sample question from the I-Scan reflects it „I get a feeling of power when others do what I want them to“.
Social Orientation
Social orientation represents ties with other people and how easy a person creates social ties and networks. It shows the degree to which entrepreneur is focused on others. Entrepreneurs must use other people and networks to implement their ideas.
Self belief
Self belief is the instrument, which actually refers to the trait internal locus of control. Internal locus of control is person’s belief that he can have influence on the environment and persons who have higher internal locus of control get a stronger sense that they can control it (Shane, 2003)
Endurance
Endurance is a characteristic to continue towards own goals regardless the obstacles and negative developments. Successful entrepreneurs show great endurance.
Market Awareness
Market Awareness is ability to know the needs of customers and potential customers. Good entrepreneurs can have a clear picture of their customers, but also their competitors in the market.
Creativity
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 11 Flexibility
Flexibility is being able to adapt. Entrepreneurs must be ready to adapt to new circumstances and changes in the environment in order to successfully exploit business opportunities.
Risk Taking
It represents a willingness of someone to engage in a risky activity (Shane, 2003). People with higher risk propensity are more likely to explore entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane, 2003). It is the trait that is related to entrepreneurs quite often.
2.3 Conclusion
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 12
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Literature search
In order to carry out theoretical review on the issues relevant for the thesis, a systematic search of the literature was conducted. It is based on the model of the systematic literature review process proposed by Kitchenham, Pretorious, Budgen, Brereton, Turner, Niazi & Linkman (2010). Kitchenham et al. (2010) developed a number of steps to conduct literature study in three phases, which are plan review, conduct review and document review. Proposed model refers to the software engineering domain, but since the phases and steps for the literature review are similar for any field, this model of the literature search was applied in the thesis.
Although Kitchenham et al. (2010) suggest creating and validating the review protocol as a step in the phase of plan review, this was skipped. The step one was followed to base the search on the research question, which has been formulated in the introduction already and it is „Do intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs share the same traits and capabilities is I-Scan proper tool for assessment of intrapreneurship?”.
On the basis of the research question, second phase of conducting the review was started. This consisted of using the research question and three sub-questions to generate search terms, which were used in the search. Search terms to find a literature on intrapreneurship included: “intrapreneurship”, “corporate entrepreneurship”, “intrapreneur”, “corporate entrepreneur”. To conduct a search in regards to the first sub-question, the search terms included: “entrepreneur traits”, “intrapreneur traits”, “entrepreneur characteristics”, “intrapreneur characteristics”, “entrepreneurship traits”, “intrapreneurship traits”, “entrepreneurship characteristics”, “intrapreneurship characteristics”. The search on second sub-question included “measuring intrapreneurship”, “test intrapreneurship”, “intrapreneur test”, “measuring corporate entrepreneurship”. The search on third sub-question included searching terms on all of the traits and capabilities covered in the E-Scan and it included for example “social orientation intrapreneur”, “risk taking entrepreneur”, “risk taking intrapreneur” etc.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 13 Source Premier or PsycINFO, a search was made in the ISI Web of Knowledge, a search platform on social sciences, arts and humanities. Following the search in databases, Kitchenham et al. (2010) propose the next step, which is to select primary studies. This was done on the basis of reviewing the titles and abstracts of the articles. Next step of assessing the quality of the studies was performed by limiting the search results to peer reviewed journals only. In addition to that, the focus was paid to well known entrepreneurship journals such as Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice and Business Horizons. The focus was also on more recent publications (last 10 years). However, in the steps of extracting and synthesizing data from the articles, referenced articles were also either reviewed or just cited. In addition to the above described research, some books on entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship were used. These were the result of conducting the search in the University library catalogue. The last phase is writing the document review, which follows in the next section as the result of the above described process.
3.2 Intrapreneurship
3.2.1 Defining intrapreneurship
Entrepreneurship is found to be important for economic growth and development. The term entrepreneurship originates from France where the word entrepreneur was used for a person who was commissioned to undertake a certain commercial project (Wickham, 2006). Although the entrepreneurship has been subject of academic research for a long time, recognition that entrepreneurship research can help to explain economic behavior still grows (Welter, 2011).
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 14 person who creates new combinations in the form of products, processes, markets, forms and sources of supply.
In practices, entrepreneurship is usually manifested through new venture creation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003). Although for long time, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs were only seen as those who run own ventures, new field of the research in entrepreneurship in 80-ties has began to investigate entrepreneurship in organizations. In the last two decades intrapreneurship was credited as being significant for organizational development (Menzel, Aaltio, & Ulijn, 2007). Entrepreneurial behavior of organizations and within organizations has been subject of interest for both those in the practice and academia (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). Intrapreneurship is still very interesting topic, not only to researchers, but also many managers (Menzel et al., 2007).
The first who used a new term to describe this phenomenon was Pinchot (1985). Intrapreneurs were described as employees of large corporations who behaved in entrepreneurial way. Pinchot (1985) explains that they are the ones in the organization who create innovation. They are referred to as the dreamers who come up with ideas and make them profitable. Since then, intrapreneurship has become a popular topic for the researchers.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 15 Butler (1992) refer to intrapreneurship calling it internal corporate entrepreneurship and define it as entrepreneurial behavior within one company. Pinchot (1985) states that intrapreneurs are any of the "dreamers who do." Those who take hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind within an organization. They may be the creators or inventors but are always the dreamers who figure out how to turn an idea into a profitable reality.
On the basis of reviewed definitions, Sharma & Chrismann (1999) came up with the following definitions to note the difference between entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship:
Independent entrepreneurship represents the process in which one or more individuals act autonomously to create a new venture.
Intrapreneurship is the process in which one or more individuals from the organization either form new venture or initiate renewal or innovation within the existing venture.
On the basis of the above and from other literature, some basic difference can be noted between these two. As explained and defined by Sharma & Chrismann (1999), intrapreneurship starts within the organization and entrepreneurship has external focus. Intrapreneurs face with the politics and policies of their own organizations while entrepreneurs develop their own (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). Intrapreneurship is analyzed by researchers at both organizational and individual level. A large number of intrapreneurs’ researchers provide definitions and conduct studies at the organizational level (Sharma & Chrismann, 1999).
3.2.2 Intrapreneurship at organizational level
Research at organizational level refers to the factors that foster intrapreneurship in organizations and factors through which entrepreneurial behavior can be observed. Certain number of instruments and models could be identified, which describe the factors and their measurement in entrepreneurial action at the organizational level.
EntreScale
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 16 and proactiveness as two major dimensions. It does it through eight items that relate to such behavior (Knight, 1997). Several studies showed the positive relationship between these dimensions and company performance (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Although useful and proven to be related to the performance, the EntreScale lacked cross cultural validation as it has been focused on North American companies (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). It is also limited only to two dimensions and it does not include other factors important for intrapreneurship.
Entrepreneurial orientation
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 17 directly challenges its competitors and improves its position in the market (Lassen et al., 2006). Lumpkin & Dess (1996) describe competitive aggressiveness as responsiveness and a will to act in different and unconventional way.
Earlier studies showed that the entrepreneurial orientation has positive impact on the company performance, so Richard, Wu & Chadwick (2009) in their recent study on impact of entrepreneurial orientation on performance and role of CEO list a number of studies that proved it. In their study, Richard et al. (2009) provide a good argument that the past research ignored the impact of managerial characteristics on this relationship, which indicates neglecting the research of intrapreneurship at individual level. Wang (2008) indicates that past research does not provide a clear picture on direct effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the performance. Wang (2008) calls for consideration of more factors in assessing it.
Overall, the model of entrepreneurial orientation is good to show how entrepreneurial company is at the organizational level. However, it does not address factors and conditions that are required for entrepreneurial orientation. The factors that are usually mentioned to have impact on entrepreneurial orientation dimensions are environment, culture, strategy and organization. Still, it is not clear what might be the impact of other moderating factors in the relation of entrepreneurial orientation and performance. In regards to individual behavior in the organizations, it can be linked to the behavior of top management, but it neglects other lower levels of employees in the organizations. It also does not explain how important individual behavior might be important in reaching entrepreneurial orientation, especially in the terms of individual traits and capabilities of employees.
Corporate entrepreneurship scale
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 18 organizational values related to intrapreneurship and entrepreneurial activities impact financial performance. In this study, Zahra (1991) managed to get answers to what factors have influence on intrapreneurship and if they are positively related to the performance.
In his later work, Zahra (1993) has proven that dimensions of corporate venturing and innovation and self renewal activities were mostly positively related to entrepreneurial activities. The first dimension was measured through creation of new products and businesses, share of revenues from new products and technological entrepreneurship. Self renewal activities covered reformulating mission, reorganizing and change across the whole system. Zahra (1993) also considered the environmental factor in this model too. Findings from the research were in line with his earlier work (Zahra, 1991). Being very useful to get an idea of what factors are related to more entrepreneurial behavior at the organizational level, it mainly focused on the companies from United States, which indicates lack of cross cultural validation of the concept. That makes it difficult to generalize the findings. The model of Zahra (1991, 1993) measures entrepreneurial behavior through venturing, self-renewal activities and innovation. In this way, it leaves out other important dimensions of entrepreneurial activities such as risk taking and proactiveness although it might be assumed that they are required to create new venture and self-renewal activities. However, the model does not clearly mention it. Also, the model considers factors within the organization such as system of communications and external factors such as an environment, but it does not discuss importance of individuals within the organizations.
Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument
Another important model refers to organizational factors that support intrapreneurship, which was briefly mentioned in the introduction. The model was developed by Hornsby et al. (2002) and it was empirically tested. It is based on the model that Kuratko et al. (1990, as cited in Hornsby et al. 2002) developed with five internal factors that foster intrapreneurship, which are top management support for corporate entrepreneurship, reward and resource availability, organizational structure and boundaries, risk taking, and time availability. Kuratko et al. (1990, as cited in Hornsby et al. 2002) empirically tested the model, which confirmed only three factors, these being management support, organizational structure, and reward and resource availability.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 19 and developed the instrument to measure the factors. Factors included and measured are the following: management support, work discretion, rewards/reinforcement, time availability and organizational boundaries. Use of rewards is also found to be important as it promotes entrepreneurial activities through incentives. Another important factor is management support, which they refer to as the willingness of managers to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial activity in the organization. Different ways of such support include provision of necessary expertise, championing innovative ideas etc. Resources must be made available to manager both in finance and free time. There must be a proper organizational structure, which will support generation and evaluation of new ideas as well as their potential implementation. Risk taking tolerance is needed in order to encourage middle managers in their entrepreneurial activities even when there is experience of failure. The instrument contained 84 Likert style questions investigating above described factors. The sample included more than 700 middle managers from USA and Canada. Through empirical testing, Hornsby et al. (2002) validated Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument and the factors important to middle level managers in fostering intrapreneurship.
However, this study was focused only on middle level managers. So, it remains unsure if the first line managers and other employees would react in the same way to these factors. It also does not include other factors that might be related to entrepreneurial actions of middle managers such as environment or individual traits and capabilities of managers. It also lacks cross cultural validation as the factors that foster and encourage managers to behave entrepreneurially might not be the same in every culture. Still, the model provides the factors that are required for intrapreneurship in the organization.
A recent study by Srivastava & Agrawal (2010) also confirms the importance of factors identified by Hornsby et al. (2002) as it identified similar factors relevant for managers in Indian companies. The study focused to identify internal factors important for intrapreneurship and test how they are perceived by employees. Identified factors were rewards and motivation, management support, resource availability, organizational structure and risk taking. Empirical study among employees indicated that four dimensions were perceived to support intrapreneurship, being organizational system, team spirit, management support and empowerment. Although it is a recent study, it has serious limitations as it had the sample of employees from only three Indian companies. With such a small sample and from one culture only, it is hard to generalize findings.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 20 individuals to express their entrepreneurial behavior. Hornsby et al. (1993) also indicate that to act entrepreneurially in the organization is interaction of organizational and individual characteristics. Menzel et al. (2007) discusses interaction constant interaction of organizational and individual level in entrepreneurial behavior. Chen, Zhu & Anquan (2005) also indicate the importance of the management support and individual characteristics for entrepreneurial behavior.
Integrative Model of Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy
In more recent work, Ireland et al. (2009) proposed an integrative model of corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Their model is similar to entrepreneurial orientation, but as opposed to entrepreneurial orientation, it does not describe dimensions of behavior. It includes entrepreneurial orientation in the sense that shows how it is manifested in pursuing the strategy. According to the model of Ireland et al. (2009), intrapreneurship is manifested through entrepreneurial strategic vision, pro-entrepreneurial organizational architecture and that entrepreneurial process and behavior is shown at all levels of the organization. In this way, the model also includes individual level. The model refers to individual entrepreneurial cognitions, which include beliefs, values and attitudes on entrepreneurship. In addition to those, Ireland et al. (2009) describe individual entrepreneurial processes and behavior in terms of opportunity recognition and evaluation. Proposition is made that having entrepreneurial beliefs, values and attitudes will contribute to better recognition and evaluation of opportunities. External factors related to entrepreneurial strategic vision are competitive intensity, technological change and evolving product market domains. These will lead to entrepreneurial strategic vision if top level managers are entrepreneurial. Competitive intensity means that the company must exploit opportunities and take risk or they will be pushed out of the market by the competitors who will act in that way. Technological change means that the company must always innovate in order to be ahead of its competitors and achieve competitive advantage. Evolving market product domains refer to environment heterogeneity and calls for being innovative and adaptable. Ireland et al. (2009) also stress the importance of having an adequate organizational architecture, which is manifested through structure, culture, resources and rewards system.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 21 3.2.2.1 Conclusion
As noted in the description of above models, the studies at the organizational level focused on identifying the factors and behaviors that make companies more entrepreneurial in their actions. Presented models provide a picture on what kind of organizational behavior is needed to be entrepreneurial. EntreScale includes only two dimensions through which such behavior is expressed. Others include more dimensions and provide a more complete picture. Entrepreneurial orientation implies that the strategy is important. But, as shown by others, indicated that the strategy is not the only factor, which has impact on dimensions of entrepreneurial behavior. Corporate entrepreneurship scale also focus on other factors in addition to the strategy. It includes the impact of environment and confirms positive impact of dynamism, hostility and heterogeneity to behave in more entrepreneurial way. On other hand, corporate entrepreneurship assessment instrument investigated what are the organizational factors that foster intrapreneurship in organizations. In this way, it recognizes the importance of individuals and heir contribution to the level of entrepreneurial behavior of organizations. Still, it only confirmed small number of factors that foster intrapreneurship. However, these are important as they either encourage or discourage individuals to express their entrepreneurial behavior in the organizations. Most comprehensive model is integrative model of corporate entrepreneurship strategy. It includes not only the level of organization and top managers, but also other employees. In this way, it provides more complete picture of the factors that are needed for the organization to behave in entrepreneurial way. Although every model is useful and provides useful findings, they do not cover all of the factors that have influence on the intrapreneurship. Most importantly, they do not clearly explain where entrepreneurial behavior comes from, especially when it comes to the contribution from individual employees.
3.2.3 Intrapreneurship at individual level
Intrapreneur as individual and especially traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs are neglected in previous studies. Some studies did examine the behavioral aspects of intrapreneur and these cover three different levels, being top managers, middle managers and other employees at lower levels.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 22 managers in supporting their organization to be innovative and have proper organizational structure is examined. One of the rare studies on individual traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs was done by Jennings, Cox & Cooper (1994). Jennings et al. (1994) included all aspects of their success ranging from childhood to traits they possess. This aspect of their behavior is elaborated in the next section on traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs. The behavior of top managers is indirectly included in the studies examining the organizational level, but as noted in previous section, they are either taken for granted or focus on certain dimensions only. Even the studies presented here (Hornsby et al., 2002; Jennings et al. 1994) do not cover all traits and capabilities that influence entrepreneurial behavior.
The role of middle level managers was mainly examined in the sense what kind of behavior and support they have to show and provide in order to contribute to intrapreneurship in the organization. These include finding and using the resources to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities, assisting in development of initiatives as well as approving initiatives from lower levels (Kuratko et al., 2005). Simon, Elango, Houghton & Savelli (2002) emphasize that middle and top managers are more important in the intrapreneurship process and they empirically prove that in the case of work discretion. Kuratko (2009) also stresses the importance of middle level managers for innovation. It seems that the main function of middle level managers is to be supportive and enable communication of ideas that might lead to innovation (Kuratko, 2009). Just as in case of top managers, studies on middle managers also focused on the support they have to get or provide to contribute to intrapreneurship.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 23 Kolvereid (2005) also take into consideration employees, but they focus on how intrapreneurial behavior of managers affects employees. It seems from the literature that the employees at lower level are simply expected to behave in an entrepreneurial way and create innovations. However, as noted, their behavior and characteristics are still neglected in the literature.
In some studies that examined the behavior of intrapreneurs, they were compared to entrepreneurs and managers in order to identify similarities and differences. Accordingly, some argue that there are no significant differences between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs (Holt et al. 2007) while others describe differences between two (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Jennings et al., 1994). Holt et al. (2007) based the findings on empirical study of five factors model of personality and conducted the study on the governmental organizations, which is not enough to conclude that the two are the same. On the other hand, Jennings et al. (1994) compared only elite entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, which still remains as inconclusive for all entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs.
Hisrich (1990) compared entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs and traditional managers on a number of aspects, which included childhood, motivation and ability to become entrepreneur, education, personal values, age and motivation, role models and support systems. He noted differences between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs in time orientation and making decisions. While entrepreneurs usually have longer time orientation, intrapreneurs focus on something between short run aims of managers and long time focus of entrepreneurs, depending on corporate agenda. Another difference is that intrapreneurs are more able and have to get others to agree and help them achieve the goals. On the other hand, entrepreneurs are usually very independent in making their decisions to pursue the opportunity. In regards to the risk taking propensity, both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs like moderate risk. As a conclusion, Hisrich (1990) provides a list of characteristics and capabilities that are a must have for intrapreneurs. These are ability to understand environment, flexibility, being visionary, encouraging open discussion and team work, building a coalition of supporters and being persistent. The work of Hisrich (1990) contributes to better understanding of intrapreneurs as it examines the behavior of intrapreneurs from psychological perspective. However, Hisrich (1990) did not empirically test his propositions. The findings are based only on the literature review and can not be taken for sure.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 24 self-assured, suspicious, self-sufficient, bright and analytic. Most distinguishing aspects between two were control and trust. Entrepreneurs had high need for control and not much trust in others while corporate managers expressed low need for control and high level of trust in others. Brodsky (1993) focused only on female managers and entrepreneurs, which makes it difficult for generalization. Also, the study only covers successful managers and it does not clearly explain if the fact that they have many similarities with entrepreneurs solely contributes to that success. Other factors due to which the managers might be successful are neglected.
Davis (1999) investigated how intrapreneurs and traditional managers differ in their behavior. Some of the conclusions are presented below for individual traits and capabilities. Most distinguishing attributes of intrapreneurs were: creative, ambitious and aggressive, enthusiastic, persistent, enterprising and visionary. Some of the aspects were shared by both, such as effective communication skills, intelligence, committed, knowledgeable about industry etc. The study of Davis (1999) is quite descriptive. In the identification of individual traits and capabilities, Davis (1999) did not only focus on the ones identified in the literature, but allowed inclusion of other attributes that the sampled individuals associated to intrapreneurs and managers.
Kearney, Hisrich & Roche (2008) suggested a model of public entrepreneurship. In the model, a distinction is made between entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs and public sector entrepreneurs. Dimensions for comparison covered objectives, focus, innovation, opportunity, risk taking, character and skills. Entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs are similar in objectives as both require freedom and flexibility although entrepreneurs have a higher need for achievement while the intrapreneurs are motivated, but limited due to corporate characteristics. Focus is a bit different because entrepreneurs focus only on external environment while the focus of intrapreneurs has to be both on external and internal environment. They are quite similar in terms of innovation and importance of that is emphasized for both. Similarity is noted also for pursuing the opportunity where both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs try to pursue the opportunity regardless the resources. In terms of skills and character, both are described as self confident with knowledge of business. However, intrapreneur is also described as the person with self belief to be able to manipulate the system. Kearney et al. (2008) provide nice review of differences between different types of entrepreneurs, but their concrete conceptual model lacks empirical testing. Not only that the model lacks empirical testing, but the model is primarily focused on public entrepreneurs.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 25 In providing an explanation what behaviors distinguish traditional managers from intrapreneurs, Pearce et al. (1997) listed eleven types of behavior with the support in the literature. These are as follows: manages to get suggested actions through „red tape“ and turn them into practice, show enthusiasm to acquire skills, quick change of course of action when results are not achieved, encouraging others to take initiative with their own ideas, inspiring others in their work and stimulating them to work in new ways, takes time to help others to improve products and services, battles for good ideas of others, moves ahead with a new approach while others are more careful, describing how the things could look in the future and how to get there, gets people to go for a challenge, creating environment where employees are excited to make improvements. Although it was empirically tested, the sample for testing the model included two companies. Not only that there were only two companies, but these two companies were controlled by the same parent company. Such a small and controlled sample makes the generalization of the results questionable.
3.2.3.1 Conclusion
Top managers are supposed to provide support to lower levels in the organization, especially by encouraging entrepreneurial activities and tolerating risky actions. They are also described as the ones who are supposed to provide right organizational structure and shape the strategy. However, there is no clear picture on what kind of traits and capabilities should they have to be intrapreneurial.
Middle managers have main function to bring the ideas from lower levels and help in implementing them. Their roles are mainly related to communication and also providing the support for entrepreneurial behavior of lower level employees. However, some studies, such as by Kuratko (2009) stress their importance in both providing the support, but also being entrepreneurial themselves. The studies above mainly talk about what they need to achieve and not how they should do it and what individual traits and capabilities are required to do so.
Lower level employees are expected to behave entrepreneurially if there is proper support provided. However, as noted above, the support itself might be important, but not enough for entrepreneurial behavior.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 26 similarities in the traits of intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs than differences. The difference is mainly present in the degree of certain trait and capability, which is in some cases higher for entrepreneurs than intrapreneurs. However, what still lacks in case of the above studies is empirical testing. Both similarities and differences are usually described on the basis of the literature reviews on the basis of which authors created models and described the behavior of intrapreneurs. But they do not go a step further to test these empirically. Due to this, such findings have to be accepted with care. As noted above, one of the rare empirical studies on differences included very limited number of companies, which again questions the findings and their generalizing.
Regardless the limitations, it may be concluded that intrapreneurs just like entrepreneurs must be creative, flexible, persistent, have good communication skills, persistent, enthusiastic etc. On the other hand, intrapreneurs also show similarities to managers in the sense that they must be knowledgeable about industry, committed and intelligent.
3.2.4 Traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs
There has been lots of research on the characteristics of entrepreneurs. The research on the characteristics of entrepreneurs began in 1850 when Mill described entrepreneurs as people who are risk bearing or risk taking. Schumpeter defined entrepreneurs as being innovative, creative and initiative taking (1934). In 1961, McClelland was one of the first to test the characteristics entrepreneurs empirically. He proved that the entrepreneurs are risk takers and that they have a high need for achievement (McClelland, 1961). After McClelland, many researchers investigated the trait and capabilities of entrepreneurs. However, since the E-Scan already validated traits and capabilities of entrepreneurs, this section focuses on traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs as reported in the literature.
Distinction between traits and capabilities is made in this section. Traits are characteristics of a person that can not be easily changed, while the capabilities are ability to do something and can be learned (Driessen, 2005).
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 27 reality. According to Pinchot (1985), one does not have to leave the organization to become entrepreneur.
Pinhcot (1985) provides the following description of intrapreneur: • Wants freedom and access to corporate resources
• Goal oriented and self motivated
• Very much like entrepreneur, but the situation demands greater ability to prosper within the organization
• Self confident and brave. • He likes moderate risk.
• Does own market research and intuitive market evaluation just like the entrepreneur • Adapt to getting others to agree to private vision
His description of intrapreneur does not differ much from the description of entrepreneurs apart from the fact that intrapreneurs act within an organization.
3.2.4.1 Traits of intrapreneurs
Holt et al. (2007) studied the impact of context, process and individual characteristics on the intrapreneurship. Individual characteristics were studied through five factors model of personality and it included extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. The results showed that the context and process variables had positive relationship with intrapreneurship, but individual characteristics did not influence the intrapreneurship. Holt et al. (2007) conducted their study on the sample of three governmental organizations and did not include other individual entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. The fact that Holt et al. (2007) base their findings on the government organizations is great limitation and it might explain why entrepreneurial personality did not have impact on intrapreneurship.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 28 Risk Taking
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 29 Birley (1997) confirm that intrapreneurs must take risks in order to make the things happen. They based their findings on the executives and members of the teams that worked on radical customer transformation projects, which indicated entrepreneurial behavior through provision of new services and products to customers. Hisrich (1990) made an effort to note differences between intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs and traditional managers. On the risk taking propensity, both intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs like to take moderate risks while administrative managers are more careful in taking the risks (Hisrich, 1990). Results of an empirical test made by Howell, Shea & Higgins (2005) have shown that champions of product innovation are associated with the risk taking propensity. Howell et al. (2005) showed that employees who made product innovations were risk takers, which again indicates positive relationship with entrepreneurial behavior. Menzel et al. (2007) argue that the risk the entrepreneur has to take is much higher than of the risk of an intrapreneur, but do not offer empirical evidence of this. Kearney et al. (2008) note the difference between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs arguing that intrapreneurs are moderate risk takers while entrepreneurs bear higher risk as they assume significant personal and financial risk. As noted earlier, Kearney et al. (2008) also do not provide empirical evidence of their proposals. Lassen et al. (2006) identified that actions of companies that are considered risky are usually made if the companies are able to manage that risk and not just based on a willingness to accept the risk. Although examined at the organizational level, it indicates that the risk taking within organizations is more moderate.
So, number of authors suggest that risk taking is a characteristic of intrapreneurs (Antoncic, 2003; Davis, 1999; Hisrich, 1990; Hornsby et al., 1993; Howell et al., 2005; Jennings et al., 1994; Kearney et al. 2008; Menzel et al., 2007; Monsen et al., 2010; Parker, 2011; Pinchot, 1985; Simon et al., 2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997) while some also clearly indicate that risk taking leads to positive entrepreneurial behavior (Howell et al., 2005; Monsen et al., 2010; Simon et al., 2002 Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997). On the basis of the above, the following hypothesis can be generated:
H1: Risk taking propensity of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Need for power
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 30 (Hornaday & Aboud, 1971). Due to lack of the literature and empirical evidence, it seems that the need for power is not a characteristic of intrapreneurs.
Need for achievement
Need for achievement is entrepreneurial trait that received the most empirical evidence (McClelland, 1961; Shane, 2003). Jennings et al. (1994) investigated this trait as well and identified that both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs showed equal need for achievement. Amo & Kolvereid (2005) note that intrapreneurial personality must include need to achieve and that it leads to entrepreneurial behavior, which is expressed through creating innovations in the organization. Hornsby et al. (1993) also argue that one of individual characteristics of intrapreneurs is a need for achievement. Davis (1999) empirically confirmed that intrapreneurs had a higher need for achievement than traditional managers. Howell & Higgins (1990, as cited in Howell et al. 2005) treat need for achievement as an important trait to champion innovation. As such, they confirm importance of the trait and link it to entrepreneurial behavior. Ulijn et al. (2007, as cited in Menzel et al. (2007) refer to a need to have internal motivation in order to be successful intrapreneur. However, as noted earlier Ulijn et al. (2007) do not provide empirical evidence and clear reasons why and how they selected characteristics.
Still, the need for achievement is noted as important for intrapreneurs (Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Davis, 1999; Jennings et al., 1994; Hornsby et al., 1993; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Howell et al., 2005; Ulijn et al., 2007) and is linked to entrepreneurial behavior (Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Howell et al., 2005). The following hypothesis may be generated:
H2: Need for achievement of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Internal locus of control
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 31 employees. However, Engle et al. (1997) also called for further research on the internal locus of control to safely identify entrepreneurial employees as the results of intrapreneurs and other employees did not differ that significantly.
Just as for entrepreneurs, having higher internal locus of control is important for intrapreneurs (Engle et al., 1997; Hornsby et al., 1993; Lee & Tsang, 2001, Pinchot, 1985; Teltumbde, 2006) and it is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior (Lee & Tsang, 2001). The following hypothesis may be generated:
H3: Internal locus of control of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Need for autonomy
Results of the Jennings et al. (1994) indicated that entrepreneurs had much higher need for autonomy than intrapreneurs. Chen et al. (2005) built and tested a model of factors that contribute to intrapreneurship. One of tested and confirmed hypothesis was that the need for autonomy has positive contribution to intrapreneurship. Chen et al. (2005) sample included Chinese companies only, so it can not be easily generalized as the culture has impact on entrepreneurial behavior (Hornsby et al. 2002). Still, Chen et al. (2005) confirmed that need for autonomy was important for bringing new ideas in the company. In his profile of ideal intrapreneur, Ulijn et al. (2007, as cited in Menzel et al. 2007) ranked need for autonomy quite high on his scale, making it more important than risk taking and commitment. In the list of individual intrapreneurial characteristics, Hornsby et al. (1993) list desire for autonomy among others. Hisrich (1990) indicated need for autonomy as one of the primary motives for both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs.
Numerous studies confirmed that entrepreneurs have a higher need for autonomy than others (Dunkelberg & Cooper, 1982; Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1990; Shane, 2003), and some (Holt et al., 2007) argue there are not significant differences between intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs. So, need for autonomy is important for intrapreneurs (Hisrich, 1990; Hornsby et al., 1993; Jennings et al., 1994; Chen et al., 2005; Ulijn et al., 2007) and is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior (Chen et al., 2005). The following hypothesis may be generated:
H4: Need for autonomy of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Self efficacy
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 32 relationship with intrapreneurship in regards to effective commitment. Shepherd & Krueger (2002) study shows that self efficacy is important for intrapreneurial behavior both at individual and collective level. Shepherd & Krueger (2002) make propositions based on the previous research that an intention to intrapreneurially behave is higher when individual and collective efficacy are higher. They related the self efficacy to entrepreneurial behavior through the intentions and increased initiatives, which lead to better performance. Shepherd, Covin & Kuratko (2009) discussed management of the grief process as the result of a project failure in intrapreneurial process. Shepherd et al. (2009) argue that higher level of self efficacy makes the grief process easier and also propose type of organizational support needed for the recovery. The arguments clearly indicated a need of intrapreneurs to possess the trait of self efficacy in order to successfully cope with business failures. Shepherd et al. (2009) argue that this leads to better learning and higher motivation, which are important for entrepreneurial behavior. Wakkee, Elfering & Monaghan (2010) examined the role of self efficacy and coaching to create more entrepreneurial employees in traditional service sectors. The study showed that self efficacy had a positive impact on entrepreneurial behavior of employees as well as coaching. Entrepreneurial behavior was described through taking initiatives. However, Wakkee et al. (2010) failed to prove the hypothesis that the coaching had positive effect on self efficacy. Chen et al. (2005) also proved that self efficacy is important for entrepreneurial behavior of Chinese managers.
Self efficacy has been described as important for intrapreneurs (Rutherford & Holt, 2007; Shepherd & Krueger, 2002; Shepherd et al., 2009; Wakkee et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2005) and positively related to entrepreneurial behavior (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002; Wakke et al., 2010).
Endurance
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 33 entrepreneurial behavior through introduction of new products. Seshadri & Tripathy (2006) argue that intrapreneurs show high level of emotional commitment to their work as they bring something much more intense than just a mindset of an employee. This emotional commitment helps them to achieve great results and achieve the things that others think are not reachable (Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006). As mentioned earlier, the characteristics of intrapreneurs helped in renewing activities of three Indian companies. This shows that intrapreneurs, just like entrepreneurs must be committed and persistent in their actions. Ulijn et al. (2007, as cited in Menzel et al. (2007) refer to commitment and persistence as the characteristics of ideal intrapreneur. Hisrich (1990) also states that intrapreneurs must be persistent in order to overcome obstacles in running intrapreneurial ventures.
It is important trait of intrapreneurs (Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007; Hisrich, 1990; Howell et al., 2005; Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006; Simon et al., 2002; Ulijn et al. 2007; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997) and it has been positively related to entrepreneurial behavior (Howell et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997;). The following hypothesis may be generated:
H5: Endurance of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Social orientation
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 34 means that intrapreneurs must be have good relations with others in order to get their ideas through. On the other hand, entrepreneurs are more free in pursuing the ideas they like without a need to convince others of it.
Social orientation is important for intrapreneurs (Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1999; Howell et al., 2005; Kelley et al., 2009; Wasserman & Galaskiewicz , 1994; Wunderer, 2001) and it is also positively related to entrepreneurial behavior (Wooldridge & Floyd, 1999; Howell et al., 2005).
The following hypothesis may be generated:
H6: Social orientation of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior H7: Intrapreneurs will show higher level of social orientation than entrepreneurs
3.2.4.2 Capabilities of intrapreneurs
Hayton & Kelley (2006) developed a competency based framework to assess and promote intrapreneurship in the company. Hayton & Kelley (2006) argue that successful intrapreneur will have four entrepreneurial competencies, which are innovating, brokering, championing and sponsoring. These competencies cover knowledge, skills and personality. Innovating means recognizing the opportunity by being creative and having a knowledge to make new combinations in order to serve the customers. Function of the broker to get new sources of knowledge and information and transfer them to others in the company, but also to combine new and existing knowledge in the transfer process. Champions either champion for their own ideas or ideas of their colleagues by making sure the success is achieved. Sponsoring is more supportive function and it includes things such as providing resources and ensuring support, guidance and legitimacy of entrepreneurial actions. Hayton & Kelley (2006) did not empirically test their theoretical model.
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 35 to different studies and built his model on it. The article provides guidelines on what potential intrapreneurs should be like in terms of competencies, but does not clearly explain the propositions and their empirical evidence.
Flexibility
Vandermerwe & Birley (1997) note that one of the desired capabilities for intrapreneurs is to be flexible. They refer to the ability to listen to others, learn and adapt their behavior in order to succeed in creating new products and services for customers. In describing product pioneers, Simon et al. (2002) underlines a need for them to adapt to changing conditions. Simon et al. (2002) indicate commitment and adaptability as two major characteristics of product pioneers and that these contribute to entrepreneurial behavior through introduction of new products. Pearce et al. (1997) note that intrapreneurs quickly change course of action when results are not achieved, which indicates the fact that they are flexible when required. Hisrich (1990) states that successful intrapreneurs must be flexible and visionary. Pinchot (1985) also stresses the importance for intrapreneurs to be able to adapt to others in order to get their idea through. Menzel et al. (2007) mention that the intrapreneurs have to be flexible and always have room to manoeuvre in their actions. Although the flexibility is not so extensively discussed in regards to capabilities of intrapreneurs, it is still confirmed to be important (Hisrich, 1990; Menzel et al. 2007; Pearce et al., 1997; Pinchot, 1985; Simon et al., 2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997) and positively related to entrepreneurial behavior (Pearce et al., 1997; Simon et al., 2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997). The following hypothesis may be generated:
H8: Flexibility of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Market awareness
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 36 to customers. In doing so, intrapreneurs create new products and services. It is evident that intrapreneurs should be familiar with the market and customers (Menzel et al., 2007; Shepherd & Krueger, 2002; Simon et al.2002; Ulijn et al., 2007; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997) and that leads to positive entrepreneurial behavior (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002; Simon et al.2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997 ).
Creativity
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 37 stresses the creativity as an integral part of intrapreneurial behavior by describing them as „the dreamers who do“.
Creativity is a capability of intrapreneurs (Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Cox & Jennings, 1995; Davis, 1999; Howell et al. 2005; Jennings et al., 1994; Menzel et al., 2007; Pinchot, 1985; Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006; Thompson, 2004; Ulijn et al., 2007) and it leads to entrepreneurial behavior (Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Howell et al., 2005; Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006). The following hypothesis may be generated:
H9: Creativity of intrapreneurs is positively related to entrepreneurial behavior
Emotional intelligence
(Zampetakis, Beldekos & Moustakis, 2009) researched the influence of emotional intelligence and contextual factors on intrapreneurship. In doing the research, Zampetakis et al. (2009) conceptualized daily intrapreneurial activities as behavior that includes activities aimed at getting things done in entrepreneurial way. That represents Mair’s (2005, as cited in Zampetakis et al. 2009) concept of day to day entrepreneurship. Employees with high emotional intelligence are more able to regulate their emotions (Wong & Law, 2002 as cited in Zampetakis et al. 2009), which makes them behave in more entrepreneurial way because they show more confidence and control for their work environment. Findings proved that the emotional intelligence was related to entrepreneurial behavior, which means that such individuals are able to have better understanding of the factors for their behavior and take appropriate entrepreneurial actions. Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw (2005) also proved that the proper regulation of emotions leads to higher innovativeness and proactivity.
3.2.4.3 Conclusion
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 38 Table 3.1 Traits and capabilities of intrapreneurs
Traits:
Risk Taking Antoncic, 2003; Davis, 1999; Hisrich, 1990; Hornsby et al., 1993; Howell et al., 2005; Jennings et al., 1994; Kearney et al. 2008; Menzel et al., 2007; Monsen et al., 2010; Parker, 2011; Pinchot, 1985; Simon et al., 2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997
Need for Achievement Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Davis, 1999; Jennings et al., 1994; Hornsby et al., 1993; Howell & Higgins 1990, Howell et al., 2005; Ulijn et al., 2007
Need for Autonomy Hisrich, 1990; Hornsby et al., 1993; Jennings et al., 1994; Chen et al., 2005; Ulijn et al., 2007
Self Efficacy Rutherford & Holt, 2007; Shepherd & Krueger, 2002; Shepherd et al., 2009; Wakkee et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2005
Endurance Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007; Hisrich, 1990; Howell et al., 2005; Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006; Simon et al., 2002; Ulijn et al. 2007; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997
Social Orientation Corbett & Hmieleski, 2007; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1999; Howell et al., 2005; Kelley et al., 2009; Wasserman & Galaskiewicz , 1994; Wunderer, 2001
Capabilities
Flexibility Hisrich, 1990; Menzel et al. 2007; Pearce et al., 1997; Pinchot, 1985; Simon et al., 2002; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997
Market Awareness Menzel et al., 2007; Shepherd & Krueger, 2002; Simon et al.2002; Ulijn et al., 2007; Vandermerwe & Birley, 1997
Creativity Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Cox & Jennings, 1995; Davis, 1999; Howell et al. 2005; Jennings et al., 1994; Menzel et al., 2007; Pinchot, 1985; Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006; Thompson, 2004; Ulijn et al., 2007
Master Thesis Edin Smailhodzic 39 On the basis of the theoretical review, a number of hypothesis was generated throughout the theoretical review. The conceptual model visually illustrates these elements and their interrelation. Although there is empirical evidence for some traits and capabilities, which seem to be important for intrapreneurs, they are not included in the conceptual model. This is due to the fact that the thesis is based on Scan, which makes it possible to test traits and capabilities included in the I-Scan only. In addition, need for power and market awareness are part of the I-I-Scan, but they are excluded from the conceptual model. There was no enough empirical evidence to include the need for power. The questions that belong to the capability market awareness were used to operationalize entrepreneurial behavior and the market awareness was excluded as independent variable accordingly, which is elaborated in the section on research methodology.
Figure 3.1. Conceptual model
