UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES’ INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR:
A CASE STUDY
Georgiana-Alexandra Badoiu, Mercedes Segarra-Ciprés and
Ana B. Escrig-Tena
Department of Business Administration and Marketing
Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain
Summary
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to provide a deeper insight into the organizational factors and
personal motivations of intrapreneurs which may foster intrapreneurial behaviors of employees in a new
technology-based firm (NTBF).
Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes a qualitative approach to exploring organizational
and individual antecedents of employees’ intrapreneurial behavior. A single case study was conducted
based on semi-structured interviews with the founders and top managers of the firm and with
intrapreneurial employees.
Findings – Results show that intrapreneurial projects may arise in firms whose top managers support
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) in a non-active manner. Intrapreneurial behaviors of employees can
emerge despite the lack of time and limited resources available for undertaking projects. Moreover,
work discretion and mutual confidence and the quality of the relationship between employees and top
managers are the most valued factors for intrapreneurs.
Practical implications – Based on the intrapreneurial projects studied, this paper helps to contextualize
intrapreneurs’ perception of organizational support and the personal motivations for leading projects
within an NTBF.
Originality/value – Traditionally, the literature has mainly focused on the top-down implementation
of entrepreneurial projects within large firms. This paper contributes to the understanding of the
combination of firm- and individual-level factors that facilitate intrapreneurial behaviors of employees.
It also illustrates the contextual conditions and the firms’ orientation on CE within an NTBF.
Keywords: intrapreneurship, organizational support, motivations, new technology-based firm (NTBF)
Introduction
Firm-level entrepreneurship, or Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE), refers to entrepreneurial activities
within existing firms, such as venturing, innovation, and strategic renewal (Burgers and Covin, 2016).
Interest in how CE can be enhanced within established companies (Corbett et al., 2013) and the amount
of research being conducted on this topic are both growing due to the potential to renew companies
through innovative initiatives. According to Antoncic and Hisrich (2001:504) “organizations that
engage in intrapreneurial activities are expected to achieve higher levels of growth and profitability than
1
organizations that do not”. Moreover, Gerasymenko et al. (2015) point out that CE can renew a
company’s capabilities and increase its capacity to acquire and use new competencies that improve
performance.
Entrepreneurial activities within organizations can be developed at every level (Monsen and
Boss, 2009; Wales et al., 2011). Research on CE at the individual level refers to intrapreneurs, that is,
employees who have the ability to turn ideas into business success or to develop innovations (Pinchot,
1987; Moriano et al., 2014). Specifically, one line of research on CE has focused on the conditions that
motivate individuals to behave entrepreneurially given a particular organizational context (e.g. Arz,
2017). Regarding those conditions, some authors (e.g. Dess et al., 2003; Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013)
highlight the need to study the organizational factors that facilitate intrapreneurship. A valuable quality
of corporate entrepreneurship is the creation of an environment that stimulates entrepreneurial thinking
and behavior (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). In this respect, Ireland et al. (2006) state that the CE
Assessment Instrument (CEAI) can be a useful and effective tool that managers can use to supervise
and enhance CE activities. This instrument captures five organizational factors that help promote
intrapreneurial behavior, namely, management support for entrepreneurship, work discretion, rewards,
time availability, and organizational boundaries (Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 2014). Consistent
with these arguments, our first objective is to examine the dimensions of the CEAI that may support
employees’ engagement in intrapreneurial behaviors.
In addition to work environment conditions, individual factors may also help to capture the
intrapreneurial behavior of employees. Thus, Stull and Singh (2005) indicate the need to understand
why some employees within an organization develop intrapreneurial behavior while others do not,
despite being exposed to the same organizational context. Some authors emphasize the importance of
considering aspects associated with the intrapreneurs’ personality and their chances of promotion in the
company as factors that can also explain the initiative to establish projects led by employees.
Particularly, Carrier (1996) points out a series of motivating factors associated with the personality and
experience of employees which can be the driving force on which intrapreneurial initiatives are based.
Thus, our second objective is to explore the main factors that motivate employees to undertake
intrapreneurial projects.
Research on the specific conditions under which internal entrepreneurial initiatives of firms can
prosper, in particular types of organizations, is also scarce (Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013), and a recent
stream of research even shows that different intrapreneurial conditions may explain employees’
intrapreneurial behavior in SMEs and in large firms (e.g. Zellweger and Sieger, 2012; Hughes and
Mustafa, 2017). Analysis of the conditions that may promote CE in a specific subgroup of SMEs,
NTBFs, is paramount, since these firms normally operate in sectors that are both dynamic and fraught
with uncertainty (Wang, 2008), where a constant search for new opportunities, innovation, and strategic
flexibility are crucial to address environmental pressures (Hughes and Mustafa, 2017). In addition,
NTBFs generally suffer from resource constraints and, as a result, need to closely integrate
2
entrepreneurial and market orientations into their business strategy in order to improve performance
(Buli, 2017).
In view of the above considerations, the purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to determine the
internal organizational factors that go together with the development of intrapreneurial behavior by
employees, and (2) to discover the motivations driving intrapreneurs to propose and lead projects within
the company in the context of an NTBF. The contribution of this study is threefold: 1) Most studies in
the field of intrapreneurship research are based on the consideration of environmental and
organizational antecedents of intrapreneurial activity. However, there is scarce evidence of the
combination of contextual and personal factors as drivers of intrapreneurial behaviors of employees. In
this vein, we discuss the combination of these factors that could explain the high levels of intrapreneurial
behavior through an in-depth analysis of the facilitators of intrapreneurship in four intrapreneurial
projects. 2) Analysis of the conditions that may foster employees’ intrapreneurial behaviors in the
context of an NTBF is scarce. The selection of this kind of firms is paramount in the study of
intrapreneurship phenomena because they operate in technological and dynamic sectors that are
oriented to the continuous search for opportunities for developing technology-based products and
services (Saemundsson and Candi, 2017). Studying intrapreneurship in this context is interesting since,
as suggested by Hornsby et al. (1993), this kind of environment may precipitate intrapreneurial activity
when other conditions such as organizational and individual characteristics are conducive to such
activity. 3) While other case studies focus only on managers’ perceptions (e.g. Sebora et al., 2010), this
paper presents a case study that allows analysis of intrapreneurship facilitators from the perspective of
intrapreneurial employees and top managers, thereby providing a more accurate perspective of
intrapreneurship activity.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we present the theoretical framework
to analyze the organizational and personal antecedents of employees’ intrapreneurial behaviors. Then,
through a qualitative analysis based on a case study where successful intrapreneurial initiatives from
employees were developed, we offer a more in-depth understanding of the antecedents of
intrapreneurial initiatives within the context of an NTBF. The case study is based on four intrapreneurial
projects from a leading firm in the information technology sector. A benchmark in the local
entrepreneurial ecosystem, in only five years, this firm has experienced exponential growth after
commencing its international trajectory in seven countries. The paper closes with a discussion of the
findings, main conclusions, and limitations.
Conceptual framework
Intrapreneurial behavior of employees
The term ‘intrapreneur’ refers to an employee who combines ideas and uses existing resources in the
organization to promote innovative new projects (Pinchot, 1985). Intrapreneurs share many
3
characteristics with entrepreneurs, the main difference being that the former decide not to leave their
organization or risk their capital in order to carry out their ideas independently, but instead use the
resources of the organization to innovate and promote change. Intrapreneurial behavior is defined by
three aspects (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Rauch et al., 2009; Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013), namely, a set
of innovative, proactive, and risk-taking behaviors. Employees who engage in intrapreneurial behaviors
foresee or prompt change, and proactive employees are frequently considered by organizations as
drivers of innovation (Grant and Ashford, 2008). This is suggested by authors such as Rauch et al.
(2009), who show how intrapreneurial behavior improves the results of companies, especially those that
operate in dynamic and turbulent environments (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005;
Kraus et al., 2012). In this regard, Hornsby et al. (1992) highlight the relevance of firms recognizing
these behaviors among their employees and matching them with the particular entrepreneurial needs of
the organization. Moriano et al. (2009) suggest that employees’ intrapreneurial behaviors allow the
organization to renew itself from within and thus improve its competitiveness in the market.
New technology-based firms (NTBFs)
The concept of NTBF has been used in both a narrow and a broad sense (Storey and Tether, 1998).
Little (1977) refers to NTBFs as firms that are less than 25 years old and focus their attention on
exploiting technological innovations. A broader definition includes all new firms operating in high
technology sectors (Shearman and Burrell, 1988). Most definitions emphasize the recent creation of the
firm, their orientation toward the development and commercialization of new technological products or
services, and the presence of specialized personnel with technical expertise (e.g. Bollinger et al., 1983;
Storey and Tether, 1998; Bruneel et al., 2017; Saemundsson and Candi, 2017). In this study, we refer
to NTBFs as new firms focused on the development of technology-based products and services.
Antecedents of intrapreneurship
Entrepreneurship literature distinguishes two main types of internal antecedents to explain the
entrepreneurial action on which CE is built. On the one hand, the literature highlights the antecedents
from the organizational contexts in which employees operate (e.g. Hornsby et al., 2013; Croneen et al.,
2016). Assessing the state of organizational preparedness for CE represents an important element for
successfully implementing a CE strategy and stimulating entrepreneurial behaviors. In this vein, CEAI
condenses different internal organizational factors referring to managerial support, incentive systems,
organizational structure, and culture (Hornsby et al., 2013; Kuratko et al., 2014; Hughes and Mustafa,
2017). On the other hand, another CE stream is based on the personal factors of intrapreneurs such as
individual entrepreneurial cognitions (e.g. Ireland et al., 2009) or motivational factors (e.g. Carrier,
1996; Kuratko et al., 2005; De Clercq et al., 2011) as core antecedents of entrepreneurial efforts within
firms. The interactionist perspective (Woodman et al., 1993; Oldham and Cummings, 1996) suggests
that the basis for understanding the influence of employees’ behaviors on the organization is the
4
interaction between personal factors of employees and the organizational context. In this sense, the
interactive model of CE (Hornsby et al., 1993) is based on the combination of individual and contextual
factors of firms as antecedents of firms’ entrepreneurial activity. Following this model, we explore the
contribution of both types of factors toward understanding the intrapreneurial activity of employees.
Organizational support for the intrapreneurial behavior of employees
Intrapreneurial behavior is not a stable feature of the individual, but includes a situational component,
determined by organizational variables and the job position (Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013; Moriano et
al., 2014). Hence, the entrepreneurial orientation of the company and, particularly, the company's
support for the initiatives proposed by its employees can promote the intrapreneurial behavior of
employees insofar as they influence their motivation to initiate projects within the company. Some
authors (e.g. Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 2014) highlight the analysis of organizational
antecedents in the development of intrapreneurial activities within firms. In line with these authors, the
Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI) provides a means to assess, evaluate, and
manage the firm’s internal work environment in ways that are conducive to entrepreneurial behavior
(Kuratko et al., 2014). The CEAI includes five dimensions: top management support, work discretion,
rewards and reinforcement, time availability, and organizational boundaries.
(1) Top management support refers to the degree to which entrepreneurial behavior is encouraged,
assisted, and endorsed by top-level management, which includes defending innovative ideas and
ensuring that the resources needed by employees to undertake entrepreneurial actions are made
available. Thus, Lukes and Stephan (2017) emphasize the role of managerial support as an antecedent
of employees’ innovative behavior. In the case of small firms, some authors (e.g. Hughes and Mustafa,
2017) stress that managers should pay attention to the importance of more informal mechanisms by
encouraging interactions among employees.
(2) Work discretion encompasses the extent to which the organization tolerates failure, allows for a
certain amount of scope in decision-making while also ensuring supervision is kept to a reasonable
level, and entrusts lower-level managers and workers with greater authority and responsibility. Most
studies claim that in many cases those in the best position to identify opportunities for entrepreneurial
behavior are those responsible for judging how work should be carried out, and those who are
encouraged to experiment. In this regard, Hornsby et al. (2002) state that entrepreneurial outcomes are
achieved when employees have freedom, enjoy some level of responsibility, and failure is not
excessively penalized.
(3) Rewards and reinforcement comprise the extent to which the organization implements schemes to
offer its workers rewards in recognition of entrepreneurial undertakings and success. There is evidence
5
to show that the characteristics of varying reward systems could influence individuals’
conceptualization of benefits (Carraher et al., 2003), encourage them to take risks and innovate, and
also have a powerful influence on their tendencies to behave in entrepreneurial ways. Specifically, if an
individual is rewarded for displaying entrepreneurial behavior, he or she is more likely to engage in
innovative, proactive, and moderate risk-taking behavior (Monsen et al., 2010).
(4) Time availability refers to individuals and groups being given extra time to work on innovations.
This is achieved by organizing their workload in such a way as to allow them time they can devote to
such endeavors with the aim of reaching short- and long-term organizational goals. Allowing corporate
innovators a certain amount of time that is not previously scheduled for the work at hand enables them
to seize opportunities for innovation that they may not have time to consider during the time stipulated
for their regular work activity. Hornsby et al. (2002) note that individuals need time to foster new and
innovative ideas. However, employees’ workload needs to be arranged in such a way as to allow them
enough time to work on long-term problem solving (Sebora et al., 2010).
(5) Organizational boundaries refer to the development of processes that reduce uncertainty in the
performance of tasks so that employees can perceive that processes do not prevent the development of
new ideas. According to Kuratko et al. (2014), these boundaries can be achieved by providing
explanations of outcomes expected from organizational work and by developing mechanisms for
evaluating, selecting, and using innovations. Thus, innovative results emerge in a more predictable way
when innovation is considered as a structured process.
Personal motivations of intrapreneurs
Intrapreneurs have the ability to accept and overcome challenges (Cox and Jennings, 1995), and their
entrepreneurial orientation allows them to reduce exhaustion from demanding working conditions
(Kattenbach and Fietze, 2018). They are intrinsically motivated by the interest, enjoyment, and sense
of achievement of their work, and look for new opportunities, ideas, and improvements (Cox and
Jennings, 1995; Smith et al., 2016). Personal motivation for intrapreneurs is “largely dependent on
individual personality, characteristics, and personal situation, and includes factors related to
temperament, past experience and personal career objectives, and existing or future rewards that have
value” (Carrier, 1996: 12). According to Mohanty (2006), when intrapreneurs are motivated to take
action, intrapreneurship is successful. Therefore, it is important to understand the personal motivational
factors that drive intrapreneurs to engage in intrapreneurial projects.
Carrier (1996) distinguishes four groups of personal motivations for intrapreneurs. The first of
these, “intrinsic personality-related motivations”, refers to autonomy and freedom in the development
of one’s work. The second group, “extrinsic, reward-related motivations”, refers to satisfaction with the
characteristics of the job itself, and includes, for example, promotion, access to capital stock, or a higher
6
salary than could be obtained elsewhere. The third group includes motivations related to past experience
and future career goals, such as the desire to work for oneself, past experience as an entrepreneur, past
experience as an intrapreneur, the attraction of going back into business in one’s “native village”, and
being “plateaued” (in the restricted sense) in a previous job. Finally, motivations related to the
organizational context refer to a management style that welcomes intrapreneurship, a sense of
belonging, a shared vision with the entrepreneur and mutual confidence, and the quality of the
relationship.
Based on the interactive model of CE (Hornsby et al. 1993), we propose taking internal
organizational factors and personal motivators of the intrapreneur into consideration as antecedents of
the intrapreneurial behavior of employees. Thus, we explore the following research questions:
RQ1. What dimensions of the CEAI are perceived by intrapreneurs when they develop
intrapreneurial projects in new technology-based firms?
RQ2. What kind of personal motivations encourage intrapreneurs to propose and lead an
intrapreneurial project within the firm?
Methodology
Previous studies (e.g. Zahra and Wright, 2011; Hughes and Mustafa, 2017) highlight the need for
qualitative research to explore the organizational antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior in firms. We
conducted an exploratory study using a case-study approach (Bowen, 2008; Yin, 2009) in order to
explore the research questions proposed. Case study research is gaining popularity among qualitative
researchers (Thomas, 2011). According to Yin (2009), a case study allows any phenomenon to be
understood in its real-life context and is based on multiple sources of evidence. Moreover, case studies
are helpful for generating theory and analyzing the “how” and “why” (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007;
Yin, 2009). In this study, we explore “how” an organization fosters intrapreneurial behaviors in its
employees and “why” the employees engage in intrapreneurial projects, based on our qualitative
analyses.
Case study - Soluciones Cuatroochenta
The company selected for the case study is Soluciones Cuatroochenta, a new technology-based firm
operating in the information and communication technology sector and specializing in the development
of mobile applications and digital transformation. Soluciones Cuatroochenta has its headquarters in
Castellón de la Plana (province of Castellón, Spain) within the Science, Technology, and Business Park
of the Universitat Jaume I (UJI), which specializes in fostering innovation. Soluciones Cuatroochenta
was founded in 2011 and from the outset its strategic focus was on growth. In only five years the
7
company had already spread to seven countries: Spain, Panama, Columbia, Argentina, the United
States, Italy, and the Netherlands. The number of employees also grew quickly to meet increasing
demand and by 2017 it had 37 employees. Nowadays, Soluciones Cuatroochenta is a benchmark
company in Spain. In 2015, it received an award for its entrepreneurial trajectory from the Network of
European Centers of Innovative Companies (CEEIs) of the Valencian Community and the Valencian
Institute of Business Competitiveness (IVACE). In addition, in 2014, Forbes magazine stated that
Soluciones Cuatroochenta is “one of the most innovative companies in Central America”, thanks to
various projects carried out in Panama. We selected Soluciones Cuatroochenta for our investigation
because it has developed relevant intrapreneurial projects, which demonstrate a variety of specific CErelated initiatives as evidence of the intrapreneurial behavior of employees (see Table 1 for the specific
projects). Hence, we have approached the intrapreneurial behavior of employees by taking into account
the projects deriving from their intrapreneurial activity.
We present four intrapreneurial projects from Soluciones Cuatroochenta developed by four
employees. We used fictitious names (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta) for each project to ensure
confidentiality. Intrapreneurial behavior can generate many different forms of well-defined innovations
(result achieved) in the small business context. New products, services, processes, areas, or business
developments are some of the outcomes of the intrapreneurial process (Carrier, 1996; De VilliersScheepers, 2011). In the case presented here, the results achieved refer to two new ventures (Alpha and
Gamma), a new service (Beta), and a new area (Delta). In order to analyze intrapreneurship in the
company, we also used secondary sources such as the company’s official website, its blog and social
media accounts, as well as access to other websites to collect more information. In order to better
understand the intrapreneurial projects studied, following Carrier (1996), Table 1 summarizes the main
features of each project.
[TABLE 1]
Alpha. This is a new company resulting from an intrapreneurial process. A member of the app
development team at Soluciones Cuatroochenta, together with two other colleagues, developed this
application, which allows users around the world to ask for help with different skills or tasks by
encouraging collaboration. Spain is in the top five EU countries with the highest potential for growth
in the collaborative economy, and Alpha detected a need poorly covered by the solutions on offer: how
to exploit and monetize abilities, while helping others and getting extra income. Consequently, the
project was created as a collaborative economy platform. The differential factor of Alpha is its ease of
use, free service and, above all, its speed, agility, and efficiency.
Beta. This all started when an employee saw the potential of an interactive tool developed for a
client to become a powerful tool used as an additional product of Soluciones Cuatroochenta. The
intrapreneur was in charge of starting this project and received support from the organization and a team
to help in different business areas. Beta is now a software application that enables InDesign documents
8
to be converted into interactive applications for iPad and Android tablets that can be distributed
worldwide through App Store and Google Play.
Gamma. This project was born as a response to a demand: the need to convert the ideas generated
in the surrounding environment into real business, while simultaneously injecting them with all the
variables needed to maximize their value and successfully compete in the professional arena. Gamma
is a new venture, based on a platform for boosting technological projects that focuses on closely
monitoring each project in which it is involved. The number of projects being driven is very limited and
it participates at every step of the project from the earliest stage.
Delta. The result of this project is a new department created by the firm and totally different from
its main activity. This is a clear case of innovation in which an employee manages the project.
Data collection
Data collection took place from January until May 2017. We developed a qualitative study based on
interviews and questionnaires as primary sources of information. Each interview lasted between 20 and
40 minutes and followed a standard protocol, with questions designed to elicit information about two
different aspects: whether the company offers organizational support allowing employees to carry out
the different projects presented (in relation to RQ1); and the motivations of intrapreneurs (RQ2). The
answers given in the interview were recorded and later transcribed.
Two different kinds of informants were approached. First, the two founder-managers (CEO and
CTO) of Soluciones Cuatroochenta answered questions about the dimensions of the CEAI. Second, the
promoters of four intrapreneurial projects within the company reported on issues concerning personal
motivations to engage in a project and the evaluation of the dimensions of the CEAI. Two questionnaires
were designed. The first was sent to both managers and to the promoters of the projects, in order to
evaluate the support offered by the company for internal initiatives. The questionnaire was based on a
literature review, hence the instruments used to measure the different constructs were taken from
validated scales.
In order to analyze the effective support given to intrapreneurial projects, the CEAI was used
following Hornsby et al. (2002), who refer to five dimensions, each composed of their respective items:
management support for entrepreneurship (19 items), work discretion (10 items), reward/reinforcement
(6 items), availability of time (6 items), and organizational boundaries (7 items), totaling 48 questions.
Participants responded to the items of the CEAI using a five-point Likert-type scale, with 1 representing
“Totally disagree” and 5 representing “Totally agree” regarding the perception of their workplace and
organization. Because the instrument was developed according to a well-grounded theory (Kuratko et
al., 1990; Hornsby et al., 1999; Hornsby et al., 2002), we can rely on its content validity. Moreover,
Kuratko et al. (2014) concluded that CEAI is recognized as a reliable and valid scale to measure the
dimensions of the organizational environment that may trigger intrapreneurial behavior. It has been
9
used extensively in the corporate entrepreneurship literature, and other scholars have also drawn
conclusions on its reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity in the context of their own
research (e.g. Moriano et al., 2009; Sebora et al., 2010; Urban, 2017). In addition to survey research,
this instrument has also been used to conduct interviews in previous case studies on antecedents of
corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. Sebora et al., 2010; Hughes and Mustafa, 2017).
The second questionnaire was sent only to the intrapreneur in order to analyze the personal
motivating factors of employees leading the intrapreneurial projects studied. To assess their motivating
factors, we used the scale developed by Carrier (1996), distinguishing between intrinsic personality
motivations (5 items), extrinsic reward-related motivations (5 items), motivations related to past
experience and future career goals (5 items), and motivations related to the organizational context (4
items). The intrapreneurs were required to order the factors (items) proposed by Carrier (1996) from a
lower to a higher level of importance, or even to add another new factor that was not listed.
Results
Regarding the first research question, we first present the vision of the firm’s two founders on corporate
entrepreneurship and the organizational support given to employee-led initiatives. Both founders are
also top managers in the firm. One of the founders, and CTO, considers that the firm is open to new
ideas from its employees, although it has no active position on this. In particular, he stated:
“You do not have to do a job of activating people to be intrapreneurs, since there are people who
do not have the profile to be an intrapreneur and the company should not force it. If it arises, we
will support it, as, for example in the case of Beta. It is more a reactive than an active process,
since there are many people within Soluciones Cuatroochenta’s team who do not have an
intrapreneurial profile but are great at doing what they do. Intrapreneurs will arise and when they
do, we will support them, but we do not believe that it is necessary to make an active effort to do
so”.
This view is in line with Hisrich and Kearney (2012), who believe that top management should motivate
the intrapreneurs in their organization but avoid imposing entrepreneurial thinking on them. The CTO
is also aware that the intrapreneurs in the company have both technical (engineers) and business
(marketing) profiles. This proves that engineers can be key drivers of technological innovation and new
venture creation (Fayolle et al., 2005), but they are not the only ones. Employees with a less technical
profile, but more versed in marketing, for example, can also be key drivers and leaders of
intrapreneurship.
The other founder, and CEO of Soluciones Cuatroochenta, believes that corporate entrepreneurship has
its advantages and disadvantages. As for the negative side, this founder points out that corporate
entrepreneurship is demanding in terms of control, stating:
10
“No direct control because it would limit the intrapreneurship too much, but indirect control, since
you have to exercise more control over the variables of the company, its resources. The company
has limited resources, and this requires a lot of coordination among the parties involved.”
As an advantage of CE, firms gain in flexibility, which would have its advantages over a rigid structure.
The same respondent remarked:
“But if intrapreneurs had to receive clearer guidelines and procedures to develop intrapreneurship,
they would lose flexibility, which would also slow everything down because there is limited time
and capacity”.
This idea is in line with Dean et al. (1998), who claim that there are a number of advantages for smaller
firms, such as speed, flexibility, and different capabilities allowing them to fill niches, and these
differences may affect how, why, and when SMEs implement corporate ventures. In addition, the CEO
explains that their business ideology is focused on the firm’s growth. The CEO concludes that if you
prepare everything well and are aware of the challenges, intrapreneurship has positive effects on the
business, but if it is done without control, poor resource management may damage the organization.
In order to assess the influence of the dimensions of the CEAI as organizational support for employees’
initiatives, we created two profiles of the founders and intrapreneurs’ perceptions of the internal
environment for CE (see Figure 1), similar to the study by Hughes and Mustafa (2017) about the
antecedents of CE in SMEs. First, we evaluated the levels of the internal environment at the point of
investigation using a five‐point scale ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Then, we formed three rating
categories: low (rating 1–2), medium (rating 3), and high (rating 4–5). Finally, we calculated the mean
value of each CEAI dimension in order to show graphically the differences between founders’ and
intrapreneurs’ perceptions of the CEAI. In addition, Table 2 shows the specific aspects of each CEAI
dimension rated the highest and lowest by the two different sets of interviewees (the founders and
intrapreneurs), in order to understand their specific perceptions of the internal environment factors that
may foster intrapreneurs’ projects.
In general, we observed small differences between the profiles of founders and intrapreneurs. In
particular, in comparison to intrapreneurs, founders have more positive perceptions of management
support, rewards/reinforcements, and organizational boundaries, and a lower perception of time
availability (see Figure 1). Our results indicate that the most highly valued dimension of the CEAI for
both founders and intrapreneurs is work discretion, as this firm provides freedom for individuals to use
their own judgment and the chance to do something that makes use of the workers’ abilities. It should
be pointed out that all the interviewees strongly disagree that practices such as criticism and punishment
are alien to their work. Some of the aspects of work discretion most valued by intrapreneurs were the
11
capacity to decide what they do in their job and to try their methods, as well as the chance to be creative
(see Table 2).
[FIGURE 1]
Regarding top management support, both intrapreneurs and founders consider that top management is
aware of and very receptive to ideas and suggestions. This supports Burgerman’s (1983) idea that in
SMES there are generally smaller organizational distances and direct involvement of top managers.
Thus, if the communication from the management to the rest of the employees is adequate, this will
increase the perception of new ideas or projects. However, they also highlight the lack of financial and
economic resources to support new ideas and projects (see Table 2).
In relation to rewards and reinforcement, in comparison to the intrapreneurs, founders have a more
positive perception of rewards (see Figure 1). In particular, intrapreneurs value the fact that the manager
informs them if they are doing a great job and provides help to remove obstacles. Special recognition
for work performance is lower and rewards for innovation are not implemented (see Table 2).
The least valued dimensions for founders and intrapreneurs are time availability and organizational
boundaries (see Figure 1). Founders highlight the fact that there is very little time to think about wider
organizational problems, whereas intrapreneurs feel that they always find time for long-term problem
solving. Regarding organizational boundaries, intrapreneurs perceive that they have a clear
understanding of the level of work performance expected from them, in terms of amount, quality, and
timelines of output. However, intrapreneurs also perceive that supervisors do not often discuss work
performance with employees. In sum, these results show that workload schedules in Soluciones
Cuatroochenta do not ensure extra time for individuals and groups to pursue innovations and that
organizational boundaries are not critical in promoting entrepreneurial activity for employees.
[TABLE 2]
Regarding the second research question, we analyzed the motivations that better explain the
intrapreneurial behaviors of the project promoters within the company. Following Carrier (1996), in
Table 3 we present the most and the least motivating factors of the intrapreneurs in the projects analyzed
in Soluciones Cuatroochenta. We found full agreement among intrapreneurs as regards the idea that
mutual confidence and the quality of the relationship in the company is a strong motivating factor.
According to Carrier (1996), managers in small firms must build a strong relationship with
intrapreneurs, to prevent them from leaving or even becoming competitors of their former employers.
12
Other motivating factors are interest in discovering “better” ways of doing things, a need to control
one’s destiny, good work recognition, professional improvement, and promotion. Carrier (1996) also
indicates that promotion is a significant reward, given the simplicity of the structure and the lower
number of hierarchical levels in small firms. Conversely, the least motivating factor is an intrinsic
personality factor: a sense of working for oneself first and foremost.
[TABLE 3]
Discussion
A major part of the research conducted in the field of CE continues to concentrate on the corporate level
and tends to see entrepreneurial projects as being implemented in a top-down fashion within
organizations. While this point of view continues to predominate in the literature today, researchers are
increasingly of the opinion that further studies are needed at different organizational levels to reach a
deeper understanding of the entrepreneurial processes that take place within established organizations
(Covin and Lumpkin, 2011). The case study of Soluciones Cuatroochenta furthers our understanding of
the organizational factors and the motivations of intrapreneurs that foster the intrapreneurial behaviors
of the employees in an NTBF. We found that Soluciones Cuatroochenta, a five-year-old NTBF, supports
corporate entrepreneurship in a non-active manner with the development of the intrapreneurial projects
presented in this study. Although no procedures are implemented to increase intrapreneurship in the
company, when it does arise, the founders and top managers help intrapreneurs as much as possible.
Both top managers and intrapreneurs recognize the benefits associated with an NTBF, as the firm is
flexible, less structured, less hierarchical, and more open to innovation and change. However, it has
fewer economic resources and less time available for developing corporate entrepreneurship, since the
company’s business ideology is focused on growth.
Our results also indicate that intrapreneurial employees and top managers agree that work
discretion is considered the main dimension that may support intrapreneurial initiatives, whereas the
lack of time is not a drawback for intrapreneurship behavior. Giving employees the autonomy to try
their own methods of doing their work and reducing the control over their decisions results in more
intrapreneurial activities (Sebora et al., 2010). Soluciones Cuatroochenta provides employees with the
freedom to use their own judgment, gives them the chance to do something that makes use of their
abilities and skills, removes obstacles, and is aware of and very receptive to ideas and suggestions.
Another significant finding is that the most important motivating factor for engaging in
intrapreneurial behaviors is the mutual confidence and quality of the relationship in the company. The
quality of the relationship between employees and management is a key determinant of loyalty (Leverin
and Liljander, 2006), and employees who are loyal to their organizations not only perform better in the
workplace but may also motivate others (Hashim et al., 2008). An innovation-focused and supportive
management style is a key factor affecting the development of entrepreneurial and innovation behavior
13
in organizations (Zhao, 2005). Other aspects, such as interest in discovering “better” ways of doing
things, the need to control one’s destiny, good work recognition and professional improvement,
promotion and the desire to work for oneself, are also relevant drivers of intrapreneurship. Carrier
(1996) argues that for small business intrapreneurs reward-related motivations are important and
promotion is clearly a significant reward because it is perceived as an excellent opportunity to move
closer to the owner-manager, who is generally the main decision-maker. Consequently, intrapreneurs
believe that, if promoted, they could take greater initiatives in different areas. Another important reward
is ownership of capital stock or any other monetary compensation system, as well as motivations related
to past experience and future career objectives.
Theoretical implications
Previous models of CE mainly focus on organizational and environmental factors as antecedents of the
entrepreneurial activity of the firm (e.g. Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Covin and Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin
and Dess, 1996; Antoncic and Hirish, 2001). However, few studies consider the personal factors of
intrapreneurs as another antecedent of intrapreneurship (e.g. Powell and Bimmerle, 1980; Hornsby et
al., 1993; Ireland et al., 2009). Based on the interactive model of CE (Hornsby et al., 1993), this paper
contributes to the understanding of the combination of firm- and individual-level factors that support
intrapreneurial behaviors of employees in the context of an NTBF. Our findings suggest that managers
should facilitate autonomy/work discretion between employees in order for them to be creative and
decide their work methods and what they do in their jobs. Intrapreneurs also recognize top management
support for being receptive to new ideas from employees, feedback acknowledging good performance,
and help with removing obstacles. These organizational factors together with the mutual confidence
and the quality of the relationship between employees and managers, as the main motivational factor,
encourage employees’ intrapreneurial behaviors for leading projects within an NTBF.
Practical implications
Our findings provide a number of insights into the influence of an organization’s entrepreneurial
environment on stimulating the intrapreneurial behaviors of employees that are in line with the results
of the latest report on CE in Spain (Ortega et al., 2017). Below, we present the main lessons learnt:
Involvement of the founders and managers of the company in supporting intrapreneurs.
Managers can positively influence the entrepreneurial behavior of an organization and improve the
perceived confidence of intrapreneurs (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Hornsby et al., 2009). In the case
studied, we observe top-down support for employee initiatives. Although not carried out actively or
reflected in the procedures and strategies of the company, we observe that intrapreneurship is part of
the founders’ values that support these initiatives in a reactive way, by providing the structure and
resources necessary for these initiatives to emerge within the company. The youth and size of the
14
company mean that it is still consolidating its services and timidly opting for projects that are far from
its objectives. However, as we have seen, intrapreneurs positively value the ability to communicate their
ideas to the CEO and CTO, who are receptive to hearing and valuing them.
Assume that corporate entrepreneurship is a long-term commitment. Project failure in firms
involved in CE is frequent and even inevitable (Burgelman and Valikangas, 2005). Companies must
therefore assume failure as a natural occurrence and a learning opportunity, and intrapreneurs should
not be too worried about the consequences of failure (Altinay, 2005). The intrapreneurial projects that
we analyzed are currently growing, but it is still too early to state that they will all be successful.
Provide the organization with skilled people who allow them to accompany and understand startups and intrapreneurs. The organization needs to incorporate people with knowledge and/or skills in
entrepreneurship who can adequately value, accompany, and integrate new projects. In this sense, it is
imperative that those who are in charge of designing and implementing corporate entrepreneurship
programs be familiar with the world of start-ups in order to facilitate understanding between the
organization and entrepreneurs. In the case of Soluciones Cuatroochenta, we find that one intrapreneur
project (Gamma) is a structure that was created to support mainly external, but also internal, projects.
Look for synergies in the local entrepreneurial ecosystem. There are a large number of agents
working for entrepreneurs in the main cities nationwide: venture capital, private investors, public
agencies, accelerators, co-working spaces, etc. Knowing what projects entrepreneurs propose and what
kind of support they need can be very useful for companies with corporate entrepreneurship programs
in order to establish collaborative relationships aimed at detecting entrepreneurial talent by making use
of specialized workspaces and inspiration, participating in instruments with external financial
institutions, and so forth. Soluciones Cuatroochenta is a central player in the local entrepreneurial
ecosystem and collaborates with different local entrepreneurship programs. Among other events, it
organizes the Hackathon of Castellón and collaborates with ResetWeekend and other entrepreneurship
programs, in collaboration with the Universitat Jaume I and other local players.
Support intrapreneurs with resources, time, and career guarantees. The availability of resources
encourages the development of new ideas and projects through experimentation and risk-taking
behaviors (Sayles, 1986). It is not reasonable to think that employees can reconcile their daily
responsibilities with the implementation of their own project within the organization. For this reason,
flexible working conditions, in terms of hours and functions, should be envisaged for intrapreneurs –
ultimately the total release of the worker from the functions associated with his or her job. In addition,
providing employees who participate in intrapreneurship programs with a certain degree of security in
the form of a bonus can be a powerful incentive for the development of more intrapreneurial projects.
Soluciones Cuatroochenta offers localized support to intrapreneurship projects, flexible schedules, and
provides resources to boost the project; however, this support is not widespread. One of the main
reasons is the lack of resources or slack resources for these types of objectives.
15
Limitations
The limitations of this work are, first, that it is based on the study of a single case, thereby limiting the
generalization of the results on intrapreneurial behaviors in NTBFs. However, some of the results are
in line with the recommendations provided by the latest report on CE in Spain (Ortega et al., 2017).
Second, we focus on the organizational context and motivations of intrapreneurs as antecedents of the
intrapreneurial behavior of employees, but other antecedents could also be analyzed to complement the
understanding of intrapreneurial activity. For instance, some authors (e.g. Covin and Slevin, 1991;
Antoncic, 2007; Turró et al., 2014) agree that the external environment considerably influences the
existence and effectiveness of intrapreneurial behavior. Third, we have approached the intrapreneurial
behavior of employees by considering their involvement in the development and leadership of a selfinitiated project. Nonetheless, other authors (e.g. Covin and Slevin, 1989; Rauch et al., 2009) refer to
three different dimensions of intrapreneurial behavior such as innovative behavior, personal initiative,
and employee risk taking, which may be addressed in future research for a more in-depth analysis of
intrapreneurial activity. Recently, Vargas-Halabí et al. (2017) investigated intrapreneurial behavior
from the perspective of competencies (opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, drive, and risk
taking), which provides another viewpoint to address entrepreneurial behavior. Finally, it would be
interesting to replicate the study, based on the same antecedents, in a large firm in order to compare the
extent to which the size of the organization may condition the development of intrapreneurial behavior
among employees.
Conclusion
This study analyzed the role of intrapreneurial behaviors of employees in the context of an NTBF,
paying attention to the organizational support given to employees’ initiatives and the personal
motivations of intrapreneurs as antecedents of these behaviors. We found that intrapreneurial projects
may arise in firms whose top managers support CE in a non-active manner. Findings on the dimensions
of the CEAI that concern intrapreneur behaviors indicate that work discretion may be a supportive
factor, whereas the lack of time availability does not prevent intrapreneurship behavior. That
intrapreneurs rate mutual confidence and the quality of the relationship between employees and top
managers as the most important motivating factor is also noted.
References
Altinay, L. (2005), “The intrapreneur role of the development directors in an international hotel group”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol.25 No.3, pp.403-419.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001), “Intrapreneurship: Construct Refinement and Cross-Cultural
Validation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.16 No.5, pp.495-527.
16
Antoncic, B. (2007), "Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modelling study", Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol.107 No.3, pp.309-25.
Arz, C. (2017), “Mechanisms of organizational culture for fostering corporate entrepreneurship: A
systematic review and research agenda”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol.25 No.4, pp.361-409.
Bollinger, L., Hope, K. and Utterback, J.M. (1983), “A review of literature and hypotheses on new
technology-based firms”, Research Policy, Vol.12 No.1, pp.1-14.
Bowen, G. A. (2008), “Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note”, Qualitative
research, Vol.8 No.1, pp.137-152.
Bruneel, J., Spithoven, A. and Clarysse, B. (2017), “Interorganizational Trust and Technology
Complexity: Evidence for New Technology‐Based Firms”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol.55 S1, pp.256-274.
Buli, B.M. (2017), “Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and performance of SMEs in the
manufacturing industry: Evidence from Ethiopian enterprises”, Management Research Review,
Vol.40 No.3, pp.292-309.
Burgelman, R.A. (1983), “Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a
process study”, Management Science, Vol.29 No.12, pp.1349-1364.
Burgelman, R.A. and Valikangas, L. (2005), “Managing internal corporate venturing cycles”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol.46 No.4, pp.26–34
Burgers, J.H. and Covin, J.G. (2016), “The contingent effects of differentiation and integration on
corporate entrepreneurship”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.37 No.3, pp.521-540.
Carraher, S.M., Hart, D.E., and Carraher Jr, C.E. (2003), “Attitudes towards benefits among
entrepreneurial employees”, Personnel Review, Vol.32 No.6, pp.683-693.
Carrier, C. (1996), “Intrapreneurship in small businesses: an exploratory study”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol.21 No.1, pp.5-20.
Corbett, A., Covin, J.G., O'Connor, G.C. and Tucci, C. L. (2013), “Corporate entrepreneurship: State
of the art research and a future research agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol.30 No.5, pp.812-820.
Covin, J.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections
on a needed construct” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.35 No.5, pp.855-872.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.10 No.1, pp.75-87.
Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship theory and practice, Vol.16 No.1, pp.7-26.
Cox, C. and Jennings, R. (1995), “The foundations of success: the development and characteristics of
British entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol.16
No.7, pp.4-9.
17
Croonen, E.P., Brand, M.J., and Huizingh, E.K. (2016), “To be entrepreneurial, or not to be
entrepreneurial? Explaining differences in franchisee entrepreneurial behavior within a franchise
system”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol.12 No.2, pp.531-553.
Dean J.W., Brandes, P. and Dharwadkar, R. (1998), “Organizational cynicism”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol.23 No.2, pp.341-352.
Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003), “Emerging
issues in corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol.29 No.3, pp.351-378.
De Clercq, D., Castañer, X. and Belausteguigoitia, I. (2011), “Entrepreneurial initiative selling within
organizations: Towards a more comprehensive motivational framework”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol.48 No.6, pp.1269-1290.
De Villiers-Scheepers, M.J. (2011), “Motivating intrapreneurs: the relevance of rewards”, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol.25 No.4, pp.249-263.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.50 No.1, pp.25-32.
Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P. and Ulijn, J. (2005), Entrepreneurship Research in Europe: Outcomes and
Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.1–31.
Gerasymenko, V., De Clercq, D. and Sapienza, H.J. (2015), “Changing the business model: effects of
venture capital firms and outside CEOs on portfolio company performance”, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol.9 No.1, pp.79-98.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol.28, pp.3-34.
Guth, W. D., and Ginsberg, A. (1990), “Guest editor’s introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Management Journal, No.11(special issue), pp.5–16.
Hashim, J., Wok, S. and Ghazali, R. (2008), “Organisational behaviour associated with emotional
contagion among direct selling members”, Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol.2 No.3,
pp.144-158.
Hisrich, R.D. and Kearney, C.(2012), Corporate entrepreneurship: How to create a thriving
entrepreneurial spirit throughout your company. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Honey, W. (1992), “Emerging growth companies and the at-risk
employee: the viability of pre-employment honesty testing”, SAM Advanced Management Journal,
Vol.57 No.4, pp.24-30.
Hornsby, J. S., Naffziger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F. and Montagno, R. V. (1993), “An interactive model of
the corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.17 No.2,
pp.29-37.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F. and Montagno, R. V. (1999), “Perception of Internal factors for corporate
entrepreneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol.24 No.2, pp. -24.
18
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), “Middle managers' perception of the internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol.17 No.3, pp.253-273.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., Shepherd, D.A. and Bott, J.P.(2009), “Managers' corporate
entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.24
No.3, pp.236-247.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., Holt, D.T., and Wales, W.J. (2013), “Assessing a measurement of
organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol.30 No.5, pp.937-955.
Hughes, M. and Mustafa, M. (2017), “Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence
from an emerging economy”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.55 S1, pp.115-140.
Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. (2006), “A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship:
innovation at all levels: part I”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol.27 No.1, pp.10-17.
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G. and Kuratko, D. F. (2009), “Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship
strategy”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No.1, 19-46.
Kattenbach, R. and Fietze, S. (2018), “Entrepreneurial orientation and the job demands-resources
model”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No.3, pp.745-764.
Kraus, S., Rigtering, J.C., Hughes, M. and Hosman, V. (2012), “Entrepreneurial orientation and the
business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands” Review of Managerial
Science, Vol.6 No.2, pp.161-182.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V. and Hornsby, J. S. (1990), “Developing an entrepreneurial assessment
instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol.11, pp.49-58.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., and Bishop, J.W. (2005), “Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions
and job satisfaction”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol.1 No.3,
pp.275–291.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Covin, J.G. (2014), “Diagnosing a firm's internal environment for
corporate entrepreneurship”, Business Horizons, Vol.57 No.1, pp.37-47.
Leverin, A. and Liljander, V. (2006), “Does relationship marketing improve customer relationship
satisfaction and loyalty?” International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.24 No.4, pp.232-251.
Little, A.D. (1977), New technology-based firms in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of
Germany, London: Wilton House.
Lukes, M. and Stephan, U. (2017), “Measuring employee innovation: a review of existing scales and
the development of the innovative behavior and innovation support inventories across cultures”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 136-158.
Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess, G. G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, No.21, pp.135–172.
19
Mohanty, R.P. (2006), “Intrapreneurial levers in cultivating value-innovative mental space in Indian
corporations”, Vikalpa, Vol.31 No.1, pp.99-106.
Monsen, E., and Boss, R.W. (2009), “The impact of strategic entrepreneurship inside the organization:
Examining job stress and employee retention”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.33 No.1,
pp.71-104.
Monsen, E., Patzelt, H. and Saxton, T. (2010), “Beyond Simple Utility: Incentive Design and Trade–
Offs for Corporate Employee–Entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.34 No.1,
pp.105-130.
Moriano, J.A., Molero, F., Topa, G. and Mangin, J.P.L. (2014), “The influence of transformational
leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, Vol.10 No.1, pp.103-119.
Moriano, J.A., Topa, G., Valero, E. and Lévy, J.P. (2009), “Identificación organizacional y conducta
intraemprendedora", Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, Vol.25 No.2, pp.277-287.
Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 607-634.
Ortega Cachón, I., de Pablo López, I., Irujo Salanueva, P. (2017), Emprendimiento Corporativo en
España. Elefantes y gacelas bailan sin pisarse, available at: http://cise.es/gem/resumen-ejecutivoinforme-emprendimiento-corporativo.pdf (accessed 10 July 2018).
Pinchot III, G. (1985), Intrapreneuring: Why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an
entrepreneur. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial
Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Pinchot III, G. (1987), “Innovation through intrapreneuring”, Research Management, Vol.30 No.2,
pp.14-19.
Powell, J.D. and Bimmerle, C.F. (1980), "A model of entrepreneurship: moving toward precision and
complexity", Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.18 No.1, pp.33-6.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. and Frese, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol.33 No.3, pp.761-787.
Rigtering, J.P.C. and Weitzel, U. (2013), “Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for
intrapreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol.9 No.3, pp.337360.
Saemundsson, R.J. and Candi, M. (2017), “Absorptive capacity and the identification of opportunities
in new technology-based firms”, Technovation, Vol.64-65, pp.43-49.
Sayles, L.R. (1986), Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure, and Managerial Skills. New
York: Free Press; London: Collier-Macmillan.
20
Sebora, T.C., Theerapatvong, T. and Lee, S.M. (2010), “Corporate entrepreneurship in the face of
changing competition a case analysis of six Thai manufacturing firms”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol.23 No.4, pp.453–470.
Shearman, C., and Burrell, G. (1988), “New technology based firms and the emergence of new
industries: some employment implications”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol.3 No.2,
pp.87-99.
Smith, L., Rees, P. and Murray, N. (2016), “Turning entrepreneurs into intrapreneurs: Thomas Cook, a
case-study”, Tourism Management, Vol.56, pp.191-204.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo J.C. (1990), “A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
Management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.11, pp.17-27.
Storey, D.J. and Tether, B.S. (1998), “New technology-based firms in the European Union: an
introduction”, Research Policy, Vol.26 No.9, pp.933-946.
Stull, M. and Singh, J. (2005), “Intrapreneurship in nonprofit organizations examining the factors that
facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour among employees”, Retrieved May, 24.
Thomas G. (2011), “A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition,
discourse, and structure”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol.17 No.6, pp. 511–521.
Turró, A., Urbano, D., and Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014), “Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of
cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
No.88, pp.360-369.
Urban, B. (2017), “Corporate entrepreneurship in South Africa: The role of organizational factors and
entrepreneurial
alertness
in
advancing
innovativeness”,
Journal
of
Developmental
Entrepreneurship, Vol.22 No.3, 1-20.
Vargas-Halabí T., Mora-Esquivel R and Siles B. (2017)” Intrapreneurial competencies: development
and validation of a measurement scale”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics,
Vol.26 No.1, pp.86–111.
Wales, W., Monsen, E. and McKelvie, A. (2011), “The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial
orientation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.35 No.5, pp.895-923.
Wang, C.L. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.32 No.4, pp.635-657.
Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a
configurational approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.20 No.1, pp.71-91.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R. W. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizational
creativity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No.2, pp.293-321.
Yin, R.K. (2009), “Case study research: Design and methods” (4th Ed.)., Sage Publication, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M. (2011), “Entrepreneurship's next act”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol.25 No.4, pp.67-83.
21
Zellweger, T. and Sieger, P. (2012), “Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms”, Small
Business Economics, Vol.38 No.1, pp.67-84.
Zhao, F. (2005), “Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol.11 No.1, pp.25-41.
Figure 1. CEAI profiles (from founders and employees)
22
Table 1. Main features in the intrapreneurial projects studied.
Project
name
Intrapreneur:
junior/senior
manager or
employee
Intrapreneur’s
profile
Importance
of project
for the firm
Ideology
Strategic factor
Result
achieved
Alpha
Junior employee Technical profile Low
Focused
New solution:
New
on growth sharing economy business
Beta
Senior
employee
Market
investigation
profile
Very High
Focused
New solution:
on growth product
innovation
New
service
Gamma
Senior
employee
Market
investigation
profile
Regular
Focused
Service
on growth differentiation
New
business
Delta
Junior employee Technical profile Low
and manager
Focused
Innovation
on growth
New area
Source: Adapted from Carrier (1996).
23
Table 2. Assessment of dimensions of the CEAI by intrapreneurs and top managers
CEAI
dimensions
Top
management
support
Work discretion
Aspects rated most highly by
intrapreneurs and top managers
My organization is quick to use improved
work methods that are developed by
workers (top managers).
Aspects rated the lowest by
intrapreneurs and top managers
Upper management is aware and very
receptive to ideas and suggestions (top
managers and intrapreneurs).
There are several options within the
organization for individuals to get
financial support for their innovative
projects and ideas (top managers).
Money is often available to get new
project ideas off the ground (top
managers and intrapreneurs).
I feel that I am my own boss and do not
have to double-check all of my decisions
with someone else (top managers).
I seldom have to follow the same work
methods or steps for doing my major
tasks from day to day (top managers).
This organization provides the chance to do
something that makes use of my abilities
(top managers).
The rewards I receive are dependent upon
my innovation on the job
(intrapreneurs).
I almost always get to decide what I do on
my job (intrapreneurs).
This organization provides the chance to be
creative and try my own methods of doing
the job (intrapreneurs).
Rewards and
reinforcement
My supervisor will increase my job
responsibilities if I am performing well in
my job (top managers).
My supervisor will give me special
recognition if my work performance is
especially good (intrapreneurs).
My manager will tell his/her boss if my
work was outstanding (intrapreneurs).
Time
availability
My job is structured so that I have very little
time to think about wider organizational
problems (top managers).
I feel that I am always working with time
constraints on my job (top managers).
My co-workers and I always find time for
long-term problem solving
(intrapreneurs).
I always seem to have plenty of time to
get everything done ( intrapreneurs).
My job is structured so that I have very
little time to think about wider
organizational problems
(intrapreneurs).
Organizational
boundaries
I clearly know what level of work
performance is expected from me in terms
of amount, quality, and timelines of output
(intrapreneurs).
24
During the past year, my immediate
supervisor discussed my work
(intrapreneurs).
Table 3. The personal motivators of intrapreneurs
Motivations of
intrapreneurs
Intrinsic personality
related motivations
Extrinsic reward
related motivations
The most motivating factors
The least motivating factors
Interest in discovering “better”
ways of doing things
Intrapreneurial personality eager
for challenge and achievement
A need to control one’s destiny
A sense of working for oneself
foremost
Good work recognition and
professional improvement
Access to capital stock
Innovation bonuses
Promotion
Motivations related
to past experience
and future career
objectives
Desire to work for oneself
“Plateaued” (in the restrictive
sense) in a previous job
Motivations related
to the organizational
context
Mutual confidence and quality
of the relationship
Shared vision with the
entrepreneur
25