Advertisement

Individual entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship in the public sector

  • Sascha KrausEmail author
  • Matthias Breier
  • Paul Jones
  • Mathew Hughes
Article

Abstract

Municipalities and Cities are facing a strong pressure to digitalize and develop themselves into Smart Cities. This article investigates the relationship of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) and individual-level exploration and exploitation activities to analyze a municipality’s ability to discover potentially important technologies and innovations. Moreover, the influence of self-regulatory modes is used to provide more insights into this relationship. For this, an online survey with 266 municipality and city employees in the German-speaking realm has been carried out. Our results show that employees with a high level of IEO are more likely to work on explorative activities which are the foundation for every intrapreneurial process ,whereas IEO does not seem to have an influence on exploitative activities. Locomotion as a moderating variable has a positive effect on the IEO exploration relationship. Therefore, employees with a high level of IEO and locomotion are more likely to discover new opportunities as they are working on explorative activities. Furthermore, our results show that the self-regulatory mode assessment affects the exploitative activities positively. The final findings suggest that municipalities that want to engage in intrapreneurial activities should start hiring people with a high level of IEO.

Keywords

Intrapreneurship Individual entrepreneurial orientation Smart City Public sector 

Notes

References

  1. Amato, C., Baron, R. A., Barbieri, B., Bélanger, J. J., & Pierro, A. (2017). Regulatory modes and entrepreneurship: The mediational role of alertness in small business success. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(S1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1579–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolton, D. L. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Further investigation of a measurement instrument. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 91–97.Google Scholar
  8. Bolton, D. L., & Lane, M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument. Education + Training, 54(2/3), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. (2008). The Nixon-in-China effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionalization of contentious practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 460–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgelman, R. A. (1985). Managing the new venture division: Research findings and implications for strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 6(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantillon, R. (1734). Essai Sur la nature du commerce en general [essay on the nature of general commerce]. (Henry Higgs, Trans. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in small businesses: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2019). Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
  19. Croonen, E. P., Brand, M. J., & 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, 12(2), 531–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals: Different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures. Organization Science, 5(2), 148–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eggers, F., Niemand, T., Kraus, S., & Breier, M. (2019). Developing a scale for entrepreneurial marketing: Revealing its inner frame and prediction of performance. Journal of Business Research.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.051.
  23. Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Kraus, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship research: mapping intellectual structures and research trends. Review of Managerial Science,13(1), 181-205Google Scholar
  24. Furtner, M., & Sachse, P. (2017). Selbstregulation und Führungsverhalten. Beziehungen zwischen For-men der Selbstregulation, transformationaler, transaktionaler und Laissez-faire-Führung. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 1(2017), 30–40.Google Scholar
  25. Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15.Google Scholar
  26. Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1606–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heinonen, J., & Toivonen, J. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurs or silent followers? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(7), 583–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heinze, K. L., & Weber, K. (2016). Toward organizational pluralism: Institutional intrapreneurship in integrative medicine. Organization Science, 27(1), 157–172.Google Scholar
  31. Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hisrich, R.D. & Peters, M.P. (1984). Internal venturing in large corporations. In: J.A. Hornaday, et al., eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson college.Google Scholar
  33. Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2007). Developing issue-selling effectiveness over time: Issue selling as re-sourcing. Organization Science, 18(4), 560–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hughes, M., & Morgan, R. E. (2007). Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5), 651–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hughes, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(S1), 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hughes, M., Rigtering, J. C. P., Covin, J. G., Bouncken, R., & Kraus, S. (2018). Innovative behaviour, trust and perceived workplace performance. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 750–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanter, R. M. (1984). The change masters. New York, NY: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. Kanter, R. M., & Richardson, L. (1991). Engines of progress: Designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies-The Enter-prize program at Ohio Bell, 1985–1990. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(3), 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (Sage publications) (pp. 243–261). CA: Thousand Oaks.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kraus, S., Kallmuenzer, A., Stieger, D., Peters, M., & Calabrò, A. (2018a). Entrepreneurial paths to family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 88, 382–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Besler, M., Stieg, P., & Martinez-Ciment, C. (2018b). The influence of leadership styles on the internationalisation of ‘born-global’firms and traditionally globalexpanding firms. European Journal of International Management, 12(5/6), 554–575.Google Scholar
  43. Kruglanksi, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: Effects of ‘locomotion’ and ‘assessment’ on intrinsic and extrinsic task-motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20, 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuhl, J. (1983). Motivation, Konflikt und Handlungskontrolle. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediation of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behaviour (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate innovation and entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial development within organizations (3rd ed.). Ohio, South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason.Google Scholar
  48. Kyriakopoulos, K., Hughes, M., & Hughes, P. (2016). The role of marketing resources in radical innovation activity: Antecedents and payoffs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(4), 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacMillan, I.C., Block, Z. & Narasimha, P.N.S. (1984). Obstacles and experience in corporate ventures. In: J.A. Hornaday et al., eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson college.Google Scholar
  52. McKinney, G., & McKinney, M. (1989). Forget the corporate umbrella—Entrepreneurs shine in the rain. Sloan Management Review, 30(4), 77–82.Google Scholar
  53. Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 921–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mulgan, G., & Albury, D. (2003). Innovation in the public sector. Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, October 2003.Google Scholar
  57. Mustafa, M., Martin, L., & Hughes, M. (2016). Psychological ownership, job satisfaction, and middle manager entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mustafa, M., Gavin, F., & Hughes, M. (2018). Contextual determinants of employee entrepreneurial behavior in support of corporate entrepreneurship: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 26(3), 285–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Muzyka, D., Koning, A. D., & Churchill, N. (1995). On transformation and adaptation: Building the entrepreneurial corporation. European Management Journal, 13(4), 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: Effects of ‘locomotion’ and ‘assessment’ on intrinsic and extrinsic task-motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20, 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  62. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rule, E. G., & Irwin, D. W. (1988). Fostering intrapreneurship: The new competitive edge. The Journal of Business Strategy, 9(3), 44–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Russell, R. D. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: A cognition mapping approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schollhammer, H. (1981). The efficacy of internal corporate entrepreneurship strategies. In K. H. Ves-per (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson College: Wellesley, MA.Google Scholar
  67. Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  69. Sellin, I., Schütz, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Erfassung von Dimensionen der Selbstregulation (Der locomotion-assessment-Fragebogen (L-A-F)). TU Chemnitz: Forschungsbericht.Google Scholar
  70. Shane, S. (1994). Are champions different from non-champions? Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sine, W. D., & David, R. J. (2003). Environmental jolts, institutional change, and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power industry. Research Policy, 32, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sok, K. M., Sok, P., & De Luca, L. M. (2016). The effect of ‘can do’ and ‘reason to’ motivations on service–sales ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.Google Scholar
  74. Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 15(7), 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journa, 48, 450–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vesper, K.H. (1984). Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship: A pilot study. In: Livesay, H.C. (Hrsg.), Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms. Aldershot, 495-521.Google Scholar
  77. Wales, W., Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 895–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 529–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2007). Entrepreneurial behaviour in the Greek public sector. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. S. (2010). An exploratory research on the factors stimulating corporate entrepreneurship in the Greek public sector. International Journal of Manpower, 31(8), 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESCE International Business SchoolÉcole Supérieure du Commerce ExtérieurParisFrance
  2. 2.School of BusinessLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  3. 3.Swansea School of ManagementSwansea University, Bay CampusSwanseaUK
  4. 4.School of Business and EconomicsLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations