EMPLOYEES' INTRAPRENEURIAL ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON ORGANISATIONAL SURVIVAL.
Falola, Hezekiah O. ; Salau, Odunayo P. ; Olokundun, Maxwell A. 等
EMPLOYEES' INTRAPRENEURIAL ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON ORGANISATIONAL SURVIVAL.
Introduction
Organisations in the 21st century operate in a very competitive and
volatile business environment as a result of rapid technological
advancement, the influence of globalisation, and the need for
concentration of employees with distinctive capabilities that can think
out of box to proffer solutions to the challenges faced by the
organisations via intrapreneurship initiatives (Bimpitsos and Petridou
2012, Obeidat et al. 2014). The survival and sustainability of
organisations in the midst of increasing competitive pressure requires
that organisations invigorate intrapreneurial initiatives among the
employees toward enhancement of job performance and organisational
survival (Jasna and Bostjan 2011, Bhatia and Khan 2013).
Intrapreneurship is being perceived to be one of the dynamic approaches
that helps organisations to attain a better competitive position
(Qureshi et al. 2015, Vargas-Halabi et al. 2017).
It is worthy to note that organisations with concentration of
employees with distinctive competencies, suitable working environment
and well structure organisational settings should encourage employees
with intrapreneurial skills to innovate and implement ideas that will
make organisations attain sustainable competitive advantage (Domingo et
al. 2012, Lutfihaket al. 2010). Fostering employee's
intrapreneurial engagement however becomes an indispensable strategy
that can be adopted for employees' willingness to take proactive
initiatives towards improved work and exploring business opportunities
(Parker 2011, Arnab 2014). Engagement of employees via empowerment,
involvement, autonomy relationships and adequate reward system are
likely to compel employees to generate new ideas, skill and innovation
in the pursuits of opportunities that can reinforce the organisational
overall strategic goals and performance (Adeyeye et al. 2015, Antoncic
and Hisrich 2003, Sebora and Theerapatvong 2010). Meanwhile, fostering
employees intrapreneurial engagement should involve a number of things
which include but not limited to: unwavering management support toward
generating new ideas and innovations; development, monitoring and
implementation of new business ideas; strategic time allocation for
brain storming and critical thinking; flexible and decentralised system,
work discretion liberty; adequate, appropriate and competitive reward
systems and other benefits that will spur intrapreneurship spirit of the
employees. Organisations that fail to promote and encourage
intrapreneurial initiatives of its workforce are likely to lose
employees with distinctive competencies (Ireland et al. 2009, Armstrong
and Tylor 2014, Simon and Barr 2015). Besides, in spite of the attention
given to intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship, many
organisations are yet to fully explore the opportunities and profusely
engage employees' intrapreneurial potentials towards sustainable
organisational survival especially in Nigerian manufacturing sector. The
relationship between employee intrapreneurial engagement and
organisational survival is of great concern particularly in terms of how
employee intrapreneurial engagement influences or enhances
organisational sustainable growth and survival. However, the
relationship between employee intrapreneurial engagement and
organisational survival is not clearly established in the literature
particularly within Nigeria context, the emphasis has been on influence
of organisational variables than individual employees who are engaged to
make these efforts (Aspelund et al. 2017, Camelo-Ordaz et al. 2012).
It is on this premise that this paper seeks to investigate the
effects of employees' Intrapreneurial engagement and its
implications for organisational survival. The significance of this work
stemmed from its objectives as follows: (i) to analyse how
employees' empowerment affects organisational survival; (ii) to
examine the effect of employees' involvement on organisational
survival; (iii) to evaluate the influence of employees' autonomy on
organisational survival; (iv) analyse the effect of employees'
relationships and the role of reward system on organisational survival.
1. Literature review
Intrapreneurship as a concept
The concept of intrapreneurship which is also known as corporate
entrepreneurship is a process by which an existing organisation consider
new business opportunities that are totally different from the existing
organisation (Aspelund et al. 2017, Piening and Salge 2015). The new
business oftentimes leverages on the already established company's
activities, assets, competencies and other resources. Intrapreneurship
also refers to employees creativities in organizations to embark on new
business activities or initiatives. According to Antoncic and Hisrich
(2003), intrapreneurship is interrelated with corporate entrepreneurship
with only a slight difference. "Corporate entrepreneurship refers
to a top-down process, i.e. a management strategy to foster workforce
initiatives and efforts to innovate and develop new business while
intrapreneurship relates to the individual level and is about bottom-up,
proactive work related initiatives of individual employees"
(Piening and Salge 2015). As noted by Azami (2013) intrapreneurship
motivates employees to come up with distinctive business initiatives
without necessarily taking formal permission from the management.
Employees who are intrapreneurially invigorated have strong desire to
take initiatives in the pursuit of new business opportunities (Bhardwarj
and Sushil Momaya 2007, Urbano and Turro 2013). However, the
intrapreneurial opportunities that the employees can take advantage of
are: generation of new business ideas that will position the
organisation for sustainable competitive advantage; productive
engagement of employees' distinctive competencies or capabilities
in generating fresh insight; encouragement of employees' commitment
and involvement in taking new initiatives; empowering employees to go
beyond the normal schedule among others (Halim et al. 2017, Kacperczyk
2012, Simon and Barr 2015). Intrapreneurs in the organisations possess
the capability to create, recognise, and take new opportunities at their
disposal that will enable them to create and add value to the
organisation (Ma et al. 2016).
Employees' empowerment and organisational survival
It has been observed by some scholars that organisations that
empower its employees are more likely to get the best out of them which
will invariably trigger innovation and commitment that will positively
have a direct impact on job performance (Elnaga and Imran 2014).
Empowerment is described as a level of autonomy and responsibility given
to employees in taking decisions about their job without necessarily
taking approval from the immediate superior (Ghosh 2013, Falola et al.
2016). Empowerment compels employees to be motivated and enthusiastic in
utilizing their distinctive capabilities and creativity towards
organisational survival (Sharma and Kaur 2011). Employees'
empowerment is also one of the strategies that organisations use to
drive innovative thought that foster creative abilities (Lee et al.
2012, Moses et al. 2016). Employee empowerment to take initiatives,
participate in decision making process, solving problems and taking
charge of projects as well as having freedom to get the job done require
clear effective communication and feedbacks (Elnaga and Imran 2014).
This will motivate and stimulate employees' mental and physical
capabilities to engage in critical and creative thinking that will make
them see new business ideas and opportunities that the organisation can
venture into. However, as suggested by Molina & Callahan (2009),
employees must be well trained, equipped and fairly remunerated to get
the best out of them.
Employee involvement
The ability of the organisations to encourage employees'
participation or involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the
organisations will boost employees' creative thought and critical
thinking (Irawanto 2015). It has been discovered that employees'
who have been empowered and adequately trained are more involved and
committed in taken new initiatives and are ready to work beyond normal
job schedules (Bockerman et al. 2012). Evidently, employees'
involvement makes them have a sense of belonging thereby enhancing
performance. Other scholars such as BarNir (2012), Bhatia & Khan
(2013) posited that involving employees in a project from the beginning
is one of the strategies that trigger genuine commitment.
Employee autonomy
Studies have established that employees' autonomy tend to
compel the individual employees in an organisation to be more committed
and as well use their discretion to see to the achievement of the
organisational goals and objectives. Employees' autonomy involves
delegation of responsibilities and authority to employees and oftentimes
activates innovativeness (Rutherford and Holt 2007). Besides,
employees' freedom to use their discretion makes them to have
psychological ownership of their job thus, propelling them to exert
energy, invest time and come up with groundbreaking ideas that will
eventually position the organisation for competitive advantage.
Organisations must take proactive steps in fostering employees'
intrapreneurial engagement by providing a platform that will allow the
employees to have full control of their work process and offer necessary
support even when they commit errors while innovating (Kuratko and
Hodgetts 2007).
Employee relationships
Harmonious and cordial relationships between the employees and
employers of labour oftentimes trigger best innovative ideas. A positive
working relationship with one another irrespective of the grade level
and designation provide platforms to persevere and create an environment
that motivates innovative activities and entrepreneurial dispositions
within an organization (Armstrong and Taylor 2014). Some of the things
that can foster employee relationships in the world of work includes but
not limited to getting to know each other, playing together during break
and close of business among others (Clark 2008).
Competitive Rewards system
Competitive Reward system plays a vital role in making employees to
act as intrapreneurs. The competitiveness and fairness of reward system
determines the extent to which organisations can foster employees'
intrapreneurial engagement. The employees' perception and level of
trust in the reward system determines their level of engagement,
involvement, commitment to innovation, and their willingness to
undertake the risks connected with the intrapreneurial activity (Falola
et al. 2014). Therefore, enriched performance based reward system can
stimulate employees' commitment in taking new business initiatives
by exploiting new business opportunities (Hayton 2005).
2. Methods
In order to achieve the set objective of the study, this research
adopted a quantitative study through a survey. The data for this study
were collected from a survey of employees in selected manufacturing
industries located in Agbara, Ogun State, Nigeria. However, the choice
of the Agbara was because of the high concentration of manufacturing
industries in the area. Meanwhile, the manufacturing industries chosen
for this study were the first generation manufacturing industries
located in Ogun State, Nigeria. Five hundred (500) copies of
questionnaire were administered to permanent senior employees of the ten
(10) selected manufacturing industries using stratified and simple
random sampling techniques, but only three hundred and seventy-six (376)
copies were retrieved representing 75.2% response rate. Employees'
intrapreneurial engagement was measured using Corporate Entrepreneurship
Assessment Instrument (CEAI) developed by Kuratko, Ireland, &
Hornsby (2001) with little modifications to suit the constructs of the
subject matter. This was measured on a five-point Likert scale that best
describes the degree to which the respondents agree with each item in
the questionnaire. A total of twenty items were used to operationalize
the constructs (employees' empowerment, involvement, autonomy,
relationships and reward system) used to measure the employees
intrapreneurial engagement. Data used for this study was collected via
structured questionnaire from the employees of the selected
organisations. All the first generation manufacturing industries within
the area were given equal opportunities of been selected. To verify the
reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's alpha was used and the
result shows .874 which is above the minimum benchmark of 0.7. In order
to be sure of internal consistent of the instrument the study also
adopted measuring model for the validation of constructs, the fitness of
the model as well as test of hypotheses. Meanwhile, Confirmatory Factor
Analysis was used to investigate reliability of items, item loading and
composite reliability, construct and content reliability, scale validity
and the fit of the measurement model as suggested by Fornell and Larcker
(1981). It is also important to state that there are minimum benchmark
that must be met before a model can be said to have a good fit.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis loading and construct composite reliability
must ordinarily exceed the minimum benchmark of 0.70, while error
variance should be less than 0.5 and construct average variance
extracted estimate must be above 0.5. The result of validity and
reliability of this study is depicted in Table 1. Meanwhile, a
descriptive research design and (Structural Equation Model (AMOS 22))
was used to analyse the degree of relationship and resultant effects
between the dependent and independent variables of the study.
Result and discussion of findings
Sequel to regression weights depicted in Table 2 below which shows
the level of correlations that exists between the variables can be
categorized as strong or low. The relationship between employees'
autonomy and employees intrapreneurial engagement is positive and
estimated to be r = .163 (p < 0.05). The level of relationship
between employees' empowerment, reward systems and intrapreneurial
engagement are positive and estimated to be r = .041 (p < 0.05) and r
= .109 (p < 0.05) respectively. Similarly, there was a positive
relationship between employee relationships, involvement and
intrapreneurial engagement estimated at (r = .051, p < 0.05) and (r =
.144, p < 0.05) in that order. Also, the relationships between
employees intrapreneurial engagement and organisational survival are
positive and estimated to be at (r = .837, p < 0.05).
Confirmatory factor analysis was adopted to evaluate the validity
and to assess the goodness of fit of the model (Byrne 2004). Structural
Equation Modelling AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure) path analysis
version 22.0 was used for the analysis of the variables in order to
determine the level of fitness. Various model fit indices such as
chi-square ([chi-square]), chi-square/degree of freedom (x2/df),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI); Normed Fit Index (NFI); Relative Fix Index
(RFI); Incremental Fix Index (IFI); Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were considered. Meanwhile
the significance level was set at p < .05. The results of CFA
analysis suggest that the factor loadings for all major variables range
between 0.71 and 0.93. The Cronbach alpha values reported for the
variables are as follows: employees' autonomy = 0.87,
employees' empowerment = 0.79, reward system = 0.84, relationships
= 0.77, involvement = 0.78, and organisational survival = 0.89. The
model was tested using SEM. The minimum benchmark for model fitness
index which must be above 0.9 as posited by Awang (2012) and Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007) was considered. However, the result shows that all the
fit indices are above the minimum value ([chi square] = 12A50,p = .003,
[chi square]M/= 4.036; CFI = 919; NFI = .969; IFI = .933; GFI = 986; TLI
= 957; RMSEA = .087; AGFI = .905). All the fits indices are above the
minimum acceptable value indicating a good fit. The result of structural
equation model is depicted in Figure 1.
The model shown in Figure 1 indicates the regression between
employees' empowerment, involvement, autonomy, relationships and
reward system on organisational survival. All the variables tested have
positive path coefficients as strategies that tend to foster employees
intrapreneurial engagement and enhancement of organisational survival.
However, the path coefficient scores (regression weights) of the
observed constructs explain the regression between the studied
variables. The regression weight between employees' empowerment and
intrapreneurial engagement is .041 (p < 0.001) which indicate that
when empowerment goes up by 1 standard deviation, intrapreneurial
engagement goes up by 0.041 standard deviations, therefore, the
regression weight for empowerment in the prediction of intrapreneurial
engagement is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. The
implication of this is that the ability of the organisations to empower
employees will foster organisational survival. This finding corroborates
the submission of Elnaga and Imran (2014) in their study of the effect
of employee empowerment on job satisfaction. It was noted that employees
are likely going to think outside the box and come up with
intrapreneurial initiatives when they are empowered. This suggest that
employee intrapreneurial engagement is a function of employees'
level of empowerment. The finding also validates the submission of Ma,
Liu and Karri (2016). They noted that employee empowerment fosters
internal corporate venturing and strategic initiatives. The organisation
can only accomplish their intrapreneurial initiatives if only employees
are empowered and enabling environment that will stimulate
employee's engagement is created. Similarly, the effects of
employee autonomy and relationships show the path coefficient of .163 (p
< 0.001) and r = .051 (p < 0.05) respectively. Therefore, when
autonomy goes up by 1 standard deviation, intrapreneurial engagement
goes up by 0.051 standard deviations while relationship goes up by 0.051
standard deviations in that order. The effect of employees'
involvement and reward system on intrapreneurial engagement is positive
with the regression weight of .144, (p < 0.05) and .109, (p <
0.05), therefore, when involvement and reward system goes up by 1
standard deviation then intrapreneurial engagement goes up 0.144 and
0.109 standard deviations respectively. It is important to note that
employee intrapreneurial engagement has a strong relationship with
organisational survival with positive coefficient value of.837 (p <
0.05). Evidently, when intrapreneurial engagement goes up by 1,
organisational survival goes up by 0.837. These findings validate the
submissions of Irawanto (2015) and Serinkan, Kaymakci, Arat & Avcik
(2013). This suggest that when employees are given autonomy to develop
worthwhile intrapreneurship innovation with appropriate competitive
reward system, it will motivate employees to think and behave like
intrapreneurs and as well be committed to chart the course since they
are involved in the process. This will invariably enhance their level of
engagement and involvement. As noted by Osibanjo, Falola, Akinbode &
Adeniji (2015), employees tend to exhibition in deviant behaviours if
they are not empowered, involved in the decision making process and
adequately remunerated. Therefore, employees' empowerment,
involvement, autonomy, relationships and reward system as measures of
employee intrapreneurial initiatives play a significant role in the
survival of 21st century organisations particularly in highly
competitive business environment.
Conclusions
The study provides insight into the significance of employees'
intrapreneurial engagement as a panacea to organisation survival. The
reason for this study was based on the need of the organisations to
harness and explore intrapreneurial spirit of their workforce in
maintaining sustainability particularly in the highly competitive
business environment. It is also important to note that five variables
were identified (employees' empowerment, involvement, autonomy,
relationships and reward system) and results show positive influence of
all these on the organisational survival. The study will assist the
management and other stakeholders in the manufacturing industry to
understand the significant relationship that exists between
employees' empowerment, involvement, autonomy, relationships and
reward system and its significant effects on organisational survival. It
is also imperative to state that the study serves as an eye opener to
the management of manufacturing industries to ensure that adequate
efforts are taken to foster employees' intrapreneurial engagement
to drive organizations' quest for survival in the midst of
competitiveness. This study will also help organisations to know how
intrapreneurial initiatives can be used to achieve sustainable
competitive advantage for the survival of the organisation in the highly
competitive business environment.
Further to the results of the study, it can be concluded that
manipulation of some variables such as employees' empowerment,
involvement, autonomy, relationships and reward system is important for
the attainment of organisational goals and survival. From the managerial
perspective, the outcome of this study sheds more light into the roles
employee intrapreneurship engagement plays in the survival of the
organisations. The implication of this to the management is that, if
conducive working environment that allows employees to think outside the
box is provided and efforts are being rewarded, there is every
likelihood that employees will turn opportunities at their disposal into
new innovations that will enhance organisational sustainability. This
validates the submission of Serinkan et al. (2013) that if employees are
given opportunities to explore and management provides good working
environment, it will trigger intrapreneurial initiatives. Another
managerial implication is that if employees are empowered and are given
autonomy, it will encourage them to think of new business opportunities
and innovate to take advantage of the opportunities around them. This is
also in line with the submission of Alipour, Idris, Ismail, Uli, and
Karimi (2011). It is also important to state that if there is
competitive reward system, it will motivate employees to think and
behave like intrapreneurs. Organisations are therefore expected to allow
their employees develop worthwhile innovations regardless of the risk
that is attached. Besides, organisations should also inspire their
employees to come up with innovations, business ideas, proposals and
also cheerthem to implement ideas with needed supports and assistance.
It is suggested that even when employees' innovations, ideas and
intended project fail, they should not be rebuked or besmirched but
encouraged to re-strategise. This will allow them to brain storming and
come up other strategic ways of implementing their ideas for the
betterment of the organisation (Osibanjo et al. 2016). Organisations
should challenge their employees by providing them with autonomy and the
freedom to innovate and carve out spaces for them to take risks and
experiment. The insights discovered from this study would help to
facilitate stakeholders to develop or foster employee intrapreneurial
engagement and strong institutional strategies to ensure organisational
survival.
Acknowledgements
Our appreciation goes to Covenant University Centre for Research,
Innovation and Discovery for their financial support in carrying out
this study.
References
Adeyeye JO, Falola HO, Waribo JY, Akinbode JO (2015) The effects of
apprenticeship system on skill development of employees in the printing
industry in Lagos State, Nigeria. British Journal of Economics, Finance
and Management Sciences 10 (2): 16-30.
Alipour F, Idris K, Ismail IA, Uli JA, Karimi R (2011) Learning
organization and organizational performance: mediation role of
intrapreneurship. European Journal of Social Sciences 21 (4): 547-555.
Arnab B (2014) Intrapreneurship as an employee retention tool.
International Journal of Research in Business Management 2 (3): 134-136.
Armstrong M, Taylor S (2014) Armstrong's handbook of human
resource management practice. 13thed. UK, Kogan Page.
Antoncic B, Hisrich RD (2003) Clarifyingthe intrapreneurship
concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10 (1):
7-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000310461187
Aspelund A, Fjell L, Rodland SE (2017) Doing good and doing well?
International entrepreneurship and social responsibility. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship 21 (2): 1-21.
Awang Z (2012) A handbook on SEM (Structural Equation Modeling),
using AMOS graphic. Kota Baharu: Universiti Teknologi Mara Kelantan.
Azami S (2013) Intrapreneurship "an exigent employment".
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 2 (4):
194-198.
BarNir A (2012) Starting technologically innovative ventures:
reasons, human capital, and gender. Management Decision 50 (3): 399-419.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211216205
Bhatia S, Khan PNU (2013) Building an intrapreneurial culture: a
Sine-Qua- non for organizations today. Global Journal of Management and
Business Studies 3 (8): 849-854.
Bhardwarj BR, Sushil Momaya K (2007) Corporate entrepreneurship:
application of moderator method. Singapore Management Review 29 (1):
47-58.
Bockerman P, Bryson A, Ilmakunnas P (2012) Does high involvement
management improve worker wellbeing? Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization 84 (2): 660-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.005
Bimpitsos C, Petridou E (2012) A transdisciplinary approach to
training: preliminary research findings based on a case analysis.
European Journal of Training and Development 36 (9): 911-929.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211280964
Byrne BM (2004) Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS
graphics: a road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling 11 (2):
272-300. https://doi.org/10.1207/sl5328007semll02_8
Camelo-Ordaz C, Fernandez-Alies M, Ruiz-Navarro J, Sousa-Ginel E
(2012) The intrapreneurs and innovation in creative firms. International
Small Business Journal 30 (5): 513-535.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610385396
Clark MC (2008) The nature and structure of workers' trust in
management. Journal of Organisational Behaviour 18 (3): 205-224.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<205::AID-JOB792>3.0.CO;2-V
Domingo RS, Augusto JF, Ricardo R, Vitor RC (2012) The effect of
intrapreneurship on corporate performance. Management Decision 50 (10):
1717-1738. https://doi. org/10.1108/00251741211279567
Elnaga AA, Imran A (2014) The impact of employee empowerment on job
satisfaction: theoretical study. American Journal of Research
Communication 2 (1): 13-26.
Falola HO, Ibidunni AS, Olokundun AM (2014) Incentives packages and
employees' attitudes to work: a study of selected government
parastatals in Ogun State, South-West, Nigeria. International Journal of
Research in Business and Social Science 3 (1): 2147-4478.
Falola HO, Abasilim UD, Salau OP (2016) Strategic human resource
development for enhanced job performance and universities'
competitiveness. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7 (3): 89-96.
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016. v7n3p89
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equations with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research 18 (2): 39-50.
Ghosh AK (2013) Employee empowerment: a strategic tool to obtain
sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Management
30 (3): 95-107.
Hayton JC (2005) Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human
resources management practices: a review of empirical research. Human
Resource Management 15 (1): 21-41.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.003
Halim HA, Ahmad NH, Ramayah T (2017) Entrepreneurial readiness
towards venture creation among bop community. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship 21 (2): 1-12.
Irawanto DW (2015) Employee participation in decision-making:
evidence from a state-owned enterprise in Indonesia. Management 20(1):
159-172.
Ireland RD, Covin JG, Kuratko DF (2009) Conceptualizing corporate
entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (1):
19-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-6520.2008.00279.
Jasna AA, Bostjan A (2011) Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship
and firm growth: a model. Industrial Management & Data Systems 111
(4): 589-607. https://doi. org/10.1108/02635571111133560
Kacperczyk A (2012) Opportunity structures in established firms:
entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative
Science Quarterly 57 (3): 484-521.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212462675
Kuratko DF, Hodgetts RM (2007) Entrepreneurship: theory, process,
practice. Mason, OH: South-Western College publishers.
Kuratko DF, Ireland RD, Hornsby JS (2001) Improving firm
performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia's corporate
entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of Management Executive 15 (4):
60-71. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2001.5897658
Lee SM, Hwang T, Choi D (2012) Open innovation in the public sector
of leading countries. Management Decision 50 (1): 147-162.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211194921
Lutfihak AC, Bulut GG, Gunduz UK (2010) Organizational support for
intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance
innovative performance. Management Decision 48 (5): 732-755.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011043902
Ma H, Liu TQ, Karri R (2016) Internal corporate venturing:
intrapreneurs, institutions, and initiatives. Organizational Dynamics 45
(2): 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.02.005
Molina C, Callahan JL (2009) Fostering organizational performance.
The role of learning and intrapreneurship. Journal of European
Industrial Training 33 (5): 388-400. https://doi.
org/10.1108/03090590910966553
Moses CL, Olokundun MA, Akinnbode M, Agboola GM (2016)
Organizational culture and creativity in entrepreneurship teaching in
Nigerian secondary education. Research Journal of Applied Sciences 11
(1): 586-591.
Obeidat BU, Masa'deh RM, Abdallah AB (2014) The relationships
among human resource management practices, organizational commitment,
and knowledge management processes: a structural equation modeling
approach. International Journal of Business and Management 9 (3): 9-26.
https://doi. org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n3p9
Osibanjo AO, Salau OP, Falola HO, Oyewunmi AE (2016) Work place
stress: implication for organisational performance in a Nigerian public
university. Business: Theory and Practice 17 (3): 261-269.
Osibanjo AO, Falola HO, Akinbode JO, Adeniji AA (2015) An
assessment of workplace deviant behaviours and its implication on
organisational performance in a growing economy. Journal of
Organizational Psychology 15 (1): 90-100.
Parker S (2011) Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal
ofBusiness Venturing 26 (1): 19-34. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2009.07.003
Piening EP, Salge TO (2015) Understanding the antecedents,
contingencies, and performance implications of process innovation: a
dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 32 (1): 80-97. https://doi. org/10.1111/jpim.l2225
Rutherford MW, Holt DT (2007) Corporate entrepreneurship: an
empirical look at the innovativeness dimension and its antecedents.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 20 (3): 429-446.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710740227
Sebora T, Theerapatvong T (2010) Corporate entrepreneurship: a test
of external and internal influences on managers' idea generation,
risk taking, and reactiveness. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 6 (3): 331-350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll365-009-0108-5
Serinkan C, Kaymakci K, Arat G, Avcik C (2013) An empirical study
on intrapreneurship: in a service sector in Turkey. Procedia - Social
and Behavioural Sciences 89 (October 2013): 715-719.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.920
Sharma M, Kaur G (2011) Workplace empowerment and organizational
effectiveness: an empirical investigation of Indian banking sector.
Academy of Banking Studies Journal 10 (2): 105.
Simon R, Barr C (2015) Endangered Species. The Wall Street Journal
6: 27-32.
Qureshi MI, Rasli AM, Jusoh A, Kowang TO (2015) Sustainability: a
new manufacturing paradigm. Journal Teknologi 77 (22): 47-53.
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6661
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. 5th
ed. New York, Allyn and Bacon.
Urbano D, Turro A (2013) Conditioning factors for corporate
entrepreneurship: an in external approach. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9 (3): 379-396.
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll365-013-0261-8
Vargas-Halabi T, Mora-Esquivel R, Siles B (2017) Intrapreneurial
competencies: development and validation of a measurement scale.
European Journal of Management and Business Economics 26 (1): 86-111.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-006
(1) Hezekiah O. FALOLA, (2) Odunayo P. SALAU, (3) Maxwell A.
OLOKUNDUN, (4) Comfort O. OYAFUNKE-OMONIYI, (5) Ayodotun S. IBIDUNNI,
(6) Olumuyiwa A. OLUDAYO
(1, 2, 3, 5, 6) Department of Business Management, Covenant
University, Ota, Ogun State (4) department of Sociology, Olabisi
Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State
Hezekiah O. FALOLA obtained his BSc, MSc and PhD degrees in
Industrial Relations & Human Resources Management. He worked as
Human Resources Executive for about six years in the public sector
before he secured a lecturing job in the Department of Business
Management, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria. Presently, he
has published a number of papers in the area of human resource
management, organisation behaviour and corporate entrepreneurship.
Odunayo P. SALAU obtained his BSc, MSc and PhD degrees in
Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management, Olabisi Onabanjo
University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun state and Covenant University respectively.
Salau is a man endowed with passion for teaching and learning. Salau has
obtained several awards in both Academic and Professional institutions.
He is an associate and member of professional bodies like CICN, ICBAM,
NIM, ISMN, and IPMN. He is with the objective of striving for excellence
and precision at all times, in all positions and circumstances,
obtaining professional distinction and academic proficiency. His
research interests in Industrial Relations and Human Resource
Management.
Maxwell A. OLOKUNDUN obtained BSc in Economics, MSc and PhD in
Entrepreneurship from reputable Universities in Nigeria and United
Kingdom. His research interest includes entrepreneurship Education,
production management and Venture Management among others. He has over
twenty five publications to his credit.
Comfort O. OYAFUNKE-OMONIYI obtained BSc, MSc and PhD in Sociology
from Olabisi Onabanjo University and University of Ibadan respectively.
She is active researcher. Her research interest includes, industrial
sociology, sociology of family among others. She has published a number
of papers in both national and international journals.
Ayodotun S. IBIDUNNI has PhD in strategic management. Presently, He
is a lecturer and researcher in the department of Business Management,
Covenant University. His research interest include, strategic
management, operation research and production management.
Olumuyiwa A. OLUDAYO is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Business Management, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria. He
obtained a Doctorate degree of Philosophy Industrial Relations and Human
Resource Management. His research interests amongst others include:
human resource management, collective bargaining, industrial relations.
He has a number of publications to his credit.
Received 10 October 2017; accepted 17 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2018.02
Caption: Fig. 1. Results of the structural equation model of the
data collected
Table 1. Result of validity and reliability
Variables
[greater than or equal to]0.7
EIE
Employee Empowerment 0.8386
Employee Involvement 0.8877
Employee Autonomy 0.8676
Employee Relations 0.8578
Employee Reward 0.8568
Org.
Surv. Organisational Survival 0.8747
Indicator Error
Reliability Variance
[less than or equal to]0.5
EIE
0.7032 0.2968
0.7880 0.2120
0.7527 0.2473
0.7358 0.2642
0.7341 0.2659
Org.
Surv. 0.7651 0.2349
Compose AVE
Reliability
[greater than or equal to]0.8 [less than or equal to]0.5
EIE 0.86
0.81
0.88
0.83
0.82
0.81
Org. 0.87
Surv. 0.85
No. of Final
Indicators
EIE
5
5
5
5
5
Org.
Surv. 5
All loadings are significant at p < 0.0001.
Table 2. Regression weights
Estimate S.E. CR.
Empl_Intra_Enga [left arrow] EmpI_Auton .163 .087 1.872
Empl_Intra_Enga [left arrow] EmpI_Emp o wer .041 .062 .664
Empl_Intra_Enga [left arrow] EmpI_Reward .109 .070 1.550
Empl_Intra_Enga [left arrow] EmpI_Rel .051 .066 .778
Empl_Intra_Enga [left arrow] EmpI_Invol .144 .075 1.931
Org_Survival [left arrow] Empl_Intra_Enga .837 .374 2.236
P Label
Empl_Intra_Enga .061 Significant
Empl_Intra_Enga .507 Significant
Empl_Intra_Enga .121 Significant
Empl_Intra_Enga .436 Significant
Empl_Intra_Enga .054 Significant
Org_Survival .025 Significant
Note: C. R. = Critical Ratio; S. E. = Standard Error; (*) significant
at 0.05
Source: Field Survey 2017
Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright
restrictions.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.