Intrapreneurship: The Determinants Behind Its Dynamic: Rafael Bernardo Ferreira Campos

INTRAPRENEURSHIP: THE DETERMINANTS BEHIND ITS
DYNAMIC
Rafael Bernardo Ferreira Campos
up201404611@fep.up.pt
Dissertation
Master in Management
Supervised by
Maria Catarina de Almeida Roseira
Pedro José Ramos Moreira de Campos
2020
Abstract
Organizations operate nowadays in environments increasingly complex and volatile

which forces them to adopt strategies that are constantly revamped and adapted to the new
contexts. Then, employees could be used as key elements in companies’ plans for achieving
innovation and success, by developing their intrapreneurial skills.
The study analyzes the aspects that can influence positively intrapreneurship and test
it empirically by using some measurement instruments. The review of the main literature in
the area of intrapreneurship and the application of the measurement provide accurate
definitions and test the links between the different intrapreneurship dimensions and factors,
namely the importance of some factors in employee’s success and in intrapreneurship.
According to Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra (2002), the majority of the researchers have
developed conceptual schema that have either never been empirically tested or are based on
limited case study analyses. Currently, the literature maintains the same gap and is based on
diverse theoretical approaches (Blanka, 2019).
We concluded that intrapreneurial intention is the most relevant factor for the
development of the intrapreneurial behaviors, followed by the employees’ perception of their
own capabilities. Contrary to the expectations, organizational factors did not emerge as the
main influencers of the intrapreneurial behaviors. Additionally, it was verified that young
employees with less work experience, unemployed people and women tend to be more averse
to intrapreneurship.
Through this research, we produced important practical contributions for decision
makers. The conclusions will allow organizations to understand what factors are relevant in
intrapreneurship efforts and results and to design better strategies to foster intrapreneurship
and to improve company’s outcomes that are increasingly based in employees’ capacities.
Key words: Intrapreneurship, intrapreneurial behavior, intrapreneur attitudes, intrapreneur

characteristics, organizational factors.
JEL-Codes: L26, M21, O31.
i
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ i
List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... iv
List of figures ..................................................................................................................................... v
List of abbreviations......................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Literature review ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Intrapreneurship................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Individual factors .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Intrapreneur attitudes............................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Intrapreneur characteristics ..................................................................................... 8
2.3 Organizational factors .................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Intrapreneurial behavior ................................................................................................ 14
2.5 Intrapreneurial outcomes ............................................................................................... 17
2.6 Control variables ............................................................................................................. 18
2.7 Synthesis of literature reviewed .................................................................................... 19
3. Research objectives and methodology ................................................................................. 20
3.1 Hypotheses and theoretical model ............................................................................... 20
3.2 Questionnaire and measurement scales ....................................................................... 26
3.3 Data collection................................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 33
4. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Sample description .......................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Descriptive statistics ....................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Spearman’s correlations ................................................................................................. 38
4.4 Multiple linear regression ............................................................................................... 41
4.4.1 Moderation analysis ................................................................................................ 49
4.4.2 Mediation analysis ................................................................................................... 49
4.5 Differences between surveyed groups ......................................................................... 50
4.5.1 Kruskal-Wallis H test ............................................................................................. 50
4.5.2 Mann-Whitney test ................................................................................................. 52
5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 53
5.1 Theoretical and practical contribution ......................................................................... 54
ii
5.2 Research limitations ........................................................................................................ 55
References......................................................................................................................................... 57
Annexes ............................................................................................................................................. 63
Annexes 1: Questionnaire in Portuguese ................................................................................. 63
Annexes 2: Framework of intrapreneurship (Neessen et al., 2019) ..................................... 69
Annexes 3: Multiple linear regression – Model summary ..................................................... 70
Annexes 4: Moderation analysis – Model summary ............................................................... 71
Annexes 5: Mediation analysis – Model summary.................................................................. 72
Annexes 6: Kruskal-Wallis H test results ................................................................................. 73
Annexes 7: Mann-Whitney test results ..................................................................................... 76
iii
List of tables
Table 1 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial attitudes ................................................................. 7

Table 2 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial characteristics ....................................................... 8
Table 3 - Studies addressing organizational factors................................................................... 11
Table 4 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial behaviors............................................................. 15
Table 5 - Measurement scales used in the questionnaire .......................................................... 27
Table 6 - Cronbach's alpha values................................................................................................ 33
Table 7 - Respondents description .............................................................................................. 36
Table 8 - Means and standard deviations.................................................................................... 37
Table 9 - Spearman's rho correlations ......................................................................................... 39
Table 10 - Multiple linear regression coefficients ...................................................................... 41
Table 11 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 1 ......................................................................... 42
Table 18 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 10 ....................................................................... 48
iv
List of figures
Figure 1 – Theorical framework of intrapreneurship................................................................ 21
v
List of abbreviations
INO – Innovativeness
INT – Intention
MS – Management support
NET - Networks
ORE – Opportunity recognition and exploitation
PEK – Past experience and knowledge
POC – Perception of their own capabilities
PRO – Proactiveness
R – Resources
RO – Relation to the organization
RT – Risk-taking
RW – Rewards
WD – Work discretion
POC_MOD – Moderating effect of perception of their own capabilities
vi
1. Introduction
Intrapreneurship is considered by some researchers simply as entrepreneurship

within existing organizations (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). Intrapreneurs are seen as key
elements in business environment to overcome market instability and ensure the long-term
success of companies (McKinney & McKinney, 1989). Moreover, intrapreneurship, as a
complex phenomenon, can arise in different ways and be influenced by a great number of
factors that will be presented through the study (Figure 1). This report addresses it from the
individual-level and the organizational-level perspectives to give a complete overview of the
theme. Even though, intrapreneurship at individual-level will be specially enhanced due to
the fundamental role of intrapreneurs and their behaviors for companies’ performance
(Neessen, Caniëls, Vos, & de Jong, 2019).
In the 1980s, the environment in which organizations operate began to face serious
changes, characterized by increasing international competition, through the phenomenon of
globalization, and fast technological development. Due to these complex facts, companies
that dominated the market until then in mature industries as steel and automobiles
encountered difficulties adapting their traditional corporate plans and maintaining their
market positions (McKinney & McKinney, 1989). At the same time, this period was marked
by the emergence of new companies with different visions, strategies and processes, as Apple
and Microsoft. As such, the complex environment challenged companies to reinvent
themselves and innovate in order to ensure the business survival and competitiveness. For
these reasons, the role of the entrepreneurial employee gained great importance inside
companies’ strategy as a key element for achieving innovation and success, through the
increasement of organizations’ capability to face internal and external challenges (Farrukh,
2017; McKinney & McKinney, 1989; Reibenspiess, Drechsler, Eckhardt, & Wagner, 2020).
The main aim of this study is to identify the factors that influence intrapreneurship.
We selected factors for each category based on the relevance granted by that previous studies
(Neessen et al., 2019) and in line with Hornsby et al. (2002), who stated that studies intending
to develop this type of measuring tools will enrich literature. Although there are already
articles studying and exploring this area, the results are based in limited case studies or add
small conclusions to the literature (Hornsby et al., 2002). According to more recent studies,
as Blanka (2019), the literature is still missing articles explaining intrapreneurship at the
individual-level and is based on diverse theoretical approaches which fail in showing a
1
detailed overview of the field. The investigation will contribute to select the factors impacting
intrapreneurship and suggest the definitions which can best suit researches in
intrapreneurship. The literature in the field is fragmented, presents diverse definitions for the
concepts and is based on multiple theoretical approaches (Blanka, 2019; Gawke, Gorgievski,
& Bakker, 2019).
Additionally, with the use of the measuring tools to evaluate the factors that are
relevant in intrapreneurship efforts and results, it will be possible to diagnose firms’
intrapreneurial environment and increase practitioners and decision makers’ understanding
of this subject. Until the moment of this research different ways to measure the presented
factors were used and it remains a challenge to analyze intrapreneurship and draw reliable
and useful conclusions (Covin & Wales, 2019). Besides that, at the moment of this
investigation there is not any similar research in Portugal and the number of investigations
for similar economies are scarce. Usually, this type of researches is conducted in USA and,
for this reason, when applying to a cultural context completely different as the Portuguese
the results and conclusions can be affected (Turro, Alvarez, & Urbano, 2016).
In this context, through the analysis of the aspects that influence positively and
negatively intrapreneurship and its empirically test, the study will intend to answer the
following questions:
What is intrapreneurship and what are its dimensions; What are the determinants and
outcomes of intrapreneurship at the individual level?; What organizational factors can
influence the intrapreneurial activity? The answer to these questions will shed light on how
the characteristics and attitudes of intrapreneurs and some organizational factors impact the
intrapreneurship behavior.
In this way, we expect to contribute to increase managers capacity to design more
grounded strategies and improve the company’s outcomes that are increasingly based in
employees’ capacities. By providing managers with findings about the factors that can
potentiate the influence of their employees, it will give them the opportunity to reinforce the
aspects that can have greater importance in companies’ strategy reshape the not so positive
ones.
Besides this section, this report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 reviews the
relevant literature of the topic. Chapter 3 presents the hypotheses which will be tested, the
theorical model and the methodology adopted in this study. Chapter 4 presents and discusses
2
the results obtained from the questionnaire. The investigation ends with chapter 5 showing
the main conclusions of the research.
3
2. Literature review
This chapter discusses the most relevant concepts linked to intrapreneurship

addressed in the literature to get a complete overview on the topic and to clarify the area
under study. To do so, section 2.1 addresses the origins of intrapreneurship and explains the
mains definitions around it, namely at the organizational and individual level. In section 2.2
we present the main attitudes and characteristics of intrapreneurs considered in literature.
Section 2.3 describes how organizations can impact intrapreneurship and section 2.4
describes the intrapreneurial behavior and how it can be manifested. Section 2.5 makes a
brief presentation of the expected results of an intrapreneurial strategy. To conclude the
chapter 2, there is the section 2.6 that expose the control variables considered in the research
and section 2.7 that makes a short synthesis of the literature reviewed.
2.1 Intrapreneurship
The topic of intrapreneurship has been increasingly analyzed by scholars and

managers since the beginning of the 1980’s (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Burgelman, 1983;
Gawke et al., 2019; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Neessen et al., 2019; Pinchot, 2017).
Intrapreneurship is considered a complex phenomenon, a mutually interrelated process
between many actors and many units within and outside of the company (Menzel, Aaltio, &
Ulijn, 2007)
To understand what intrapreneurship is, it is useful to explain the concept of
entrepreneurship, which was in its origin. The first references to this theme can be attributed
to Schumpeter. In 1934, Schumpeter defined the entrepreneur as the personification of
innovation, i.e. the individual who carries out new combinations (introduce new products or
qualities, new production methods, new markets, new suppliers and new organizations of an
industry). The entrepreneurial activity is considered as a third factor of production, next to
labor and land (Hagedoorn, 1996). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor defines it as "any
attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business
organization, or the expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a team of individuals,
or an established business" (GEM, 2019). More recently, intrapreneurship has been referred
to as an integral part of entrepreneurship and analyzed from a behavioral perspective (GEM,
2019).
4
Regarding the concept of intrapreneurship, different terms are used in the literature
to express the same notion, such as corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983; Guth &
Ginsberg, 1990; Hornsby et al., 2002; Sathe, 1989), corporate venturing (Macmillan, Block,
& Narasimha, 1986) and internal corporate entrepreneurship (Jones & Butler, 1992). There
is not a straightforward definition for this phenomenon, which can be identified in many
different ways. Firstly, a simpler definition used for intrapreneurship expresses it as
entrepreneurship within existing organizations (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). However, due to
the complexity of the theme, the current literature of intrapreneurship approaches this issue
through an organizational-level perspective and individual-level perspective.
At the organizational-level, intrapreneurship is contemplated as a process of
corporate renewal in established firms (Fischer, 2011) in which new business opportunities
are recognized and explored. This could involve the development of new products or
services, new markets and technologies (Sathe, 1989). Taking a broader stance, Hornsby et
al. (2002, pp. 254-255) establish “corporate entrepreneurship as embodying entrepreneurial
efforts that require organizational sanctions and resource commitments for the purpose of
carrying out innovative activities in the form of product, process, and organizational
innovations”. This perspective follows a top-down approach that takes in consideration the
initiatives carried out by organizations’ leaders aiming to change the corporate environment
and create flexibility and renewal (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). The final objective is to trigger
a culture and strategy in companies where the employees are perfectly aligned with that and
have the conditions to develop an intrapreneurial behavior. So, the intrapreneurship at the
organizational level expresses itself through the creation of new products or innovations,
new business ventures and processes of self-renewal by the organization as a whole. In the
perspective of Asiaei, Barani, Bontis, and Arabahmadi (2020, p. 3) “intrapreneurship is
treated as a channel through which the organization’s strategic knowledge resources are
mobilized in a more effective way for the ultimate purpose of generating real value for the
company.”
When considering intrapreneurship at the individual-level, the focus is on the
personal characteristics, attitudes and behavior of employees that by consequence influence
the organization. Zampetakis Leonidas (2010, pp. 872-873) defined it as “a process by which
individuals inside organizations pursue opportunities independent of the resources they
currently control, engage themselves at doing new things, and, are willing to escape from
routine in order to pursue opportunities”. Also, intrapreneurship can be defined as a bottom-
5
up process inside companies where there are proactive work-related initiatives of individual
employees. The intrapreneur intends to challenge the organization status quo, go beyond the
standard job description and overcome the organizational hurdles (Rigtering & Weitzel,
2013). “Intrapreneurs are the driving forces behind product development or improvement
and/or market penetration” (Moriano, Molero, Topa, & Lévy Mangin, 2014, p. 105). The
intrapreneurial process globally includes two phases. Firstly, the perception of innovation
potentials, described further as opportunity recognition, and then the exploration of these
innovation potentials within projects (Kreuzer & Weber, 2020).
Based on all presented definitions for intrapreneurship and since throughout this
report will be analyzed the topic under the two perspectives, it is useful to consider a
description that includes both ideas. Then, according to Neessen et al. (2019, p. 551) this
study adopts a definition that reflects the multilevel nature of the concept. “Intrapreneurship
is a process whereby employee(s) recognize and exploit opportunities by being innovative,
proactive and by taking risks, in order for the organization to create new products, processes
and services, initiate self-renewal or venture new businesses to enhance the competitiveness
and performance of the organization.”
The next sections discuss the variables selected to be analyzed throughout the
research.
2.2 Individual factors
2.2.1 Intrapreneur attitudes
Intrapreneur attitudes include the relation to the organization and intention to act
intrapreneurial, and are considered to positively influence the intrapreneurial behavior (Auer
Antoncic, 2011; Hatak, Harms, & Fink, 2015; Urban & Wood, 2015). These factors, studied
by several authors (check Table 1), are furthered in the next paragraphs.
6
Table 1 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial attitudes
Attitudes Authors/ Year

Relation to the (Allen, Adomdza, & Meyer, 2015; Auer Antoncic, 2011; Badoiu,
organization
Segarra-Cipres, & Escrig-Tena, 2020; Carrier, 1996; Chan et al.,
2017; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Farrukh, 2017; Hatak et
al., 2015; Moriano et al., 2014; Park, Kim, & Krishna, 2014;
Rigtering, Weitzel, & Muehlfeld, 2019; Valsania, Moriano, &
Molero, 2016)
Intrapreneurial (Auer Antoncic, 2011; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Hatak et
intention
al., 2015; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Urban & Wood, 2015; Zhao,
Seibert, & Hills, 2005)
Intrapreneur’s relation to the organization can be analyzed through the organizational

identification, intention to quit and relationship quality (Neessen et al., 2019). Organizational
identification was investigated by Moriano et al. (2014) who described it as a psychological
bond that employees develop with the organization that causes a perception of unity or
belonging to the organization. It has a significant and strong impact on intrapreneurial
behavior since employees will be more willing to take risks and pursue innovative actions if
they identify with the organization. When identified with the organization and with its vision
and values, employees will tend to become more loyal, less willing to leave the company and
more disposed to contribute to the organization (Farrukh, 2017). Moriano et al. (2014)
additionally concluded that identification can have some interference on the effects of
leadership on employee’s behavior.
Employee’s intention to quit the company and look for new job opportunities is also
fundamental for building a good relationship with the organization. Companies with more
committed employees will be able to maintain for a longer term their work force and have
sufficient time to develop specific skills in them that will make the difference in the
innovation success (Allen et al., 2015).
Quality relationships between organizations and employees are characterized by the
mutual interest of both parts. Intrapreneurs can be personally motivated by different aspects
as their personal career objectives, temperament, personality, preference for autonomy and
risk tolerance (Carrier, 1996; Chan et al., 2017; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). Additionally,
they can value instrumental reasons, as achieving a reward or fulfil an obligation (Rigtering
7
et al., 2019). Managers should understand and incorporate workers expectations in their
policies and decisions. Likewise, employees will show a consistent behavior committed to
organization strategies and problems (Park et al., 2014). Employees will be more personally
motivated, aligned with organizational context and satisfied with their job (Badoiu et al.,
2020).
Intrapreneurial intention constitutes the desire of an employee to develop new ideas and
projects inside its current organization and that will lead to being considered intrapreneurial
(Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). An interesting finding of Hatak et al. (2015, p. 50) is that “older
employees have a lower intention to act entrepreneurially, and that this intention is lower
when there is a higher degree of job identification”. Additionally, Zhao et al. (2005) included
the factor gender as an influencer in intrapreneurial intentions. Generally, women reported
lower intentions to become entrepreneurs.
2.2.2 Intrapreneur characteristics
The employee characteristics is one of the aspects that will be taken in consideration
as an influencer of intrapreneurial behaviors. As such, we will evaluate the effect of the
perception of own capabilities in the employees’ perspective and past experience and
knowledge. Below, each factor is explained in detail.
Table 2 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial characteristics
Characteristics Authors/ Year

Perception of their (C. C. Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; G. Chen, Gully, & Eden,
own capabilities
2001; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Globocnik & Salomo,
2015; Stull, 2005; Wakkee, Elfring, & Monaghan, 2010; Wang,
Ellinger, & Wu, 2013; Zhao et al., 2005)
Past experience and (Asiaei et al., 2020; C. J. Chen, Shih, & Yang, 2009; De Winne
knowledge
& Sels, 2010; Escriba-Carda, Revuelto-Taboada, Canet-Giner,
& Balbastre-Benavent, 2020; Garcia-Morales, Bolivar-Ramos, &
Martin-Rojas, 2014; Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013; Kelley,
O’Connor, Neck, & Peters, 2011; Moriano et al., 2014;
Moutinho, Au-Yong-Oliveira, Coelho, & Manso, 2016;
8
Pellegrini, Annunziata, Rizzi, & Frey, 2019; Subramaniam &
Youndt, 2005; Sundin & Tillmar, 2008; Urbano & Turro, 2013;
Valka, Roseira, & Campos, 2020; van Dam, Schipper, &
Runhaar, 2010; Wang et al., 2013)
Employees’ perception of own capabilities, seen as confidence and self-efficacy, the literature
links it to intrapreneurial behavior. In accordance with Wakkee et al. (2010, p. 17), self-
efficacy has a significant positive effect on the level of intrapreneurial behavior because
“when a person believes he or she is capable of entrepreneurial behavior this perception will
be reflected in the actual level of this entrepreneurial behavior”. Self-efficacy can be classified
as a motivational construct that interfere in the activities choice, goal levels, persistence and
performance (Zhao et al., 2005). For example, employees tend to make their choices based
on the level of the perceived personal control, opting for going ahead with activities which
they feel efficacious and more competent (C. C. Chen et al., 1998). Woo (2018) added in his
research that career adaptability can increase self-efficacy. Employees with the capability to
adapt their career challenges when the environment is uncertain will be more prepared to
face and manage job challenges of the innovative processes and accomplish challenging
goals. It is expected that employees with strong career adaptability will also be able to use
this feature in their work. Moreover, usually highly self-efficacious employees are more
committed and motivated, accept tasks with a higher level of risk and show more persistence
to fulfill the objectives they set themselves (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015). Finally, Zhao et al.
(2005) concluded that self-efficacy would be potentiated through previous entrepreneurial
work experience and risk propensity. This factor can even moderate the effect of
intrapreneurial intentions in intrapreneurial behaviors. According to Douglas and
Fitzsimmons (2008) individuals who perceive themselves with more capabilities to act
intrapreneurially will show higher intention to develop intrapreneurial behaviors.
Past experience and knowledge are also related to intrapreneurship. Past experience is
considered a path in which individuals accumulate knowledge derived from the experience
of social relationships and their exposure to different beliefs and ideas (Moutinho et al.,
2016). Also referred in literature as a determinant of the intrapreneurial behavior, namely
past intrapreneurial experience that constitutes an important advantage for creating a new
venture; it allows the increasing of the knowledge base, networking capacity of individuals,
9
leadership skills and reinforce the individuals’ self-confidence (C. J. Chen et al., 2009;
Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013). “Individuals with a broad range of work experience will
have greater knowledge about particular industries, markets, technologies, government
regulations and competition than will persons with more limited experience” (Baron, 2006,
p. 112). Moreover, past experiences contribute to the strengthening of intrapreneurs
knowledge and allows the increase of their capacity to recognize opportunities and perceive
the ideas’ future success and utility (Pellegrini et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2013). Pellegrini et al.
(2019) recognized the importance of experience in intrapreneurial employees within
organizations as an intrinsic characteristic of sustainable intrapreneurs. This characteristic
can be especially relevant to overcome the challenges of the first years after the creation of a
business (Asiaei et al., 2020).
In what concerns to knowledge, which includes skills, abilities and knowledge in the
work field, it is expected to contribute to superior performance of employees (van Dam et
al., 2010). Organizations aiming to create and exploit new ideas and innovations are
dependent of employees’ skills and knowledge in the area and as such, they should invest in
training the workforce (Garcia-Morales et al., 2014). More skilled and creative employees
with expertise in their tasks and functions will be sources of greater questioning of the
organization's dynamics, sources of new knowledge and they will be more flexible in
acquiring new skills (Asiaei et al., 2020; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005). Kelley et al. (2011)
suggested that companies can move employees between the different departments and
projects to improve their knowledge capacity to work in high uncertainty environments.
Moreover, according to Sundin and Tillmar (2008), persistence is considerably relevant since
intrapreneurs usually face strong opposition and need to persistently continue their path of
development and implementation of new ideas. Regarding education and training, it
“increases the probability of corporate entrepreneurship” (Urbano & Turro, 2013, p. 388)
and potentiate the probability to develop intrapreneurial behaviors (Moriano et al., 2014).
When individuals have higher levels of knowledge, they will be more capable to perceive
profitable opportunities and exploit them. The combination of new and previous knowledge
could be a tool to foster the introduction of new insights, perspectives and discovery of new
opportunities (De Winne & Sels, 2010). Also, according to the study developed by Valka et
al. (2020), the educational level can influence positively the intrapreneurial behavior through
the increasing in risk-taking disposition. The risk-taking behavior can be also positively
affected when employees have great knowledge about their job market and employment
10
trends (van Dam et al., 2010). By investing in employees’ knowledge companies will increase
the quality of their human capital which will also bring new internal competences, expertise
and security in relying on the internal knowledge (Pellegrini et al., 2019). Knowledge should
be shared between all employees in order to connect the different organization’s domains
and stimulate intrapreneurial behaviors (Escriba-Carda et al., 2020). Moreover,
intrapreneurial behaviors can be promoted through the development of employees’ skills are
task challenges. These tasks constitute generally work assignments that get out of the
required routine tasks and, for this reason, oblige employees to test new abilities and skills,
understand new contexts and develop new behaviors. As such, intrapreneurs will be able to
increase learning, training and potentiate their skills and competencies (Preenen,
Dorenbosch, Plantinga, & Dhondt, 2019).
2.3 Organizational factors
Intrapreneurs when performing their works in companies show a set of behaviors

that are expected to impact positively the organization intrapreneurship. However, the
success of these behaviors relies on the organization context and how the strategies defined
by the organization fit in with their employees (Hornsby et al., 2002; Zampetakis, Beldekos,
& Moustakis, 2009). So, below are detailed the factors, namely management support, rewards
and reinforcements, work discretion and resources, that can potentiate or enhance the
intrapreneurial behaviors.
Table 3 - Studies addressing organizational factors
Organizational factors Authors/ Year

Management support (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Badoiu et al., 2020; Garcia-Morales
et al., 2014; Halme, Lindeman, & Linna, 2012; Hornsby et al.,
2002; Martin-Rojas, Garcia-Morales, & Gonzalez-Alvarez,
2019; Moriano et al., 2014; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Renko, El
Tarabishy, Carsrud, & Braennback, 2015; Stathakopoulos,
Kottikas, Theodorakis, & Kottika, 2019; Stull, 2005; Valsania
et al., 2016; Zampetakis et al., 2009)
11
Rewards/reinforcements (Badoiu et al., 2020; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2008; Gawke et
al., 2019; Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Hornsby et al., 2002;
Sebora & Theerapatvong, 2010)
Work discretion (Allen et al., 2015; Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Badoiu et al.,
2020; Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Hornsby et al., 2002;
Moriano et al., 2014; Pellegrini et al., 2019; Reibenspiess et al.,
2020; Stathakopoulos et al., 2019; Stull, 2005; Valsania et al.,
2016)
Resources (Badoiu et al., 2020; Burstrom & Wilson, 2015; Hornsby et al.,
2002; Puech & Durand, 2017; Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013; Stull,
2005)
Management support: since intrapreneurial activities require a certain level of risk and
creativity for employees, management support is seen as an important factor. By supporting,
recognizing and trusting in intrapreneurs initiatives, organizations will facilitate and promote
intrapreneurship through encouraging employees (Neessen et al., 2019). Additionally, top
managers can enhance intrapreneurship by investing in R&D, in employees’ skills and know-
how, in innovation systems and in external technology acquisition (Martin-Rojas et al., 2019).
A study from Zampetakis et al. (2009) argue that the perception from employees about
receiving higher levels of management support can foster an organization's employees
willingness to repay this care through a positive work attitude and behavior that benefit the
organization. Trust in employees decisions can have a reciprocal nature that may result in a
feeling of obligation to compensate the trust through the desired behaviors by managers
(Stull, 2005). On the contrary, in organizations where managers present intolerance to the
intrapreneurial activities, characterized by higher risks, uncertainty and deviation from the
usual company practices, it is expected a negative effect on the innovation progress (Halme
et al., 2012).
The level of management support is dependent of the type of leadership followed.
According to Moriano et al. (2014), transformation leadership, briefly characterized by
leaders who inspire their followers to adopt the vision of the organization, has a positive
impact on intrapreneurial behavior. On the other hand, transactional leadership has a
negative relation with intrapreneurial behavior since it is described as the existence of clear
structures and roles where managers are closely monitoring any deviances and mistakes.
12
Finally, passive-avoidant leadership does not affect the intrapreneurial behavior. This type of
leadership groups the managers that do not define goals and expectations for employees and
punish them when there are performances below the standards. Usually, this behavior does
not stimulate innovation and creativity. So, for the success of an intrapreneurial strategy is
necessary, in addition to employees with certain characteristics and behaviors and a favorable
context, a leadership style that recognizes and exploits intrapreneurial opportunities. The
leaders will directly influence the company to have a structure adapted to intrapreneurship,
but also will positively induce employees’ behaviors toward intrapreneurial goals and increase
their commitment and identification (Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Renko et al., 2015; Valsania
et al., 2016).
Another important dimension is rewards and reinforcements. Sebora and Theerapatvong

(2010, p. 332) expressed that “the ability to consistently and systematically create a stream of
incremental and radical innovations is wholly dependent on an appropriate creative culture
replete with reward systems and legitimizing processes that encourage the entrepreneurial
spirit”. As such, since the intrapreneurial activity involves risk-taking, rewards will increase
the willingness for employees to be involved in the innovative process. Rewards should be
connected to specific objectives and behaviors in order to encourage employees to develop
the intended attitudes and increase commitment. They should be used as a signal of
recognition and not of behavior control (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015).
Autonomy, i.e. work discretion is characterized by processes of decentralized decision-

making and employees’ freedom to design their work, which it is expected to increase
intrapreneurial activities and self-efficacy of employees (Neessen et al., 2019). Employees
with more autonomy have more freedom to show deviant behaviors and carry out innovative
activities without superior’s approval. This brings a better attitude and motivation for job
performance without imminent personal risk for the intrapreneur (Globocnik & Salomo,
2015). As expressed in the study of Moriano et al. (2014) when companies implement rigid
rules and structures the consequence could be the inhibition of intrapreneurship. In contexts
where managers expect to have intrapreneurial employees that innovate and exploit new
opportunities, the stricter control of employees’ work is an obstacle to the learning and
experimentation needed and can result in negative performances and frustration (Allen et al.,
2015). Also, according to the study developed by Reibenspiess et al. (2020), it is relevant to
13
have structures that go beyond simple processes where employees can give their innovative
ideas and contributions. The organization structure should be prepared to receive the
employee inputs, follow them up in a short period of time, evaluate each suggestion in a
transparent way and give feedback. The inclusion of some of the mentioned factors will have
an expected benefit in employees’ commitment and facilitate intrapreneurial behavior.
Finally, resources are capable to determine positively intrapreneurship. Resources can

encompass the financial resources, the human resources available and time availability.
According to Hornsby et al. (2002, p. 260), “the availability of slack resources usually
encourages experimentation and risk-taking behaviors”. The availability and distribution of
resources between the different levels of the organization, including functions with lower
levels of responsibility, can enhance the development of innovative ideas throughout the
organization structure (Burstrom & Wilson, 2015). Moreover, Puech and Durand (2017)
conducted a study about the qualitative nature of time used or needed by intrapreneurs. It
was concluded that “intrapreneurial activity is thus not just a question of quantity of time
available; it is a question of quality of the time used. And this issue is crucial, particularly
during exploration” (Puech & Durand, 2017, p. 148). In this phase intrapreneurs already
identified the opportunity and are perceiving and exploring it.
2.4 Intrapreneurial behavior
The behavior of employees is affected by the several dimensions that were explained
before. Intrapreneurs play a fundamental role in companies’ performance and for this reason
special emphasis will be given in this study to the intrapreneurship at individual-level. As
such, the importance of innovativeness, proactiveness, opportunity recognition and
exploitation, risk-taking and networks for the organization will be highlighted next.
Intrapreneurial behavior can be considered as a voluntary behavior developed by
employees with the objective of discovering new opportunities and generating new ideas,
creating new products and business lines. However this type of behavior can trigger conflicts
and controversial situations since it often encompasses the performance of unexpected
activities and that deviate from the norm without managers’ permission and formal
legitimacy (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Valsania et al., 2016).
14
Table 4 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial behaviors
Behaviors Authors/ Year

Innovativeness (Farrukh, 2017; Gawke et al., 2019; Gomez-Haro, Aragon-
Correa, & Cordon-Pozo, 2011; Kearney, Hisrich, &
Antoncic, 2013; Kollmann, Stockmann, Meves, &
Kensbock, 2017; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Rigtering et al.,
2019; Valka et al., 2020; Valsania et al., 2016)
Proactiveness (Gawke et al., 2019; Gomez-Haro et al., 2011; Kearney et al.,
2013; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Valka et al., 2020; Valsania et
al., 2016)
Opportunity recognition (Baron & Tang, 2011; Fellnhofer, 2017; Urban & Wood,
and exploitation
2015; Urbano & Turro, 2013; Wang et al., 2013)
Risk-taking (Alam, Nasir, & Rehman, 2020; Farrukh, 2017; Gawke et al.,
2019; Gomez-Haro et al., 2011; Kearney et al., 2013;
Kollmann et al., 2017; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Valka et al.,
2020; Valsania et al., 2016)
Networks (Asiaei et al., 2020; Janssen, 2000; Pellegrini et al., 2019;
Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017; Smith, Rees, & Murray, 2016;
Urbano & Turro, 2013; Wang et al., 2013)
Firstly, innovativeness or creativeness appear in the literature as one of the most referred
behaviors. This concept consists in “a set of work behaviors that create, introduce and apply
new ideas within a work role, team or organization in order to benefit job performance, team
performance or the performance of the organization” (Gawke et al., 2019, p. 6). Kollmann
et al. (2017) assume innovativeness as a predisposition to create new ideas and break with
the implemented paradigms and routines. Moreover, these authors highlight the benefits for
organizations of work teams composed by individuals who improve the existing solutions
and make them more efficient (“adaptors”) and individuals who focus on creating ideas and
different processes (“innovators”). The creative process requires employees to act in a
“decidedly entrepreneurial manner” and it has as the expected result the new value creation
(Rigtering et al., 2019).
15
About proactiveness, it describes the active behaviors that employees engage without
receiving an explicit instruction or having an explicit work role requirement. Individuals with
this conduct develop anticipatory actions to capitalize on upcoming opportunities rather than
reactively respond to current demands (Gawke et al., 2019). Usually proactive employees are
more resilient to external difficulties that hinder the pursuit of their goals and show a higher
intrapreneurial intention (Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). In the perspective of the organization,
when these entities present a global behavior of proactivity (more aggressive, risky and
competitive market strategies), they tend to be more innovative (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011).
In terms of opportunity recognition and exploitation, the concept consists in the employees’
capacity to observe the environment and recognize opportunities that can bring future
benefits. Then, exploit the verified gaps is a valuable capacity and requires adaptability and
persistence. This process usually starts with the existence of an opportunity or necessity for
changing the current situation (Urban & Wood, 2015). Intrapreneurs observe and exam what
is happening in their area, try to recognize links between them and subsequently recognize
the specific patterns in order to discover a new business opportunity (Baron, 2006).
Companies with a strategy based and oriented to opportunity recognition and exploitation
are closer to have an intrapreneurial strategy and find sustainable innovations and business
success (Fellnhofer, 2017).
Risk-taking “entails taking bold actions and allocating significant personal and
organizational resources in intrapreneurial projects when the outcome is uncertain” (Gawke
et al., 2019, p. 6). In the literature there are different findings about the relationship between
risk-taking and employee intrapreneurship. Due to the diversity of risks that can be associated
to intrapreneurial activity, as reputation damage, lowered social status and job threat, it is
difficult to predict the effect of each type of risk. However, in general, scholars argue that
risk-taking is inherent to intrapreneurial activity (Gawke et al., 2019; Gomez-Haro et al.,
2011). The study conducted by Gawke et al. (2019) concludes for the absence of any
relationship between an employee’s sensitivity to negative outcomes and employee
intrapreneurial behavior. This was justified since most of the negative consequences that may
arise from the performance of the intrapreneur’s tasks usually impact the organization as a
whole and not directly the employee. Additionally, the risk-taking behavior could be
potentiated when managers are more tolerant to higher levels of risk, uncertainty and to
16
greater likelihood of errors arising from the innovation efforts (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011).
Another perspective introduced by Kollmann et al. (2017) is the composition of working
teams. When the groups are composed by employees with different risk sensitivities, risk-
taking may result in relationship conflicts and, by consequence, a negative team efficiency
and performance.
Lastly, networks are also positively related to intrapreneurial outcomes and to the
intention to be intrapreneurial. According to Urbano and Turro (2013, p. 383) “networks are
considered the opportunity structures through which entrepreneurs obtain information,
resources, and social support to identify and exploit opportunities”. Defined as an asset that
resides in an individual’s relationships and consists of the goodwill flowing from friends,
colleagues and other general contacts who provide the necessary power behind ideas
(Janssen, 2000; Urbano & Turro, 2013). Networks can create a competitive advantage for
organizations, improving their knowledge and capabilities, and can provide access to new
opportunities, markets and resources that may not be directly related to their environment
(Smith et al., 2016). Moreover, organizations with the capacity to strategically manage
different sources of knowledge will complement their internal expertise and competences.
Pellegrini et al. (2019) argue that while organization related expertise provides mainly tacit
knowledge on business dynamics and related sustainability challenges, networks can supply
technical knowledge on alternative solutions to deal with these challenges. No company can
be expected to have or develop the sufficient knowledge for innovation within its own
structure (Asiaei et al., 2020).
2.5 Intrapreneurial outcomes
Intrapreneurship takes shape through the combination of all factors previously

explained and translates on three dimensions: innovations/ new products, new business
venturing and self-renewal. The aim of companies that show an intrapreneurial strategy is to
achieve higher rates of internal development, growth and profitability. These are the expected
impacts of intrapreneurship in companies’ performance.
Briefly explaining each of these dimensions based on the definitions presented by
Kearney et al. (2013, p. 336), innovation is considered as “a premier mechanism for
rejuvenating or redefining organizations. Product and service innovation is a fundamental
17
aspect of private sector entrepreneurial organizations”. Regarding the new business
venturing, our study assumes it as the new business creation within an existing organization
(Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). “Venturing can occur throughout the organization and is
more likely when an organization is preoccupied with growth and aims to improve
profitability and competitiveness” (Kearney et al., 2013, p. 336). About self-renewal,
flexibility and adaptability are fundamental. “Renewal requires developing or adopting new
organizational structures that spur innovation and venturing” (Kearney et al., 2013, p. 336).
2.6 Control variables
This research additionally considered some control variables with the aim to verify
the existence or not of any differences in results according to the groups in which the
respondent is inserted. As such, it will be evaluated the impact of gender, age, main
occupation at the moment of the survey, years of professional experience and educational
level. Moreover, respondents will have to indicate the size and type of the organization where
they are currently working or where they worked before. In section 4.1 and table 7 it is
described the sample obtained in the survey.
Some previous researches focused in the influence of these control variables on
intrapreneurship. Adachi and Hisada (2017) concluded that gender impacts the development
of intrapreneurial activities. Taking in consideration individuals with the same characteristics,
women are less involved in intrapreneurship when compared to men. Zhao et al. (2005)
observed that women showed lower intention to be intrapreneur.
In respect to the variable age, Kacperczyk (2012) stated that younger employees are
more willing to assume a risk-taking behavior when developing intrapreneurship. Although,
with the age increment, this disposition tends to decrease. The years of professional
experience will be another parameter to be evaluated in our research. This control variable is
expected to impact intrapreneurship. Wang et al. (2013) include it in their study and referred
that employees with more professional experience are more capable to recognize new
opportunities and be intrapreneurs.
About the education level, literature consider this factor as relevant. Urbano and
Turro (2013) indicated that higher education levels enable knowledge accumulation and, by
consequence, it increases employees’ probability to be intrapreneurs. Additionally, the
18
educational level can also potentiate intrapreneurial behaviors through the increasing in risk-
taking disposition (Valka et al., 2020).
The research from Kacperczyk (2012) studied the effect of organizations size. It was
concluded that large and mature firms register higher levels of intrapreneurship between
employees, since they tend to provide more attractive opportunities for the development of
internal ventures.
In what concerns to the organization type, there are already researches investigating
the factors that impact intrapreneurship in specific organizations. For example, the study
conducted by Stull (2005) addressed the topic of intrapreneurship for the specific case of
nonprofit organizations.
In this way, the results achieved will be analyzed through the Kruskal-Wallis H test
(section 4.5.1) and the Mann-Whitney test (section 4.5.2). These tools will allow us
understand if the demographical and organizational characteristics affect specifically any
variable considered in the research.
2.7 Synthesis of literature reviewed
Currently, the existing studies that develop and validate measurement instruments
focus the attention, in general, in a few factors. Also, when analyzing the intrapreneurial
characteristics and attitudes, it is not possible to find so far studies that analyze all these
aspects with the use of measurement tools. In terms of variables’ definitions and
explanations, there is a great diversity of descriptions which forced the choice of the most
concrete and adequate definitions for this research.
It was thus discriminated in this chapter the main dimensions and factors that
influence intrapreneurship and verified the most relevant methods used to assess their
importance, according to the literature review conducted by Gawke et al. (2019). Therefore,
it will be possible to use the contributions of all the articles analyzed to choose the most
complete measurement tool to be applied in each dimension considered.
19
3. Research objectives and methodology
In this chapter it will be firstly described the theoretical model and the hypotheses
under analysis (section 3.1). Additionally, we will present the questionnaire’s composition
and the measurement instruments selected to evaluate each variable (section 3.2), the process
of data collection (section 3.3), and it will analyze the data collected from the questionnaire
(section 3.4).
3.1 Hypotheses and theoretical model
Considering all the relevant factors mentioned in literature that can influence
intrapreneurship, a framework was constructed to summarize all the interactions established
within the phenomenon under analysis. Figure 1 is inspired on Neessen et al. (2019) that
conducted a literature review in the area and summed up the main dimensions referred for
each category, namely the intrapreneur attitudes, the intrapreneur characteristics, the
organizational factors and the intrapreneurial behaviors. As such, we get an organized
perspective of the topic and a scheme that clarify the aspects that will be analyzed in the
study.
The individual and organizational factors were selected having as criteria their
relevance in the literature. Those that are most referred in the studies found and that are
expected to have more influence on intrapreneurship were selected (Neessen et al., 2019).
The objective was to select the most relevant variables considered in other researches and
integrate them in a single model. Until the moment, there was not any similar research in
Portugal and the number of investigations for similar economies are scarce. Usually, this type
of research is conducted in the USA and, for this reason, when applying to a cultural context
completely different as the Portuguese the results and conclusions can be affected (Turro et
al., 2016). Some variables presented in the original model of Neessen et al. (2019) (annexes
2) have been eliminated (satisfaction, motivation and organizational structure) or merged
with other variables (skills with personal knowledge and past experience). Thus, we obtained
a scheme that aggregates the main variables and removes the scales whose questions would
not bring relevant information for the investigation.
20
Intrapreneur characteristics
H5a; H5b;
H5c; H5d;
• Past experience and H5e
knowledge
H6
H3a; H3b;
• Perception of their own H3c; H3d;
capabilities H3e
H4
Intrapreneurial behavior
Individual-level
Intrapreneur attitudes
H2a; H2b;
H2c; H2d; • Innovativeness
H2e
• Intention
• Proactiveness
• Relation to the
organization H1a; H1b; • Opportunity recognition
H1c; H1d; and exploitation
H1e
• Risk-taking
• Networks
Organizational factors
H7a; H7b;
H7c; H7d;
H7e
• Management support
Organization-level
H8a; H8b;
H8c; H8d;
H8e
• Rewards/reinforcements
H9a; H9b;
H9c; H9d;
H9e
• Work discretion
H10a; H10b;
H10c; H10d;
H10e
• Resources
Figure 1 – Theorical framework of intrapreneurship
21
The framework is divided in two parts with the objective to explain the difference
between the two levels of intrapreneurship previously developed. At the individual-level,
intrapreneurship emerges from the influence of each employee. The individual characteristics
and attitudes shape their behaviors and by consequence the organization results. For
companies, it is relevant to understand what individual characteristics of their employees are
influencing the intrapreneurial behavior presented by each one, since they are all exposed to
the same context (Stull, 2005).
Moreover, this evaluates the influence of some organizational factors on
intrapreneurial behaviors. These are elements determined by the organization that affect
individually each worker and can condition intrapreneurial behaviors.
The objective is to test the impact of each factor on the intrapreneurial behaviors and
understand what are the variables more relevant to foster intrapreneurship in organizations.
The relationships to be tested are generically outlined in Figure 1 and will be presented in
the form of hypotheses in this chapter.
A good relationship between organizations and their employees is capable to

motivate the staff and encourage intrapreneurial behaviors. Employees become more loyal
and committed, less willing to leave the company and more disposed to help the organization
achieve its objectives (Farrukh, 2017). Therefore, we formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to higher
innovativeness.
Hypothesis 1b: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to higher
proactiveness.
Hypothesis 1c: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to higher
opportunity recognition and exploitation.
Hypothesis 1d: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to a higher risk-
taking behavior.
Hypothesis 1e: A good relationship between employees and organizations leads to the
development and use of networks.
In order to present an intrapreneurial behavior it is necessary to intend to contribute

for new ideas and projects (Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). Thus, employees should have the
22
intention to develop these behaviors. For this reason, we will test the described relation
through the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively innovativeness.
Hypothesis 2b: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively proactiveness.
Hypothesis 2c: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively the opportunity
recognition and exploitation.
Hypothesis 2d: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively the risk-taking
behavior.
Hypothesis 2e: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way impact positively the development
and use of networks.
The perception level of their own capabilities by an employee is capable to interfere

in their behaviors according to Wakkee et al. (2010). Intrapreneurs feeling more confident
consequently will perceive higher levels of personal control and competence performing
their work (C. C. Chen et al., 1998). In this way, employees who consider themselves to be
capable to succeed in an environment of uncertainty, such as intrapreneurship, are willing to
take the necessary risks and be persistent to accomplish their tasks (Globocnik & Salomo,
2015). Additionally, the perception of the employee own capabilities moderates positively
the relation between intrapreneurial intention and behaviors (Douglas & Fitzsimmons,
2008). So, the following hypotheses will be evaluated:
Hypothesis 3a: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop higher levels of
innovativeness.
Hypothesis 3b: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop higher levels of
proactiveness.
Hypothesis 3c: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop higher levels of
Hypothesis 3d: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop a higher level of
risk-taking behavior.
Hypothesis 3e: Employees with higher perception of their capabilities develop and use more their
networks.
23
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ perception of their capabilities moderates the relation between their
intrapreneurial intention and their intrapreneurial behaviors.
The past experience as intrapreneur allows the employees to enrich their knowledge
base and networking capacity (Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013). Employees become more
capable to recognize opportunities and highly prepared to exploit them (Pellegrini et al.,
2019). Moreover, skills and knowledge in the work field affect positively the intrapreneurial
behaviors since in these circumstances intrapreneurs are more prepared to deal with the daily
challenges and have the necessary competences to be successful. Also, the experience and
knowledge of employees is part of the elements necessary to develop their self-efficacy
(Pellegrini et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2005). As such, the next hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 5a: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its
innovativeness.
Hypothesis 5b: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its
proactiveness.
Hypothesis 5c: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its
Hypothesis 5d: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its
Hypothesis 5e: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases the
development and use of its networks.
Hypothesis 6: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its
perception of its own capabilities.
Management support influences intrapreneurial behaviors (Neessen et al., 2019).

Employees receive more support in their work, recognition and trust which stimulate a
positive work attitude and behavior aligned with the organization strategy (Stull, 2005;
Zampetakis et al., 2009). In this way, the following hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 7a: Higher levels of management support leads to higher innovativeness.

Hypothesis 7b: Higher levels of management support leads to higher proactiveness.
24
Hypothesis 7c: Higher levels of management support leads to higher opportunity recognition and
exploitation.
Hypothesis 7d: Higher levels of management support leads to a higher risk-taking behavior.
Hypothesis 7e: Higher levels of management support leads to the development and use of
networks.
Intrapreneurship involves risk and uncertainty in the job performance. For this
reason, rewards when connected to specific objectives and behaviors work as drivers of
commitment, legitimize processes and encourages involvement in the innovative process
(Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Sebora & Theerapatvong, 2010). Then, it was defined the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 8a: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase
innovativeness.
Hypothesis 8b: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase
proactiveness.
Hypothesis 8c: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase
Hypothesis 8d: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase the risk-
taking behavior.
Hypothesis 8e: Higher levels of rewards associated with intrapreneurial tasks increase the
Rigid rules and structures are barriers in the innovative process (Moriano et al., 2014).
Since the intrapreneurial activity involves risk and uncertainty, employees are highly
motivated and committed to develop intrapreneurial behaviors with a work environment
which provides more freedom (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015). Autonomy allows employees
to show in some circumstances deviant behaviors, experiment new processes and ideas and
move forward without having to repeatedly waste time waiting for supervisor approval (Allen
et al., 2015; Globocnik & Salomo, 2015). As such, this variable will be tested through the
next hypotheses:
Hypothesis 9a: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher innovativeness.
25
Hypothesis 9b: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher proactiveness.
Hypothesis 9c: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher opportunity recognition and
exploitation.
Hypothesis 9d: Higher levels of work discretion lead to a higher risk-taking behavior.
Hypothesis 9e: Higher levels of work discretion lead to the development and use of networks.
The availability of slack financial resources, human resources and time are capable to
stimulate intrapreneurial behaviors (Hornsby et al., 2002). Employees with extra resources
for innovative ideas have the opportunity to fulfill the required daily tasks and dedicate the
rest and sufficient resources to the development of innovative ideas successfully (Badoiu et
al., 2020; Puech & Durand, 2017). This encourage intrapreneurship through experimentation
and risk-taking behaviors (Hornsby et al., 2002). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 10a: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases innovativeness.
Hypothesis 10b: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases proactiveness.
Hypothesis 10c: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases opportunity
Hypothesis 10d: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases the risk-taking
behavior.
Hypothesis 10e: Higher level of resources available for intrapreneurship increases the
3.2 Questionnaire and measurement scales
The questionnaire built was composed by six parts and 100 questions. The first part
presented the study and its goal. In the second part, composed by 16 questions, we evaluated
the relation between employees and organizations through employees’ attitudes. The third
section had 11 questions and asked the participant to evaluate itself and some of its
characteristics. The fourth part with 35 questions had the aim to understand the behavior
and strategy of the organization where the participant works. In the fifth section, it was
evaluated the intrapreneurial behavior of the participants through 29 questions. The last part
consisted in eight questions intended to collect demographic data (age, gender), nationality,
26
main occupation, years of work experience, educational level) and size and type of the
organization.
Besides the scale used to evaluate innovativeness (5-point scale ranging from 1 – never
to 5 - always), the questionnaire measured each factor with Likert-type scales, where 1
represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree. The measurement scales used are
presented below in table 5. With the objective of harmonizing the questionnaire and avoiding
that there were any misunderstandings on the part of the participants, all scales were placed
with five points and with the same orientation (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). In the
case of the innovativeness scale we adapt it from a 7-point scale to a 5-point scale. In order
to evaluate the variable ‘resources’ it was used the questions number 10, 12 and 17 from the
scale used for the management support. The questions indicated allowed us to retain the
necessary information about the variable resources without having to add a specific scale.
Additionally, the questions were changed so that they were formulated in the same way and
it was introduced the feedback collected in the pre-test.
Table 5 - Measurement scales used in the questionnaire
Hypothesis Variable Measurement scale Author

H1a; H1b; H1c; Relation to the Please indicate your level of agreement (Mael & Ashforth,
H1d; H1e organization with the following information (1 – 1992)
Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree)
1. When someone criticizes the
organization, it feels like a personal
insult.
2. I am very interested in what others
think about the organization.
3. When I talk about the organization, I
usually say “we” rather than “they”.
4. This organization’s successes are my
successes.
5. When someone praises this
organization, it feels like a personal
compliment.
6. If a story in the media criticized the
organization, I would feel
embarrassed.
H2a; H2b; H2c; Intention Please indicate your level of agreement (Razavi & Ab
H2d; H2e with the following information (1 – Aziz, 2017)
1. I intend to help with the
development of a new product or
new service and new market.
2. I would be happy to be involved in
any entrepreneurial behavior of the
firm.
27
3. I would take initiative in doing
anything that might have high return
for the company I am working for,
even though the task might be risky.
4. I intend to start a new branch, or a
spin-off for the company I am
working for.
5. I will encourage others to
implement ideas for innovation in
the organization.
6. I enjoy having responsibility to
transform prototypes or ideas into
profitable outcomes.
7. I enjoy pursuing opportunities
despite limited resources.
8. I intent to involve in recognizing
and creating new opportunities in
relation to products, methods,
operations, or markets, establishes a
strategic vision for the organization.
9. I would prefer to push the senior
management team to adopt these
opportunities.
10. I will make every effort to peruse
the organization’s resources to carry
out their ideas.
H3a; H3b; H3c; Perception of Please indicate your level of agreement (G. Chen et al.,
their own with the following information (1 – 2001)
H3d; H3e; H4
capabilities Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree)
1. I will be able to achieve most of the
goals that I have set for myself.
2. When facing difficult tasks, I am
certain that I will accomplish them.
3. In general, I think that I can obtain
outcomes that are important to me.
4. I believe I can succeed at most any
endeavor to which I set my mind.
5. I will be able to successfully
overcome many challenges.
6. I am confident that I can perform
effectively on many different tasks.
7. Compared to other people, I can do
most tasks very well.
8. Even when things are tough, I can
perform quite well.
H5a; H5b; H5c; Past Please indicate your level of agreement (Wang et al., 2013)
experience and with the following information (1 –
H5d; H5e; H6
knowledge Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree)
1. I acquire information from mistakes
that happen during work.
2. I can bring information relating to
my field to mind very quickly and
easily.
3. My knowledge of my field is broad.
H7a; H7b; H7c; Management Please indicate your level of agreement (Hornsby et al.,
support with the following information (1 – 2002)
H7d; H7e & H10a;
28
H10b; H10c; & 1. My organization is quick to use
improved work methods
H10d; H10e
Resources 2. My organization is quick to use
improved work methods that are
developed by workers.
3. In my organization, developing
one’s own ideas is encouraged for
the improvement of the
corporation.
4. Upper management is aware and
very receptive to my ideas and
suggestions.
5. Promotion usually follows the
development of new and innovative
ideas.
6. Those employees who come up with
innovative ideas on their own often
receive management encouragement
for their activities.
7. The ‘‘doers’’ are allowed to make
decisions on projects without going
through elaborate justification and
approval procedures.
8. Senior managers encourage
innovators to bend rules and rigid
procedures in order to keep
promising ideas on track.
9. Many top managers have been
known for their experience with the
innovation process.
10. Money is often available to get new
project ideas off the ground.
11. Individuals with successful
innovative projects receive
additional reward and compensation
for their ideas and efforts beyond
the standard reward system.
12. There are several options within the
organization for individuals to get
financial support for their
innovative projects and ideas.
13. Individual risk takers are often
recognized for their willingness to
champion new projects, whether
eventually successful or not.
14. People are often encouraged to take
calculated risks with new ideas
around here.
15. The term ‘‘risk taker’’ is considered
a positive attribute for people in my
work area.
16. This organization supports many
small and experimental projects
realizing that some will undoubtedly
fail.
17. A worker with a good idea is often
given free time to develop that idea.
18. There is considerable desire among
people in the organization for
29
generating new ideas without regard
to crossing departmental or
functional boundaries.
19. People are encouraged to talk to
workers in other departments of this
organization about ideas for new
projects.
H8a; H8b; H8c; Rewards/ Please indicate your level of agreement (Hornsby et al.,
reinforcements with the following information (1 – 2002)
H8d; H8e
1. My manager helps me get my work
done by removing obstacles
2. The rewards I receive are dependent
upon my work on the job.
3. My supervisor will increase my job
responsibilities if I am performing
well in my job.
4. My supervisor will give me special
recognition if my work performance
is especially good.
5. My manager would tell his boss if
my work was outstanding.
6. There is a lot of challenge in my job.
H9a; H9b; H9c; Work Please indicate your level of agreement (Hornsby et al.,
discretion with the following information (1 – 2002)
H9d; H9e
1. I feel that I am my own boss and do
not have to double check all of my
decisions.
2. Harsh criticism and punishment
result from mistakes made on the
job.
3. This organization provides the
chance to be creative and try my
own methods of doing the job.
4. This organization provides freedom
to use my own judgment
5. This organization provides the
chance to do something that makes
use of my abilities.
6. I have the freedom to decide what I
do on my job.
7. It is basically my own responsibility
to decide how my job gets done.
8. I almost always get to decide what I
do on my job.
9. I have much autonomy on my job
and am left on my own to do my
own work.
10. I seldom have to follow the same
work methods or steps for doing my
major tasks from day to day.
Innovativeness Please indicate your level of frequency of (Janssen, 2000)
the following statements (1 – Never; 5 –
Always)
1. I create new ideas or solutions for
difficult issues.
30
2. I search out new working methods,
techniques or instruments.
3. I generate original solutions for
problems.
4. I try to mobilize support for
innovative ideas.
5. I attempt to acquire approval for
innovative ideas.
6. I try to make important
organizational members enthusiastic
for innovative ideas.
7. I transform innovative ideas into
useful applications.
8. I introduce innovative ideas into the
work environment in a systematic
way.
9. I evaluate the utility of innovative
ideas.
Proactiveness Please indicate your level of agreement (Frese, Fay,

with the following information (1 – Hilburger, Leng, &
Strongly disagree; 5 – Strongly agree) Tag, 1997)
1. I actively attack problems.
2. Whenever something goes wrong, I
search for a solution immediately.
3. Whenever there is a chance to get
actively involved, I take it.
4. I take initiative immediately even
when others don’t.
5. I use opportunities quickly in order
to attain my goals.
6. Usually I do more than I am asked
to do.
7. I am particularly good at realizing
ideas.
Opportunity recognition and Please indicate your level of agreement (Wang et al., 2013)
exploitation with the following information (1 –
1. While going about routine day-to-
day activities, I see potential
opportunities all around me.
2. I have a special “alertness” or
sensitivity toward new
opportunities.
3. “Seeing” potential new
opportunities does not come very
naturally to me.
Risk-taking Please indicate your level of agreement (Farrukh, 2017)

with the following information (1 –
1. I boldly move ahead with a
promising new approach when
others might be more cautious.
2. I will be willing to give up some
salary in exchange for the chance to
try out my business idea if the
rewards for success were adequate.
31
3. In the course of my work, I will take
calculated risks despite the
possibility of failure.
4. If large interests are at stake, I
regularly go for the big win even
when things could go seriously
wrong.
Networks Please indicate your level of agreement (Razavi & Ab

with the following information (1 – Aziz, 2017)
1. I spend a lot of time and effort at
work networking with others
2. At work, I know a lot of important
people and am well connected
3. I am good at using my connections
and networks to make things
happen at work
4. I have developed a large network of
colleagues and associates at work
who I can call on for support when
I really need to get things done
5. I spend a lot of time at work
developing connections with others
6. I am good at building relationships
with influential people at work
3.3 Data collection
To analyze the different hypotheses, we used an online questionnaire to collect data.

This is the method most frequently used in similar researches (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001;
Farrukh, 2017; Gawke et al., 2019; Hornsby et al., 2002; Kearney et al., 2013; Moriano et al.,
2014; Wakkee et al., 2010).
The questionnaire was originally built in English based on the examples of other
scales already tested in the literature. However, since the survey was applied to Portuguese
employees, it was necessary to translate and adapt all the questions to Portuguese. Finally, to
ensure that our target understand all questions we made a pre-test with nine people. In
general, the meaning of all questions was well understood and where there were some doubts
the suggestions of each respondent were incorporated.
The final questionnaire was launched in the end of May 2020 and the data collection
was concluded in the middle of June. It was disseminated through social networks and direct
emails. The process of sending requests to participate in the questionnaire was progressive
and ended with a total of 310 responses. The questionnaire could be answered by all people
with at least one year of professional experience. It was requested that people currently
32
employed to respond with respect to the company or organization where they are working.
If respondents in that moment were not employed, answers should be given about the last
company or organization where they worked.
3.4 Data analysis
Before testing the hypotheses previously described, it was necessary to verify if the
results achieved follow a normal distribution. The conclusions were drawn taking in
consideration the methods described by Field (2009) and Malhotra, Birks, and Nunan (2017).
We investigated the results from histograms and P-P plots, and we used the skewness level,
the kurtosis level, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test.
According to the skewness level generally all variables are skewed left, showing
negative values of skewness. The exception are the variables opportunity recognition and
resources which are skewed right (positive values of skewness). In terms of the kurtosis level,
all variables present a positive kurtosis value which means a distribution curve more peaked.
The exceptions are the variables resources and networks, with negative kurtosis values, and
risk-taking presenting a kurtosis value of zero. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk
tests, as well as histograms and P-P plots, confirm the deviations from a normal distribution,
presenting for all variables significant values lower than 0.05.
It is also important to check the reliability and internal consistency of the scales used
in the questionnaire. For this purpose we used the Cronbach’s alpha (α), which is commonly
used to measure scales’ reliability (Field, 2009). Values below 0.6 could mean unsatisfactory
levels of internal consistency reliability (Malhotra et al., 2017). The reliability for each variable
was tested separately and we reversed the results of question number three, since the question
was phrased in the negative form. The results are shown in table 6.
Table 6 - Cronbach's alpha values
Variables Cronbach’s alpha

Relation to the organization 0.702
Intention 0.849
Perception of their own capabilities 0.890
Past experience and knowledge 0.687
Management support 0.940
Resources 0.778
Rewards/ Reinforcements 0.830
33
Work discretion 0.904
Innovativeness 0.923
Proactiveness 0.864
Opportunity recognition and exploitation 0.385
Risk-taking 0.777
Networks 0.870
We concluded that all scales reflect reliable internal consistency as all variables
present Cronbach’s alpha values superior to 0.6. The only exception is the variable
opportunity recognition and exploitation which has an alpha of 0.385. This lower value could
be associated to the reduced dimension of the scale, constituted by only three questions.
According to Malhotra et al. (2017) the Cronbach’s alpha could be positively related to the
number of scale items. Furthermore, we evaluate the correlation between the three questions
that are part of the scale to analyze whether the results obtained are related. We only obtained
a significant correlation between the question one and two, which means that the scale
chosen from Wang et al. (2013) may not be able to produce reliable and satisfactory results.
Even so, the scale was maintained in the study and the results obtained will be analyzed with
special care. Besides that, once this is the only parameter below 0.6, globally the questionnaire
shows a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha.
Furthermore, we will analyze in the next chapter the data obtained from the
questionnaire through the means and standard deviations registered for each variable in order
to globally understand the responses trends (section 4.2). It will also be necessary to evaluate
the relationships between each characteristic, attitude and organizational factor with the five
intrapreneurial behaviors. The method to be used will be the Spearman’s correlations (section
4.3). With the purpose to test the hypotheses stated we will resort to the multiple linear
regression (section 4.4) and for the cases where the moderation and mediation effects will be
tested, specific analyzes will be made. Finally, the differences in the results obtained will be
analyzed according to the groups surveyed (control variables) through the Kruskal-Wallis H
test and the Mann-Whitney test (section 4.5).
34
4. Results
This chapter describes the sample obtained through the questionnaire and analyzes
the mean and standard deviations for each variable. Moreover, we will evaluate the
relationships between the different variables through Spearman’s rho () and the effect of
the independent variables in the intrapreneurial behavior variables with the multiple linear
regression. After testing the hypotheses stated, we will use the Kruskal-Wallis H test and the
Mann-Whitney test to investigate if the results achieved are different between the several
groups surveyed. These groups correspond to the control variables previously described in
section 2.6, namely gender, age, main occupation, years of professional experience,
educational level and size and type of the organization.
4.1 Sample description
As previously referred, any person with one year or more of professional experience
could answer the survey. The table 7 describes the respondents’ profile. 310 responses were
achieved, 49.4% of which were men and 50.6% women. Almost all respondents work as
employees in private organizations (64.8% and 81.6% respectively). In terms of age, more
responses were reached from people between 45 and 54 years old (28.4%) and only four
answers were collected from people with 65 or more years old. Furthermore, in average
24.8% of the answers came from people with less than four years of work experience or
from people between 21 and 30 years of experience. The majority of the sample has, in terms
of education level, high school or is undergraduate (35.8% and 35.2% respectively).
35
Table 7 - Respondents description
Results
Sample characteristics
Total Percentage
N 310 100%
- Male 153 49.4%
- Female 157 50.6%
Age
- 18 – 24 61 19.7%
- 25 – 34 62 20.0%
- 35 – 44 62 20.0%
- 45 – 54 88 28.4%
- 55 – 64 33 10.6%
- 65 or older 4 1.3%
Main occupation
Unemployed 8 2.6%
Student 11 3.5%
Student/worker 22 7.1%
Independent worker 51 16.5%
Employee 201 64.8%
Other 17 5.5%
Years of professional
experience
- 1–3 77 24.8%
- 4 – 10 47 15.2%
- 11 – 20 58 18.7%
- 21 - 30 77 24.8%
- Higher than 30 51 16.5%
Education level
- Middle school or
18 5.8%
lower
- High school 111 35.8%
- Undergraduate 109 35.2%
- Pos-graduate 72 23.2%
Size of the organization
- Until 10 workers 91 29.4%
- Between 11 and 50
64 20.6%
workers
- Between 51 and 250
69 22.3%
workers
- Higher than 250
86 27.7%
workers
Type of organization
- Private organization 253 81.6%
- Public organization 52 16.8%
- Third sector
5 1.6%
organization
36
4.2 Descriptive statistics
The table below (table 8) describes the means and standard deviations of each
variable analyzed in the research.
Table 8 - Means and standard deviations
N Mean Std. Deviation

Attitudes
- Relation to the organization (RO) 310 3,897 0.661
- Intrapreneurial intention (INT) 310 3.888 0.619
Characteristics
- Perception of their own capabilities 310 4.115 0.557
(POC)
- Past experience and knowledge 310 4.227 0.554
(PEK)
Organizational factors
- Management support (MS) 310 3.283 0.775
- Resources (R) 310 2.774 0.920
- Rewards/ Reinforcements (RW) 310 3.626 0.805
- Work discretion (WD) 310 3.508 0.810
Behaviors
- Innovativeness (INO) 310 3.757 0.688
- Proactiveness (PRO) 310 4.062 0.583
- Opportunity recognition/ 310 3.535 0.624
exploitation (ORE)
- Risk-taking (RT) 310 3.290 0.800
- Networks (NET) 310 3.701 0.758
All variables present a mean higher than three (except resources) which corresponds
to a positive sign of the sample for intrapreneurship. The highest means emerged in the
intrapreneurial characteristics. The past experience and knowledge with a mean of 4.227 and
the perception of their own capabilities with 4.115 demonstrate that, on average, the
respondents consider having built a strong knowledge and experience in their work area,
which may positively influence their intrapreneurial performance. Also, on average,
respondents feel confident about their capabilities and with the competences needed to
succeed in their work.
The lowest means appeared for the resources (2.774) management support (3.283)
and for risk-taking (3.290) although they are still above the indifference value of 3. Thus, it
is concluded for the people surveyed that organizations in average are not perceived to
provide financial resources or time specifically for the development of intrapreneurial
37
activities. In the case of management support, respondents do not feel significant support
from the company for the development of intrapreneurial behaviors. About the risk-taking
behavior, that value can denote a more cautions behavior on the part of respondents and
that does not jeopardize their job or company performance.
4.3 Spearman’s correlations
The Spearman’s correlations coefficients serve to evaluate the relationships between

two variables. This method is used when the variables are non-metric and do not assume a
normal distribution (Malhotra et al., 2017). In this way, through the results presented in table
9 we will analyze the existence or not of relationships between attitudes, characteristics and
organizational factors with the intrapreneurial behavior (defined through five variables).
The intrapreneurial behaviors of innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and
networks manifested a positive and significant relationship with all variables (all values for
the correlation coefficients are lower than 0.01), which indicates that all variables considered
(relation to the organization, intention, perception of their own capabilities, past experience
and knowledge, management support, resources, rewards and work discretion) stimulated
positively the intrapreneurial behavior. About opportunity recognition and exploitation, the
scenario is slightly different. This behavior presents a positive significant relationship
(correlation coefficients lower than 0.01) with intention (=0.463), perception of their own
capabilities (=0.371), past experience and knowledge (=0.450), management support
(=0.193), rewards (=0.294) and work discretion (=0.304). No significant relationship
was found between opportunity recognition and exploitation with the relation to the
organization and resources.
Through Spearman’s correlations we also confirmed the existence of a positive and
significant correlation between the perception of their own capabilities and the
intrapreneurial intention. As such, we can conclude that a self-efficacious employee will have
a greater intrapreneurial intention. Additionally, past experience and knowledge shows a
positive significant relationship with the perception of their own capabilities (=0.577). This
result allows us to conclude that higher levels of past experience and knowledge held by an
employee could increase its perception of their own capabilities and indirectly the
intrapreneurial behaviors.
38
Table 9 - Spearman's rho correlations
RO INT POC PEK MS R RW WD INO PRO ORE RT NET

Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.329** 0.185** 0.222** 0.312** 0.202** 0.202** 0.283** 0.229** 0.254** 0.090 0.136* 0. 195**
RO
Sig. (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.113 0.017 0.001
Correlation coefficient 0.329** 1.000 0.415** 0.471** 0.458** 0.292** 0.362** 0.415** 0.620** 0.564** 0.463** 0.486** 0.476**
INT
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.185** 0.415** 1.000 0.577** 0.261** 0.144* 0.270** 0.315** 0.459** 0.567** 0.371** 0.282** 0.375**
POC
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.222** 0.471** 0.577** 1.000 0.229** 0.105 0.217** 0.351** 0.479** 0.550** 0.450** 0.286** 0.323**
PEK
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.312** 0.458** 0.261** 0.229** 1.000 0.755** 0.592** 0.607** 0.534** 0.386** 0.193** 0.457** 0.460**
MS
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.202** 0.292** 0.144* 0.105 0.755** 1.000 0.446** 0.450** 0.344** 0.231** 0.058 0.354** 0.311**
R
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.064 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.312 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.202** 0.362** 0.270** 0.217** 0.592** 0.446** 1.000 0.463** 0.424** 0.340** 0.294** 0.323** 0.414**
RW
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.283** 0.415** 0.315** 0.351** 0.607** 0.450** 0.463** 1.000 0.543** 0.409** 0.304** 0.411** 0.423**
WD
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.229** 0.620** 0.459** 0.479** 0.534** 0.344** 0.424** 0.543** 1.000 0.628** 0.519** 0.608** 0.603**
INO
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.254** 0.564** 0.567** 0.550** 0.386** 0.231** 0.340** 0.409** 0.628** 1.000 0.518** 0.464** 0.524**
PRO
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000
Correlation coefficient 0.090 0.463** 0.371** 0.450** 0.193** 0.058 0.294** 0.304** 0.519** 0.518** 1.000 0.409** 0.439**
ORE
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000
39
Correlation coefficient 0.136* 0.486** 0.282** 0.286** 0.457** 0.354** 0.323** 0.411** 0.608** 0.464** 0.409** 1.000 0.463**
RT
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Correlation coefficient 0.195 0.476 0.375 0.323 0.460 0.311 0.414 0.423 0.603 0.524 0.439 0.463 1.000
NET
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 310
40
4.4 Multiple linear regression
To analyze the effect of the independent variables of the research model in the
intrapreneurial behavior (dependent variables), it will be used a multiple linear regression.
This method will be required to test the hypotheses stated before and analyze if the
independent variables are capable to predict the dependent variables. The model summary is
presented in annexes 3 and the table 10 expose the coefficients of each independent variable.
For each group of hypotheses there is a table to sum up if the results obtained supported the
hypotheses stated (tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18).
Table 10 - Multiple linear regression coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Collinearity Statistics
Coefficients Coefficients
t Sig.
Std.
B Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
Dependent variable: INO
(Constant) -0.185 0.258 -0.717 0.474
RO -0.051 0.045 -0.049 -1.150 0.251 0.822 1.216
INT 0.413 0.054 0.371 7.645 0.000 0.644 1.552
POC 0.145 0.062 0.117 2.327 0.021 0.600 1.666
PEK 0.172 0.064 0.139 2.706 0.007 0.580 1.724
MS 0.129 0.068 0.146 1.909 0.057 0.261 3.828
RW 0.058 0.044 0.068 1.319 0.188 0.577 1.733
WD 0.195 0.044 0.229 4.432 0.000 0.568 1.761
R -0.037 0.046 -0.050 -0.822 0.412 0.409 2.447
Dependent variable: PRO
(Constant) 0.458 0.228 2.010 0.045
RO -0.015 0.040 -0.017 -0.381 0.703 0.822 1.216
INT 0.249 0.048 0.264 5.217 0.000 0.644 1.552
POC 0.343 0.055 0.327 6.233 0.000 0.600 1.666
PEK 0.204 0.056 0.194 3.624 0.000 0.580 1.724
MS 0.070 0.060 0.093 1.173 0.242 0.261 3.828
RW 0.020 0.039 0.028 0.517 0.605 0.577 1.733
WD 0.044 0.039 0.062 1.143 0.254 0.568 1.761
R -0.013 0.040 -0.021 -0.333 0.739 0.409 2.447
Dependent variable: ORE
(Constant) 0.778 0.280 2.778 0.006
RO -0.109 0.049 -0.115 -2.233 0.026 0.822 1.216
INT 0.326 0.059 0.323 5.553 0.000 0.644 1.552
POC 0.144 0.067 0.129 2.134 0.034 0.600 1.666
PEK 0.221 0.069 0.196 3.197 0.002 0.580 1.724
MS -0.069 0.074 -0.086 -0.937 0.350 0.261 3.828
RW 0.141 0.048 0.181 2.953 0.003 0.577 1.733
WD 0.112 0.048 0.145 2.342 0.020 0.568 1.761
41
R -0.104 0.050 -0.153 -2.098 0.037 0.409 2.447
Dependent variable: RT
(Constant) 0.201 0.359 0.559 0.576
RO -0.112 0.062 -0.092 -1.795 0.074 0.822 1.216
INT 0.449 0.075 0.347 5.965 0.000 0.644 1.552
POC 0.092 0.086 0.064 1.064 0.288 0.600 1.666
PEK 0.053 0.088 0.036 0.593 0.553 0.580 1.724
MS 0.191 0.094 0.185 2.031 0.043 0.261 3.828
RW 0.007 0.061 0.007 0.111 0.912 0.577 1.733
WD 0.093 0.061 0.095 1.527 0.128 0.568 1.761
R 0.072 0.063 0.083 1.136 0.257 0.409 2.447
Dependent variable: NET
(Constant) 0.178 0.334 0.534 0.594
RO -0.018 0.058 -0.016 -0.309 0.757 0.822 1.216
INT 0.313 0.070 0.255 4.469 0.000 0.644 1.552
POC 0.232 0.081 0.170 2.875 0.004 0.600 1.666
PEK 0.018 0.082 0.013 0.223 0.823 0.580 1.724
MS 0.146 0.088 0.149 1.659 0.098 0.261 3.828
RW 0.126 0.057 0.134 2.223 0.027 0.577 1.733
WD 0.130 0.057 0.139 2.289 0.023 0.568 1.761
R -0.017 0.059 -0.021 -0.291 0.771 0.409 2.447
Starting by discussing the influence of the relation with the organization on the
intrapreneurial behavior, we concluded that this variable impacts the behaviors of
opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking; And shows no significant effect on
innovativeness, proactiveness and networks. However, contrary to what was expected, the
results indicate the existence of a negative impact of the relation to the organization. This
means that higher quality relationships between organizations and their employees could
decrease the intrapreneurial behaviors, specially opportunity recognition and exploitation
and risk-taking behaviors. In this way, the hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e are not supported
through the sample obtained. In researches from literature as the one conducted by Moriano
et al. (2014), it is concluded that employees properly aligned with the objectives and values
of their organizations are more likely to take risks and pursue innovative actions. However,
besides this relationship does not occur, we still register a negative effect of the variable on
the opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking behaviors.
Table 11 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 1
Hypotheses Supported/Not supported

H1a: A good relationship between employees and
Not supported
organizations leads to higher innovativeness.
42
H1b: A good relationship between employees and
Not supported
organizations leads to higher proactiveness.
H1c: A good relationship between employees and
organizations leads to higher opportunity recognition and Not supported
exploitation.
H1d: A good relationship between employees and
Not supported
organizations leads to a higher risk-taking behavior.
H1e: A good relationship between employees and
organizations leads to the development and use of Not supported
networks.
The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way presented a statistically significant and

positive effect with all dependent variables considered as intrapreneurial behaviors
(significance values lower than 0.05). Moreover, the intention was the most relevant variable
in previewing the innovativeness, opportunity recognition and exploitation, risk-taking and
networks. So, we can conclude that employees with higher intention to develop
intrapreneurial behaviors, actually end up transforming their intention in the five behaviors
considered. By consequence, we can conclude that all set of hypotheses 2 are supported as
it is expressed in table 12. The results are consistent with literature (Hatak et al., 2015; Razavi
& Ab Aziz, 2017; Zhao et al., 2005). Two of the authors referred expressed that individual’s
intentions are an essential condition for the implementation of intrapreneurial behaviors
(Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017).

H2a: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way
Supported
impact positively innovativeness.
H2b: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way
Supported
impact positively proactiveness.
H2c: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way
impact positively the opportunity recognition and Supported
exploitation.
43
H2d: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way
Supported
impact positively the risk-taking behavior
H2e: The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way
Supported
impact positively the development and use of networks
The perception of employees’ own capabilities also showed a positive significant

impact on almost all intrapreneurial behaviors. Self-efficacious employees are more capable
and confident to recognize and exploit new opportunities, develop innovative and proactive
behaviors and potentiate the positive effects of their networks. From all independent
variables considered, the perception of their own capabilities was the most relevant variable
in predicting proactiveness. No significant effect was found between this variable and the
risk-taking behavior. The conclusions for hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d and 3e are exposed in
table 13. In literature, some authors proved the existence of a positive relation between the
perception of employees’ own capabilities and the intrapreneurial behaviors (Globocnik &
Salomo, 2015; Wakkee et al., 2010). For example, Globocnik and Salomo (2015) expressed
that highly self-efficacious people tend to be more confident, committed and persistence,
which is an added value and allows employees to be able to develop intrapreneurial
behaviors, even in difficult circumstances.

H3a: Employees with higher perception of their
Supported
capabilities develop higher levels of innovativeness.
H3b: Employees with higher perception of their
Supported
capabilities develop higher levels of proactiveness.
H3c: Employees with higher perception of their
capabilities develop higher levels of opportunity Supported
H3d: Employees with higher perception of their
Not supported
capabilities develop a higher level of risk-taking behavior.
H3e: Employees with higher perception of their
Supported
capabilities develop and use more their networks.
44
The variable past experience and knowledge revealed a significant and positive effect
on some intrapreneurial behaviors, namely innovativeness, proactiveness and opportunity
recognition and exploitation. This support hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c. Thus, we conclude
that our results are in part in line with previous researches (Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013;
Pellegrini et al., 2019; van Dam et al., 2010). Past experience and knowledge allow employees
to be duly qualified to develop innovative behaviors, to find and explore new opportunities
and obtain results from their anticipatory actions. As already expressed, past experience and
knowledge is recognized as an intrinsic characteristic of sustainable intrapreneurs (Pellegrini
et al., 2019). On the other hand, hypotheses 5d and 5e are not supported.

H5a: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of
Supported
an employee increases its innovativeness.
H5b: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of
Supported
an employee increases its proactiveness.
H5c: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of
an employee increases its opportunity recognition and Supported
exploitation.
H5d: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of
Not supported
an employee increases its risk-taking behavior.
H5e: The accumulated past experience and knowledge of
an employee increases the development and use of its Not supported
networks.
About the management support, it only showed a significant and positive effect on
risk-taking. For this reason, we deduct that organizations which provide higher levels of
support to their employees for the development of intrapreneurship will foster their capacity
and willingness to take risks. In this way, the hypothesis 7d is supported. According to
Valsania et al. (2016), management support is capable to induce and facilitate employees’
behaviors, as risk-taking, toward intrapreneurial goals. This support can simply be a more
tolerant behavior from managers to the possibility of errors arising from the intrapreneurial
process of their employees (Gomez-Haro et al., 2011). This allows the intrapreneurs to take
45
the necessary risks directly associated to intrapreneurship without putting their job in danger.
The hypothesis 7a, 7b, 7c and 7e are not supported.

H7a: Higher levels of management support leads to
Not supported
higher innovativeness.
H7b: Higher levels of management support leads to
Not supported
higher proactiveness.
H7c: Higher levels of management support leads to
Not supported
higher opportunity recognition and exploitation.
H7d: Higher levels of management support leads to a
Supported
higher risk-taking behavior.
H7e: Higher levels of management support leads to the
Not supported
In respect to the variable rewards, we concluded that it impacts positively the

intrapreneurial behaviors of opportunity recognition and exploitation and networks. The
significance values were lower than 0.05. As such, hypotheses 8c and 8e are supported. This
result demonstrates the relative effectiveness of a reward system on intrapreneurial behaviors
and partially prove the results obtained in the literature (Globocnik & Salomo, 2015; Sebora
& Theerapatvong, 2010). For example, Sebora and Theerapatvong (2010) stated that rewards
are capable to have a great impact on intrapreneurial activity, through encouraging the
intended behaviors. In contrast, hypothesis 8a, 8b and 8d are not supported.

H8a: Higher levels of rewards associated with
Not supported
intrapreneurial tasks increase innovativeness.
H8b: Higher levels of rewards associated with
Not supported
intrapreneurial tasks increase proactiveness.
46
H8c: Higher levels of rewards associated with
intrapreneurial tasks increase opportunity recognition and Supported
exploitation.
H8d: Higher levels of rewards associated with
Not supported
intrapreneurial tasks increase the risk-taking behavior.
H8e: Higher levels of rewards associated with
intrapreneurial tasks increase the development and use of Supported
networks.
In what concerns to hypotheses 9a, 9c and 9e the results achieved support them.
The work discretion presented a statistically significant and positive effect on innovativeness,
opportunity recognition and exploitation and networks (significance values lower than 0.05).
Thus, in circumstances where organizations provide flexible structures and the sufficient
freedom to their employees, the three intrapreneurial behaviors considered will be increased.
Some previous researches also achieved similar results (Allen et al., 2015; Globocnik &
Salomo, 2015). Autonomy allows employees to exploit new opportunities, innovate and
make use of their networks without having to wait for supervisor approval and justify some
circumstantial deviant behaviors that occurred during this process. On the other hand,
hypotheses 9b and 9d are not supported. Interestingly, we did not find that greater
autonomy led to greater proactivity, what could mean that respondents do not feel that they
become more proactive because they have a more autonomous work. As such, considering
that no organizational factor impacts positively the proactiveness (hypotheses 7b, 8b, 9b and
10b are not supported), we can conclude that this behavior is intrinsic to each employee and
can not be stimulated by the conditions offered by an organization.

H9a: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher
Supported
innovativeness.
H9b: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher
Not supported
proactiveness.
47
H9c: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher
Supported
H9d: Higher levels of work discretion lead to a higher
Not supported
H9e: Higher levels of work discretion lead to the
Supported
Analyzing the results for resources, we concluded that this variable influence
negatively the opportunity recognition and exploitation. The level of resources available
presented no significant effect on innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and networks.
For this reason, as it is shown in table 18, hypotheses 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d and 10e are not
supported. In literature the studies developed considered the existence of a positive impact
of the variable on intrapreneurial behaviors (Hornsby et al., 2002; Puech & Durand, 2017).
However, the results achieved demonstrate that the resources available for intrapreneurship
have no impact on the considered behaviors and, contrary to what was expected, the effect
is detrimental to the recognition of new opportunities and their exploitation.

H10a: Higher level of resources available for
Not supported
intrapreneurship increases innovativeness.
H10b: Higher level of resources available for
Not supported
intrapreneurship increases proactiveness.
H10c: Higher level of resources available for
intrapreneurship increases opportunity recognition and Not supported
exploitation.
H10d: Higher level of resources available for
Not supported
intrapreneurship increases the risk-taking behavior.
H10e: Higher level of resources available for
intrapreneurship increases the development and use of Not supported
networks.
48
4.4.1 Moderation analysis
In order to test the hypothesis 4 previously stated it was necessary to run a specific
analysis. The results achieved are presented in annexes 4.
Firstly, we verified once again that the variables perception of their own capabilities
and intention have significant impact on intrapreneurial behaviors. However, when we add
a third variable to the model, which represents the moderation effect of perception of their
own capabilities in the variable intention, the significance parameter increases to values
higher than 0.05. This means that there is not a significant impact of the moderation effect
on the intrapreneurial behaviors. As such, hypothesis 4: “Employees’ perception of their
capabilities moderates the relation between their intrapreneurial intention and their
intrapreneurial behaviors” is not supported. Contrary to Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2008),
it can not be concluded that employees with higher perception of their own capabilities
develop a higher intention to be intrapreneur, which highly impact the intrapreneurial
behaviors.
4.4.2 Mediation analysis
In literature, as we already exposed, it is expected the existence of a mediation effect.

The relationship between past experience and knowledge and the five variables of the
intrapreneurial behaviors is mediated by the perception of their own capabilities. In order to
analyze the existence of this relationship it was necessary to use the PROCESS tool created
by Andrew F. Hayes on SPSS. This tool generated a group of results that are presented in
annexes 5.
Through the results achieved, we first concluded that there is a positive and
significant impact of past experience and knowledge in the perception of their own
capabilities. Then, analyzing the indirect effect of the variable past experience and knowledge
on the five intrapreneurial behaviors through the perception of their own capabilities, it is
possible to verify the existence of this relationship. With a 95% confidence interval, the
mediation effect was found and impacts all the variables of the intrapreneurial behavior (the
values for boot LLCI and boot ULCI are higher than zero). For this reason, hypothesis 6:
“The accumulated past experience and knowledge of an employee increases its perception
of its own capabilities” is supported.
49
This result meets the conclusions presented in literature. According to Pellegrini et
al. (2019) and Zhao et al. (2005), employees knowledge and experience are part of the
requirements for the development of their self-efficacy (perception of their own capabilities).
4.5 Differences between surveyed groups
4.5.1 Kruskal-Wallis H test
The Kruskal-Wallis H test will serve in this section to evaluate the differences in the
results between the several surveyed groups. The groups considered correspond to the
control variables already described in the chapter 2.6 and 4.1, except gender. All results
achieved from the Kruskal-Wallis H test are exposed in annexes 6.
Starting by analyzing the influence of age, it was possible to register some differences.
There was a significant effect of age in the variables relation to the organization, past
experience and knowledge, management support, resources, work discretion, innovativeness
and proactiveness (significance values lower than 0.05). For the variables referred, the age
group between 45 and 54 years old reported higher medians in relation to the organization,
past experience and knowledge and proactiveness (the variable proactiveness reported the
same medians for the age group between 45 and 54 and between 55 and 64). For management
support, resources, work discretion and innovativeness the age group of 65 years old or older
registered higher medians, followed by the age group between 45 and 54 years old
(innovativeness reported as second age group with higher median the group between 35 and
44). In these cases, we should be cautious when drawing conclusions since the questionnaire
only received 4 answers of people with more than 64 years old. Additionally, the results
indicate that for the variables where the factor age is significant, the younger respondents
registered lower medians. This fact contradicts some researches previously developed, such
as the research from Kacperczyk (2012), since it is concluded that younger employees tend
to be more disposed to take risks to pursuit intrapreneurial activities.
Analyzing the effect of the main occupation reported by the respondents, it was
possible to verify a significant impact of this control variable in all variables considered,
except in relation to the organization and networks. For the factors indicated the significance
values were lower than 0.05. In general, we verified that independent workers show higher
medians in almost all variables (intention, perception of their own capabilities, past
50
experience and knowledge, management support, resources, rewards, work discretion,
innovativeness and proactiveness) and, by contrast, unemployed respondents the lowest
medians (intention, management support, rewards, work discretion, innovativeness and
proactiveness).
In respect to the years of experience, this aspect only took significant effect in the
risk-taking behavior. The respondents with work experience between 4 and 10 years
presented higher levels of risk-taking behaviors, while the group with less work experience
(1-3 years of experience) showed less this type of behavior. The same result was obtained in
the parameter age, where, contrary to what was expected, younger employees stood out as
being less likely to develop some intrapreneurial behaviors when compared to the other age
groups.
Taking in consideration the education level of the respondents and its impact on the
results of each variable, we concluded that there was a significant effect in the relation to the
organization, perception of their own capabilities, management support and resources. No
significant effect was found in the dependent variables of the intrapreneurial behavior. An
important conclusion retained is the fact that the lower educational level considered (middle
school or lower) presented higher levels of influence (median scores) for all variables with
significant effect. On the contrary, the respondents with higher levels of education showed
lower medians of impact in the variables referred, except in the perception of their own
capabilities (lower impact for the respondents with high school level).
The size of the organization had significant effect in some variables, namely
management support, resources, rewards, work discretion, opportunity recognition and
exploitation and risk-taking. No significant impact was registered in the intrapreneurial
attitudes and characteristics. Moreover, in general terms for the variables considered, the
smaller the size of the organization the greater was the existence of conditions provided by
organizations to develop intrapreneurship. About opportunity recognition and exploitation,
it was more relevant for larger organizations, while organizations with a number of
employees between 11 and 50 registered higher levels of risk-taking. Although, in literature,
Kacperczyk (2012) concluded that larger organizations tend to register higher levels of
individual intrapreneurship.
To conclude this analyzes, we found a significant impact of the organization type for
three organizational factors and one intrapreneurial behavior. In third sector organizations
and private organizations we registered higher levels of management support, rewards, work
51
discretion and risk-taking behavior. By contrast, the organizations from the public sector
presented lower medians scores for all variables referred.
From all variables considered in the research, networks was the only factor that did
not registered any difference in its results according to the diverse control variables
measured.
4.5.2 Mann-Whitney test
The Mann-Whitney test will be used to evaluate the differences in the results
according to respondents’ gender. It was necessary to use this test specifically for control
variable gender since it is only constituted by two groups. The results achieved from the
Mann-Whitney test are exposed in annexes 7.
About the effect of gender in the variables considered, it was registered significant
impacts in some of them. For intrapreneurial intention, past experience and knowledge,
innovativeness, opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking there were a
significant effect (significance values lower than 0.05). In these five variables, male
respondents reported higher levels compared to female respondents (according to median
scores), which means that male respondents presented higher intention to act
intrapreneurially, they have more accumulated past experience and knowledge and they
develop more intrapreneurial behaviors based on innovativeness, on recognizing and
exploiting opportunities and assuming risks performing their works. Some previous
researches indicated similar conclusions. Zhao et al. (2005) concluded that women in general
report lower intention to become entrepreneur and Adachi and Hisada (2017) concluded
that women usually show higher levels of aversion to risk.
52
5. Conclusions
In the context of intrapreneurship, this study explored the determinants behind the
intrapreneurial behavior. We summed up how the characteristics and attitudes of employees
influence a set of behaviors considered as the main components of intrapreneurial behavior.
Moreover, it was investigated how some specific organizational factors can impact the
development of these behaviors. Additionally, we analyzed the existence of relationships
expected in literature between some of the variables considered.
Through this investigation, we provide an explanation of intrapreneurship, how it is
manifested in employees and what are the main relevant factors that managers should be
aware when developing intrapreneurial strategies.
In this way, the results achieved showed that the intrapreneurial intention is the most
relevant factor for the development of the intrapreneurial behaviors. For this reason,
managers should be careful with this specific attitude and take the necessary decisions to
recruit employees with higher intrapreneurial intention or foster this attitude within their
organization. Employees with higher intention to be intrapreneur will be more likely to
develop and have the five behaviors considered in this research as being part of an
intrapreneurial employee.
The self-efficacy characteristic (perception of their own capabilities) was also
indicated as one of the most relevant variables for intrapreneurial behaviors. When
employees are capable to understand their strengths and feel themselves confident to succeed
any environment, it is expected that they will be more predisposed to innovate, to be a
dynamic and proactive element inside the organization and to recognized and explore the
opportunities around. Also, self-efficacious employees will be expected to develop and use
their networks as a tool to achieve their objectives.
It should be noted that, contrary to what was expected, organizational factors did not
emerge as the main influencers of the intrapreneurial behaviors. In the case of resources, it
was even presented as an inhibitor of the opportunity recognition and exploitation behavior.
Perhaps the existence of slack financial resources and time for the development of
intrapreneurship can cause a wrong feeling of success on employees, who, as such, do not
feel that it is necessary to do more than their daily tasks.
Thus, we found that younger employees with less work experience tend to develop
less intrapreneurial behaviors, which contradicts some previous researches. Independent
53
workers tend to present more attitudes and characteristics in favor to intrapreneurship, as
well as behaviors, and be positively influenced by the organizational factors. On the opposite
side are the unemployed, which can indicate that managers value in their employees the
existence of the characteristics and attitudes from an intrapreneur. For this reason, the
absence of these aspects may imply the dismissal of these workers or their non-hiring. The
education level should also be taken into account. Employees with higher education levels
tend to have worst relations to their organizations and consider that there is less management
support and organization resources available.
Finally, gender caused some differences in the results achieved. Men tend to present
higher intention to be intrapreneur, more past experience and knowledge and develop more
behaviors of innovativeness, opportunity recognition and exploitation and risk-taking.
In terms or organization size and type, generally it was found that smaller
organizations from the private and third sectors provide more conditions for
intrapreneurship, in contrast to the biggest organizations and public institutions.
5.1 Theoretical and practical contribution
From the research conducted in this study, we were able to produce important
theoretical and practical contributions. Firstly, it was aggregated the main variables
considered in literature which until now are considered as being the most relevant and with
important influence on intrapreneurship. As such, we analyze the impact of those variables
taking in consideration the same sample and context. This allowed that cultural differences
or different data collection methods did not interfere with the results obtained.
Moreover, until the moment of this research development no similar study has been
carried out in Portugal and there were only a few number of researches in this area made in
countries with a context close to ours, for example Spain. This fact did not allow the
conclusions universally drawn in other investigations to be directly extrapolated to our
context, since the environment could jeopardize the applicability of them. Thus, we
contribute to literature by summing up the main variables, by studying them all together and
by clarifying what could impact economies as the Portuguese.
With the inclusion of the organizational factors impacting the intrapreneurship, we
complemented what was usually done and provide a broader view of the topic. Commonly,
the individual-level and organizational-level were not analyzed together. For example,
54
according to Gawke et al. (2019), this was one of the limitations of their research. This
decision enriched the study and showed that organizations should be aware of their role for
more successful strategies of intrapreneurship. Despite intrapreneurship is carried out by
each element of the organization, the decisions coming from the top of the organizational
structures are capable to determine the intrapreneurs’ success.
In addition, the conclusions from this research increase managers understanding
about what can be relevant for intrapreneurial strategies. With this knowledge, managers are
capable to redefine the organization decisions and structure. As well, the responsible for
human resources management are aware of the characteristics and attitudes that interfere in
the success of intrapreneurship. This could be particularly important when recruiting new
organization elements or for training purposes. Finally, managers can also use the scales
collected in this investigation to measure the levels of each variable in their own
organizations.
5.2 Research limitations
Our study presents some limitations that should be taken into account. The data
obtained was self-reported and there is a threat of being biased due to social desirability
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In order to reduce this threat, the
questionnaire answers were completely anonymous and before each person started, the
questionnaire informs them about it.
Besides that, the data collected refers to residents in Portugal without knowing their
geographical regions or specific areas in which they exercise functions. The sample obtained
is diverse and allows general conclusions to be drawn. Although, it could be interesting to
study specific regions or economy sectors that there is evidence that the behaviors are
different from those obtained in this study. Another possible way will be to analyze the
existence, or not, of differences in the variables that affect intrapreneurship between
countries.
Since for this investigation we take a broad view of the topic, future researches can
start from our conclusions and build a study focused in only some of the variables
considered. One of the difficulties felt during data collection and analysis was the number of
variables and respective number of questions, that ended up making the questionnaire
extensive and a little tiring for the respondents. Furthermore, it would be of great interest
55
conduct an investigation to find if there are more variables with big impact on
intrapreneurship and have not been considered so far.
Additionally, in this research we considered the intrapreneurial behavior as being
composed by five different behaviors. This decision led to a greater number of hypotheses,
making the analysis more complex. Although, future researches can create, as an alternative,
a global score for the intrapreneurial behavior that group all the answers of the five behaviors,
allowing an equally correct but simpler analysis.
Lastly, another perspective that can be followed and with little information on
literature is the impact of intrapreneurial behaviors on company performance. There is a
consensus that intrapreneurship positively influences the results of organizations. However,
it is not studied in depth how the organizations’ performance can be impacted financially or
not financially, either in the short or long term.
56
References
Adachi, T., & Hisada, T. (2017). Gender differences in entrepreneurship and

intrapreneurship: an empirical analysis. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 447-486.
doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9793-y
Alam, M. Z., Nasir, N., & Rehman, C. A. (2020). Intrapreneurship concepts for engineers: a
systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations and agenda for
future research. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1). doi:10.1186/s13731-
020-00119-3
Allen, M. R., Adomdza, G. K., & Meyer, M. H. (2015). Managing for innovation: Managerial
control and employee level outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 371-379.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.021
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-
cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527. doi:10.1016/s0883-
9026(99)00054-3
Asiaei, K., Barani, O., Bontis, N., & Arabahmadi, M. (2020). Unpacking the black box How
intrapreneurship intervenes in the intellectual capital-performance relationship?
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 26. doi:10.1108/jic-06-2019-0147
Auer Antoncic, J. (2011). Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 589-607.
doi:10.1108/02635571111133560
Badoiu, G. A., Segarra-Cipres, M., & Escrig-Tena, A. B. (2020). Understanding employees'
intrapreneurial behavior: a case study. Personnel Review, 18. doi:10.1108/pr-04-2019-
0201
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs
"connect the dots" to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(1), 104-119. doi:10.5465/amp.2006.19873412
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. T. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint
effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business
Venturing, 26(1), 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002
Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways
forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13(5), 919-961. doi:10.1007/s11846-018-0277-0
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management - Insights
from a process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349-1364.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349
Burstrom, T., & Wilson, T. L. (2015). Intrapreneurial ambidexterity: a platform project,
Swedish approach. Management Research Review, 38(11), 1172-1190. doi:10.1108/mrr-
06-2014-0130
Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 5-20. doi:10.1177/104225879602100101
Chan, K. Y., Ho, M. H. R., Kennedy, J. C., Uy, M. A., Kang, B., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Yu,
K. Y. T. (2017). Who Wants to Be an Intrapreneur? Relations between Employees'
Entrepreneurial, Professional, and Leadership Career Motivations and
Intrapreneurial Motivation in Organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 11.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02041
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00029-3
57
Chen, C. J., Shih, H. A., & Yang, S. Y. (2009). The Role of Intellectual Capital in Knowledge
Transfer. Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(3), 402-411.
doi:10.1109/tem.2009.2023086
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004
Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2019). Crafting High-Impact Entrepreneurial Orientation
Research: Some Suggested Guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3-18.
doi:10.1177/1042258718773181
De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2010). Interrelationships between human capital, HRM and
innovation in Belgian start-ups aiming at an innovation strategy. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 1863-1883.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.505088
Douglas, E. J., & Fitzsimmons, J. R. (2008). Individual intentions towards entrepreneurship
vs intrapreneurship.
Escriba-Carda, N., Revuelto-Taboada, L., Canet-Giner, M. T., & Balbastre-Benavent, F.
(2020). Fostering intrapreneurial behavior through human resource management
system. Baltic Journal of Management, 19. doi:10.1108/bjm-07-2019-0254
Farrukh, M. (2017). Intrapreneurial behaviour: the role of organizational commitment. World
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 13(3), 243-256.
doi:10.1108/WJEMSD-03-2017-0016
Fellnhofer, K. (2017). Drivers of innovation success in sustainable businesses. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 167, 1534-1545. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.197
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: SAGE Publications.
Fischer, A. (2011). Recognizing opportunities: initiating service innovation in PSFs. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 15(6), 915-927. doi:10.1108/13673271111179280
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal
initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1997.tb00639.x
Garcia-Morales, V. J., Bolivar-Ramos, M. T., & Martin-Rojas, R. (2014). Technological
variables and absorptive capacity's influence on performance through corporate
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1468-1477.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.019
Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2019). Measuring intrapreneurship at the
individual level: Development and validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale
(EIS). European Management Journal, 37(6), 806-817.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.001
GEM. (2019). How GEM Defines Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from
https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1149, accessed in November, 20, 2019.
Globocnik, D., & Salomo, S. (2015). Do Formal Management Practices Impact the
Emergence of Bootlegging Behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4),
505-521. doi:10.1111/jpim.12215
Gomez-Haro, S., Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the
effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management
Decision, 49(9-10), 1677-1693. doi:10.1108/00251741111183825
Guerrero, M., & Pena-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapreneurial experience on
corporate venturing: Evidence from developed economies. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 397-416. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0260-
9
58
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest Editors' Introduction: Corporate
Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15.
Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Revisited. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 5(3), 883-896. doi:10.1093/icc/5.3.883
Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for Inclusive Business:
Intrapreneurial Bricolage in Multinational Corporations. Journal of Management Studies,
49(4), 743-784. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01045.x
Hatak, I., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2015). Age, job identification, and entrepreneurial
intention. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 38-53. doi:10.1108/jmp-07-2014-0213
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers' perception of the
internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(00)00059-8
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.
doi:10.1348/096317900167038
Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing Internal Corporate Entrepreneurship - An
agency theory perspective. Journal of Management, 18(4), 733-749.
doi:10.1177/014920639201800408
Kacperczyk, A. J. (2012). Opportunity Structures in Established Firms: Entrepreneurship
versus Intrapreneurship in Mutual Funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 484-
521. doi:10.1177/0001839212462675
Kearney, C., Hisrich, R. D., & Antoncic, B. (2013). The mediating role of corporate
entrepreneurship for external environment effects on performance. Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 14, S328-S357. doi:10.3846/16111699.2012.720592
Kelley, D. J., O’Connor, G. C., Neck, H., & Peters, L. (2011). Building an organizational
capability for radical innovation: The direct managerial role. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 28(4), 249-267.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.06.003
Kollmann, T., Stockmann, C., Meves, Y., & Kensbock, J. M. (2017). When members of
entrepreneurial teams differ: linking diversity in individual-level entrepreneurial
orientation to team performance. Small Business Economics, 48(4), 843-859.
doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9818-6
Kreuzer, C., & Weber, S. (2020). Apprentices’ Errors in Intrapreneurship: Findings from a
Large-Scale Assessment. Vocations and Learning, 1-26.
Macmillan, I. C., Block, Z., & Narasimha, P. N. S. (1986). Corporate venturing: alternatives,
obstacles encountered, and experience effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(2), 177-
191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(86)90013-3
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma matter: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13(2), 103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
Malhotra, N. K., Birks, D. F., & Nunan, D. (2017). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach:
Pearson.
Martin-Rojas, R., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Gonzalez-Alvarez, N. (2019). Technological
antecedents of entrepreneurship and its consequences for organizational
performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 22-35.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.018
McKinney, G., & McKinney, M. (1989). Forget the Corporate Umbrella - Entrepreneurs
shine in the rain. Sloan Management Review, 30(4), 77-82.
59
Menzel, H. C., Aaltio, I., & Ulijn, J. M. (2007). On the way to creativity: Engineers as
intrapreneurs in organizations. Technovation, 27(12), 732-743.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.004
Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., Topa, G., & Lévy Mangin, J.-P. (2014). The influence of
transformational leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(1), 103-119.
doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0196-x
Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of
knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171-197. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-
0339-y
Neessen, P. C. M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, B., & de Jong, J. P. (2019). The intrapreneurial
employee: toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda.
doi:10.1007/s11365-018-0552-1
Park, S. H., Kim, J. N., & Krishna, A. (2014). Bottom-Up Building of an Innovative
Organization: Motivating Employee Intrapreneurship and Scouting and Their
Strategic Value. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(4), 531-560.
doi:10.1177/0893318914541667
Pellegrini, C., Annunziata, E., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2019). The role of networks and
sustainable intrapreneurship as interactive drivers catalyzing the adoption of
sustainable innovation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
26(5), 1026-1048. doi:10.1002/csr.1784
Pinchot, G. (2017). Four defintions for the Intrapreneur. Retrieved from
https://www.pinchot.com/perspective/intrapreneuring/
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Preenen, P. T. Y., Dorenbosch, L., Plantinga, E., & Dhondt, S. (2019). The influence of task
challenge on skill utilization, affective wellbeing and intrapreneurial behaviour.
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 40(4), 954-975. doi:10.1177/0143831x16677367
Puech, L., & Durand, T. (2017). Classification of time spent in the intrapreneurial process.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(2), 142-151. doi:10.1111/caim.12214
Razavi, S. H., & Ab Aziz, K. (2017). The dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation,
transformational leadership, and intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D sector.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(5), 769-792.
doi:10.1108/ijebr-10-2016-0337
Reibenspiess, V., Drechsler, K., Eckhardt, A., & Wagner, H.-T. (2020). Tapping into the
wealth of employees’ ideas: Design principles for a digital intrapreneurship platform.
Information & Management, 103287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103287
Renko, M., El Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A. L., & Braennback, M. (2015). Understanding and
Measuring Entrepreneurial Leadership Style. Journal of Small Business Management,
53(1), 54-74. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12086
Rigtering, J. P. C., Weitzel, G. U., & Muehlfeld, K. (2019). Increasing quantity without
compromising quality: How managerial framing affects intrapreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 34(2), 224-241.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.11.002
60
Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as
antecedents for intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
9(3), 337-360. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0258-3
Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering Entrepreneurship in The Large, Diversified Firm. Organizational
Dynamics, 18(1), 20. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(89)90029-6
Sebora, T. C., & Theerapatvong, T. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship: a test of external
and internal influences on managers’ idea generation, risk taking, and proactiveness.
doi:10.1007/s11365-009-0108-5
Smith, L., Rees, P., & Murray, N. (2016). Turning entrepreneurs into intrapreneurs: Thomas
Cook, a case-study. Tourism Management, 56, 191-204.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.04.005
Stathakopoulos, V., Kottikas, K. G., Theodorakis, I. G., & Kottika, E. (2019). Market-driving
strategy and personnel attributes: Top management versus middle management.
Journal of Business Research, 104, 529-540. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.020
Stopford, J. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(7), 521-536. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150703
Stull, M. (2005). Intrapreneurship in nonprofit organizations examining the factors that
facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour among employees.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types
of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.
doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407911
Sundin, E., & Tillmar, M. (2008). A Nurse and a Civil Servant changing institutions:
Entrepreneurial processes in different public sector organizations. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 24(2), 113-124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.03.006
Turro, A., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2016). Intrapreneurship in the Spanish context: a
regional analysis. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(5-6), 380-402.
doi:10.1080/08985626.2016.1162850
Urban, B., & Wood, E. (2015). The importance of opportunity recognition behaviour and
motivators of employees when engaged in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Economics and Management, 16(5), 980-994.
doi:10.3846/16111699.2013.799087
Urbano, D., & Turro, A. (2013). Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: an
in(ex)ternal approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 379-
396. doi:10.1007/s11365-013-0261-8
Valka, K., Roseira, C., & Campos, P. (2020). Determinants of university employee
intrapreneurial behavior: The case of Latvian universities. Industry and Higher
Education, 0(0), 0950422219897817. doi:10.1177/0950422219897817
Valsania, S. E., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2016). Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial
behavior: cross-level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification
and empowerment. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 131-
152. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0333-4
van Dam, K., Schipper, M., & Runhaar, P. (2010). Developing a competency-based
framework for teachers' entrepreneurial behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(4), 965-971. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.038
Wakkee, I., Elfring, T., & Monaghan, S. (2010). Creating entrepreneurial employees in
traditional service sectors The role of coaching and self-efficacy. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 1-21. doi:10.1007/s11365-008-0078-z
61
Wang, Y. L., Ellinger, A. D., & Wu, Y. C. J. (2013). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition:
an empirical study of R&D personnel. Management Decision, 51(1-2), 248-266.
doi:10.1108/00251741311301803
Woo, H. R. (2018). Personality traits and intrapreneurship: the mediating effect of career
adaptability. Career Development International, 23(2), 145-162. doi:10.1108/cdi-02-2017-
0046
Zampetakis, L. A., Beldekos, P., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). ‘‘Day-to-day” entrepreneurship
within organisations: The role of trait Emotional Intelligence and Perceived
Organisational Support. European Management Journal, 27(3), 165-175.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.08.003
Zampetakis Leonidas, A. (2010). An exploratory research on the factors stimulating
corporate entrepreneurship in the Greek public sector. International Journal of
Manpower, 31(8), 871-887. doi:10.1108/01437721011088557
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-
1272. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265
62
Annexes
Annexes 1: Questionnaire in Portuguese
Vai responder a este questionário relativamente a:

 Empresa / organização onde trabalha atualmente
 Empresa / organização onde teve a sua última experiência profissional
Pense na organização onde trabalha atualmente ou onde exerceu a sua última atividade
profissional e...
Assinale o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações:
(1) discordo totalmente, (2) discordo, (3) não discordo nem concordo, (4) concordo, (5)
concordo totalmente
 Quando alguém critica a organização, sinto-o como um insulto pessoal.

 Eu interesso-me muito pelo que os outros acham da organização.
 Quando falo da organização, normalmente digo “nós” em detrimento de “eles”.
 Os sucessos da organização são os meus sucessos.
 Quando alguém elogia a organização, sinto-o como um elogio pessoal.
 Se fosse partilhada uma história nos media a criticar a organização, eu sentir-me-
ia envergonhado/a.
Pense em si e na organização onde trabalha atualmente ou onde exerceu a sua última
atividade profissional e...
concordo totalmente
 Pretendo ajudar no desenvolvimento de um novo produto ou serviço e novo

mercado.
 Gostaria de estar envolvido em qualquer atividade empreendedora da empresa.
 Tomaria a iniciativa de fazer qualquer coisa que pudesse ter um retorno elevado
para a empresa em que trabalho, mesmo que a tarefa possa ser arriscada.
 Tenciono criar uma nova filial ou negócio para a empresa em que trabalho.
 Irei encorajar os outros a implementarem ideais para inovar na organização.
 Gosto de ter a responsabilidade de transformar protótipos ou ideias em
resultados lucrativos.
 Gosto de procurar oportunidades apesar dos recursos limitados.
 Pretendo envolver-me no reconhecimento e na criação de novas oportunidades
para produtos, métodos, operações ou mercados, estabelecendo uma visão
estratégica para a organização.
 Eu preferia pressionar a gestão de topo a adotar as oportunidades referidas na
questão anterior.
 Eu farei todos os esforços para avaliar os recursos da organização disponíveis
para executar as suas ideias.
Relativamente a si...
63
concordo totalmente
 Eu sou capaz de alcançar a maioria dos objetivos que estabeleci para mim.
 Ao enfrentar tarefas difíceis, tenho a certeza de que irei cumpri-las.
 Em geral, eu acho que consigo obter resultados que são importantes para mim.
 Eu acredito que consigo ter sucesso em qualquer trabalho a que me dedique.
 Eu sou capaz de ultrapassar com sucesso muitos desafios.
 Eu estou confiante que consigo executar de forma eficaz muitas tarefas
diferentes.
 Comparado com outras pessoas eu consigo fazer a maioria das tarefas muito
bem.
 Mesmo quando as coisas estão difíceis, eu consigo sair-me muito bem.
Relativamente a si...
concordo totalmente
 Eu retiro conclusões dos erros que acontecem durante o trabalho.
 Eu consigo pensar de forma muito rápida e fácil em informações relacionadas
com a minha área de trabalho.
 O meu conhecimento da minha área de trabalho é amplo.
profissional e...
concordo totalmente
 A minha organização é rápida a usar métodos de trabalho melhorados.
 A minha organização é rápida a usar métodos de trabalho melhorados que são
desenvolvidos pelos colaboradores.
 Na minha organização o desenvolvimento de ideias próprias é incentivado para
que a empresa evolua.
 A gestão de topo está ciente e muito recetiva às minhas ideias e sugestões.
 A promoção geralmente segue o desenvolvimento de ideias novas e inovadoras.
 Os colaboradores que têm a iniciativa de propor ideias inovadoras são
geralmente encorajados pela gestão por essas atividades.
 Os colaboradores que 'fazem acontecer' (ou doers, em inglês) podem tomar
decisões sem passarem por procedimentos elaborados de justificação e
aprovação.
 Os gestores seniores incentivam os inovadores a desviarem-se das regras e
procedimentos rígidos para manter as ideias promissoras no caminho certo.
 Muitos gestores de topo são conhecidos pela sua experiência no processo de
inovação.
 Existe dinheiro disponível com regularidade para obter novas ideias de projetos.
 Indivíduos com projetos inovadores bem-sucedidos recebem recompensas e
compensações adicionais pelas suas ideias e esforços, além do sistema normal de
recompensas.
64
 Existem várias opções dentro da organização para que os indivíduos obtenham
apoio financeiro para os seus projetos e ideias inovadores.
 Os que assumem riscos individuais são frequentemente reconhecidos pela sua
vontade de defender novos projetos, sejam eles bem-sucedidos ou não.
 As pessoas geralmente são encorajadas a correr riscos calculados com novas
ideias.
 Correr riscos é considerado um atributo positivo pelas pessoas da minha área de
trabalho.
 A organização apoia muitos projetos pequenos e experimentais, percebendo que
alguns, sem dúvida, falharão.
 Um trabalhador com uma boa ideia costuma ter tempo livre para desenvolvê-la.
 Há um desejo considerável entre as pessoas na organização de gerar novas ideias
sem ter em consideração as fronteiras departamentais ou funcionais.
 As pessoas são incentivadas a conversar com trabalhadores de outros
departamentos da organização sobre ideias para novos projetos.
profissional e...
concordo totalmente
 O meu supervisor ajuda-me a completar o meu trabalho através da remoção de
obstáculos.
 Os prémios que eu recebo estão dependentes do meu trabalho no emprego.
 O meu supervisor irá aumentar as minhas responsabilidades se estiver a ter um
bom desempenho no meu trabalho.
 O meu supervisor irá dar-me um reconhecimento especial se o meu desempenho
no trabalho for especialmente bom.
 O meu supervisor diria ao seu chefe se o meu trabalho estivesse espetacular.
 O meu trabalho é desafiante.
Pense no seu trabalho atual ou na sua última experiência profissional e...
concordo totalmente
 Sinto que sou o meu próprio chefe e não preciso de confirmar todas as minhas
decisões.
 Críticas e punições severas resultam de erros cometidos no trabalho.
 Esta organização dá-me a oportunidade de ser criativo e tentar os meus próprios
métodos para desempenhar o trabalho.
 Esta organização dá-me liberdade para usar a minha capacidade de avaliação.
 Esta organização oferece-me a possibilidade de fazer algo que utilize as minhas
capacidades.
 Eu tenho a liberdade para decidir o que faço no meu trabalho.
 É basicamente minha responsabilidade decidir como o meu trabalho é realizado.
 Quase sempre consigo decidir o que faço no meu trabalho.
 Tenho muita autonomia no meu emprego e tenho autonomia para fazer o meu
próprio trabalho.
65
 Raramente preciso de seguir os mesmos métodos ou etapas de trabalho para
realizar as minhas principais tarefas do dia-a-dia.
Assinale o seu grau de frequência das seguintes afirmações:
(1) nunca, (2) raramente, (3) às vezes, (4) frequentemente, (5) sempre
 Eu crio novas ideias ou soluções para problemas difíceis.
 Eu procuro novos métodos de trabalho, técnicas ou instrumentos.
 Eu gero soluções originais para os problemas.
 Eu tento mobilizar apoio para ideias inovadoras.
 Eu tento adquirir a aprovação para ideias inovadoras.
 Eu tento que importantes membros da organização se entusiasmem pelas ideias
inovadoras.
 Eu transformo ideias inovadoras em aplicações úteis.
 Eu introduzo ideias inovadoras no ambiente de trabalho de forma sistemática.
 Eu avalio a utilidade das ideias inovadoras.
concordo totalmente
 Ataco ativamente os problemas.
 Sempre que acontece algo de errado procuro uma solução imediatamente.
 Sempre que existe a oportunidade de participar ativamente em algo, eu aceito.
 Tomo a iniciativa imediatamente mesmo que os outros não.
 Aproveito rapidamente as oportunidades para atingir os meus objetivos.
 Normalmente faço mais do que me pedem.
 Sou particularmente bom/boa a colocar ideias em prática.
concordo totalmente
 Ao realizar atividades rotineiras do dia-a-dia vejo oportunidades com potencial à
minha volta.
 Tenho um "alerta" ou sensibilidade especial para novas oportunidades.
 “Ver" potenciais novas oportunidades não surge naturalmente em mim.
concordo totalmente
 Sigo em frente com uma nova abordagem promissora quando outros podem ser
mais cautelosos.
 Estou disposto a trocar parte do meu salário pela oportunidade de experimentar
a minha ideia de negócio, se a recompensa para o sucesso for adequada.
 No decorrer do meu trabalho, assumirei riscos calculados apesar da possibilidade
de falhar.
66
 Se há grandes interesses em jogo, eu normalmente vou atrás da grande vitória,
mesmo quando existe a possibilidade de correr tudo muito mal.
Pense na sua relação com outras pessoas no trabalho e...
concordo totalmente
 Gasto muito tempo e esforço a interagir com outras pessoas.
 No trabalho, conheço muitas pessoas importantes e estou bem conectado.
 Sou bom a usar minhas redes de contactos e conexões obter resultados no
trabalho.
 Desenvolvi uma grande rede de colegas no trabalho, nos quais posso pedir apoio
quando realmente preciso fazer as coisas.
 Passo muito tempo a desenvolver a minha rede de relações com outras pessoas.
 Sou bom a criar relacionamentos com pessoas influentes no trabalho.
Fale-nos um pouco sobre si...
Idade
 18 – 24
 25 – 34
 35 – 44
 45 – 54
 55 – 64
 Mais de 64
Género
 Masculino
 Feminino
 Outro
Nacionalidade
Ocupação principal
 Estudante
 Trabalhador estudante
 Trabalhador por conta de outrem
 Trabalhador independente
 Desempregado
 Outra
Indique quantos anos de experiência tem:
Nível de escolaridade – Indique o nível mais elevado que completou

 Ensino básico ou inferior
 Ensino secundário
 Licenciatura
 Mestrado
 Doutoramento
67
Qual a dimensão da organização onde trabalha ou trabalhou pela última vez
 Até 10 trabalhadores
 Entre 11 e 50 trabalhadores
 Entre 51 e 250 trabalhadores
 Mais de 250 trabalhadores
Indique em que tipo de organização trabalha ou trabalhou pela última vez

 Empresa ou organização do setor público
 Empresa ou organização do setor privado
 Organização do terceiro setor (entidades sem fins lucrativos)
68
Annexes 2: Framework of intrapreneurship (Neessen et al., 2019)
69
Annexes 3: Multiple linear regression – Model summary
Adjusted R Std. Error Durbin-

R R Square
Square of Estimate Watson
All
dependent 0.736 0.542 0.530 0.4718 1.929
variables
Independent variable: PRO
All
dependent 0.708 0.501 0.488 0.4172 1.791
variables
Independent variable: ORE
All
dependent 0.587 0.344 0.327 0.5122 1.968
variables
Independent variable: RT
All
dependent 0.587 0.344 0.327 0.6563 1.907
variables
Independent variable: NET
All
dependent 0.606 0.367 0.350 0.6114 2.037
variables
70
Annexes 4: Moderation analysis – Model summary
Std. Error Change statistics

Adjusted R
R R Square of R Square Sig. F
Square F Change df1 df2
Estimate change Change
INT, POC 0.656 0.430 0.426 0.5212 0.430 115.819 2 307 0.000
INT, POC,
0.660 0.435 0.430 0.5196 0.005 2.880 1 306 0.091
POC_MOD
Dependent variable: PRO
INT, POC 0.679 0.461 0.457 0.4296 0.461 131.165 2 307 0.000
INT, POC,
0.679 0.461 0.456 0.4302 0.000 0.097 1 306 0.756
POC_MOD
Dependent variable: ORE
INT, POC 0.507 0.257 0.252 0.5399 0.257 53.131 2 307 0.000
INT, POC,
0.508 0.258 0.250 0.5405 0.001 0.223 1 306 0.637
POC_MOD
Dependent variable: RT
INT, POC 0.513 0.264 0.259 0.6887 0.264 54.940 2 307 0.000
INT, POC,
0.516 0.266 0.259 0.6886 0.003 1.141 1 306 0.286
POC_MOD
Dependent variable: NET
INT, POC 0.525 0.275 0.270 0.6477 0.275 58.259 2 307 0.000
INT, POC,
0.525 0.275 0.268 0.6488 0.000 0.016 1 306 0.899
POC_MOD
71
Annexes 5: Mediation analysis – Model summary
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

Constant 1.5758 0.1961 8.0358 0.0000 1.1900 1.9617
PEK 0.6007 0.0460 13.0585 0.0000 0.5102 0.6912
Outcome variable: POC
Indirect effect of PEK on INO

Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
POC 0.1981 0.0492 0.1049 0.2981
Indirect effect of PEK on PRO
POC 0.2639 0.0468 0.1739 0.3548
Indirect effect of PEK on ORE
POC 0.1456 0.0517 0.0456 0.2510
Indirect effect of PEK on RT
POC 0.1737 0.0637 0.0460 0.2993
Indirect effect of PEK on NET
POC 0.2473 0.0625 0.1291 0.3725
72
Annexes 6: Kruskal-Wallis H test results

Age
Kruskal-Wallis H 20.914 10.654 5.013 11.532 12.864 21.800 5.104 15.491 13.724 12.925 5.522 11.066 2.004
Asymp. Sig. 0.001 0.059 0.414 0.042 0.025 0.001 0.403 0.008 0.017 0.024 0.356 0.050 0.849
Mean rank
18 – 24 131.39 124.30 134.40 122.67 132.36 120.07 163.97 126.27 124.91 125.28 140.01 130.80 150.21
25 – 34 126.02 152.37 166.10 164.27 141.02 137.94 150.23 143.98 143.88 143.10 151.57 156.24 148.28
35 – 44 164.74 166.33 159.42 163.20 162.73 163.30 137.40 165.15 167.78 165.81 157.23 176.96 162.01
45 – 54 183.51 166.31 161.23 166.40 173.31 176.17 162.14 169.24 164.85 171.41 157.99 151.85 157.16
55 – 64 164.39 170.68 154.68 160.09 154.55 174.89 160.06 164.45 182.21 171.41 183.44 160.59 156.70
65 or older 147.38 140.88 132.88 123.13 236.75 232.25 205.00 254.00 185.63 167.38 140.63 226.38 200.63
Main occupation
Kruskal-Wallis H 4.821 19.843 16.297 25.396 28.410 12.563 20.038 43.707 22.246 18.892 11.365 20.837 6.650
Asymp. Sig. 0.438 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.045 0.001 0.248
Mean rank
Unemployed 134.69 102.88 118.19 98.63 98.94 122.94 67.25 66.06 87.56 107.69 140.38 136.31 97.06
Student 146.18 107.00 111.86 69.09 139.32 106.59 145.14 89.00 129.77 110.45 135.14 122.18 146.45
73
Student worker 146.05 154.93 149.84 134.95 164.57 153.45 176.77 132.80 139.80 119.25 129.68 172.18 151.45
Indep. worker 176.26 199.29 173.70 193.98 209.46 186.27 191.32 215.70 200.22 193.39 178.68 189.82 177.00
Employee 151.02 148.20 160.97 153.73 141.77 149.83 150.82 146.62 147.59 152.61 150.34 142.87 153.34
Other 174.26 167.35 89.32 170.29 181.32 179.82 124.06 194.41 183.79 174.56 200.65 210.88 155.03
Years of experience
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.715 8.396 2.074 5.383 5.947 6.368 0.728 7.369 8.318 3.588 2.361 9.918 0.293
Asymp. Sig. 0.446 0.078 0.722 0.250 0.203 0.173 0.948 0.118 0.081 0.465 0.670 0.042 0.990
Mean rank
1–3 149.70 145.56 144.16 156.12 140.44 141.56 161.37 142.84 148.94 153.58 158.41 139.29 152.41
4 – 10 161.14 184.14 155.99 169.20 179.17 182.59 159.24 165.07 186.35 175.21 148.83 187.13 158.11
11 – 20 144.00 137.85 158.21 134.06 156.03 152.61 154.17 141.77 145.02 142.56 147.17 147.14 152.74
21 – 30 170.08 161.76 157.35 164.31 160.12 157.03 150.81 156.21 145.27 156.60 153.13 151.40 158.79
> 30 150.13 154.73 166.30 153.03 148.84 152.55 151.77 180.33 164.34 153.27 170.30 166.53 155.93
Education level
Kruskal-Wallis H 11.878 2.643 7.920 4.168 13.498 37.736 2.791 5.029 5.631 3.312 2.924 1.545 5.017
Asymp. Sig. 0.008 0.450 0.048 0.244 0.004 0.000 0.425 0.170 0.131 0.346 0.404 0.672 0.171
Mean rank
≤ Middle School 201.44 183.42 204.56 178.92 203.53 201.31 184.17 200.44 202.50 181.06 155.69 176.25 194.86
High school 150.99 148.49 143.39 143.83 170.32 189.67 159.04 153.09 149.17 152.88 144.60 149.58 158.47
Undergraduate 167.71 159.17 155.04 156.94 146.90 137.22 148.10 150.02 153.15 147.49 159.81 157.91 145.40
74
Pos-graduate 132.49 153.76 162.60 165.46 133.65 119.05 154.09 156.26 157.08 165.28 165.73 155.78 156.38
Size of the organization
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.855 4.816 1.946 2.569 22.229 11.580 8.872 17.504 6.116 1.870 8.068 14.189 3.602
Asymp. Sig. 0.278 0.186 0.584 0.463 0.000 0.009 0.031 0.001 0.106 0.600 0.045 0.003 0.308
Mean rank
≤ 10 workers 168.94 165.26 146.58 155.74 181.52 170.68 171.53 181.94 166.83 160.54 149.72 162.58 145.18
11 – 51 156.91 156.70 154.49 140.11 174.81 174.03 167.48 163.16 167.78 154.04 139.89 182.94 172.29
51 – 250 146.51 134.94 153.90 158.78 132.07 139.45 136.93 125.90 146.82 142.76 148.29 127.10 155.33
> 250 workers 145.55 158.74 165.16 162.31 130.33 136.54 142.51 143.43 139.44 159.53 177.14 148.25 152.27
Type of organization
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.406 0.718 4.251 0.276 6.992 1.163 13.308 7.572 2.603 4.362 2.484 7.269 2.600
Asymp. Sig. 0.182 0.698 0.119 0.871 0.030 0.559 0.001 0.023 0.272 0.113 0.289 0.026 0.273
Mean rank
Private org. 156.33 157.27 157.87 155.92 161.19 157.75 163.30 161.40 158.21 158.90 156.87 161.90 156.70
Public org. 145.15 149.18 138.35 151.87 125.83 143.56 114.70 124.66 139.23 134.77 144.11 125.54 144.55
Third sector org. 220.90 131.50 214.20 172.30 176.20 165.80 185.10 177.60 187.70 199.10 204.70 143.40 208.70
75
Annexes 7: Mann-Whitney test results

Gender
Mann-Whitney U 11890.0 9977.5 11405.5 10481.0 10944.5 10597.5 10493.0 11117.0 9837.0 10773.0 9952.0 9353.0 11245.5
Asymp. Sig. 0.878 0.010 0.442 0.049 0.176 0.072 0.054 0.257 0.006 0.115 0.008 0.001 0.331
Mean rank
Feminine 154.73 142.55 151.65 145.76 148.71 146.50 145.83 149.81 141.66 147.62 142.39 138.57 150.63
Masculine 156.29 168.79 159.45 165.50 162.47 164.74 165.42 161.34 169.71 163.59 168.95 172.87 160.50
76

Intrapreneurship: The Determinants Behind Its Dynamic: Rafael Bernardo Ferreira Campos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intrapreneurship: The Determinants Behind Its Dynamic: Rafael Bernardo Ferreira Campos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intrapreneurship: The Determinants Behind Its Dynamic: Rafael Bernardo Ferreira Campos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRAPRENEURSHIP: THE DETERMINANTS BEHIND ITS

Organizations operate nowadays in environments increasingly complex and volatile

Key words: Intrapreneurship, intrapreneurial behavior, intrapreneur attitudes, intrapreneur

Table 1 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial attitudes ................................................................. 7

Figure 1 – Theorical framework of intrapreneurship................................................................ 21

Intrapreneurship is considered by some researchers simply as entrepreneurship

This chapter discusses the most relevant concepts linked to intrapreneurship

The topic of intrapreneurship has been increasingly analyzed by scholars and

2.2 Individual factors

2.2.1 Intrapreneur attitudes

Attitudes Authors/ Year

Intrapreneur’s relation to the organization can be analyzed through the organizational

2.2.2 Intrapreneur characteristics

Table 2 - Studies addressing intrapreneurial characteristics

Characteristics Authors/ Year

2.3 Organizational factors

Intrapreneurs when performing their works in companies show a set of behaviors

Table 3 - Studies addressing organizational factors

Organizational factors Authors/ Year

Another important dimension is rewards and reinforcements. Sebora and Theerapatvong

Autonomy, i.e. work discretion is characterized by processes of decentralized decision-

Finally, resources are capable to determine positively intrapreneurship. Resources can

2.4 Intrapreneurial behavior

Behaviors Authors/ Year

2.5 Intrapreneurial outcomes

Intrapreneurship takes shape through the combination of all factors previously

2.6 Control variables

2.7 Synthesis of literature reviewed

3.1 Hypotheses and theoretical model

Figure 1 – Theorical framework of intrapreneurship

A good relationship between organizations and their employees is capable to

In order to present an intrapreneurial behavior it is necessary to intend to contribute

The perception level of their own capabilities by an employee is capable to interfere

Management support influences intrapreneurial behaviors (Neessen et al., 2019).

Hypothesis 7a: Higher levels of management support leads to higher innovativeness.

Hypothesis 9a: Higher levels of work discretion lead to higher innovativeness.

3.2 Questionnaire and measurement scales

Table 5 - Measurement scales used in the questionnaire

Hypothesis Variable Measurement scale Author

Proactiveness Please indicate your level of agreement (Frese, Fay,

Risk-taking Please indicate your level of agreement (Farrukh, 2017)

Networks Please indicate your level of agreement (Razavi & Ab

3.3 Data collection

To analyze the different hypotheses, we used an online questionnaire to collect data.

3.4 Data analysis

Table 6 - Cronbach's alpha values

Variables Cronbach’s alpha

4.1 Sample description

Table 8 - Means and standard deviations

N Mean Std. Deviation

4.3 Spearman’s correlations

The Spearman’s correlations coefficients serve to evaluate the relationships between

RO INT POC PEK MS R RW WD INO PRO ORE RT NET

Table 10 - Multiple linear regression coefficients

Table 11 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 1

Hypotheses Supported/Not supported

The intention to act in an intrapreneurial way presented a statistically significant and

Table 12 - Conclusions for set of hypotheses 2

Hypotheses Supported/Not supported