Being thesis submitted in the department of business administration and marketing, school of management

Table 3.3: Distribution of Sample

Sector	Total	Location	No	Distribution within Each Major Sub-component
Public	Approx. 622 (Research Advisor Sampling table; 2006)	Lagos	452 (i.e. 7144/9822 * 622)	Distributed proportionally among the 21 Ministries as shown in Table 3.4.
		Ogun	170 (2678/9822 *622)	Distributed proportionaly among the 18 Ministries as shown in Table 3.4.
Private	Approx.489 (Research Advisor;2006)	Lagos Ogun	245 244	The sample for each State was distributed proportionally, according to the population of the middle managers in each of the 20 banks operating in the two States as shown in Table 3.5.
Total	1111		1111

Source: Researcher’s field results (2016)

Table 3. 4: Distribution of Sample (Ministries)

S/N	Ministries	Ogun		Lagos
		No	Sample	No	Sample
1	Ministry of Agriculture	314	20	559	35
2	Ministry of Budget and Planning	69	4	244	15
3	Ministry of Commerce and Industry	106	7	368	23
4	Ministry of Community/Rural Development and Cooperative	139	9	157	10
5	Ministry of Culture and Tourism/ Home Affairs & Culture	34	2	531	34
6	Ministry of Education, Science and Technology	359	23	549	35
7	Ministry of Environment	40	3	475	30
8	Ministry of Finance	71	4	111	7
9	Ministry of Forestry	188	12
10	Ministry of Health	663	42	700	44
11	Ministry of Housing	135	9	183	12
12	Ministry of Information and Strategy	124	8	233	15
13	Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs	47	3	120	8
14	Ministry of Special Duties	30	2	128	8
15	Ministry of Women Affairs	59	4	148	9
16	Ministry of Justice	128	8	368	23
17	Ministry of Youth	134	8	405	26
18	Ministry of Water Resources/ Waterfront Infrastructure	38	2	72	5
19	Ministry of Transportation			435	27
20	Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development			639	40
21	Ministry of Works and Structure			663	42
22	Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources			56	4
	TOTAL	2678	170	7144	452
	TOTAL (Lagos And Ogun States) Population (Civil Service)	9822

Source: Researcher’s field results (2016)

Table 3.5: Distribution of Sample (Banks)

Banks	Number	Sample
Access Bank Plc	47	20
Citibank Ltd	37	16
Diamond Bank Nigeria Plc	60	26
Ecobank Nigeria Plc	69	30
Enterprise Bank Plc	42	18
Fidelity Bank of Nigeria	49	21
First Bank Nigeria Plc	58	25
First City Monument Bank	39	17
Guaranty Trust Bank	65	28
Keystone Bank Plc	41	18
Mainstreet Bank Limited	46	20
Skye Bank	72	32
Stanbic IBTC Bank of Nigeria Limited	64	28
Standard chartered Nigeria Plc	51	22
Sterling Bank Plc	59	26
Union Bank of Nigeria	70	31
Unity Bank Plc	62	27
United Bank for Africa Plc	65	28
Wema Bank Nigeria Plc	60	26
Zenith Bank of Nigeria	69	30
Total	1125	489

Source: Researcher’s Field results (2016)

Equal number was apportioned for the branches of each bank in the two states from the number proportionally allocated to each bank. The particular respondents were however chosen, using random sampling technique among the middle mangers in the particular branch of a bank or ministries as the case may be.

3.4. Instrumentation

3.4.1. Description of Research Instrument

A structured questionnaire, titled ‘‘Human Resource Management Practice/Corporate Entrepreneurship Questionnaire (HRMPCE)’’ was used to collect data for this study. The instrument was divided into four sections (A, B, C, D, representing groups of items of different dimensions of the research variables) as follows:

Section A of the questionnaire was designed to obtain demographic information of the respondents as well as the characteristics of their respective institutions. These include the gender, level of education, status of the respondents as well as their location and type of institution.
Section B was designed to elicit the opinion of the respondents on the dimensions of human resource management practices within their respective institutions. This section was adapted from Edralin (2010) and contains 49 items designed to measure six dimensions of human resource management practices (recruitment and selection, job design, training and development, compensation, performance management and employee relations). This instrument was initially developed and validated based on the Best Employer Characteristics survey conducted by Hewitt Associates (2003) and the subsequent conclusions of a panel of experts in a focused group discussions conducted by the same authors. It was also validated by Edralin (2010), which ensured that items included were those that were generated from a one-way repeated measure and item analysis. This instrument was chosen for a number of reasons. While most other similar ones measured organizational factors that are only remotely related to HRMP as proxies, this instrument directly focuses on core HRM practices of concern in this sudy. In addition, the instrument measures a comprehensive set of related HRMP as against stand alone measures of human resource practice as in Edralin (2007).
Section C is an 18- item corporate entrapreneurial work behaviour measures, adapted from Kramer and Robbin (1997) as used by Frese, Long and Tag (1997). This instrument was based on the three most popular dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship identified in literatures; Proactivity, Innovation and Risk Taking (Madsen, 2008; Wilklund & Shepherd, 2003 & 2005; Madu, 2011). It was also successfully used by Karacaoglu, Bajakdaroghu and San, (2013) to measure the same constructs. The scale was re-tested and confirmed in Molokwu, Barreria and Boris (2013). Section D contains items of the dimension of the internal environment of HRMP, developed by the researcher through a review of literatures on related construct. These were summarized in the measurement of variable Table 3.6.

Table 3. 6. Measurement of Variables

Types of Variable	Concept	Variables	Dimensions	Measurement	Source of Questions
Independent variable	Human Resource Management Practices (HRMP)	HRMP (Major)	- Recruitment -Training - Compensation -Performance Appraisal -Industrial Relations -Job Design	HRMPQ item 1 – 6 7 – 14 15 – 24 24 – 30 31 – 41 42 – 49	Hewitt Associates (2003) and Elradin (2010)
Dependent variable	Corporate Entrepreneurship	CE (Major)	-Pro-activity -Innovation -Risk taking	CE items 50 – 54 55 – 62 63 – 67	Ugochuckwu Obed Made (2011)
Moderating Variable	Environment of HRMP	Moderating Variable	Status of HRMP -Corporate Policy making -Place HR in the structure of organisation -Integration of HR processes with other organization processes. -Professional Standing of Head of HRM functions	Questionnaire items 68-75
					Developed by the Researcher, (using theoretical and conceptual review of Berker, et al 2011; Kane,1995; Ozutkw, et al 2009 & Johnson, et al 2002)

Source: Compiled by the Researcher (2016)

The instrument was constructed to elicit responses based on likert-like scale continuum, ranging from Very Great Extent to Low Extent. The Likert summated rating scale was used in the questionnaire because of its efficacy for transforming feelings and opinion into an interval scale which is amenable to statistical analysis (Asika, 2004). Thus the main questions were constructed to indicate extent or weight of agreement on a 6-point likert-like ordinal scale: Very Great Extent (VGE) = 6, Great Extent (GE) =5, Moderate Extent (ME) =4, Low Extent (LE) =3, Very Low Extent (VLE) = 2, and No Extent (NE) =1. The option category of undecided was not used because, according to Darley and Johnson (2005), it may generate complex debate concerning interpretation later on. The questionnaire were also constructed in such a way as to require about 15 minutes to complete, be scoreably by untrained administrators, and the results could be interpreted as a representation of the strength of the entrepreneurial drive by employees.

3.4.2. Validation of Research Instrument

The instrument was subjected to content and construct validity testing. The content validity was ensured by subjecting it to expert opinion validity test as used by Raza and Nawaz (2009). This was done through a thorough examination by my colleagues, my supervisors as well as experts in human resource management from the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria and entrepreneurship study centers of Covernant University, Ota and that of Moshood Abiola Polytechnic, Abeokuta, respectively. Also, the comments of some key and experienced bank managers and officers in the civil service were also obtained. Examples include the former Head of Service of Ogun State and some of her officers as well as the chairperson of the Ogun State branch of the Chartered Institute of Bankers and some members of her branch executive committee. Their comments were used to adjust the instrument accordingly. For example, based on such comments, the respondents were asked to report their experiences of the situation in the establishment, rather than their individual personal behaviour. This was done to reduce the respondents’ temptation to report ideal or desirable situation rather than the truth. This assisted in eliminating inadequate items and the construction of the language describing personnel management practices in the sectors of concern in a way to minimize ambiguity.

The construct validity of the instrument, on the other hand, was ensured through confirmatory factor analysis. In doing this, the principal component analysis method of extraction was used to generate the average variances for each of the constructs. The output of this exercise (construct validity testing) for each of the variables being studied is as shown below:

Table 3.7. Output of the Construct Validity Testing

Variables	No of items	AVE	CR
Recruitment	6	0.513	0.921
Training	8	0.504	0.819
Compensation	10	0.521	0.900
Performance Appraisal	6	0.570	0.974
Industrial Relations	11	0.526	0.981
Job Design	8	0.590	0.922
Proactivity	5	0.602	0.942
Innovation	8	0.550	0.975
Risk taking	5	0.608	0.962
Internal Environment of HRMP	8	0.523	0.842

Each of the constructs has more than 0.5 in value. Hence the instrument was considered valid for use.