Being thesis submitted in the department of business administration and marketing, school of management
Table 4.9: Coefficients of Relationship between Training and Development Practices and Corporate Entrepreneurship
Yüklə 2,36 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
- Source : Field Survey, 2016 Interpretation
- 4.2.3. Restatement of Research Objective three and Research Question three.
Table 4.9: Coefficients of Relationship between Training and Development Practices and Corporate Entrepreneurship
Source: Field Survey, 2016 Interpretation Tables 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 show the results of the test of the impact of training and development practices on corporate entrepreneurship. The analysis was to test hypothesis two (2) that says that training and development practices would not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. The summary table (Table 4.7) provides useful information about the regression analysis. First, the ‘R’ column is the relationship between the actually observed training and development practices and the corporate entrepreneurship (i.e., predicted by the regression equation). The R2 is the square of R, known as the ‘coefficient of determination’ shows the proportion (or percentage) of the variation in corporate entrepreneurship that can be attributed to training and development practices. The F-statistic in Table 4.8 gives information about the goodness of fit of the model, which can also be interpreted to mean that the test shows the significance of the predictive power of the model. The coefficients in table 4.9 gives fundamental information to commence the analysis based on the regression equation. From the Table 4.7, it can be seen that the value of R is 0.569; meaning that there is a positive relationship between training practices and corporate entrepreneurship. The implication of this is that as training and development are intensified, corporate entrepreneurship in the organization improves. The R2 which represents the predictive power of the model was 0.323. This indicates that 32.3% of the changes obtained in the level of corporate entrepreneurship were attributable to the training and development practices by the selected organizations in Lagos and Ogun States. The estimated regression coefficient from the analysis in table 4.9 was 0.433. The p-value associated with this coefficient is 0.000 which is less than 0.05. This indicates that predictor variable, training and development practices, is highly significant to the model. The F statistic which explains the overall fit of the model is 446.984 at p = 0.000 < 0.05. This result also shows that the regression model has good fit and statistically predicts the outcome variable. Thus, the following regression equation was obtained from table 4.9, where the constant was 10.364: CE = 10.364 + .433TD ………………………………………….. (eq 1) Where CE= Corporate Entrepreneurship TD = Training Practices The equation shows the regression equation that can be used to predict the value of corporate entrepreneurship at different levels and suggests that for every unit of additional resources (increase) expended on training and development practices, corporate entrepreneurship increases by an average of 0.433. Decision Equation (1) was used in testing hypothesis two (2) which stated that training practices and development will not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. From the empirical result, the null hypothesis was not supported and so rejected at B = 0.433; R= 0.569; R2 = 0.353; F (1: 935) = 446.984; p < 0.05. It can therefore be concluded that training and development practices have a significant positive effect on corporate entrepreneurship. 4.2.2.2. Discussion The second hypothesis states that training and development practices would not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. The result showed that training and development has a significant positive effect on the level of CE in the selected public and private institutions in these two States. This suggests that training and development activities can be a tool for promoting corporate entrepreneurial behavior among employees. This finding is supported by previous studies. Among the early evidences in support of this are that of Anders (2004) and Wuetel (2006) who both found that human capital is a function of training and development activities and has a positive effect on innovative performance which is an element of corporate entrepreneurial behavior. The logic of this finding is also provided in Akpan (2012) which reports that when the quality of human capital is low, innovative performance also tend to be low and that an increase in the level of human capital tend to exert positive pressure and hence impact on innovative performance. However, a more direct support for this finding is Edralin (2007) which specifically focused the relationship between training and development and corporate entrepreneurship and found a strong positive relationship between the two. In the same line of thought, Bai, Bozkurt and Ertemsir (2013), in a study of strategic human resource management among various companies from different sectors including health, media, textile, retails and banking found a strong positive relationship between training and innovation. Ozdemirici (2014), in a study conducted through the analysis of data collected by both face to face and on line survey of top and middle managers in 250 large sized firms found a positive relationship between training and development and corporate entrepreneurship in this way. In consonance with this, den Hartog and Belschak (2012) suggested that proactive work behavior, which is a key dimension of corporate entrepreneurship, could be increased by adequate and appropriate investment in training and coaching. After all, according to Scheepers, (2009), corporate entrepreneurship capabilities cannot be developed without skilled managers motivating their staff to achieve these objectives. This was reinforced in the study of Arefin, Arif and Raquib (2015) which examined whether psychological empowerment mediated the effect of high performance work system on employees proactive work behavior. The study, in addition to this main objective, confirmed that human resource management practices, including training, influence proactive work behavior which is a key component of entrepreneurial work behavior. Kisake (2014), in a similar study of 170 micro and small enterprises engaged in trade, manufacturing, construction and service ventures, in Kariobangi, Kasarami division of Nairobi, Kenya, demonstrates that education and training has a strong positive influence on elements of corporate entrepreneurship such as risk-taking and innovativeness. Conclusions from studies like Mustafa (2015) and Iqbal, et. al (2013) are in this direction. For example, Mustafa (2015) used a qualitative in-depth case study to identify and understand the various organizational support factors that can promote corporate entrepreneurship in Malaysian firms. He found that training and development is important to support corporate entrepreneurial activities in these firms as it promotes idea generation and tolerance for risk taking. Studies that support this line of thinking in Nigeria includes that of Izedomi and Okafor (2008) and Adejimola and Oluwafunmilayo (2009). They report a positive effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial orientation of graduates of academic institutions. Though, Boring, (2017) finds a positive relationship between enterprises’ use of employee training and their innovation activities among 5204 Norwegian enterprises, this relationship was not significant for innovative enterprises that developed the innovations mainly by themselves or together with external partners when controlled for enterprises’ use of brainstorming sessions and/or work teams to stimulate new ideas or creativity among their staff. Infact, Dizgah et al., (2011) studies negate our finding more directly as they established a negative relationship between training and corporate entrepreneurship. Edralin (2010) studies however shed light on this apparent contradiction with the finding in the present study. Edralin (2010), not only found a strong positive relationship between training and corporate entrepreneurship, but also indicated that this relationship exist only when the training and development are used specifically for the development of culture and values as well as empowerment within an establishment’s core values and philosophy and not just the development of technical skills. This suggests that training designed only for developing technical skills may not promote corporate entrepreneurship as suggested by Dizgah et. al, (2011), but also admits our findings, in line with Edralin (2010), that it may promote corporate entrepreneurship when they are also directed at developing culture, values and empowerment within an establishments’ core values and philosophy. It can therefore be inferred that training which promote corporate entrepreneurship are those which are designed and implemented for the development of technical skills as well as cultural values and philosophies of the organizations. In line with this, majority of our respondents agreed that their establishments emphasizes learning and development for corporate cultural behaviours and desirable values than technical skill training as indicated in Table 4.6 (Mean = 4.52, Stdd = 1.144)
Objective 3. Determine the effect of job design practices on corporate entrepreneurship Question 3. What is the effect of job design practices on corporate entrepreneurship? Table 4.10. Respondents Responses on Job Design Practices
Yüklə 2,36 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||