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

Source: Field Survey Result, 2016

Interpretation

Table 4.10 shows the respondents’ opinion on different aspects of job design activities in their respective institutions with respect to best practice. Specifically, 83.7% of the respondents believed, to a great and very great extent, that their jobs enable them to develop their abilities (Mean = 4.56, Standard deviation = 2.026), 70.9% believe that their pay is tied to performance on the job (Mean = 4.14, Standard deviation = 1.487), 62.5% are of the position that there is recognition for good job (Mean = 4.53, Standard deviation = 1.179), 82.9% consider that job in their respective establishments require doing good work, and not just working (Mean = 4.63, Standard deviation = 1.178), 84.1% said that jobs in their respective establishments allow one to think or act for himself or herself (Mean = 4.51, Standard deviation = 1.109), 83.2% believe that work in their establishments are interesting (Mean = 4.51, Standard deviation = 1.117), 80.1% said that work is challenging in their establishment (Mean = 4.48, Standard deviation = 1.107) while 83% believe that jobs in their respective establishments contain a great deal of responsibilities (Mean = 4.58, Standard deviation = 2.031).

This result shows that respondents believe that job design activities in their establishments conform to best practice to a great extent, with grand mean being 4.49 which is above the bench mark of acceptance of 3.5. Table 4.4 earlier referred to, suggests that the respondents believe that, on the whole, employees in both banking and civil services in Lagos and Ogun States exhibit corporate entrepreneurial work behavior, with a grand mean of 4.0979. Also, the mean of the responses to each of the items is greater than 3.5 which is the bench mark for the acceptance of the particular entrepreneurial behavior as present in the organization.

By comparing Table 4.10 results on job design (with grand mean 4.492) with Table 4.4 on corporate entrepreneurship (with grand mean 4.09), both of which are equally well above the bench mark mean of 3.5, it could be deduced that there is a positive relationship between job design and corporate entrepreneurship. This thus assists us to achieve our objective three (3) by answering the research question three (3). This is further tested in our hypothesis three (3) below:

4.2.3.1. Test of HypothesisThree

Hypothesis Three (H₀₃): Job design will not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship.

Linear regression analysis was used to test this hypothesis. Data on job design practices were obtained from combining questionnaire items on job design practices (B42-B49). Again, data on corporate entrepreneurship variable were formed from the combination of questions relating to proactivity dimension of corporate entrepreneurship (B50 – B54), innovation dimension of corporate entrepreneurship (B55 – B62), and risk taking dimension of corporate entrepreneurship (B63 – B67). In the empirical test of hypothesis, corporate entrepreneurship variable was regressed on job design variable. The result of the analysis is presented in the following Tables 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13.

Table 4.11: Model Summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.677^a	.458	.458	3.53732
a. Predictors: (Constant), Job Design (JD)

Source: Field Survey, 2016
Table 4.12: F statistic

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	9919.357	1	9919.357	792.746	.000^b
	Residual	11724.352	937	12.513
	Total	21643.709	938
a. Dependent Variable: Corporate Entrepreneurship
b. Predictors: (Constant), Job Design (JD)

Source: Field Survey, 2016
Table 4.13: Coefficients

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	9.850	.585		16.850	.000
	Job Design	.453	.016	.677	28.156	.000
a. Dependent Variable: Corporate Entrepreneurship

Source: Field Survey, 2016

Interpretation

In this study, hypothesis three (3) was to test the effect of job design practices on corporate entrepreneurship. From the results of data analysis in Table 4.11, the correlation value (R) shows the nature and extent of the relationship between job design practices and corporate entrepreneurship. The R value of 0.677 in table 4.11 implies that as the level of best practices in job design increase, the corporate entrepreneurship increases. The coefficient of determination (R²) which provides the level of explanation of the model is 0.458, suggesting that Job design explained about 45.8% of the variations in the level of corporate entrepreneurship in the banking and civil service institutions in Lagos and Ogun States. The F statistic is significant at 95% level of confidence. In other words, about 54.2% in the observed variance in dependent variable (CE) is not explained by the independent variable (job design) in this study. The estimated regression coefficient (B-value) from the analysis was 0.453, where constant is 9.850. The p-value is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. This shows that job design statistically and significantly predicts corporate entrepreneurship. The t value of 28.156, which tests for the significance of the predictor variable, Job design, shows that it makes unique statistically significant contribution to corporate entrepreneurship. The regression equation extracted from the analysis in Table 4.13 is presented as follows:

CE = 9.850 + 0.453JD ………………………………………………. (eq. 2)

Where CE = Corporate Entrepreneurship, and

JD = Job Design Practices

The equation shows the regression line on which the value of corporate entrepreneurship can be predicted at different values of job design practices, the predictor variable. From the equation, it can be seen that there is a positive linear relationship between job design practices and corporate entrepreneurship in the selected private and public sector establishments in Lagos and Ogun States. The p-value of 0.000 indicates that job design practices are significant for the model. The positive linear relationship indicates that, for every unit of additional increase or investment in job design practices, corporate entrepreneurship increases by an average of 0.453 units.

4.2.3.2. Discussion

The third hypothesis states that job design practices would not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. This was designed to investigate the effect of the job design practices on corporate entrepreneurship in the civil services and banking service institutions operating in Lagos and Ogun States of Nigeria. The results showed that job design has a significant effect on the level of corporate entrepreneurship in the selected public and private institutions of these two States. This suggests that job design activities can be a tool for promoting corporate entrepreneurial work behavior among employees in these institutions.

This findings agree with past studies such as Hayton (2005), Bolina, Turbley and Bloodgood (2002) and Malhotra and Muruidian (2002). They all agreed that jobs which have high degree of positive job design elements of individual autonomy and broadened scope for behaviour have a positive influence on the formation of trust and social capital which promotes corporate entrepreneurial behaviour. In support of this position, Blino et al (2002) who, conceptualized job design in terms of span of control and span of accountability, established that innovation and proactive job behavior, which are aspects of corporate entrepreneurship, are provoked when the span of control are wide (elements of job design) and that they (elements of corporate entrepreneurship) are stifled when the span of control and accountability are narrow.
In line with this, Hammad, Neff, Farr, Schwall and Zhao (2011), shows that job control and support from co-workers and supervisors are predictors of creativity and innovation. This is logical because, according to Frese, Teng, and Wijnen (1999), job control offers opportunities to experiment at work and thereby empowers employees with the freedom to generate, communicate and implement creative ideas. Also, coworkers and supervisors’ support for creativity provides an employee with facilities and emotional support when generating, communicating and implementing innovative ideas (Oldham and Cummings, 1996).
However in partial contrast to this finding, Armstrong (2009) contended that certain job holders do not have the capacity or need for the element of job design and hence enriching jobs among these workers is of no significant consequence for innovative work behaviour. Further, in relation to this, Bolina et al (2002) stress that entrepreneurial gap exists only where employees’ jobs are such that compel them to think creatively and innovatively around the lack of resources implied by narrow span of control and accountability. de-Jong et. al (2015) however appears to bridge the gap between these contrasting findings. In their own studies, de-Jong et al (2015) found that though, generally job design promotes corporate entrepreneurship, while job autonomy element is positively related with entrepreneurial work behavior, job variety element is not. They come to the conclusion that job design interventions which relate to vertical scope of job will promote entrepreneurial work behaviour than those that involve horizontal job expansion.
A specific example of this is found in Parker, et. al., (2006) who reported that job autonomy, as a form of participative management, motivates employees to show proactive work behavior. Also, Mustafa, Martin, and Hughes, (2016), in an empirical investigation of 136 middle managers in a large Singaporian telecommunication firms, found that psychological ownership of job is positively related to entrepreneurial work behavior and job satisfaction among these middle managers. In support of this, Lepak; Liao, Chuk and Harden (2006) argued that employees who believe that their efforts are an integral part of an organization (an element of job enrichment design) are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors (an element of corporate entrepreneurship). These relate to vertical scope of job which de-Jong et al (2015) found to promote corporate entrepreneurship and in respect of which Bolina et al (2002) agree that entrepreneurial gap exists as highlighted above.


4.2.4. Restatement of Research Objective four and Research Question four

Objective 4: Determine the influence of performance appraisal practices on corporate entrepreneurship

Question 4: How will performance appraisal practices influence corporate entrepreneurship?

Table: 4.14. Respondents’ Responses on Performance Appraisal Practices

S/N	To what extent would you say that the following practices are adheres to in your organisation:			NE 1	VLE 2	LE 3	ME 4	GE 5	VGE 6	Mean	SD
1.	Managers/officers provide constructive feedback on the performances of their subordinates to these subordinate		Freq.	26	74	96	222	377	131	4.34	1.238
			Perc.	2.8	8	10.4	24	40.7	14.1
2.	Provision of opportunities for employees to evaluate their managers and their peers		Freq.	24	113	78	250	345	119	4.22	1.280
			Perc.	2.6	12.2	8.4	26.9	37.1	12.8
3.	Officers and managers understand and communicate the establishment’s corporate/business strategy to their subordinate.		Freq.	13	68	84	236	336	188	4.49	1.204
			Perc.	1.4	7.4	9.1	25.5	36.3	20.3
4.	Managers’/Officers’ beliefs are based on values, such as respect for their people,		Freq.	16	46	88	234	359	175	4.52	1.155
			Perc.	1.7	5	9.6	25.5	39.1	19.1
5.	Managers guide the establishment and its people with what they do and internalized objectives more than just running the company/establishment simply by centralized strategies and rules		Freq.	11	49	96	222	397	152	4.51	1.116
			Perc.	1.2	5.3	10.4	23.9	42.8	16.4
6.	The outcome of performance appraisal influences other human resource management practices like training, reward, placement, aside from promotion		Freq.	16	44	97	200	372	200	4.58	1.173
			Perc.	1.7	4.7	10.4	21.5	40	21.5
Grand Mean =		4.445061

Source: Field Survey result, 2016

Interpretation

Table 4.14 shows the opinion of the respondents on the different aspects of performance appraisal activities in their respective establishments in relation to best practice. Specifically, 78.8% of the respondents accepts that managers provides constructive feedback on the performances of their subordinates (Mean = 4.34, Standard deviation = 1.238), 76.8% believe that their establishments provide opportunities for employees to evaluate their managers and peers (Mean = 4.22, Standard deviation = 1.28), 82.1% accepts that manager/officers in their respective organizations understand and communicate corporate/business strategies to their subordinates (Mean = 4.49, Standard deviation = 1.204). 83.7% took the position that managers guide the establishment and its people with what they do and internalized objectives more than just running the organizations with rules (Mean = 4.51, Standard deviation = 1.116). 93.7% considered that their managers’ beliefs are based on values such as respect for their people (Mean = 4.52, Standard deviation = 1,155), 83% agreed that performance appraisal influences other human resources management practices like reward, training, placement, aside from promotion (Mean = 4.58, Standard deviation = 1.173). The grand mean for all the items taken together is 4.445061 as shown in Table 4.14.

Table 4.4 earlier reffered to suggest that the respondents believe that, on the whole, employees in both banking and civil services institutions in Lagos and Ogun States exhibit corporate entrepreneurial work behavior, with a grand mean of 4.0979. The mean of the responses to each of the items is greater than 3.5 which is the bench mark for the acceptance of the particular entrepreneurial behavior as satisfactorily present in the organization.

Table 4.14 shows that the respondents accept that the performance appraisal in their respective establishments conform to best practices, with grand mean, being 4.445 which is greater than the bench mark mean of 3.5. When we compare this with the result of Table 4.4 on corporate entrepreneurship result (with mean of 4.09), one can infer that there is a positive relationship between performance appraisal and corporate entrepreneurship. This therefore assists us to achieve our objective four (4) by answering our research question four (4).