Being thesis submitted in the department of business administration and marketing, school of management
Yüklə 2,36 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background t o t he Study
- Statement of the Problem
- Objective of the Study
- 1.6. Rationale for Hypotheses
- 1.7. Operationalization of Variables
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS HR: Human resource HRM: Human resource management HRMP: Human resource management practice SHRM: Strategic human resource management CE: Corporate entrepreneurship SERVICOM: Service Compact with Nigerian RS: Recruitment and Selection TD: Training and Development JD: Job Design PA: Performance appraisal Com: Compensation management IR: Industrial relations EHRM: Environment of human resource management CIPM: Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria MCIPM: Full Professional Membership Status of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria CIB: Chartered Institute of Bankers GEM: Global entrepreneurship monitor NEEDS: National economic empowerment development strategy ILO: International labororganization 3M: Minnesota, mining, and manufacturing company NCE: National council on establishment. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
The experiences of entrepreneurial companies such as Dangote Groups of companies in Nigeria, 3M Company, Johnson & Johnson, and Hoechst in America, supported by the scholarly view of Hussain, Bhuiyan and Bakar (2014) suggest that big and formal organizations can be entrepreneurial as the small ones. However, contrary to this, the concept of entrepreneurship is seen by many as a small scale business and self employment phenomena which is limited to the private sector (Amriri, Nader-Seyed & Marimaeri, 2013). Big businesses, large or public sector organizations which are associated with formal human resource management practices are seen as unentrepreneurial by nature. Until about two decades ago, the fields of human resource management (HRM), which addresses the development and expression of desirable employee characteristics, and that of entrepreneurship were seen as unrelated, and as a result are seldom examined together (Dabic, Ortiz-De-Urbina & Romero-Martinez, 2011). Along side the above pattern of thought is a trend in which, as most organizations mature, the entrepreneurial characteristics of their workforce tend to diminish (Talha, Nuhu & Emmanuel, 2014). The result of this is the gradual reduction in their respective abilities to render competitive services, survive, expand and employ (Kumar & Mathapati, 2015; Fatolu, 2013; Onu, 2013; Oni, Ndide & Adefila, 2012), leading to high rate of unemployment and poverty (Asaju, Arome & Anyio, 2014). Reactive and short term HRM strategies in the private and public sectors like downsizing, rightsizing, outsourcing, and structural reforms did not solve the problems, leading to the liquidation and or relocation of many companies from Nigeria and increasing citizens’ dissatisfaction against public services (Fatolu, 2013; Esele, 2012; Nkechi, Ikechukwu & Okechukwu, 2012). This became the motivation for the current popular policy and programmes for self employment-for-all version of entrepreneurship in Nigeria. The Nigeria’s National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) was also meant to address this problem in the public sector by changing the way government does its work through various attempts at reforming the civil services (Soludo, 2005). This phenomenon is not peculiar to big corporations alone. Talha, Nuhu and Emmanuel, (2014) observe that entrepreneurial ventures often lose their innovative (or entrepreneurial) character as they grow into established large organizations. Hence, according to Egwu (2014), most small businesses tend to fail at about the age of five when they are expected to transit from their formation stage into stable formal and large business organizations which requires the employment and management of employees (Sanjeev & Mathapati, 2015). These employees often require to be, but are not often being, successfully managed to work like the founding entrepreneurs or their senior managers. This is being traced to the reluctance of the founding entrepreneurs to let loose their rigid ownership control and personnel management styles, thereby making it difficult for the entrepreneurial professional manager/employees to behave entrepreneurially (Lobontiu & Lobontiu, 2014). Those whose businesses survived the trying phase of becoming on-going established businesses are often stagnated by the “anti-innovation” bureaucratic structures necessitated by expansion and growth, as well as the requirements of the socioeconomic structures from matured economic players in the society. There then arises the need for effective management of human resources towards developing and expressing entrepreneurial work behavior (or corporate entrepreneurship) by employees like the founding entrepreneurs. This is happening in an age in which the International Labor Organization (ILO) is urging all nations to direct their socio-economic policies towards ensuring green jobs (ILO, 2005) which small scale businesses have consistently proved to be incapable of providing, as compared with large establishments (Parker, 2009) through corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship. Another related background issue is the generally high failure rate of the small scale businesses (Ebiringa, 2013; Aremu & Adeyemi, 2011) associated with self employment sub set of entrepreneurship, despite strong policy support. This not only inspired a search for an alternative (Parker, 2009), but also led to the discovery of and refocusing on intrapreneurship (GEM, 2012) which is located inside industry (as corporate entrepreneurship), where human resource management practices (HRMP) are most visible and expected to play a prominent role in developing intrapreneurial work behavior (Maalej, Amami & Saadaoui, 2014). This corresponds to the challenge of transforming the administrative support service role of Human Resource Management (Mitchell, 2000) to that of Ulrich (1997) business partner model which Jibran and Sara (2010) attempted to extend to Human Resource (HR) entrepreneurial Role Model.
High cost of doing business and failure of many businesses have been traced to the inability of entrepreneurial employers/founders to employ, motivate and retain employees who would work like themselves (as intrapreneurs), due to inappropriate HRM practices (Sobande, 2013). Specifically, recruitment and selection practices in many public and private sector organizations in Nigeria today are determined more by political, religious and ethnic considerations, rather than the right fit for organizational survival and effectiveness (Okeke-Uzodike, & Subbau, 2015; Osawe, 2014). This has led to poor recruitment decisions and consequently, reduced organizations’ capacity to act entrepreneurially and compete (Oshinyemi, 2014). Also, the focus of training and development efforts in many organizations have been more on technical skills and less for the expression of entrepreneurial work behavior required to translate employees’ skills into innovation and competitive productivity. This has led to the inability of many of these organizations to proactively respond to economic and political challenges of their environments, and the consequent high failure rate among them (Ebiringa, 2013; Aremu & Adeyemi, 2011). Further, the design of work roles in many Nigerian organizations has been predominantly narrow, legalistic and reactive (Frese & Fay, 2001). Many corporate workers in Nigeria tend to be influenced more by fear of taking risk, mistakes and failure, than possible achievement from working (Ayodeji & Olasunmbo, 2014). This has been traced to the failure of many organizations in Nigeria to proactively respond to changing technologies, consumer tastes and government policies (Ezele, 2012; Nkechi, Ikechukwu & Okechukwu, 2012). This is reflecting in low commitment to work and productivity which threatens the survival and growth of both public and sector organisations (Solomon, 2015 & Onuzo, 2014) and, as a consequence, the liquidation or relocation among private sector companies and increasing citizenship dissatisfaction with the public sector (Fatolu, 2013), necessitating the introduction of many reform initiatives including service compact with Nigerians (SERVICOM) in the public sector by the Obasanjo administration (1999-2007) in Nigeria. These reforms are yet to produce expected results (Oyedele, 2015). In addition, performance appraisal (PA) exercises tend to be viewed as annual routines, characterized by focus on improper measures, inaccurate measurement and emphasis on processes, rather than entrepreneurial work behavior (Per-Mattila & Maikael, 2001). Most public sector businesses have failed because of consequent inefficient and ineffective performance appraisal system (Omusebe, Kimanichege & Musiega, 2013; Esu & Inyang, 2009). This, according to Per-Mattila and Maikael (2001), has reduced the confidence in and use of the exercise (PA) as a tool of producing entrepreneurial work behavior for competitive corporate performance. This suggests that the potential of the exercise to increase productivity and organizational growth through entrepreneurial work behavior is under-explored, implying corporate underperformance. The possibility of using appropriate performance appraisal to produce corporate entrepreneurial behavior is therefore being proposed to be investigated. Another problem relates to the increasing level of compensation for labor through the activities of trade unions, rather than output in Nigeria (Olaopa, 2014; Charles, 2014; Nwosu & Makinde, 2014). In fact, many workers are hardly aware of their annual salary increases, except when denied (Adewale, 2011). This suggests that the potential of these increases to motivate entrepreneurial work behavior are under explioted. This has been linked to increased cost of doing business and reduction in the level of competitiveness of many organizations in Nigeria (CIPM, 2013). Related to the above is the conception and conduct of industrial relations as being mainly concerned with oppositional struggles between employees and employers in Nigeria (Adekunle, 2014; CIPM, 2004). This has led to the dissipation of motivational forces in industries in opposite directions in both public and private sectors in Nigeria(Charles, 2014; Nwosu & Makinde, 2014) and the prevalence of work stoppages which hinder innovative work behavior required for survival, growth and expansion (Oshinyemi, 2014). Finally, increased awareness of citizens’ rights and competitive political environment have exerted pressure on the public sector to be as entrepreneurial as the private sector (Ibietan, 2013; Westkklrup, 2013; & Diefenbach, 2011). However, many attempts at re-inventing or reforming the Services through different approaches to human resource management to achieve this have not been successful in the public sector environment as it appears to do in the private sector (Osawe, 2014; Maduabum, 2014; Fatolu, 2013). This has been traced to increased citizen dissatisfaction, decreasing confidence in the Services to deliver quality services and weak legitimacy of the organs of governing (Azzez, 2013; Olaopa, 2009). This raises the need for the investigation of the influence of the environment in which human resource management is being practiced on its effect on corporate entrepreneurship.
The main objective of this study is to determine the existence and extent of the relationship between human resource management practices (HRMP) and corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in selected private and public sector institutions in Ogun and Lagos States respectively. The specific objectives are to:
1.4. Research Questions The study would attempt to achieve the above objectives by answering the underlisted research questions: 1. Is there any significant relationship between recruitment and selection practices and corporate entrepreneurship? 2. What is the effect of training and development practices on corporate entrepreneurship? 3. What is the effect of job design practices on corporate entrepreneurship? 4. How will performance appraisal practices influence corporate entrepreneurship? 5. To what extent will compensation management practices influence corporate entrepreneurship? 6. What is the relationship between industrial relations practices and corporate entrepreneurship? 7. How will the internal environment of the practice of human resource management moderate the relationship between HRMP and corporate entrepreneurship?
The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. Ho1.There is no significant relationship between recruitment and selection practices and corporate entrepreneurship. Ho2. Training and development practices will not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. Ho3. Job design practices will not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. Ho4. Performance appraisal practices will not have any significant influence on corporate entrepreneurship Ho5.There will be no significant relationship between compensation management practices and corporate entrepreneurship Ho6.There will be no significant relationship between industrial relations practices and corporate entrepreneurship Ho7. The internal environment of human resource management will not have any significant moderating effect on the relationship between human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship. 1.6. Rationale for Hypotheses Ho1.There will be no significant relationship between recruitment and selection practices and corporate entrepreneurship. Noe, Hollenback, Gerhart and Wright (2012) refer to the recruitment and selection function as the activities of sourcing potential employees to man an organisation’s vacant positions. These activities allow the Management to determine as well as gradually modify the behavioral characteristics and competences of the work force in line with the entrepreneurial objectives of the organization (Alan, 2007). Thus, according to Armstrong (2009), these activities have the entrepreneurial objective of forming an appropriate resource base of human resource capital that is in line with organization’s entrepreneurial orientation. This suggests that emphasis on the best practice in recruitment and selection function would be associated with high level of entrepreneurship in an organization. In line with this, entrepreneurial firms tend to base their recruitment practices on deliberately chosen set of key performance indicators (KPI), with regard to entrepreneurial orientation (Schmelter, 2010). However, though Morris and Jones (1993) report that emphasis on proper and thorough recruitment and selection practices have been associated with companies practicing corporate entrepreneurship, Sobande (2013), contend that entrepreneurial employers are still being faced with the problem of attracting and selecting employees who would work entrepreneurially like themselves. In addition, Zotto and Gustafsson (2008), report that recruiting entrepreneurial workers remains the most challenging human resource management task faced by organizations striving to be entrepreneurial. This informed our hypothesis one. Ho2. Training and development practices would not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer, Jones and Neubaum (2005) report that entrepreneurial firms tend to place greater emphasis on the training and development of their employees than their less entrepreneurial counterparts. This is logical because, according to Labrenz (2014), innovative behavior can be developed through training and development by enabling employees to think beyond their day-to-day routines. Gries and Nande (2001) are of the position that since entrepreneurship is an expression of the quality of human resource; it should be subject to improvement by the human resource management function of training and development interventions. However, Dizgal, Gilaninia and Asgari (2011) did not find any significant relationship between training and development and corporate entrepreneurship. Our hypothesis two was formulated to examine this relationship. Ho3. Job design would not have any significant effect on corporate entrepreneurship. Job design describes how job roles and tasks are structured, modified and enacted and the impact that these are having on the individuals, groups as well as organizational outcomes (Parker, 2009). Zhao (2011) believes that when employees have job autonomy, task variety, social contacts and when they can make full use of their skills and capabilities, they would be more satisfied and committed; leading to innovative work behavior (Parker & Wall, 1998). Studies such as Malhotra and Muruighan (2002) and Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), have confirmed this by showing that jobs which have high level of individual autonomy and broadened scope for behavior have a positive influence on the formation of trust and social capital which promote corporate entrepreneurship. However, Bolino, Tornley & Bloodgood (2002), who conceptualized job design in terms of span of control and span of accountability in their study, show that, though widening them (span of control and span of accountability) is necessary, it is not sufficient to inspire innovation. In line with this, Armstrong, (2009) contend that enriching jobs among some classes of workers is of no consequence for innovative behavior or may even be counterproductive. This led to the formulation of the third hypothesis. Ho4. Performance appraisal would not have any significant influence on corporate entrepreneurship Performance appraisal has been described as a human resource management activity that is critically important for fostering entrepreneurial orientation among workers (Folorunso, 2014). This position has been supported by studies like Shokunbi (2013) and Per-Mattila and Maikael (2001). Performance appraisal has however been critised for its inaccuracy and ineffectiveness in influencing behavior and productivity (Tefurukwa, 2014). This raises doubt as to its ability to stimulate entrepreneurial work behavior in organizations. Hypothesis four was formulated to confirm this. Ho5.There is no significant relationship between compensation management practices and corporate entrepreneurship Several studies which examined the role of compensation management in entrepreneurship development including Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra (2002), Morris and Jones (1993), Hornsby, Kwatko and Montagno (1999) have shown that a strong positive relationship exist between compensation practices and corporate entrepreneurship. Kanter (1989); Goosen, De-Coning and Smith (2002) show that this is because the reinforcement which rewards provide is capable of developing the motivation of individuals to engage in innovative, proactive and risk taking behaviours. This points to the fact that appropr iate use of compensation system can develop managers’ inclination to get involved with entrepreneurial ventures. Dizgah, Gilaninia and Asgari (2011) studies have however negated this position. They did not find any significant relationship between compensation practices and corporate entrepreneurship. This raised the need to confirm the relationship between compensation practices and corporate entrepreneurship and hence the formulation of hypothesis five (5) above. Ho6.There will be no significant relationship between industrial relations practices and corporate entrepreneurship Elradin (2010) showed that there is a strong positive relationship between industrial relations and corporate entrepreneurship. Few studies examined this relationship. Most importantly, most of the few studies concieve industrial relations as concerned with oppositional struggles between the primary parties in industry and hence would tend to inhibit corporate entrepreneurship rather than facilitate it (Adekunle, 2014; CIPM, 2004; Charles, 2014; Nwosu & Makinde, 2014). Hypothesis six was formulated to assess this position. Ho7. The internal environment of human resource management will not have any significant moderating effect on the relationship between human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship. Human resource management practices like recruitment and selection, training and development, compensation and benefits, performance appraisal, and industrial relations take place within certain internal environment (Ozutkw & Ozturkler, 2009). These, according to Johnson and Mouly (2002), include key organizational factors affecting the status of HR function in organisations in terms of the type, role and level of human resource practices. These, according to them, are measured in terms of the level of the devolution of HR functions, the level of professionalization of HR staff, the strategic role of the HR functions and the integration of its processes and also influence the extent to which HRM can contribute to building an entrepreneurial workforce. While the respective environments of HRMP are different from one organization to the other, the extent to which the differences affect the relationship between the practice (HRMP) and corporate entrepreneurship is still subject to controversy (Cordona, 2012 and Oludare, 2013). This necessitates hypothesis seven.
This part of the study explains the key variables expected to represent independent and dependent variables and their operational relationships. It highlights the dimensions of HRMP and the key relationships that exist between each of them and CE. Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is expressed as a function of human resource management practices (HRMP) as follows: Y = f (X) Where
Y = CE (Corporate entrepreneurship) = Dependent Variable X= HRMP (Human resource management practices) = Independent Variables X = (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6) and x1 = Recruitment and selection(RS) x2 = Training and development (TD) x3 = Job design (JD) x4= Performance appraisal (PA) x5 = Compensation management(Com) x6 = Industrial relations (IR) Z = Environment of HRM (EHRM). Functional statistical expression: Hypothesis 1 x1 = Recruitment and selection practices Y = Corporate entrepreneurship Y = f (x1), Y = α0 + β1x1+ eo Hypothesis 2 x2 = Training and development practices Y = Corporate entrepreneurship Y = f (x2), Y = α 0 + β2x2+ eo Hypothesis 3 x3 = Job design practices Y = Corporate entrepreneurship Y = f (x3) Y = α 0 + β3x3 + eo Yüklə 2,36 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|