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

2.1.1.2.5. Job Design Function

Dugguh (2007) describes a job as an aggregate or collection of duties, tasks and responsibilities regarded as a reasonable assignment to an individual employee. It involves the grouping of similar positions, tasks, duties and responsibilities into a work assignment. It may therefore also refer to a particular task assigned to or performed by a single individual for an organization. As a result, job represents the prescribed pattern of behaviour for and performed by organisation members (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 2003).

Job design, on the other hand describes how job tasks and job roles are structured, established and modified and the impact that these are having on the individuals, groups, and organizational outcomes (Parker, 2009). Job design is concerned with the relationship between workers and the nature, content and context of job and the task of a job function. It involves the allocation of tasks and functions among organisational roles for effective job performance. It may therefore be said to involve the arrangement of the concept, content and context of job in a way to satisfy the technological and organisational requirements for effective job performance as well as the social and personal requirements for the satisfaction of the job holder.
More specifically, de-Jong, Parker, Wennekers and Wu (2015), describe job design in terms of job autonomy and job variety. Job autonomy implies decision making latitude of work. It refers to the extent to which a job provides discretion to the individual in planning his or her work and in determining the procedures to be used in performing it (Hackman & Oldman, 1976). They consider that this would increase employees’ perceived ability and motivation to engage in entrepreneurial behavior. Job variety, on the other hand, is the horizontal breadth of the job. It is the extent to which a job role requires a variety of activities by the person. They believe that this would facilitate entrepreneurial behavior. This is because, according to them, workers with varied job activities are more likely to discover more opportunities. Also, job varieties help employees to interprete and position their work in broarder work context. This can stimulate them to develop ideas on how to engage in products and processes innovation for better and entrepreneurial outcomes (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996).
The actual act of designing job, according to Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), requires the specification and arrangement of job-related factors like job task characteristics ( autonomy and task characteristics), job knowledge characteristics (job complexities and information processing), job social characteristics (social support and interdependence), and contextual characteristics (physical demands and work conditions). Bucham and Huezynski (2004) identify three major strategies by which the process of job design described above may be carried out. These are job enrichment, job enlargement and job rotation. Job rotation involves the interchange of employees from one task to another at regular intervals. Job enlargement involves the expansion of a particular job in scope or range. Job enrichment concerns the extension of the depth of a job so that the employees’ discretion or control over job is increased. Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, and Zhao (2011) believe 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 behaviour (Parker & Wall, 1998). Hence, according to Anu (2007), corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship, has not just become a method of revitalizing business processes, but also revitalizing (or redesigning) jobs. Job design was therefore considered a significant determinant of individual innovation (Hammond, et al, 2011).
2.1.1.2.6. Industrial Relations Function

Industrial relations, according to Nanda, Nibedita, Panda, Jaya, and Krushna (2013) refers to the relationship between Management and Labour or among employees and their organisations that characterizes or grows out of employment contract. Dunlop (1958) describes it as the network of rules which governs the workplace and work community that vary over time. The way in which the rules which guide these relationship are made, administered and altered is the key issue in industrial relations. Industrial relations is very important because, according to Akintayo (2007), if the relationship between the workforce and the Management is good, then the enterprise has a chance of being entrepreneurial and successful. The opposite is also true when the relationship is poor.

Fajana (2002) stresses that, in every work situation, there are three main industrial relations actors or parties: workers and or their trade union, employers and their managerial representatives and associations and the State. Each of the actors has interests which they intend to maximize in their joint efforts to produce and share the reward of their common entreprise. However these interests, according to Fajana (2002), are partially convergent and partially divergent. For example when management introduces technological innovations to enhance efficiency and profitability, workers tend to resist this out of concern for their job security, retraining difficulties, future career progression and so on (Akintayo, 2010). However, both could benefit from the gain of increased revenue from this endeavor. Consequently, in describing industrial relations as employee relations, Edralin (2010), opins that it refers to a set of processes and procedures utilized in the interactions between employees and the employers to attain their respective goals, while accommodating the needs and interests of both parties. These interactions, according to him, include communication, internal relationship and participation. This in line with resolution of Ogun state branch of the chartered Institute of personnel management of Nigeria (2013) that the objectives of industrial relations as a field of academic discipline and professional practice is the management of these relationship in a way to optimize cooperation, harmony, commitment to work and entrepreneurial work behaviour through human resource management practice likes communication, consultation, participation, negotiation, concession and arbitration.
The relationship in industrial relations has, not only the legal and economic aspects, but also the social and psychological aspects as well. The issues of industrial relations arose from the separation of the workers from the ownership and management of the production process and the concentration of attention on the legal and economic aspects of the relations (Akintunde, 2010). This, according to Nanda and Panda (2013), has brought about a sense of deprivation, loss of independence and commitment of workers to work and hence industrial disputes which inhibit positive expression of entrepreneurial work behaviour. As a result of this, the issues in industrial relations are often about how the parties collaborate, in terms of different forms of employee participations, or how they express and resolve conflict.
Abdulkadir, Isiaka, and Adedoyin (2012), describe employee participation as giving employees greater role in the decision-making processes in the organization. This comprises of arrangements that ensure that employees have the opportunity to influence management decisions and thereby contribute to the improvement of the organizations’ performance (Armstrong, 2009). Marchington (2001), identifies the purpose of employee participation to include the articulation of individual dissatisfaction for the purpose of rectifying problems with the Management or preventing the deterioration of relationship; the expression of workers’ collective position which moderate the power of management; contribute to management decision making for the purpose of seeking improvement in work organization, quality, productivity as well as the demonstration of mutuality and cooporative relations required to achieve long term viability for the organization and the welfare of its employees.

The second issue in industrial relations mentioned above is the way conflict is generated and handled. Conflict here imply the oppositional win-lose pattern of work behavior (Longe, 2015). Conflicts have become perversive as a result of increase in workforce diversity, greater reliance on teams, increase in distance communications, cultural issues, stress from more work with fewer workers and frequent restructuring of many business organizations (Rahum, Magner & Shapiro, 2000). Consequently, it is said to be inevitable (Yildirim, Akan, & Yakin, 2015). Rahum, et.al. (2000) and Ebhote and Osemeke (2015) posit that for individuals, groups and organizations to function successfully, they must manage conflict effectively. Effective management of conflict requires not only the institution of industrial relations processes like consultation, negotiation, consession, mediation and arbitration, but also the development of the skills and culture for managing the processes for industrial harmony and productivity (Oseyomon & Eiya, 2015). From this perspective, it may be said that, while grieviance is inevitable, conflict is not, where adequate structures and processes as well as the skill for managing them exist. This also suggests that industrial relations can be managed to produce harmony directed towards generating innovative behaviors for achieving organization objectives, rather than just controlling conflicts.

Along this line, Gyes (2003) characterizes industrial relations systems into five. These are market system, based on voluntarism; conflict system, based on antagonistic conflict of interest between the industrial relations parties; State, where coordination and regulation depend strongly on public/State governance; coordination, where the social partners discuss non-market mechanisms and arrangements in order to establish agreements on conditions of employment; and cooperation, which is based on the long term positive-sum conception of the common interest between all organized actors. To him, in market system, which is based on voluntarism approach to industrial relations, innovation is weak; innovation is low in conflict-based, antagonistic approach. Industrial relations play only a secondary role in innovation strategy in a system which depends on State regulations, whereas there is a strong linkage between industrial relations settings governed by coordination approach and innovation issues. Gyes (2003) is of the position that the strongest link between workers involvement in innovation matters is found where industrial relations systems are governed by the principles of cooperation and coordination. This principle would further innovation through facilitating the conditions for industrial harmony required for channeling all productive energies in industry for optimum achievement of corporate goals for the mutual benefits of the parties.
Nwokocha (2015) posits that such conditions include the fact that management personnels understand what is expected of them and have the training and authority to carry them out efficiently; duties and responsibilities of employees are stated with clarity and simplicity; employees understand what is required of them and their progress towards them; there is effective exchange of information and views between senior management and the workforce; supervisors are informed about innovation and changes before they occur to enable them explain to their work groups; employers collaborate with trade unions through establishing procedures for the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment and for the settlement of grievances and trade disputes at the level of establishment and industry; employers take reasonable steps to ensure that the organization observes agreed upon procedures and subsequent agreements; and the organisation establishment of a communication system for effective exchange of information and views between different levels in the organization and regular systematic appraisal of employees’ performance. This is in line with Castrogiovanni, Urbano and Loras (2011) who found that personal relationship and culture of open communication can help organisation to cultivate entrepreneurial behavior among employees
2.1.1.2.7. Internal Environment of Human Resource Management

Human resource management practices like recruitment and selection, training and development, compensation management, performance appraisal, career development and industrial relations differ from one organisation to another (Swathi, 2014). This is because they take place within diferent internal organizational environments (Ozutku and Ozturkler (2009). Internal environment of human resource management practice is defined in terms of factors that affect the status and role of human resource management practices within the organization. These comprise of corporate management practices, the devolution of human resource management functions, whether the department does mainly human resource management functions or combines it with other specialized duties, the professional status of the key staff of the human resource management department, the role of this department in corporate policy making and the integration of HRM processes with other processes in the organisation. These factors, according to Becker, Huselid and Ulrich (2001), affect the type and intensity of human resource management practices and consequently, their impact on employee behaviours, including entrepreneurial work behaviour.

First, Ahmed (2016) stresses the need for strategic integration and alignment of the HRM in the organization as a condition for playing its role effectively. They referred to this as the organization’s ability to incorporate human resource management issues into its strategic plans as well as integrate the various aspects of human resource management. It also includes the ability of line managers to incorporate human resource management perspectives into their day to day decision-making. Olorunda (2009) describes this integration as the alignment of decision about people with corporate strategic directions and planning processes and relates it with management practices and philosophy as well as the extent to which the management of human resources is expected to contribute to mission accomplishment and the managers are held accountable for their human resource management decisions.
Also, it matters whether the head of the department is a licensed HR professional practitioner or not. Kane and Palmer (1995) have stressed that professional status can influence the practice in terms of the knowledge about alternative HR policies and practices. Ozutku and Ozturkler (2009) supported this by stating that this professional status of HR staff affects the extent of knowledge of the developments in the human resource management theory and ability to put those developments into the formulation and implementation of HR strategies.

Further, the existence of a functional human resource management department has been linked with the type and level of the practice of human resource management in organizations. According to Tubey, Rotich, and Kurgat (2015), the development of this practice has historically evolved from being handled personally by the owner-manager to when the schedule was being handled by an Assistant to, on behalf of the owner manager. It expanded to become an added function of another department (such as the general admininstration), before its evolution into a specialized full-fledged professional department, headed by a professional practitioner. Hence we can infer that the existence of formal structure for and the concentration of strategic HR functions can therefore be taken as a reflection of the state of business and the practice of HRM; hence, its role and impact in corporate planning or policy making.

Further, Tubey, Rotich, and Kurgat, (2015) explained that different organizations are at different stages in the development of HRM and these stages affect its practice and contribution. They illustrate how the stage could affect the orientation and level of human resource management practice. To do this, they characterized the different stages in terms of time and planning perspective, psychological contract, employee relations perspective, preferred structure or system, role and evaluation respectively. To them, in the time and planning perspective, while the early stages are characterized by short term, reactive, adhoc and marginal approach, the later is characterized by long term, proactive, strategic and integrated orientation. The psychological contract perspective is compliance as in the early period as against commitment of the later period. Employee relations perspective is pluralistic, collective and low trust as against the unitary, individual and high trust element of the later period. Bureaucratic, mechanistic, centralized, narrow and formalized role system characterizes the early period, while organic, devolved and flexible role regime is associated with the later period.

The focus of evaluation of the early period is cost minimization while that of the later period is maximization of utilization. These approximate what Brizek (2014) characterized as a continuum between the administrative domain and the entrepreneurial domain, representing the early and later period in the development of the practice of HRM, respectively. In line with the above, Johnson and Mouly (2002) summarized the internal factors which influence the level and role of HR function measured in terms of coproate governance practices, level of the devolution and integration of HR functions, professionalization of HR staff and the strategic role of the HR functions. These would therefore be used in this study to measure the internal environment of the practice of human resource management in selected public and private institutions in the Lagos and Ogun States of Nigeria.

According to Korodo (2000), whereas the private sector organizations are turning round to give more attention and focus on people issue in terms of the level of the devolution of HR fuctions, professionalization of HR staff and the strategic role of the HR functions in line with the later period discussed above, the public sector remains at the transactional level of the early period, with little attention given to its (HR) professional role. Onah (2012) describes the situation as one in which less than satisfactory attention is given to issues of human resource management in the public sector organizations in Nigeria. He contended that the consequent poor management of the HR function is the progressive decay of public enterprises with concomitant poor service delivery. As a result, there are contentions about the desireability, feasibility and readiness of human resource management practice to foster entrepreneurial work behavior in the public sector environment as in that of the private sector.
However, Cankar, and Petkovsek (2013) reported that the importance of innovation is increasingly being realized in the public sector as in the private sector. Though, there are efforts in the public sector to enhance innovation through many HRMP reforms (Olaopa, 2010), there are differences in the status of HRM practices and consequently, its effects on employee outcomes in comparism with the private sector (Oludare, 2013). These differences and their implications for the level of entrepreneurial work behavior remained the thrust of many studies in the HRMP/ CE literatures (Hayton, 2005).

2.1.2. Corporate Entrepreneurship
2.1.2.1. Overview of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is a derivative of entrepreneurship. Originally, entrepreneurship was used to describe the activities of the person who take risk and or in charge of organizing and conducting exploratory or military expeditions (Hisrich, 1990). Today, entrepreneurs have come to be seen, more from the economic or business point of view, which is oriented towards risk taking to stimulate economic process, leading to new business (Borza, 2012). Stevenson, Roberts, and Grousbeck (1989) describe entrepreneurship as the “process of creating value by bringing together a unique package of resources to exploit an opportunity” (p, 9). This process, according to Morris and Jones (1993), consists of those activities required to identify opportunities, develop a business idea, access and acquire the necessary resources, implement the idea and harvest the resulting business profit.

Kowilsky (1995), in another reconstruction of the same idea, opines that the activities in this process, involve the recognition of opportunity, marshalling of resources and the creation and management of business. Gartner (1989), on the other hand, contends that the creation of an organization is the special domain of entrepreneurship; reserving what follows for the domain of the manager or management. Also, the initial understanding of entrepreneurship limits it to self employment sphere of business activities or just business ownership. It is therefore common in literatures (such as Shane, 2008; Izeodomi, 2007) to describe entrepreneurship in contrast to paid employment or sees entrepreneur as the opposite of employee. Consequently, earlier research into entrepreneurship had focused on the initiative taken by individuals with a view to new venture creation of his or her own (Kirzner, 1973). Relatively little research has therefore been done on the existence and role of entrepreneurship within the already existing or large corporate organizations which increasingly have to maintain their competitiveness in the global environment.
In constrast to the above lines of thinking, Anders, Karina, Christensen and Ulhoi (2004) have established that the key activities which constitute entrepreneurship do not stop before or even at the early stage of business activities. It is, rather an approach to conducting any activity which may be profitably or usefully undertaken in or outside of business and before or after creating a business and regardless of the person being a business owner, manager, student, politician, private business employee or civil servant (Shane, Nicolaou, Cherkas,& Spector, 2010; Kuratko & Hodgett, 2007). Secondly, it has been observed that changes in workplaces, work methods and consequently, what constitute appropriate management styles in most corporate environments are increasingly being seen as those required by entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial management. Thus, according to Antoncic and Hisrich (2003), economists and managers are increasingly transferring their attention to the role and contribution of intrapreneurs in established or large organizations in the form of corporate entreprneurship. Infact, the Global Enrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), (2012) reports that entrepreneurial behavior (intrapreneurship) by employees in organisations is more important than earlier thought.
In line with this, Kurakto, Ireland, and Hornsby (2001) have suggested that the construct of entrepreneurship should in future include the act of creation and renewal or innovation with regard to the economics or business activities that occur within or outside an organization. More specifically, Sathe (2003) has alluded to the possibility that managers and employees in large organizations could be motivated to behave entrepreneurially, create innovation and thereby produce profit and growth. This is in line with Collins and Moore (1970) who identified two types of entrepreneurship, differentiated by the context in which entrepreneurial activities take place. These are independent entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship. According to them, independent entrepreneurship refers to the context in which an individual or a group of such individuals, acting independently of an existing organization, create a new independent organization. Corporate entrepreneurship (also sometimes called administrative entrepreneurship), on the other hand imply the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, within an existing organization, create a new organization or stimulate renewal or innovation within that organization. This suggests the idea of entrepreneurship as comprising those carried on by independent entrepreneurs and those carried on inside an existing organization by employees. Infact, Robert and King (1968) have found a close match between the attributes of internal and external entrepreneurs. This now admits corporate entrepreneurship as a sub-field of entrepreneurship with independent entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship being sub components.
The construct of corporate entrepreneurship itself, has suffered many definitional ambiguities (Kuratko, 1990). Many terms have been used to describe corporate entrepreneurship in literatures. First, intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship are used interchangeable as in de-Jong and Wennekers (2008) and Cunnigham and Lischeron (1999). Sanjeev and Mathapati (2015) refer to it as intrapreneurship. Schollhammar (1982) however, specifically attached it to new venture. Perspectives from different fields such as entrepreneurship, strategic management and even the human resource management also provide some elaboration on what they regard as the core essence of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship scholars such as de-Jong andWennekers (2008), Cunnigham and Lischeron(1999) and Schollhammar (1982) stress on new products, services, competitive postures, technologies, administrative techniques, and strategies. Maaly, Amami and Saadaadooni (2014) describe it as a field of management concerned with the presence of innovation with objectives such as rejuvenating or purposefuly redefining organization, market and industry in order to stimulate or sustain competitive superiority. Shaw, O’Loughlin and McFadzean (2005), in strategic management terms, defined it as the effort of promoting innovation within existing organization, through the assessment of new opportunities, exploration and commercialization of the said opportunities and alignment of resources. From the HRM perspective, “it is the process of enhancing the ability of the firm to acquire and utilize the innovative skills and abilities of the firm’s members” (Holt, Rutherford, & Chohessy, 2007, 30). Thus, according to Sanjeev and Mathapati (2015), it does not exclude managers or employees in large business or government organisations, if they combine resources in an unsual ways to create innovative new products, processes or service.