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

2.1.2.2. Scope of Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE)

The scope of CE was initially limited to the act of establishing new businesses within an existing organization (Burgelman, 1984). It was however extended by Guth and Ginsberge (1990) to include new process, new market, new application and corporate renewal. Within this framework, Bosma, Stern, and Wennekers (2010) advanced three alternative conceptual approaches for defining the scope of corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship which shed light into its essence and application. The first, according to him, is the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities as earlier discussed in Shane and Khurana (2003). This embraces the development of new product, new services, new production and services in existing market. The second is the Lumpkin and Dess (1996) “New Entry” approach. This includes entering established markets with new products or services, entering new markets with established goods and or services and entering new markets with new products or services. This third approach is the Gartner (1989) new organization creation. This, according to Niels (2012), provides a behavioral view of entrepreneurship as the process through which new organizations are created. Both of these approaches have come to be accepted as falling within the scope of CE.

2.1.2.3. Levels of Corporate Entrepreneurship

The concept of corporate entrepreneurship has erroneously been limited to the activities of the top management alone. However, the behaviours (innovativeness, proactivity and risk-taking behaviour) which constitute corporate entrepreneurship have been defined, identified and analyzed (as in organization behavior) at the levels of the organization-wide, group/ventures/business/ and the individual levels, respectively (Antonicic & Hisrich, 2003; Zahra, 1991).

At the corporate or organization level, Antonicic and Hisrich (2003) and Zahra (1991 & 1993) see entrepreneurship as the behavior of the firm as a whole, represented by entrepreneurial corporate policies, practices and the administrative style of the central leadership or the strategic postures of top Management(Scheepers; 2009). Common usages, reflecting this usage are corporate entrepreneurship (Ireland, Covin & Kuratko, 2009); and entrepreneurial orientation (Covin et al, 2006; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996); and entrepreneurial management (Brown et.al, 2001; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). The focus of study at this level is the formation of ventures with emphasis on the differentiation of types of new ventures as well as their fit within the corporation and secondly, the entrepreneurial organization, with respect to the characteristics of such organizations, its overall policy orientation and direction by the central leadership. At the group, venture or project level, the focus is on how venturing process unfold over time within organizations from a business idea into a final product at the group or department level (Abetti, 1997; Burgelman, 1983a & Vesper, 1984). The focus of corporate entrepreneurship at the individual level, on the other hand, is the characteristics of the entrepreneurial individual’s behavior within organizations (Jennings, & Young 1990; McKinney & McKinney, 1989; Lessem, 1988; Pinchot, 1985). According to Scheepers (2009), it is a direct result of individual’s entrepreneurial behavour. This level thus stresses the behavioral aspect of the concept or what the intrapreneur is doing. As a result, the dimensions and activities which comprise corporate entrepreneurship and which may be identified for study could be expressed as follows:

Figure, 2.2: Levels of Corporate entrepreneurship

Source: Self Construct
From the above, it is conceptually and practically possible for these activities to be exercised at one level and not at the other. For example, an individual may be entrepreneurial, while the group or department he or she belongs may not be. A particular department of a corporation may be entrepreneurial, while the corporate leadership is not so disposed. Notwithstanding, each level represents unit for the expression of corporate entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial activities within a corporation. However, compared with studies focusing the organizational-wide and group/project levels expression of corporate entrepreneurship (de-Jong & Wennekers, 2008; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999), relatively lesser studies address corporate entrepreneurship at individual behavior level (intrapreneurship). For example, out of the twenty-seven (27) definitions formulated by Sharma and Chrisman (1999), only two were at the individual level, indicating a relative neglect of the expression of the concept (CE) at the individual level (de-Jong, & Wennekers 2008). Also, Hermann (2006) observes that all investigations of intrapreneurship in existing organizations tend to neglect the roles of the individual intrapreneur and how their behaviors can be effectively nurtured and managed. Consistent with this, Sakhdari, (2016) and Ireland, Covin, and Kuratko (2009) propose that corporate entrepreneurial behavior need to be observed at the level of organizational members in the form of intrapreneurial work behaviour (intrapreneurship), as it is intended in this study, rather than at the top management or group level alone.
2.1.2.4. Intrapreneurship

As earlier referred, some sections of literatures used corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship interchangeably. Sharman and Chrisman (1999) contend that, though corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is being used interchangeably with intrapreneurship, CE are applied more specifically at organization level while intrapreneurship relates to the individual level of the same construct (Pinchot, 1987). Differentiating the term further, Amo (2006) conceptualises CE as a top-down process in the form of a strategy that managements can use to foster initiatives and improvements of efforts from their respective workforces and organizations. In contrast, intrapreneurship, on the other hand, is seen as bottom-up phenomenon which is related to proactive initiatives of individual employees to improve work processes, products or to explore and exploit business opportunities. In line with this, Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) describe intrapreneurship as the process by which individuals inside the organization, on their own, pursue opportunities without regard to the resources that are currently under their control. Since the activities of the organisation comprise of those of the individuals (Li & Zheng, 2014), it is difficult to clearly separate corporate entrepreneurship from intrapreneurship which is at the individual level. Hence there is the prevalence of interchangeable use of the two terms as in Sharman and Chrisman (1999). As a result, intrapreneurship was conceived as the expression of corporate entrepreneurship at the level of the individual. This is in line with Shane (2000), who conceptualises entrepreneurial expression at three levels: organisational, group and the individual levels, respectively. It is therefore logical, to identify and study corporate entrepreneurship at the corporate, group or, as in this study, at individual level as applicable in organization behavior studies. From this perspective, each level qualifies to be identified as corporate entrepreneurship. That is, entreprepreneurial behavior inside corporation; intra-coporate entrepreneurship.

2.1.2.5. Dimensions of Corporate Entrepreneurship (Intrapreneurship)

The dimensions of corporate entrepreneurial behaviour enable us to identify, review and measure variables of particular interest in this study. The measurement of intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurial behaviour, like the mother concept of entrepreneurship itself, has remained a challenge to entrepreneurship and human resource management researchers. de-Jong, et al., (2008) contend that the behavioral aspect of intrapreneurship is still much unexplored. He however agreed that studies at the organizational level have confirmed certain characteristics or dimensions of corporate entrepreneurial behavior. These characteristics, according to them, still come under several types and labels which in some cases, overlap.

Antoncic and Hisrich (2003) highlight eight elements constituting corporate entrepreneurial behaviour as including new venture creation, new business creation, product or service innovativeness, self renewal, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy, process innovativeness, proactiveness and risk taking. Karacaoglu and Bayrakdaroglu (2013) confirm these elements, excluding competitive aggression and autonomy. In Covin and Slevin (1996 & 1991), these characteristics were reduced to three: proactiveness, innovativeness and risk taking. However, Knight (1997), reduced Covin and Slevin (1996, 1991) categorization to two dimensions: innovativeness and pro-activeness. Obasan (2014), describes innovation and creativity as the main thrust of entrepreneurship. This is because innovation has been described as the common element underlying all forms of corporate entrepreneurship (Abimbola & Agboola, 2011). According to Covin and Miles (1999), it is the use of innovation mechanism to redefine or rejuvenate the organization’s position within the market and industry or the competitive arena in which it competes, that seems to be the core of corporate entrepreneurship. Infact, Drucker (1985, 270), described innovation as the specific tool by which entrepreneurship exploit changes as an opportunity for developing variety of businesses or services. From this, corporate entrepreneurial behavior could be approximated as innovative behavior. It may be said to be the key defining dimension of entrepreneurship (de-Jong et. al., 2015). Other two dimensions may be construed as serving as adjectives describing innovation; proactiveness describing the time of innovation and risk-taking describing the condition of innovation.
However, many key studies are concentrating on the constructs of innovativeness, pro-activeness and risk-taking (Madsen & Borch, 2011) as measures of corporate entrepreneurial behaviour. These three concepts were also adopted in recent studies such as de-Jong et. al., (2015); Rattanawong and Suwanno (2014) and, Karacaoglu, Bajakdaroghu and Batan-San (2013). The three constructs have therefore been adopted to guide this study. It was conceptualised that the more proactive, innovative and risk taking the workforce is, the higher the level of corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurial behavior in the establishment. These three dimensions are now discussed briefly below:


Innovation

The innovation dimension refers to the development and advancement in technology resulting in new product and service innovation. Zchollhaammer (1982) stress that this concept includes new product developments and new method and new procedures. At the behavioural level, Cerinsek and Dolinsek (2009, 166) describe innovation act as ‘‘ the disposition of a person to act and or react in a manner to deal with different critical incidents, problems or tasks that demand innovative thinking and reaction’’. However, according to Janssen (2000, 288), this disposition and ability ‘‘manifest in a workplace setting when an employee intentionally creates, introduce and apply new idea within a work role, group or organisation’’. Hence, Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron (1996) stress that the successful implementation of creative ideas within organisation is the core essence of innovation. It thus encompasses not only creativity but also the ability to implement a new idea, product or service or the application of an existing idea, product or service in a novel way (Hammond, Neff, Farr & Schwall, 2011).

From these perspectives, we can infer that innovative behviour is an act of generating, promoting and applying innovative thinking in the organisation for the purpose of enhancing personal and organisational performance, or by which employees are enabled to use innovative ways of thinking quickly and accurately responding to customer demands and changes (Li & Zheng, 2014). Kleysen and Street (2001) classify innovative behaviour at individual level in five stages; looking for opportunities, generating ideas, research for supporting ideas, developing ideas and applying ideas. Thus, according to de-Jong et al. (2015, 5) innovative individuals “starts with recognising problems and generating ideas for fixes, then championing their ideas to colleaques and managers, and building or organizing models for further assessment and adoption”.
Proactiveness

Broadly, proactiveness is aggressive posturing in relations to competitors (Knight, 1997). Being proactive has been associated with having a long term focus and tendency to act before he or she must respond to a demand. This long term focus, according to Frese and Fay (2001), enables the individual to consider future events and do something proactively about them. These things may include new demands, new or re-occurring problems, emerging opportunities and so on. Thus, a proactive worker is the one who anticipates future problems and opportunities and prepares to deal with them immediately. Proactiveness is therefore being associated with personal initiatives, self starting and not being easily discouraged by immediate barriers or overcoming barriers, self imposed goals and going beyond the boundaries of job description in order to achieve organisation or personal objectives (Hong, Liao, Raub, Han, 2016; Frese & Fay, 2001). A proactive person tends to take risk by experimenting with different ideas (Stopford & Baden-fuller, 1994). He takes initiative and is bold in pursuing opportunies (Covin & Slevin, 1991). Hence the willingness to take proactive actions is a key driver of corporate entrepreneurial behaviour (Naman & Slevin, 1993). It is essentially differentiated from innovative action by timelines of the innovative action. The innovative action is taken proactively.

Risk taking

Risk suggest the danger of a loss. Brockhaus (1980) defines risk taking as the percieved possibility of recieving rewards that are associated with success of a situation which is required by an individual before he will subject himself to the consequences associated with failure. The alternative to such situation, according to him, would often provide less reward and less severe consequences than the said situation. Kwong, Prabhu, Shen and McGuire (2013), describe it as involving actions taken when the consequences or probabilities of outcomes are unknown or only partially known. Hence, Covin and Slevin (1991), describe risk taking as investment decision in the face of uncertainty. Hence, according to Janssen (2003), entrepreneurial workers often act before obtaining their higher management’s express permission despite that this may be at the expense of internal conflict or lead to unsatisfactory relations at work. While material loss may be passed to their employers (partly or fully) the entrepreneurial workers, according to de-Jong, et al. (2015), may still face reputational damage, resistance from their peers and even risk the loss of job. However the risk of an entrepreneur is a calculated risk. Hence, risk taking in this context is not the same as taking a blind chance.

Hence, according to Heath and Tversky (1991), an entrepreneur would be more oriented to take risk in a domain where he or she is an expert. This suggest that he or she will be more risk averse in areas in which he has little knowledge or skill to estimate the probabilies to different outcomes. He can therefore be more appropriately described as a risk manager. From the above, it can be said that entrepreneurial firms or individuals are risk-taking, innovative and proactive, while conservative firms or individuals are risk averse, less innovative and typically adopt a “wait and see” posture.

2.1.2.6. Need for Intrapreneurship

Literatures show that corporate entrepreneurial work behavior by intrapreneurs is needed for various reasons (Sanjeev & Mathapati, 2015), including the following:

Intrapreneurs are Effective Workers

Foba (2002) stresses that the need for organizations to respond to the demands of globalization to produce innovative and competitive products or services, to remain competitive and viable has exerted pressure on them to attract, employ, develop and retain the caliber of employees who can think and act like an entrepreneur. Taylor (2001) added that if companies are to survive and succeed, management team members in large companies also need to act more like individual entrepreneurs. According to Foba (2002), this is because intrapreneurs respond to demands and situations by finding innovative solutions to problems, optimizing available resources and ensuring more productive utilization of resources. They use strategies such as sourcing and application of ideas from outside the organization to meet unmet needs;finding new ways around old pattern of doing things, e.t.c.(Shah,&Bhutta 2013).

Facilitation of Organisational Growth and durable new Businesses

Intrapreneurs are the most reliable source of future independent self employment entrepreneurs who are most likely to generate more, lasting and quality jobs ( Filson, 2002). Parker (2009) and Akintunde and Oyefesobi (2015) show that experience-as-a-worker makes intrapreneurs to be more reliable source of future supply of self-employed entrepreneurs who are likely to succeed as indicated in many earlier studies (Mehralizadeh & Sajady, 2006; Vivarelli, 2004; Arrighetti & Vivarelli, 1999; McPherson, 1996; Cressy, 1996). This is because their experiences as workers would have equipped them with the sources of business contacts, resources, experience and skills which would reduce their risks and ensure their success (Akintunde & Oyefesobi, 2015)

Required Managerial Style

According to Thabo and Davie (2007), technological advancement in communication not only led to globalization and global market but also an increase in demands for competitiveness within organization and innovation in competences and qualities. These, according to Stabber, et al., (2003), have led to changes in organization form, the way work is organized and done, as well as the nature of employment relationship. They contended that, as a result of these, managerial style had to change from command and control; instructing the employees on what to be done, how and when, to the expectation of innovation, creativity, proactivity, initiative, risk taking, personal decision making, flexibility and mobility and generally, the characteristics of entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship or intrapreneurial worker.

Greater Potential of intrapreneurship to Contribute to Economic Growth

In relation to new businesses, established by independent entrepreneurs, large establishments, where intrapreneurs operate, have greater potential (currently unexplored) to create more jobs and contribute to economic development. This is because, according to Shane (2008) and Parker (2009), they have greater potential to make a more efficient use of resources through expansion and economic of scale and therefore able to generate more and greener jobs.

Corporate Advantages of Intrapreneurs

Intrapreneurs enjoy the advantages of corporate environment and facilities. Shane (2008) reports that the experience gained through working within an existing company, instead of launching an independent start-up business, provide advantages to the individuals. These, according to him, include a productivity-stimulating work environment, the resources of the organization which increase their chances of success, while maintaining a salaried position which provides them with added security, in case of failure. This would stimulate them to respond more positively to HRMP designed to enhance their innovativeness. Studies have established that the many problems of self employed creators of new firms (as independent entrepreneurs) are in the areas of comparative advantages of intrapreneurs in terms of the essence of entrepreneurial processes and activities. Examples are easier access to capital, minimisation of personal risks, managerial skills and business contacts, market reach, and so on (Akintunde & Oyefesobi, 2015).

Need for Entreployees

Hoge (1998) and Thomas, Robbert and Waterman (1982) argue that while the taylorism-based direct managerial control inhibits workers motivation, innovation, competence development, the organizational flexibility required in today’s “economics of speed” demand a new type of managerial practices which reduces direct control and foster employees’ self organization and self control through strategies like team work, project work, reducing hierarchy levels, and intra-organization bureaucracy and management by objectives. Thomas, et. al, (1982) stress that these changes create the need for a new type of employees which they refer to as ‘‘Entreployees’’. Entreployee, according to Hoge (1998), is a worker who has to plan, monitor and control his/her daily working activities apply strategies of self motivation and act as producer and salesman of his own work capacity in the context of an intra-organisational and extra-organisational labour market. In contrast to the traditional vocational employees, entreployee is characterized by self control, self organization and self commercialization. Hoge (1998) describes the work orientation of entreployee as being fundamentally different in three areas. These include aspiration to optimize his/her work performance in terms of in-put and output; aspiration for careers which allows him to increase his personal autonomy and refusal of segmentation of life’s domain and the preference of a psychological and spatial-temporal integration of work and private life. Oden (1997) identified a number of strategies or techniques, which allows employees to be intrapreneurial while functioning inside a corporation. These include seeking approval creatively; finding and using allies; establishing coalitions; persuading management to be flexible; sharing credits and controlling time expectations. They also enable the entrepreneurs to multiply himself and share risks with employees and hence further business growth.

Producing this type of employees encapsulates the main objectives of all the HRMP indicated in the different definitions of human resource management earlier reviewed. It also in line with the characteristics of the workforce required to compete in an information age (Hoge, 1998). Consequently, from this perspective, HRM can be described as the policies and processes by which organizations develop entrepreneurial workforce for the achievement of corporate goals. Unlike other definitions, this definition not only highlights the objective of HRMPs in terms of supporting the achievement organizational goals, but also how it is going to do this; the creation of entrepreneurial workforce, a workforce of entreployees (entrepreneurial employees) who can generate profit. This supports our argument, in constrast to Jibran and Sara (2010), that the main domain of HRM in organisation is the creation of profit- abilities of the workforce, rather than direct revenue generation by the HR department itself.
2.1.2.7. Environment of Corporate Entrepreneurship
2.1.2.7.1. Overview

Entrepreneurship has been concieved as initiatives that can be expressed, not only at different levels in organisations, but also in various spheres and contexts, including public sector as in business or private sector (Lundstrom, Zhou, Friedrichs & Sundim, 2014) as shown below:

Figure.2.3: Entrepreneurship in Different Sectors and Spheres in Society

Source:Lundstrom, Zhou, Friedrichs and Sundim (2014)
These spheres and contextual factors constitute the environment in which entrepreneurial activities are taking place. These environments have been described as prerequisites of intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship. The prerequisites of corporate entrepreneurship concerns factors that stimulate or impede it. These include external environmental factors such as competition, technology, social and political factors as well as internal environment factors such as the organization strategies and other factors affecting the status of HR management practices with special reference to the devolution of HR functions, professionalization of the HR staff and the strategic role of the HR functions (Armesh, Ghalandarzahie., Younes & Shahnevazi, 2013; Heinonen, 2010; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Kuratko, 1990; Johnson & Mouly, 2002;). It is from this perspective that Van-de-Ven (1980) describes corporate entrepreneurship as activities which occur in interaction with these environmental factors.
In relation to external environment, Abimbola and Agboola (2011) stress that business environment in which organization operates include the physical infrastructure like transportation, water and electricity as well as the non-physical resources such as regulatory policies, education, procedures and financial credits. Ganyawali and Vogel (1994) describe this environment more broadly as the general circumstances or situations and the socio-cultural and political factors that affect people’s willingness and ability to undertake entrepreneurial activities (p. 7). Illustrating how external environmental factors which are related to geographical location influence entrepreneurial activities in poor countries, the World Bank (2005) reports that businesses in poor countries face much larger regulatory burdens than those in rich countries. Specifically, they face three times the administrative costs; nearly twice as many bureaucratic procedures, and delays associated with them; have fewer than half the protections of property right of rich countries and heavy regulation and weak property rights which exclude the poor from doing business. In addition, 40% of the economy is informal in poor countries (p 16). Also confirming the influence of environmental factors on entrepreneurial activities in Nigeria, an industrialist, Idehen (2007) in Abimbola and Agboola (2011) asserted that the greatest challenge of businesses in Nigeria is inadequate infrastructure, transportation and ineffective agencies of government. According to them, a lot of money is being spent on the maintenance of vehicles and provision of power supply. (p, 9).
As a result, external environment is one of the antecedents of intrapreneurial behaviour focused by corporate entrepreneurship researchers (Van-de-Ven, 1980). Abimbola and Agboola (2011) assert that a significant relationship exist between entrepreneurial activities and the environment in which it occurs. Zahra (1991) also agrees that the environment plays an important role in influencing corporate entrepreneurship. According to him, the more dynamic, hostile and heterogeneous the environment, the more emphasis a company is likely to put on intrapreneurial activities. Thus, Al-Mansur and Abu-Said (2010) conceptualize this relationship as comprising the phenomenon of CE which is preceded by certain antecedents/prerequisites and leading to the outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship (CE).

What is not yet established is how this relationship is produced? Does the external environment cause entrepreneurship or merely facilitates or activates it? However, the popular Schumpeterian (1934) definition of entrepreneurship as the pursuit of opportunity without regard to the level of resources being currently controlled, suggest that the external environment can only facilitate or activate, not prevent it. Therefore, the external environment should not be a condition for the expression of intrapreneurship, where there are internal motivation, capability and empowerment (internal environment) to do so exist. This has been confirmed by Ronney-Robson and Mainade (2012) who stressed that while pursuing opportunities, entrepreneurs act on environment. They change market characteristics and create new trends to ensure successfull implementation of their innovation.

Baumol (1993) also support this in his assertion that, though they are not in complete control, entrepreneurs influence the direction and destiny of economics than many other are able to do. This is also in line with Kurtulmuş and Warner.(2015) whose study do not support the moderating role of the environment on the relationship between EO and performance. Thus, this perspective would suggest a more fundamental role for the individual and organization internal environment which the human resource management interventions are meant to influence. It also suggests an important role for HRMP in influencing organizational capacity for generating corporate entrepreneurship. As in external environment, internal environment has many dimensions. The focus of interest in this study is the internal environment of the HRM within the organization. In particular, we focused those environmental factors that relate to the norms affecting the status and role of the HRMP in the organization and hence its capacity to make strategic contribution to the performance of the organization through the development of entrepreneurial behavior development.