CC BY
0
* Данная работа подготовлена при финансовой поддержке Китайского стипендиального совета (проект №202310100005 «Производительность труда и креативность в новой экономике: перспектива внутреннего предпринимательства»).
** This work was prepared with the financial support of the China Scholarship Council (project no. 202310100005 “Labor Productivity and Creativity in the New Economy: An Intrapreneurship Perspective”).
Влияние предпринимательской ориентации на интрапренерское поведение сотрудника: перспектива соответствия ценностей *
Цзо Вэньцзюнь, аспирант, Институт экономики и управления, Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина, Екатеринбург,
Паникарова Светлана Викторовна, доктор экономических наук, профессор, Институт экономики и управления, Уральский федеральный университет, Екатеринбург
Предпринимательская ориентация (ЕO) вышла на передний план как критическая стратегическая необходимость для стимулирования инноваций и корпоративного предпринимательства. Основываясь на теории соответствия личности организации (P-E Fit), в данном исследовании анализируется влияние организационной предпринимательской ориентации (OEO) и индивидуальной предпринимательской ориентацией (IEO) на проявление интрапренёрного поведения сотрудников (IB), конкретно в областях стратегического обновления (SRB) и создания бизнеса (VB). Для эмпирической проверки наших гипотез мы использовали анализ полиномиальной регрессии с исследованием поверхности отклика, по данным опроса 292 сотрудников частных предприятий в Китае. Основные результаты: (1) Как IEO, так и OEO положительно влияют на IB, хотя сила этого влияния различается между двумя подизмерениями IB; (2) Соответствие между IEO и OEO положительно влияет на проявление IB; (3) SRB и VB, как разные подизмерения IB, функционируют на основе уникальных механизмов стимулирования в рамках теории P-E Fit. Научная новизна заключается в исследовании взаимодействия между IEO и OEO в контексте EО и корпоративного предпринимательства. В то время как ученые признают важность EО в увеличении конкурентоспособности организации, данное исследование подчеркивает важность учета как индивидуальных, так и организационных измерений в формировании влияния EО.
Ключевые слова: предпринимательская ориентация; корпоративное предпринимательство; интрапренёрное поведение; стратегическое обновление; создание бизнеса; полиномиальная регрессия с поверхностным откликом.
Цитировать: Zuo W., Panikarova S.V. The effects of entrepreneurial orientation on employee's intrapreneurial behavior: a value congruence perspective // KANT. – 2023. – №4(49). – С. 174-182. EDN: KKVMED. DOI: 10.24923/2222-243X.2023-49.32
Zuo Wenjun, Postgraduate student, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg.
Panikarova Svetlana Viktorovna, DSc of Economics, Professor, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) has emerged as an imperative driver for organizational innovation and corporate entrepreneurship. Grounded in the framework of Personal-Environment (P-E) Fit theory, the purpose of this study is to explores the influence of the fit between Organizational Entrepreneurial Orientation (OEO) and Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) on the manifestation of employee intrapreneurial behavior (IB), specifically in the domains of strategic renewal behavior (SRB) and venture-creating behavior (VB). To empirically test our hypotheses, we conducted a study utilizing polynomial regression analysis with a surface response approach, drawing data from 292 valid survey responses obtained from employees within private enterprises in China. Scientific novelty - This study introduces a novel perspective by examining the interplay between IEO and OEO in the context of EO and corporate entrepreneurship. While scholars have recognized EO's significance in enhancing organizational competitiveness, this research underscores the importance of considering both individual and organizational dimensions in shaping EO's impact. Key Findings: (1) Both IEO and OEO positively contribute to IB, although the strength of this influence varies between the two subdimensions of IB; (2) The fit between IEO and OEO positively contributes to the manifestation of IB; (3) SRB and VB, as distinct subdimensions of IB, operate under unique stimulation mechanisms within the framework of P-E Fit theory.
Keywords: entrepreneurial orientation; corporate entrepreneurship; intrapreneurial behavior; strategical renewal behavior; venture-creating behavior; polynomial regression with surface response.
УДК 331.44:346.26
5.2.3
Zuo W., Panikarova S.V.
The effects of entrepreneurial orientation on employee’s intrapreneurial behavior: a value congruence perspective **
Introduction
The post-Fordism way of production, characterized by the age of knowledge and creative economy [1], alters the labor relation and bring the new forms of the way to organize work by inducing a new domain coined as “mass intellectuality” to replace the old, privileged domain of the entrepreneurs since the end of the 1970s [2]. In contemporary times, we are observing a notable trend towards the autonomous organization and "free entrepreneurial activity" of the labor force. This shift challenges the traditional basis of legitimacy that the Schumpeterian entrepreneur relied upon, namely their capacity for innovation. Against this backdrop, there is an increasing acknowledgment that entrepreneurial employees, commonly referred to as intrapreneurs, play a significant role in driving innovation and fostering economic growth [3]. As a consequence, research on intrapreneurship has garnered growing attention within the academic sphere.
Present-day scholars primarily concentrate on investigating the impact of organizational and employee factors on the manifestation of entrepreneurial behavior, employing a contextualized research framework [4]. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of knowledge concerning how the alignment between employee and organizational values can contribute to the development of intrapreneurship among employees. This research gap contributes to a lack of clarity in understanding the mechanisms underlying the formation of intrapreneurial behavior (IB) for several reasons. Firstly, value conflicts, an inevitable subject in labor research, are often emphasized in the field. These conflicts arise partly due to power imbalances between employers and employees or among different labor market groups [5]. Secondly, although previous research has examined the impact of value-related variables on intrapreneurship, a careful analysis of their research entry points reveals a neglect of the role of value alignment or consistency in influencing employee initiatives. Furthermore, intrapreneurship can have varying outcomes, ranging from productivity to unproductivity or even destructiveness, depending on the rules of the game that intrapreneurs encounter [6]. It is challenging to envision IB being productive for firms if employees do not demonstrate value congruence with the organization. To fill this research gap on the absence of the value congruence perspective within corporate entrepreneurship research, this study investigates how value congruence on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) influences employees' disclosure of IB.
Literature Review
In line with the personal-environment (P-E) Fit paradigm, labor-related attitudes and behaviors are a result of the alignment between an individual's characteristics and their immediate surroundings. Chatman [7] defines P-E Fit as the "congruence between an organization's norms and values and an individual's personal values." Among them, value congruence, a fundamental concept within the framework of P-E fit model, pertains to the extent of alignment or harmony between an individual's personal values and the values upheld by the organization, group, or community to which they are affiliated. In Chatman's P-E Fit model, the consequences of this alignment can manifest at the organizational level as shifts in organizational norms or values, while at the individual level, it may lead to changes in personal values, engagement in extra-role behavior, and enhanced commitment, among other outcomes. However, Chatman also contends that a certain degree of misfit can also yield advantages for both individuals and organizations. This underscores the complexity of the P-E Fit model, which necessitates a nuanced consideration of the specific organizational context and the distinct characteristics of both dependent and independent variables.
EO is widely considered to be the cornerstone of the entrepreneurship research and has emerged as a prominent construct in the organizational and management research [8]. Subsequent to the introduction of the concept of EO in academia, it is further distinguished to firm level and personal level. In the firm level, organizational entrepreneurial orientation (OEO) refers to a strategic organizational posture that captures the specific processes, practices and activities that enable firms to create value by engaging in entrepreneurial endeavors [9]. On the other hand, Individual entrepreneurial orientation (IEO) captures the employees’ tendency to behave entrepreneurially within the organizational context. Both IEO and OEO is supposed to positively contribute to corporate intrapreneurship. Individual cognition plays a pivotal role in shaping IB. Previous studies have established a positive correlation between IEO and IB. It is well-established that employees with a heightened level of IEO are inclined to engage in exploratory activities, which serve as the foundation for intrapreneurial processes [10]. Additionally, various other individual cognitive factors such as locomotion [11] and some of the “big five” traits [12] hold the potential to influence an employee's IB. In terms of OEO, Bandura’s social learning theory provide a framework for us to understand the process how OEO can influence employee’s initiatives in terms of their IB. This theory posits that individual acquire new behaviors and skills through observation and social interaction [13]. Following this logic, it can be justified that when employees observe that their organization encourages and rewards IB, they are more likely to develop intrapreneurial skills and engage in such behavior. For instance, under the framework of social learning theory, Yarberry and Sims [14] study the remote workers who become self-empowered in the covid-19-prompted virtual work environment. Empirically, researchers have examined the relationship of OEO and certain employee’s attitudes or behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior [15], employee green creativity [16], employee’s retention [17], innovation performance [18].
Hypothesis 1: IEO positively contributes to employees’ IB
Hypothesis 2: OEO positively contributes to employees’ IB
IB, a pivotal means of promoting corporate entrepreneurship, serves as a catalyst for fostering employees' creative initiatives. Scholars delineate two distinctive forms of IB: strategic renewal behavior (SRB) and venture-creating behavior (VB). Building upon this conceptual framework, Gawk et al. [19] devised a comprehensive measurement scale aimed at assessing these two dimensions of IB. When an individual's values align with those of their organization or team, it is more probable that they will demonstrate behaviors that are in harmony with these values. This concept resonates with Organizational Identification (OI) theory, which advocates for the cultivation of a sense of OI. OI is defined as the alignment of individual values with those of the organization, coupled with a perception of unity and belongingness to the organization [20]. Scholars argue that individuals who identify with their organization tend to embrace the organization's objectives as their own and display heightened loyalty and compatibility [21]. This research focuses on the influence of values on entrepreneurial orientation, specifically in terms of innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness at both the individual and organizational levels. Within the framework of OI, we can deduce that organizations with EO are inclined to establish goals that align with their values and drive corporate entrepreneurship strategies. However, the degree to which individuals share this EO can vary. Individuals who do not share these values may potentially hinder the organization's transformation efforts. Conversely, employees whose values align with the organization's EO are more likely to support and contribute to the organization's entrepreneurial goals. Building on this rationale, the strength of the alignment between IEO and OEO may influence their collaborative behavior. The stronger the alignment of values between individuals and the organization, the more IBs are likely to be observed among employees.
Hypothesis 3: When the matches between OEO and IEO are consistent, compared with the “low-low” match, the “low-low” matching has a higher level of SRB
Hypothesis 4: When the matches between OEO and IEO are consistent, compared with the “low-low” match, the “low-low” matching has a higher level of VB
Methodology
We employed a convenience sampling approach to conduct an online survey targeting individuals classified as "employed" within the private enterprise sector in China. Our survey distribution channels encompassed social media platforms such as WeChat and Douban, along with survey platforms including Tencent Survey. To ensure data quality, we established screening criteria consisting of screening questions, and minimum filling time (120 seconds). Respondents who satisfied these criteria received a token of appreciation in the form of 2 RMB (approximately 0.3 USD) as an acknowledgment of their participation. Consequently, we received a total of 353 questionnaires, of which 292 were deemed valid, resulting in a retention rate of 82.72%. Table 1 presents the pertinent statistical data regarding the respondents.
Table 1. Statistical information of the respondents
Variables Items Number Proportion（%）
Gender Male 96 32.9
Female 196 67.1
Age 18-30 219 75
31-40 73 25
Education Undergraduate 166 56.8
Master's or doctoral degree 126 43.2
Income Below 6000 RMB 145 49.7
6000-8000 RMB 35 12
8000-10000 RMB 22 7.5
Above 10000 RMB 90 30.8
A seven-point Likert scale was employed to gauge the constructs of interest in this research. Specifically, the IEO scale utilized in this study was originally developed by Bolton and Lane [22]. Furthermore, the OEO scale was adapted from Lumpkin and Dess' work [9]. The assessment of IB, inclusive of both SRB and VB, was conducted utilizing the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS) [19].
Polynomial analysis with surface response, a method commonly employed to examine the association between the congruence of two predictor variables and their corresponding outcome variable [23], was employed to assess the hypotheses formulated in our study. This analytical approach aligns with the P-E fit paradigm, which serves as the theoretical framework for predicting labor-related outcomes. Based on the guidelines by Edward and Parry [24], three equations in polynomial regression analysis are summarized as follows:
Z=b_0+b_1 X+b_2 Y+b_3 X^2+b_4 XY+b_5 Y^2+ε(1)
Z=b_0+(b_1+b_2 )X+(b_3+b_4+b_5 ) X^2+ ε (2)
Z=b_0+(b_1-b_2 )X+(b_3-b_4+b_5 ) X^2+ ε (3)
Equation (1) is the foundational equation in the polynomial regression analysis. Based on the regression results according to the logic of equation (2), equation (2) and (3) capture the characteristics of consistency and inconsistency line respectively. b1 + b2 and b3 + b4 + b5 represent the slope and curvature of the consistency line: if b1 + b2 is positive value, then it means the consistency line is upward generally and this consistency positive contribute to the outcome variable; if b3 + b4 + b5 is positive, then it indicates a convex surface. Same apply to the b1 - b2 and b3 - b4 + b5 in the inconsistency line. We employ an example provided by Shanock et al. [25] to further illustrate this method. They created a response diagram to capture how the fit between perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support influence employee’s organizational commitment (see Fig 1a). Three main points are advised to especially pay attention to: (1)How agreement relates to the outcome: for the consistency line (Y = X), their result for slope value is 0.54 (P<0.01, Fig 1b), indicating value congruency positively contribute to employee’s organizational commitment; (2)How degree of discrepancy relates to the outcome: for the consistency line (Y = -X), their result for slope value is -1.00 (P<0.01, see Fig 1c), indicating value incongruency negatively contribute to employee’s organizational commitment; (3)How the direction of discrepancy relates to the outcome: in fig 1c, it can be concluded that organizational commitment level do not suffer as much when the discrepancy is such that Y is higher than X.
Fig 1. Affective commitment as predicted by perceived organizational support-perceived supervisor support discrepancy
Source: recreated based on Shanock et al [25].
Results
Table 2 presents the statistical summary, encompassing means and standard deviations, along with the results of the correlation analysis for the variables of interest. The correlation coefficients exhibited noteworthy significance. Specifically, the correlation between IEO and IB yielded substantial results (r = 0.561, p < 0.01 for SRB; r = 0.518, p < 0.01 for VB). Additionally, an evident positive correlation was identified between OEO and IB (r = 0.697, p < 0.01 for SRB; r = 0.548, p < 0.01 for VB). These findings underscore the salient relationships between EO and IB.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Gender 1.670 0.471 1
2 Age 1.250 0.434 -.118* 1
3 Education 2.430 0.496 -.318** .343** 1
4 Income 2.200 1.331 -.424** .296** .663** 1
5 IEO 3.865 0.532 -.417** .118* .182** .383** 1
6 OEO 3.791 0.609 -.442** -.141* .147* .448** .507** 1
7 SRB 3.682 0.834 -.469** -.248** .141* .281** .561** .697** 1
8 VB 3.328 1.046 -.394** 0.091 .448** .607** .518** .548** .696** 1
Note. Significant level: *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001; two tailed tests.
Harman Single-factor test method was used to test the common method bias among variables [26]. The maximum factor explained 37.67% of the total variation, which was less than 50%, indicating that the common method bias of data is not a major concern.
The polynomial regression findings are presented in Table 3. Model 1 and Model 3 delineate the linear effects of IEO-OEO fit on two facets of IB: SRB and VB, respectively. The outcomes derived from Model 1 indicate the following: IEO exhibits a significant and positive association with SRB (β = 0.479, p < 0.001), and OEO demonstrates a significant and positive association with SRB as well (β = 0.649, p < 0.001). Notably, it is evident that OEO exerts a more pronounced impact on SRB in comparison to the impact of IEO. On the other hand, the findings derived from Model 3 reveal that IEO maintains a significant and positive association with VB (β = 0.490, p < 0.001), while OEO also exhibits a significant and positive association with VB (β = 0.448, p < 0.001). However, it is noteworthy that IEO exerts a more substantial influence on VB when compared to the influence of OEO. In light of the aforementioned statistical results, it is prudent to conclude that Hypotheses 1 and 2 find support.
Table 3. The results of polynomial regression analysis
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable β SE β SE β SE β SE
Constant 4.289*** 0.245 4.004*** 0.255 1.893*** 0.345 1.254** 0.377
Gender -0.314*** 0.077 -0.269*** 0.073 -0.001 0.109 0.032 0.108
Age -0.467*** 0.079 -0.524*** 0.083 -0.125 0.112 0.016 0.122
Education 0.233** 0.085 0.348*** 0.085 0.413** 0.12 0.579*** 0.125
Income -0.090* 0.036 -0.048 0.040 0.221*** 0.05 0.142* 0.059
IP, b1 0.479*** 0.070 0.367*** 0.067 0.490*** 0.098 0.408*** 0.1
OP, b2 0.649*** 0.068 0.668*** 0.078 0.448*** 0.096 0.678*** 0.116
IP2, b3 -0.633*** 0.113 -0.06 0.167
IP*OP, b4 0.040 0.097 0.083 0.144
OP2, b5 0.226** 0.067 0.383*** 0.098
Slope1: b1+b2 1.035*** 0.081 1.086** 0.124
Curvarture1: b3+b4+b5 -0.367* 0.144 0.406** 0.210
Slope1: b1-b2 -0.301* 0.121 -0.27 0.177
Curvarture2: b3-b4+b5 -0.447* 0.181 0.24 0.269
ΔR2 0.624 0.676 0.526 0.551
F 78.874*** 65.267*** 52.625*** 38.423***
Note. Significant level: *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001; two tailed tests.
In a similar vein, Model 2 and Model 4 delineate the quadratic effects of IEO-OEO fit on SRB and VB, respectively. Model 2 exhibits a positively significant slope (β = 1.035, p < 0.001) along the congruence line (Y=X, Fig 2b), accompanied by a negatively significant curvature (β = -0.367, p < 0.05). Conversely, on the incongruence line (Y=-X, Fig 2c), the slope registers a negative significance (β = -0.301, p < 0.05), alongside a similarly negative curvature (β = -0.447, p < 0.05). These findings indicate that, irrespective of whether there exists value congruence or incongruence in entrepreneurial orientation between the organization and the individual, their impact on strategic renewal behavior exhibits an inverted-U shaped relationship. To provide a comprehensive depiction of this outcome, we have constructed a response surface illustrating this inverted-U shaped relationship (Figure 2a), drawing upon the guidance of Shanock et al. (2010). It becomes evident that within the context of value congruence, when compared to the "low-low" matching, the "low-low" alignment yields a higher level of strategic renewal behavior. Consequently, Hypothesis 3 garners empirical support. Furthermore, based on the profile of the congruence line, we can deduce that the positive effect of value congruence is on a declining trajectory.
Fig. 2 Effect of IEO-OEO fit on SRB
Fig. 3 Effect of IEO-OEO fit on VB
Model 4 reveals below findings: the slope demonstrates a positive significance (β = 1.086, p < 0.01), while the curvature exhibits negative significance (β = 0.406, p < 0.01) along the congruence line (Y=X, Fig 3b). However, this relationship lacks significance on the incongruence line (Y=-X, Fig 3c). This suggests that regarding the presence of value congruence in EO between the organization and the individual, its impact on VB follows a U-shaped pattern. However, in the case of value incongruence, our result can’t conclude a significant relationship between IEO-OEO unfit and VB. To provide a detailed representation of this result, we have constructed a response surface and depicted this U-shaped relationship (Fig 3a). It is discernible that within the context of value congruence, the "low-low" match outperforms the "low-low" mismatch in terms of VB, thus supporting Hypothesis 4. Furthermore, considering the form of the congruence line, we can infer that the positive effect of value congruence is strengthening. What’s more, despite the absence of a significant relationship between value incongruence and venture creation performance, a general trend can be observed in Fig 3c: as the extent of incongruence between IEO and OEO increases, employees' VB tends to decrease.
Conclusion and discussion
Our findings demonstrate that both OEO and IEO significantly and positively contribute to IB. However, the impact of OEO and IEO on the two subdimensions of IB differs, offering a fresh perspective on the manifestation of IB. Our results indicate that the influence of OEO on SRB is more pronounced compared to IEO. Conversely, when it comes to the manifestation of VB, IEO assumes a more pivotal role. Furthermore, it can be concluded that IEO-OEO fit is positively associated with not only strategic renewal behavior but also VB. But just like the difference presents in the results of linear regression, we also observe the difference in terms of the quadratic effect of IEO-OEO fit on the two subdimensions of IB. Specifically, the shape of the quadratic line for the relationship between IEO-OEO fit and SRB is an inverted-U shaped line, while the shape of the quadratic line for the relationship between IEO-OEO fit and VB is a U-shaped line. This means that the positive impact of IEO-OEO fit on strategic renewal behavior is decreasing as the fit strength increase. On the other hand, the positive impact of IEO-OEO fit on VB is increasing as the fit strength increase.
Task context often serves as a behavioral cue influencing the expression of personal traits [27]. Further insight can be gleaned from a study conducted by Stewart and Barrick [28], which reveals that intrateam processes and group performance exhibit distinct relationships in the context of different task types. Notably, for conceptual tasks, intrateam processes and group performance follow an inverted-U pattern, suggesting that these tasks demand innovative and creative thinking but not continuous execution. Conversely, for behavioral tasks, the relationship exhibits a U-shaped pattern, implying that these tasks require cooperative execution rather than ongoing innovation. This dichotomy underscores that while both SRB and VB represent subdimensions of IB, the former may bear more resemblance to conceptual tasks, where innovative solutions are sought to address novel questions and challenges in the pursuit of organizational goals. In contrast, the latter aligns more closely with behavioral tasks, emphasizing the cooperative execution of established methods to achieve objectives. In summary, these insights illuminate the nuanced interplay between task context, IEO-OEO fit, and different dimensions of IB, shedding light on the varying influences at play within distinct organizational contexts.
Based on the discussion of the aforementioned results, several practical implications can be discerned. Firstly, it is advisable to cultivate an EO at both the personal and organizational levels to stimulate corporate entrepreneurship through employees' intrapreneurial initiatives. Secondly, considering that OEO plays a more prominent role in strategic renewal behavior, while IEO assumes greater importance in VB, organizational leaders should establish a supportive environment for strategic renewal behavior. Thirdly, an IEO-OEO fit has a positive impact on employee intrapreneurial initiatives. Therefore, the design of managerial measures to enhance IB should avoid one-sided emphasis.
Furthermore, this research has certain limitations and presents new avenues for future research based on our findings. Firstly, scholars are encouraged to empirically explore the stimulating mechanisms of IB while considering the differences between strategic renewal behavior and VB—essentially, the contrast between thinking and doing. Secondly, further research should delve into the topic of IEO-OEO fit and IB by examining moderating and mediating factors in this relationship. For instance, it is worthwhile to investigate whether employees with high self-efficacy or strong political skills can overcome obstacles posed by value congruence. Lastly, expanding the research sample size and including diverse population groups from various cultures can help determine the generalizability of these results across different cultural and demographic contexts.
References
[1] Vallas S.P. Rethinking Post-Fordism: The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility // Sociological Theory. 1999. Vol. 17, № 1. P. 68–101.
[2] Lazzarato M. Immaterial labor // Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics. 1996. Vol. 1996. P. 133–147.
[3] Dentchev N. et al. Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: social entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, creativity, innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016. Vol. 113. P. 1–4.
[4] Contextualization in Chinese Management Research // Management and Organization Review. 2006. Vol. 2, № 1. P. 1–13.
[5] Fieseler C., Bucher E., Hoffmann C.P. Unfairness by Design? The Perceived Fairness of Digital Labor on Crowdworking Platforms // Journal of Business Ethics. 2019. Vol. 156, № 4. P. 987–1005.
[6] Elert N., Stenkula M. Intrapreneurship: Productive and Non-Productive // Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications Inc, 2022. Vol. 46, № 5. P. 1423–1439.
[7] Chatman J.A. Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit // The Academy of Management Review. 1989. Vol. 14, № 3. P. 333.
[8] Covin J.G., Green K.M., Slevin D.P. Strategic Process Effects on the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Sales Growth Rate Relationship // Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2006. Vol. 30, № 1. P. 57–81.
[9] Lumpkin G.T., Dess G.G. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance // The Academy of Management Review. 1996. Vol. 21, № 1. P. 135.
[10] Wenjun Z. Intrapreneurship as a growing demand: igniting entrepreneurial mindset to fuel employees’ strategic renewal behavior // Human Progress. 2023. Vol. 9, № 3. P. 13.
[11] Kraus S. et al. Individual entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship in the public sector // International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2019. Vol. 15, № 4. P. 1247–1268.
[12] Mahmoud M.A., Ahmad S., Poespowidjojo D.A.L. Intrapreneurial behavior, big five personality and individual performance // Management Research Review. 2020. Vol. 43, № 12.
[13] Bandura A. Social learning theory. // Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall, 1977. P. viii, 247–viii, 247.
[14] Yarberry S., Sims C. The Impact of COVID-19-Prompted Virtual/Remote Work Environments on Employees’ Career Development: Social Learning Theory, Belongingness, and Self-Empowerment // Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2021. Vol. 23, № 3. P. 237–252.
[15] Taşkıran G., İYi̇Gün N.Ö. The Relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Research in the Hospitality Industry // Procedia Computer Science. 2019. Vol. 158. P. 672–679.
[16] Luu T.T. Fostering green service innovation perceptions through green entrepreneurial orientation: the roles of employee green creativity and customer involvement // International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2022. Vol. 34, № 7. P. 2640–2663.
[17] Yamin M.A.Y. Examining the role of transformational leadership and entrepreneurial orientation on employee retention with moderating role of competitive // Management Science Letters. 2020. P. 313–326.
[18] Iqbal S. et al. Linking Entrepreneurial Orientation with Innovation Performance in SMEs; the Role of Organizational Commitment and Transformational Leadership Using Smart PLS-SEM // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13, № 8. P. 4361.
[19] Gawke J.C., Gorgievski M.J., Bakker A.B. Measuring intrapreneurship at the individual level: Development and validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS) // European Management Journal. 2019. Vol. 37, № 6. P. 806–817.
[20] Ashforth B.E., Mael F. Social Identity Theory and the Organization // The Academy of Management Review. 1989. Vol. 14, № 1. P. 20.
[21] Miller V.D. et al. Reconsidering the Organizational Identification Questionnaire // Management Communication Quarterly. 2000. Vol. 13, № 4. P. 626–658.
[22] Langkamp Bolton D., Lane M.D. Individual entrepreneurial orientation: development of a measurement instrument // Education + Training. 2012. Vol. 54, № 2/3. P. 219–233.
[23] Edwards J.R. Person–environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress // The Academy of Management Annals. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2008. Vol. 2. P. 167–230.
[24] Edwards J.R., Parry M.E. On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations As An Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational Research // Academy of Management Journal. 1993. Vol. 36, № 6. P. 1577–1613.
[25] Shanock L.R. et al. Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis: A Powerful Approach for Examining Moderation and Overcoming Limitations of Difference Scores // Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010. Vol. 25, № 4. P. 543–554.
[26] Podsakoff P.M. et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003. Vol. 88, № 5. P. 879–903.
[27] Tett R.P., Guterman H.A. Situation Trait Relevance, Trait Expression, and Cross-Situational Consistency: Testing a Principle of Trait Activation // Journal of Research in Personality. 2000. Vol. 34, № 4. P. 397–423.
[28] Stewart G.L., Barrick M.R. Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediatig Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type // Academy of Management Journal. 2000. Vol. 43, № 2. P. 135–148.
