CP

Journal of European Industrial Training
A conceptual model of intrapreneurship in the Iranian agricultural extension

organization: Implications for HRD
Asef Karimi Iraj Malekmohamadi Mahmoud Ahmadpour Daryani Ahmad Rezvanfar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Asef Karimi Iraj Malekmohamadi Mahmoud Ahmadpour Daryani Ahmad Rezvanfar, (2011),"A conceptual
model of intrapreneurship in the Iranian agricultural extension organization", Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 35 Iss 7 pp. 632 - 657
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591111160779
Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 00:52 31 January 2015 (PT)
Downloaded on: 31 January 2015, At: 00:52 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 154 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1105 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, J. Augusto Felício, Ricardo Rodrigues, Vítor R. Caldeirinha, (2012),"The effect
of intrapreneurship on corporate performance", Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss 10 pp. 1717-1738 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279567
Bostjan Antoncic, Robert D. Hisrich, (2003),"Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept", Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 7-24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000310461187
Carlos Molina, Jamie L. Callahan, (2009),"Fostering organizational performance: The role of learning
and intrapreneurship", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 Iss 5 pp. 388-400 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590910966553
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540740 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm
JEIT
35,7 A conceptual model of
intrapreneurship in the Iranian
agricultural extension
632
organization
Received 15 March 2010
Revised 5 June 2010
Implications for HRD
Accepted 4 April 2011
Asef Karimi and Iraj Malekmohamadi
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture,
University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Mahmoud Ahmadpour Daryani

College of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, and
Ahmad Rezvanfar
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture,
University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – This study seeks to build a conceptual model of agricultural extension intrapreneurship
that discusses the concept and phenomenon of intrapreneurship as well as its prerequisites and
outcomes. The proposed model is intended to depict the main factors that affect the phenomena of
intrapreneurship within the agricultural extension organizations and the impact of intrapreneurship
on agricultural extension organizational outcomes, as well as factors influencing its continuous
outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper identifies and describes the existence and past
literature on prerequisites, phenomena and outcomes of intrapreneurship in organizations as a basis
for analysis and developing an appropriate model of agricultural extension intrapreneurship. This is a
conceptual paper selecting targeted scholarly works that provide support for the proposed model.
Findings – The paper presents a model of Iranian agricultural extension in which the organizational,
behavioral and environmental factors influence intrapreneurship and the construct of
intrapreneurship influences organizational outcomes. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis
that develops an existing model for a systematic approach to the agricultural extension intrapreneurial
process. The proposed model of agricultural extension intrapreneurship joins a growing number of
works that explore how intrapreneurship contributes to organizational outcomes in an Iranian
agricultural extension organization. It is suggested that the framework may help scholars identify
potential strategies of intrapreneurial activity that could help extension organization position
intrapreneurship as a vehicle for improving organizational outcomes.
Originality/value – Based on this exploration, new insights about agricultural extension
intrapreneurship are developed, practical implications for agricultural extension intrapreneurs on
how to approach agricultural extension entrepreneurship more systematically and effectively are
Journal of European Industrial
Training
presented and opportunities for further research are identified.
Vol. 35 No. 7, 2011 Keywords Agricultural extension, Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, Iran, Entrepreneurialism,
pp. 632-657
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Organizations, Human resource development
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090591111160779
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction A model of
Agriculture is an important sector of any economy because it feeds the population and intrapreneurship
therefore carries a certain strategic importance. This sector also provides the raw
materials required to drive some of the key manufacturing industries (Van den Ban
and Samanta, 2006). Despite this, agricultural sector is one of the most sluggish and
inefficient sectors in Iran (Karbasioun, 2007; Heidary et al., 2006) and the main reasons
behind this are excessive rural population, low skills and knowledge of these people 633
about new methods and technologies of agriculture, and inefficient farm management
(Karamidehkordi, 2010; Yurttas and Atsan, 2006). On the other hand, agricultural
extension organization and their services are important policy tools in agricultural
sector development (Atsan et al., 2009).
After a period of neglect, agricultural extension has returned strongly to the
international development agenda. The term agricultural extension refers to the set of
organizations that support and facilitate people involved in agricultural production to

solve problems and to obtain awareness, knowledge, skills, and technologies to
improve their livelihoods (Hashemi and Hedjazi, 2011; Anderson, 2007; Birner et al.,
2006). In addition, agricultural extension system is one of the primary vehicles for
diffusing knowledge and technologies and therefore clearly has an important role to
play in the agricultural sector and its development (Umali, 1997; Kidd et al., 2000;
Allahyari, 2009).
Agricultural extension is a service or system which assists farm people through
educational procedures to improve farming methods and techniques, increase
production efficiency and income, better levels of living, and lift the social and
educational standards of rural and agricultural life (Maunder, 1973, p. 103). This
service can improve the process of agricultural development, living conditions of
farmers and their family members by increasing the profitability of their farming
activities (Mahaliyanaarachchi and Bandara, 2006).
Moreover worldwide agricultural extension organizations have long played a vital
role in advancing technology transfer and human resource development (HRD) in 115
developed and developing countries (Fox, 2008), but unfortunately agricultural
extension in most developing countries like Iran is mainly focused on common
extension approach (Karbasioun and Chizari, 2005; Heidary et al., 2006). Consequently,
agricultural extension has not been sufficiently effective in developing and promoting
adoption of sustainable agriculture development, doe to poorly defined HRD (Zinnah
et al., 1998; Toness, 2001; Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). Studies indicated that Iran’s
agricultural extension objectives in the context of HRD are not favorable and the
agricultural extension system does not pay enough attention to it (Zamani Miandashti
et al., 2008). HRD is identified as critical for ensuring the success of agricultural sector
in developing countries such as Iran (World Bank, 2000) and there is reasonable
agreement that in developing countries, current capacity of HRD in agricultural area is
unfavorable (Zinnah et al., 1998). According to Zamani Miandashti et al. (2008)
agricultural extension system in Iran suffer from lack of professional competency and
motivation to carry out the sustainable development responsibilities, due to poorly
defined HRD and management system. In addition, in this decade, agricultural
extension services were attacked and criticized for being inefficient, irrelevant,
ineffective, and poorly targeted. The need for reform was obvious and national systems
responded with some strategies (Akis, 2000). Rivera et al. (2000) noted traditional
JEIT extension systems are now seen as outdated, top-down, paternalistic, inflexible, subject
35,7 to bureaucratic inefficiencies and therefore unable to cope with the dynamic demands
of modern agriculture. On the other hand global economy is creating profound and
substantial changes for industries and organizations (such as agricultural extension)
throughout the world (Morris and Kuratko, 2002). Swanson (2010) has noted that some
of the major problems of many national agricultural extension systems in developing
634 countries (such as Iran) is their top-down management structure, disability to create of
technological changes, innovations and improvements in the marketplace, lack of
success in HRD, lack of acceptance of change and the failure of policy makers to
understand how extension systems must continue to change, reflecting the needs of all
farm households, especially during periods of global and international economic
growth and changing food demand.
In addition, other related problems, such as the lack of adequate innovation and
proactiveness, change capacity and properly trained staff, are all limiting agricultural
extension’s capacity to respond to these changing global and national priorities. As a
result, many agricultural extension systems in developing countries are having a
declining impact on agricultural productivity, farm income and/or the sustainable use
of natural resources (Scase, 2000).
In the agricultural extension vision for the 21st century, in process of globalization
and internationalizing of economy and markets, the ECOP (2002) responded with a
proactive report that laid a foundation for extension’s leadership for community and
university-wide engagement. However, King and Boehlje (2000) predicted that
agricultural extension would continue to have difficulty coping with the transition to a
marketplace environment. Agricultural extension personnel must create new and
creative vision and idea, be proactive in dealing with the future, support change and
calculated risk, champion the holistic view of agricultural extension, and create an
environment for innovation (Buchanan, 1993). Encouraging proactive and innovative
activity involves assessing current strategies and continuously implementing an
entrepreneurial process and principles in agricultural extension organizations. In other
words with these challenges and increasingly pressures and changes, agricultural
extension organization must learn from the emerging field of entrepreneurship in
organization (intrapreneurship) and these organization have to explore
intrapreneurship development as a key tool towards innovation in all levels of
organization (Scase, 2000). One can say that the need to pursue intrapreneurship in an
organization like agricultural extension organization has arisen from a variety of
pressing problems including: technological changes, innovations, and improvements in
the marketplace (Miller and Friesen, 1982), perceived weakness in the traditional
methods of corporate management (Hayes and Abernathy, 1980), continual downsizing
of organizations seeking greater efficiency (Morris and Kuratko, 2002), the loss of
entrepreneurial-minded employees who are disenchanted with bureaucratic
organizations (Pinchot, 1985a, b), and growing levels of international competition
(Kuratko and Hodgetts, 1998).
So it can be said that intrapreneurship has been recognized as a potentially viable
means for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness and innovation in
Iranian agricultural extension organization, because Miller (1983), Guth and Ginsberg
(1990), and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have noted that intrapreneurship can be used to
improve competitive positioning and transform corporations, markets, and industries.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to build a model of intrapreneurship and A model of
conceptualizes the connection between prerequisites and phenomenon of intrapreneurship
intrapreneurship and their collective impact on organization’s outcomes in Iranian
agricultural extension organization. The main objective is to gain a better
understanding of the role of intrapreneurship in organizational outcomes within the
agricultural extension organization by developing a conceptual model of
intrapreneurship in this context. Following an overall description of the model, the 635
main components of the model are discussed. This discussion commences with a
review theoretical basis for the model of intrapreneurship, in order to provide an
understanding of good intrapreneurship model in agricultural extension. Then study
continues with an overview on prerequisites, phenomenon and outcomes of
intrapreneurship in the agricultural extension organization. The paper concludes by
considering the theoretical and managerial implications of the model. In general,
certain conclusions can be drawn, highlighting that in order to engender

intrapreneurship in the agricultural extension there is a need to create an
environment conducive to exploration, generate trust and motivate staff to be
entrepreneurial and innovative.
The concept of intrapreneurship

The concept of intrapreneurship is relatively new. First appearing in 1976,
intrapreneurship has been credited with helping improve organizational
performance by increasing opportunities for success when facing more complex and
competitive scenarios (Amo and Kolvereid, 2005). While intrapreneurship is rooted in
entrepreneurship (Amo and Kolvereid, 2005; Antoncic, 2001; Davis, 1999; Honig, 2001),
there are several differences between intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship. First of
all, intrapreneurs make risky decisions using the company’s resources. To do so,
entrepreneurs use their own resources (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Luchsinger and
Bagby, 1987; Morris et al., 2008). Second of all, intrapreneurship takes place among
employees from within their organizations, whereas entrepreneurship tends to mainly
be externally focused (Amo and Kolvereid, 2005; Antoncic, 2001; Antoncic and Hisrich,
2001; Davis, 1999; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987). Third of all, entrepreneurs prefer to
develop tacit knowledge in new organizations instead of using procedures or
mechanisms from other companies. On the other hand, intrapreneurs work within
organizations that already have their own politics, languages, procedures, and
bureaucracy (Antoncic, 2001; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Davis, 1999; Honig, 2001).
Although entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship have several important differences,
they also have some connections because intrapreneurship is consistently positioned
as entrepreneurship within organizations (Antoncic, 2001; Davis, 1999).
According to Hornsby et al. (2002), intrapreneurship is a concept that has acquired
more and more importance in the global and international economy and markets.
Intrapreneurship is being embraced in order to promote organizational and economic
development and wealth creation (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004). Narayanan et al. (2009)
state that intrapreneurship focuses on the various steps and processes associated with
creating new businesses and integrating them into the organization’s overall business
portfolio. Intrapreneurship is broadly defined here as entrepreneurship within an
existing organization – regardless of its size – referring to emergent intentions and
behaviors that deviate from the customary way of doing business (Antoncic and
JEIT Hisrich, 2001, 2003, 2004). The studies on organizations’ intrapreneurship have grown
35,7 rapidly in the last two decades. Increasing intensity of competitiveness in both local
and global markets has revealed the significant role of entrepreneurship in established
organizations to develop a competitive advantage and sustain it (Zahra et al., 2000).
Intrapreneurship, generally, refers to the development of new business ideas and
opportunities within large and established corporations. In most cases, it describes the
636 total process whereby established enterprises act in an innovative, risk-taking and
pro-active way (Zahra, 1993; Dess et al., 1999; Bouchard, 2001). This behavior has
various outcomes, such as the new products, services, processes or business
development. Intrapreneurship may be chosen as a strategy to result in increased
financial performance. It also leads to other non-financial benefits, such as increased
morale of employees, collaboration and a creative working environment (Hayton,
2005).
Intrapreneurship may result in “new” organizations being created as “spin-out

ventures” (Hornsby et al., 1993; Altman and Zacharakis, 2003) or it may involve the
restructuring and strategic renewal within an existing enterprise (Volberda et al., 2001).
Intrapreneurship is entrepreneurship within an existing organization. It can be seen as
a process by which individuals inside organizations pursue opportunities without
regard to the resources they currently control (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), as doing
new things and departing from the customary to pursue opportunities (Vesper, 1990),
as emergent behavioral intentions or behaviors deviating from the customary way of
doing business (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003, 2004), or simply as a spirit of
entrepreneurship within the existing organization (Hisrich and Peters, 1995).
Intrapreneurship has also been equated with similar constructs such as
intrapreneuring, corporate entrepreneurship, corporate venturing and internal
corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). In many cases, though,
there are subtle distinctions between the constructs (Amo and Kolvereid, 2005). Thus,
for the purpose of this article, we will use the term “intrapreneurship” and corporate
entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship will be used as synonyms in this study. In this
study, the authors propose that intrapreneurship be regarded as a process including:
innovativeness, proactiveness, self-renewal and risk-taking, aimed at the creation of
new products, services, processes and businesses to improve and sustain a
organization’s competitive position and financial performance.
Toward a conceptual model of intrapreneurship in Iranian agricultural

extension organizations
Research into the nature, prerequisites and effects of firm-level entrepreneurial
activities has grown over the past 25 years (Heinonen and Kaisu, 2004).
Intrapreneurship can help organizations with increasing performance and renewing
organizational structures (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Davis, 1999). Thus, Antoncic
and Hisrich (2001) suggested a model in which the environmental and the
organizational factors fostered intrapreneurship which, in turn, increased
organizational performance (see Figure 1).
Also the seminal study of Peterson and Berger (1972) on entrepreneurship in
organizations sought to identify organizational and environmental factors affecting
company’s entrepreneurial activities. Miller’s study in 1983 was a key turning point in
the research on firm-level entrepreneurship. After that researchers have used Miller’s
theory and research instruments to examine the linkages between environmental, A model of
organizational, and behavioral factors and variables, and a company’s entrepreneurial intrapreneurship
activities (Zahra et al., 1999a, b). Thus, we propose an alternative conceptualization of
intrapreneurship in Iranian agricultural extension organizations (see Figure 2) in
which the environmental, organizational and behavioral factors create the context for
intrapreneurship, which these factors collectively development and foster of
intrapreneurship that leads to organizational outcomes. 637
We should say that the adoption of an intrapreneurship model that can be applied to
the agricultural extension organizations has a number of benefits over more traditional
entrepreneurship models and theories that focus on organizations in the general.
A meaningful model of intrapreneurship within the agricultural extension needs
several essential characteristics, including the following discussed below. Each
Figure 1.
The intrapreneurship
model
Figure 2.
Conceptual model of
agricultural extension
JEIT element and corresponding dimensions of this model are derived from the literature
35,7 fundamental to the development of a good model. The ultimate dependent variable in
this model is outcomes as well as the intermediate dependent variable of this model is
phenomenon of intrapreneurship. This model incorporates intrapreneurship and its
three prerequisites (organizational, behavioral and environmental factors) and its
direct and indirect impact on outcomes. Organizational, behavioral and environmental
638 factors can affect the ability of an organization to engage in process of
intrapreneurship activity.
In this study we have organized the prerequisites and outcomes of intrapreneurship,
as well as the phenomenon of intrapreneurship as shown in Figure 2.
In the following sections, we present a model and describe each of these constructs
of agricultural extension intrapreneurship.
The phenomenon of model

There are at least two streams of the classification of diminutions of intrapreneurship
process in general. One stream is entrepreneurial orientation approach, and it argues
that organizations level entrepreneurship has five characteristics: innovativeness,
proactiveness, risk taking, autonomy, and competitive aggressiveness (Yang et al.,
2007). The other stream is intrapreneurship approach, and it argues that there are three
dimensions of intrapreneurship such as strategic renewal, venturing, innovation, and
self-renewal (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). Generally the international intrapreneurship
literature acknowledges innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness and self-renewal, as
dimensions of the intrapreneurship phenomenon (Ahmed, 1998; Morris and Kuratko,
2002; Hornsby et al., 2002; Martins and Terblance, 2003; Zdunczyk and Blenkinsopp,
2007; Pittaway, 2001; Dess et al., 2003).
The main dimensions for purpose of this study can also be classified into four
dimensions:
(1) Risk-taking. Involves the readiness to make resources available to exploit
opportunities and launch projects with uncertain outcomes and tentative
projected returns on investment. Risks can be minimized by the knowledge an
entrepreneur or organization has of the opportunity or technology, or unique
capabilities or networks to exploit the opportunity (Morris and Kuratko, 2002).
Both “irresponsible” risk-taking, such as incurring large unsecured debts, or
inaction, such as no product development, represent risk. Therefore risk can be
managed by engaging in experiments, test markets and trial runs. Morrow et al.
(2007) concur and argue that managers need to be sufficiently motivated to
change existing resource portfolios and alter an enterprise’s capabilities. Wright
et al. (2007) add that certain internal factors, such as compensation practices (for
example, managerial option incentives) also encourage managers and
employees to take moderate, calculated risks.
(2) Innovativeness. Refers to the creation of new products, services, processes,
technologies and business models with an emphasis on development in
technology (Morris and Kuratko, 2002; Schollhammer, 1982; Covin and Slevin,
1991; Zahra, 1993; Knight, 1997).
(3) Self-renewal. Self-renewal dimension reflects the transformation of
organizations through renewal of the key ideas on which organizations are
built and includes a redefinition of business concept, reorganization and A model of
introduction of system-wide changes for innovation (Vesper, 1984; Guth and intrapreneurship
Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994; Muzyka et al.,
1995).
(4) Proactiveness. The proactiveness dimension includes initiative and risk taking,
and competitive aggressiveness and boldness that are reflected in orientations
and activities of top management. (Knight, 1997; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 639
1994; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Covin and Slevin, 1986, 1991; Miller, 1987;
Mintzberg, 1973; Miles and Snow, 1978; Dess et al., 1997).
Thus in agricultural extension organization, when an activity demonstrates some

degree of innovativeness, risk taking, self-renewal, and proactiveness in one
organization, it can be considered an entrepreneurial process or event. On the basis
of these four dimensions in the process of organization, there is no reason to suggest

that organizational employees and managers cannot be intrapreneurs (Casson, 1982).
The prerequisites of model

Really the prerequisites of intrapreneurship are the factors that influencing
intrapreneurship. The impact of corporate entrepreneurial activities on successful
organization performance has attracted research into the factors that can promote
(impede) these activities (Zahra, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Hornsby et al., 2002;
Goosen, 2002; Elenkov et al., 2005). Researchers have sought to identify some of the key
factors and variables that can affect a organization’s pursuit of intrapreneurship,
including: the organization’s incentive and control systems (Sathe, 1985), culture
(Kanter, 1985; Hisrich and Peters, 1986; Brazeal, 1993), organizational structure (Covin
and Slevin, 1991; Naman and Slevin, 1993), and managerial support (Stevenson and
Jarillo, 1990; Kuratko et al., 1993), communication openness (Chadam and Pastuszak,
2005; Lesjak and Vehovar, 2005; Wong, 2005), scanning intensity (Wei et al., 2006),
entrepreneurial leadership (Covin and Slevin, 2002; Ireland and Hitt, 1999; Rowe,
2001),empowered, autonomous employees (Hornsby et al., 2002), organizational
boundaries (Ireland et al., 2006), dynamism (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001), industry
growth (Hobson and Morrison, 1983), environmental (Zahra, 1993), demand for new
products (Zahra, 1993). Individually and in combination, these factors are believed to
be important antecedents of intrapreneurship efforts, because they affect and support
of intrapreneurial initiatives within an established organization.
In this paper we classify these prerequisites and factors for agricultural extension
organizations in three categories:
(1) Organizational factors including: organizational and management support,
organizational structure, rewards for intrapreneurship, scanning intensity,
control mechanisms, communication openness and time and resource
availability.
(2) Behavioral factors including: organizational culture, entrepreneurial leadership
and empowered, autonomous employees.
(3) Environmental factors including: environmental hostility, dynamism, industry
growth, demands for new products and organizational boundaries).
JEIT Organizational factors
35,7 The literature highlights the importance of organizational factors for the pursuit of
intrapreneurial activities. These variables form the context within which employees
and executives perceive opportunities for new ventures. Organizational variables also
constitute the context within which intrapreneurship ventures are evaluated, accepted,
or rejected.
640 Communication openness. Communication openness (the amount and quality of
communication) is expected to be positively related to intrapreneurship. Information
flows are important in organizations (Chadam and Pastuszak, 2005; Lesjak and Vehovar,
2005; Wong, 2005). Communication quality and quantity can be essential for successful
intrapreneurial initiation and implementation (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Zahra, 1991),
whereas open communication (as a means of information sharing and empowerment) can
be considered a critical element for innovation (Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985a, b):
P1. Intrapreneurship is more positively related to organizational outcomes

among agricultural extension organizations with communication openness
than among organizations with communication barred.
Control mechanisms. Formal controls used to monitor intrapreneurial activities can be
viewed as positive stimulants of intrapreneurship. While an overly excessive use of
formal controls can inhibit intrapreneurship (MacMillan et al., 1984; Zahra, 1991),
control and evaluation are important for intrapreneurship (Kuratko et al., 1993) with
formal controls being integral to intrapreneurship projects selection (Kanter, 1989):
among agricultural extension organizations with organic structures and
low formalization than among organizations with mechanistic structures
and high formalization.
Environmental scanning intensity. Intensive environmental scanning can be positively
related to intrapreneurship. Scanning highlights industry trends and changes and
environmental opportunities and threats and is important for entrepreneurial activities
such as innovativeness and new business venturing (Zahra, 1991). Gathering feedback
from customers as well as from employees is essential for an organization (Wei et al.,
2006). Environmental scanning that is directed toward forecasting the industry
environment can be particularly important for organizations in hostile environments
(Khandwalla, 1977):
among agricultural extension organizations with more environmental
scanning intensity than among organizations with low environmental
scanning intensity
Organizational and management support. This is the willingness of top-level managers
to facilitate and promote intrapreneurial behavior in organizations (Ireland et al., 2006).
Organizational support can be predictive of intrapreneurship and may be considered
the most important antecedent of intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001, 2004).
Management systems and skills of employees can be considered important for
providing superior services or reaching customers (Ruzzier et al., 2006). The team
involved in changing an organization needs to be enabled to implement new business
processes (McAdam and Galloway, 2005). The role of top management and employee A model of
training can be essential for quality and performance of organizations (Demirbag et al., intrapreneurship
2006). The support from senior management can encourage employees for innovation
(Lee and Tsai, 2005). The style of the top management may be important for innovation
performance (Huang and Lin, 2006). Key contents and characteristics of
intrapreneurship conducive organizational support from past research are:
management involvement (Merrifield, 1993), top management support, commitment, 641
style, and staffing and rewarding venture activities (MacMillan, 1986), training and
trusting individuals within the organizations to detect opportunities (Stevenson and
Jarillo, 1990), work discretion, rewards, time availability, loose intra-organizational
boundaries, and management support (Hornsby et al., 1990):
among agricultural extension organizations with a more organizational and
management support than among organizations with low organizational

and management support.
Rewards for intrapreneurship. The other organizational factor encouraging
entrepreneurial behavior is the appropriate use of rewards for intrapreneurship.
Rewards and reinforcement develop the motivation of individuals to engage in
innovative, proactive and moderate risk-taking behavior (Fry, 1987; Kanter, 1989;
Goosen, 2002). Theorists therefore stress that an effective reward system that spurs
entrepreneurial activity should be in line with set goals, feedback, emphasis the
responsibility of the individual and provide performance-based incentives. The use of
appropriate rewards can also develop managers’ inclination to get involved with
uncertain, risky entrepreneurial projects. Innovative organizations are characterized
by providing rewards based on performance, offering challenges, increasing
responsibilities and promoting the ideas of innovative people throughout the
organization (Kuratko and Hodgetts, 2004); the following hypothesis is therefore
postulated:
among agricultural extension organizations with high rewards and
motivation than among organizations with low rewards and motivation.
Time and resource availability. This means evaluating work loads to ensure that
individuals and groups have the time needed to pursue innovations and that their jobs
are structured in ways that support efforts to achieve short- and long-term
organizational goals (Ireland et al., 2006). To consider acting in entrepreneurial ways,
employees need to perceive resources as accessible for intrapreneurship activities
(Pinchot 1985a, b; Covin and Slevin, 1991; Kreiser et al., 2002). For new and innovative
ideas to thrive, individuals should have time to incubate their ideas. Organizations
should be reasonable in assigning the workload of their employees and allow
employees to work with others on solving long-term problems. In entrepreneurial work
environments, employees are allowed to conduct creative, entrepreneurial experiments
in a limited portion of their work time (Von Hippel, 1977; Kanter, 1989; Morris, 1998):
among agricultural extension organizations with flexible system of Time
JEIT and resource availability than among organizations with not flexible
35,7 system of Time and resource availability.
Supportive organizational structure. The final organizational factor facilitating
intrapreneurship is the existence of a supportive organizational structure and fluid
boundaries (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Morris, 1998). A supportive organizational
structure provides the administrative means by which ideas are appraised, selected
642 and executed (Goosen, 2002). However, a bureaucratic organizational structure leads to
perceived boundaries, creating obstacles to intrapreneurship activities. In such
organizations, people tend to focus on their department’s problems and fail to see the
bigger picture. In a highly formalized system there is less flexibility to determine who
may decide or act or even how to decide or act (Baum and Wally, 2003):
among agricultural extension organizations with organic structures and

low formalization than among organizations with mechanistic structures
and high formalization.
Behavioral factors
The behavioral factors – the second antecedent – have historically been viewed as a
determinant of entrepreneurial activity at both the individual as well as organizational
level. In terms of influencing intrapreneurship, the behavioral factors are an important
determinant. Certain behavioral factors, such as entrepreneurial culture,
entrepreneurial leadership and autonomous of employees, are viewed as favorable
for intrapreneurship.
Entrepreneurial culture. Organizational culture is a system of shared values (i.e.
what is important) and beliefs (i.e. how things work) that shape the organization’s
organizational arrangements and its members’ actions to produce behavioral norms
(i.e. the way work is completed in the organization) (Dess and Picken, 1999). The
organization’s culture affects organizational members’ expectations of each other as
well as their expectations of interactions with stakeholders outside the organization’s
boundaries (e.g., suppliers and customers). As a guide, culture influences the cognitive
framework that affects how organizational members perceive issues as well as how
they view their organization’s competitive landscape ( Johnson, 2002). An effective
entrepreneurial culture is characterized by multiple expectations and facilitates
organizations’ efforts to manage resources strategically. Committed to the
simultaneous importance of opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviors,
an effective entrepreneurial culture is one in which new ideas and creativity are
expected, risk taking is encouraged, failure is tolerated, learning is promoted, product,
process and administrative innovations are championed, and continuous change is
viewed as a conveyor of opportunities (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000). Values are an
important part of an innovative organizational culture, in which individuals are
continuously encouraged to generate new ideas, knowledge and solutions (Wong,
2005). An entrepreneurial culture develops in an organization where the leaders employ
an entrepreneurial mindset. People with an entrepreneurial mindset search for
entrepreneurial opportunities existing in uncertain business environments and then
determine the capabilities needed to successfully exploit them (Covin and Slevin, 2002;
McGrath and MacMillan, 2000):
P8. Intrapreneurship is more positively related to organizational outcomes A model of
among agricultural extension organizations with a culture that is flexible, intrapreneurship
supports and facilitates entrepreneurship and innovation than among
organizations with a culture that is rigid, and fails to support or facilitate
entrepreneurship and innovation.
Entrepreneurial leadership. Effective leadership is linked to the success of all sizes and
types of organizations (Daily et al., 2002). A specific type of leadership, entrepreneurial
643
leadership is the ability to influence others to manage resources strategically in order
to emphasize both opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviors (Covin and
Slevin, 2002; Ireland and Hitt, 1999; Rowe, 2001):
among agricultural extension organizations with a appropriate style of
leadership than among organizations with a not appropriate style of

leadership.
Empowered, autonomous employees. This factor refers to the discretion with which,
and the extent to which, employees are empowered to make decisions about
performing their own work in the way they believe is most effective. In entrepreneurial
work environments, employees are allowed to make decisions about their work process
and are seldom condemned for failures during the innovation process (Hornsby et al.,
2002):
among agricultural extension organizations with more autonomous of
employees than among organizations with a low autonomous of employees.
Environmental factors
In terms of influencing intrapreneurship, the environmental factors are an important
determinant. Certain environmental factors, such as organizational boundaries,
industry growth, dynamism and demand for new products, are viewed as favorable for
intrapreneurship.
Organizational boundaries. These are precise explanations of outcomes expected
from organizational work and development of mechanisms for evaluating, selecting
and using innovations (Ireland et al., 2006). Organizations should avoid having
standard operating procedures for all major parts of jobs and should reduce
dependence on narrow job descriptions and rigid performance standards (Kuratko
et al., 1990; Hornsby et al., 2002):
among agricultural extension organizations with low organizational
boundaries than among organizations with more organizational boundaries.
Dynamism. Dynamism or perceived instability and continuing changes in the
organization’s markets can be considered favorable to the pursuit of intrapreneurship
because it tends to create opportunities in a organization’s markets (Zahra, 1991)
Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) more recently asserted that, dynamism refers to perceived
instability and continuing changes in the organizations market. Dynamic or high-tech
JEIT environments tend to lead organizations to adopt an entrepreneurial posture
35,7 (Khandwalla, 1987) and intensify intrapreneurship (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990):
among agricultural extension organizations with more rate of dynamism
than among organizations with a low rate of dynamism.
644 Industry growth. Perceived industry growth can stimulate intrapreneurship. The
perceived industry growth represents an important push for organizations into
increased renewal activities (Zahra, 1993), while the perception of growth markets
potentially offering entrepreneurial opportunities can pull organizations into increased
intrapreneurial activities (for example, high market growth may be related to corporate
start-up success (Hobson and Morrison, 1983):
among agricultural extension organizations that are more attention on

industry growth than among organizations with a low attention on industry
growth.
Demand for new products. Consumer demand for new products also encourages
intrapreneurship presenting an important demand-pull (Zahra, 1993). Therefore,
dynamism, technological opportunities, industry growth and the demand for new
products are expected to be positively related to intrapreneurship:
demand of customers for new products than among organizations with a
low attention on demand of customers for new products.
Environmental hostility. Environmental hostility can also stimulate intrapreneurial
activities. Environmental hostility tends to create threats for the organization
stimulating the pursuit of intrapreneurship (Zahra, 1991) and the adoption of an
entrepreneurial posture (Covin and Slevin, 1989, 1991). Two hostile environmental
conditions that may be positively related to intrapreneurship are unfavorability of
change (refers to the extent to which the environment is perceived as unfavorable to an
organization’s goals and mission) and competitive rivalry (i.e. the intensity of
competition) (Zahra, 1993):
environmental hostility than among organizations with a low attention on
environmental hostility.
Outcomes of model
The previous sections discussed our suppositions regarding the affect that certain
prerequisite variables will have on phenomenon of intrapreneurship. We extend our
research here by offering our submissions regarding the mediating effect that
intrapreneurship will have between on organization outcomes. In general, we hold that
the agricultural extension organization and its members will reap some rewards by
utilizing these innovative skills and abilities, and these rewards will come in the way of
positive work outcomes. In other words, we would expect intrapreneurship to have a A model of
positive affect on organization outcomes. intrapreneurship
Without doubt, organizations should encourage intrapreneurship to attain positive
results and consequence. Intrapreneurship in organizations has various outcomes,
such as the new products, services, processes or business development (Hough and
Scheepers, 2008). Intrapreneurship may be chosen as a strategy to result in increased
financial performance. It also leads to other non-financial benefits, such as increased 645
morale of employees, collaboration and a creative working environment (Hayton,
2005). Intrapreneurship may result in “new” organizations being created as “spin-out
ventures” (Hornsby et al., 1993; Altman and Zacharakis, 2003) or it may involve the
restructuring and strategic renewal within an existing enterprise (Volberda et al., 2001).
Intrapreneurship was found to be related to organizations growth (Covin, 1991) and
performance in hostile environments (Covin and Slevin, 1989). New product and service
development can be considered critical consequence factors of intrapreneurship in

organizations (Auruskeviciene et al., 2006). Improving the capabilities of employees
and organizations in general can be outcomes of intrapreneurship (Tan et al., 2006).
Lumpkin and Dess (1996, 2005), in proposing a framework for investigating the link
between intrapreneurship and organizations performance, argued that while financial
measures of performance such as growth, market share, and profitability are
important, additional, non-financial measures may be just as important in the study of
entrepreneurial outcomes. The satisfaction and commitment of organizational
members were among the non-financial factors suggested by Lumpkin and Dess
(2005). Researchers such as Morris et al. (2009) asserted that outcomes and
consequences of intrapreneurship can take a variety of forms, from the creation of
entirely new ventures by the organizations, to innovative changes in the strategy,
business model, product portfolio, market boundaries, or operations of the
organizations. These researchers emphasized that we can put these outcomes and
consequences in six types of intrapreneurship outcomes, including new corporate
strategies, new ventures, new product/services, new internal processes, new business
models and new markets.
Totally consequence of intrapreneurship can be measured in terms of economic
profit (Schumpeter, 1934, 1975; Zahra, 1995), product innovation (Morris et al., 2009;
Jennings and Young, 1990), new venture growth (Morris et al., 2009; Baum and Wally,
2003), concern for public welfare and social legitimacy (Pfeffer, 1994), personal
satisfaction (Miner, 1997; Lumpkin and Dess 2005), commitment of organizational
members (Lumpkin and Dess, 2005; Mullins et al., 2001)), new products, services,
processes or business development (Hough and Scheepers, 2008; Morris et al., 2009;
Hayton, 2005), organization’s performance (Zahra, 1991, 1995; Heinonen, 1999,
Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001), new business model and new market(Morris et al., 2009;
Adonisi, 2003)
For the purpose of this research, consequences and outcomes of the model are
described in terms of satisfaction, new product/services, new corporate strategies, new
internal processes, new markets and performance.
Thus agricultural extension organizations that operate entrepreneurially provide a
fundamental basis for understanding the organization as well as supporting the
opportunity for new product/services, new corporate strategies, new internal
processes, and performance.
JEIT Discussion
35,7 This study extended the work of Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) by reporting on the
conceptualizing and development of intrapreneurship model in service perspective
organizations such as agricultural extension organizations in context of Iran. This
paper develops a conceptual model of agricultural extension intrapreneurship and
suggests that intrapreneurship within the agricultural extension systems produces
646 superior organizational outcomes. This model has theoretically discussed the
phenomenon of intrapreneurship as well as its prerequisites and outcomes. The
proposed model reveals a first look at the intrapreneurship process through three
important sections, which are antecedents, dimensions and outcomes of
intrapreneurship. The framework of the model is synergistic where all the parts are
connected to one another and reciprocally reinforce one another. Therefore, each factor
could positively or negatively affect the others. Prerequisites of model describe factors
that influence the process of intrapreneurship in extension organizations including

organizational, behavioral and environmental factors. Previous studies indicate that
the relationship between environmental factors and intrapreneurship activities in
organizations has been the subject of interest in the literature (Zahra, 1993; Miller, 1987;
Russel and Russel, 1992; Slevin and Covin, 1989). Whereas there is consensus that
environmental factors is a important antecedent of intrapreneurship (Guth and
Ginsberg, 1990; Gautam and Verma, 1997), Also, previous studies have focused on
environmental dimensions as the predictors of intrapreneurship in organizations.
This study suggested that organizational factors played as critical role in the
development of intrapreneurship in agricultural extensions organizations in the Iran
context. This suggestion is consistent with the existing literature (Scheepers et al.,
2008; Hornsby et al., 2002; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). Also this article suggested that
behavioral factors have an important role in intrapreneurship development in Iranian
agricultural extensions organizations because previous studies confirmed that
behavioral factors are an important antecedent of intrapreneurship in organizations
(Covin and Slevin, 1991; Birkinshaw, 1999; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003; Morris and
Kuratko, 2002). In conceptual model of this study, intrapreneurship describes the
phenomenon of the model including: innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and
self renewal. These dimensions integrate previous categorizations (Covin and Slevin,
1989; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1991; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Knight, 1997),
which are relevant for organizational level entrepreneurship.
Outcomes in the model describe the results and consequence of intrapreneurship in
extension organizations and including: satisfaction, new product/services, new
corporate strategies, new internal processes, new markets and performance.
In addition, intrapreneurship process and its antecedents play a key role in fostering
organizational outcomes. However, this article represents a first theoretical approach
to understanding how organizational, behavioral and environmental antecedents and
the intrapreneurship process may affect organizational outcomes, with respect to it
being critical for organizations to understand how this complex relationship works.
Based on the findings of this literature, engendering intrapreneurship in the
agricultural extension organizations is realistic and feasible provided it has
organizational and top management support and commitment, with an appropriate
more organic structure, low formalization, more flexible decentralized decision making,
less formal control systems, more positive rewards and greater degree of motivation
and a flexible supporting culture that facilitates moderate risk taking, innovativeness, A model of
self-renewal and encourages proactivity. Additionally, agricultural extension intrapreneurship
organizations must adapt organizational, environmental and behavioral factors
within which they are positioned. It is apparent that there are huge benefits and
outcomes that the agricultural extension organizations could derive from having an
intrapreneurial culture. These include: improved customer service and satisfaction,
better internal processes, more appropriate reward systems, improved communication, 647
and better management-employee relationships. Therefore, engendering
intrapreneurship within the agricultural extension organizations would be
challenging but beneficial in enhancing the overall outcomes of the agricultural
extension organizations.
Conclusion
A significant contribution of this paper is to propose an original relationship between

prerequisites, phenomenon and outcomes of intrapreneurship. The proposed model
represents a novel conceptualization about how these constructs may be linked
together to influence organizational outcomes. The environmental, organizational and
behavioral factors create the catalyst for intrapreneurship, and processes of
intrapreneurship, which subsequently influences organizational outcomes.
In addition, organizational, behavioral and environmental prerequisites play a key
role in fostering intrapreneurship as a way to develop organizational outcomes a
competitive advantage. However, this article represents a first theoretical approach to
understand how environmental, organizational and behavioral factors affect
intrapreneurship and intrapreneurship phenomenon may affect organizational
outcomes. Therefore, more research is needed to better understand how
organizations can be more productive, based on their particular scenarios, through
implementing intrapreneurship and fostering an intrapreneurial philosophy to cope
with continuously changing environments. In other words, it is critical for
organizations to understand how this complex relationship works.
For researchers, we feel the primary value of this research is the opportunity to
consider a predictive model of intrapreneurship based on the existence literature. While
certainly not a panacea, our model moves the field closer to understanding an
important issue – the causes of intrapreneurship. Also, the fact that environmental,
structural and behavioral antecedents predicted intrapreneurship is interesting in that
it suggests that these antecedents may play an important role in an organization’s
ability to be intrapreneurial.
The study demonstrated that the agriculture sector in Iran is facing serious
problems such as low level of HRD among farmers and rural people, too, and extension
system has a key role to improve it, but current extension system in Iran does not has a
sufficient competency for the achievement of this critical subject and it needs to shift
toward new approaches with new objectives. According to the present study it be
concluded that Iran’s agricultural extension system should be considered
developmental objectives like improvement of HRD in the agricultural sector and
rural society.
A follow-on study could be a practical application of the proposed model in
agricultural extension organizations in order to see if empirical data supports the
theoretical conclusions of this study. In addition, this study may help to increase
JEIT managers, employers and employees’ awareness about their responsibility for
35,7 fostering intrapreneurship within organizations as a way to increase organizational
outcomes.
Implications and suggestions for further research

This study enriches the literature by providing theoretical literature of the antecedents,
648 dimensions and outcomes of intrapreneurship in the agricultural extension
organizations. In conclusion, this study contributes to intrapreneurship practice and
theory. Even though intrapreneurship has been studied widely in the manufacturing
industry and specially in the USA and to some degree in other developed and
transitional economies, little research has examined the role of intrapreneurship in a
service perspective organizations such as agricultural extension organizations and
specially an Iranian context. Iran’s level of intrapreneurial activity in the
manufacturing industry relative to other service perspective organizations such as

agricultural extension organizations made it a suitable context for this type of study. It
is recommended that further research be conducted to ascertain to what extent the
antecedents influence the dimensions and outcomes of intrapreneurship of service
perspective organizations in other emerging economies and to explain the difference
between countries.
In addition the research findings have important implications for both
organizations and managers. In really this paper and proposed model has several
implications: First, while the elements of the model are clearly specified, many of them
represent broad constructs that operate at a high level of generality. For example, the
environmental factors can be operationally defined in terms of forces or elements that
are too numerous to specifically incorporate in a single model. Management in
agricultural extension organizations should ensure that an effective system of
environmental scanning is in place that is comprehensive in scope. The extension
systems should help interpret environmental changes and what they may mean for
entrepreneurial activities. A second implication is the desirability of achieving
congruence between the prerequisites of intrapreneurship (structural, behavioral and
environmental factors) and entrepreneurial activities. Without a clear level of
congruence, these activities will lack focus and productivity. Achieving congruence
between the influencing factors (prerequisites) and entrepreneurship, senior
management of extension systems should be engaged in shaping the organization to
achieve its strategic vision by ensuring that it has the most appropriate structure,
decision-making, and controls in place to generate success in the various
entrepreneurial activities it engenders. Additionally, the organization should match
the environmental challenges facing the extension organizations. Third, the
agricultural extension organizations should be viewed as an entrepreneurial entity,
creating value for farmers and rural society. Also entrepreneurial agricultural
extension can help people to increase and improve their HRD practices in agricultural
sectors and rural societies. In other word, agricultural extension is the most important
tools for improving HRD practices of people in the agricultural and rural areas.
Future research on the topic should proceed along a number of important paths.
First, the model needs empirical research to assess the relationship of the key elements
and corresponding dimensions. Second, a comparative study is required to assess the
key similarities and differences between manufacturing industry and service
perspective organizations. Third, while the study has initiated an important A model of
exploration and refinement of the key dimensions, it is necessary to further extend intrapreneurship
this relationship to include the diversity that exits among the service perspective
organizations such as agricultural extension organizations and to ensure that these
dimensions are the most appropriate to assess service perspective organizations
entrepreneurship. These studies should focus on the measurement of intrapreneurship
and identify the different dimensions. This will provide a more complete picture of the 649
key benefits that both manufacturing and service perspective organizations can
achieve through undertaking different intrapreneurial initiatives. Besides, since most
of studies conclude the impact of intrapreneurship on organizational outcomes, it is
useful for future research to explore the potential influence of intrapreneurship on the
organizational outcomes, which may be able to contribute to this debate. The
determinants (i.e. antecedents) of intrapreneurship also require investigation as well.
After all, managers need to know how they can be instrumental in shaping and
activating intrapreneurship in their operations.
References
Adonisi, M. (2003), “The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, market orientation,
organizational flexibility and job satisfaction”, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria.
Ahmed, P.K. (1998), “Culture and climate for innovation”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Akis (2000), AKIS, Decentralizing Agricultural Extension: Lessons and Good Practice, AKIS
Thematic Team, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Allahyari, M.S. (2009), “Reorganization of agricultural extension toward green agriculture”,
American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 105-9.
Altman, J. and Zacharakis, A.L. (2003), “An integrated model for corporate venturing”, Journal of
Private Equity, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 68-76.
Amo, B.W. and Kolvereid, L. (2005), “Organizational strategy, individual personality and
innovation behavior”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-19.
Anderson, J. (2007), “Agricultural advisory services. A background paper for WDR 2008”, World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Antoncic, B. (2001), “Organizational processes in intrapreneurship: a conceptual integration”,
Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-35.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001), “Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural
validitation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 495-527.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003), “Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2004), “Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and
organizational wealth creation”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 518-50.
Atsan, T.H., Isik, B., Yavuz, F. and Yurttas, Z. (2009), “Factors affecting agricultural extension
services in Northeast Anatolia Region”, African Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 305-10.
Auruskeviciene, V., Salciuviene, L., Kazlauskaite, R. and Trifanovas, A. (2006), “A comparison
between recent and prospective critical success factors in Lithuanian printing industry”,
Managing Global Transitions, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 327-46.
JEIT Baum, J.R. and Wally, S. (2003), “Strategic decision speed and firm performance”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1107-29.
35,7
Birkinshaw, J. (1999), “The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in
multinational corporations”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 9-36.
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P. and Ekboir, J. et al. (2006),
“From best practice to best fit: a framework for analyzing agricultural advisory services
650 worldwide”, Development Strategy and Governance Division Discussion Paper No. 39,
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
Bouchard, V. (2001), “Exploring corporate entrepreneurship: a corporate strategy perspective”,
paper presented at European Entrepreneurial Learning Conference. Lyon, December.
Brazeal, D.V. (1993), “Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Buchanan, P.J. (1993), “Environment for innovation and professionalism”, Journal of Extension,
Vol. 31 No. 1, available at: www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/tp1.html (accessed February 7,

2005).
Casson, M.C. (1982), The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Martin Robertson, Oxford.
Chadam, J. and Pastuszak, Z. (2005), “Marketing aspects of knowledge-based management in
groups of companies: case of Poland”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105
No. 4, pp. 459-75.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1986), “The development and testing of an organizational-level
entrepreneurship scale”, in Ronstadt, R, Peterson, R. and Vasper, K. (Eds), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 628-39.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (2002), “The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership”,
in Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds), Strategic Entrepreneurship:
Creating a New Mindset, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 309-27.
Daily, C.M., McDougall, P.P., Covin, J.G. and Dalton, D.R. (2002), “Governance and strategic
leadership in entrepreneurial firms”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 387-412.
Davis, K.S. (1999), “Decision criteria in the evaluation of potential intrapreneurs”, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 16 Nos 3-4, pp. 295-327.
Demirbag, M., Koh, S.C.L., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2006), “TQM and market orientation’s
impact on SMEs’ performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 8,
pp. 1206-28.
Dess, G.G. and Picken, J.C. (1999), Beyond Productivity: How Leading Companies Achieve
Superior Performance by Leveraging Their Human Capital, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. and Covin, J.G. (1997), “Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm
performance: tests of contingency and configurational models”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 677-95.
Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, T.T. and McGee, J.E. (1999), “Linking CE to strategy, structure, and
process: suggested research directions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 99,
Spring, pp. 85-102.
Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003), “Emerging
issues in corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 351-78.
Elenkov, D.S., Judge, W. and Wright, P. (2005), “Strategic leadership and executive innovation A model of
influence: an international multi-cluster comparative study”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 665-82. intrapreneurship
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) (2002), “The extension system: a vision
for the 21st century”, available at: www.nasulgc.org/publications/Agriculture/Ext%
20Sys%20Vision.pdf
Fox, J.M. (2008), “Organizational entrepreneurship and the organizational performance linkage in 651
university extension”, USASBE 2008 Proceedings, p. 429.
Fry, A. (1987), “The Post-it-note: an entrepreneurial success”, SAM Advanced Management
Journal, Vol. 52, pp. 4-9.
Gautam, V. and Verma, V. (1997), “Corporate entrepreneurship: changing perspectives”,
The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 233-47.
Goosen, G.J. (2002), “Key factor intrapreneurship: the development of a systems model to
facilitate the perpetuation of entrepreneurship in large South African organizations”,

unpublished PhD thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990), “Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 5-15.
Hashemi, S.M. and Hedjazi, Y. (2011), “Factors affecting members’ evaluation of agri-business
ventures’ effectiveness”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J. (1980), “Managing our way to economic decline”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 67-77.
Hayton, J.C. (2005), “Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource
management practices: a review of empirical research”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 21-41.
Heidary, A., Shahbazi, E. and Hosseini, S.M. (2006), “Situation of extension approaches in Iran’s
sustainable agricultural development”, Journal of Agricultural Economic and Development,
Vol. 13 No. 52, pp. 155-79.
Heinonen, J. (1999), Kohti asiakaslähtöisyyttä ja kilpailukykyä. Sisäinen yrittäjyys kunnallisen
yksikön muutoksessa, Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business
Administration Series A-5:1999, (Towards Customer Orientation and Competitiveness.
The Potential of Intrapreneurship in the Change Process of a Municipal Service Unit),
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku.
Heinonen, J. and Kaisu, K. (2004), How about Measuring Intrapreneurship?, Small Business
Institute, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1986), “Establishing a new business venture unit within a firm”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 307-22.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1995), Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a
New Enterprise, 3rd ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Hobson, E.L. and Morrison, R.M. (1983), “How do corporate start-up ventures fare?”,
in Hornaday, J.A., Timmons, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 390-410.
Honig, B. (2001), “Learning strategies and resources for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs”,
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002), “Middle managers’ perception of the internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253-73.
JEIT Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1990), “Developing an
intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial
35,7 environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 49-58.
Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “An interactive model of
the corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 58
No. 1, pp. 28-39.
652 Hough, J. and Scheepers, R. (2008), “Creating corporate entrepreneurship through strategic
leadership”, Journal of Global Strategic Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 89-92.
Huang, E.Y. and Lin, S.-C. (2006), “How R&D management practice affects innovation
performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 966-96.
Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (1999), “Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the
21st century: the role of strategic leadership”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. (2006), “A health audit for corporate
entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels (part 2)”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 21-30.
Jennings, D.F. and Young, D.M. (1990), “An empirical comparison between objective and
subjective measures of the product innovation domain of corporate entrepreneurship”,
Johnson, L.K. (2002), “The organizational identity trap”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43
No. 4, p. 11.
Kanter, R.M. (1984), The Change Masters, Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Kanter, R.M. (1985), “Supporting innovation and venture development in established
companies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-60.
Kanter, R.M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Karamidehkordi, E. (2010), “A country report: challenges facing Iranian agriculture and natural
resource management in the twenty-first century”, Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 295-303.
Karbasioun, M. (2007), “Towards a competency profile for the role of instruction of agricultural
extension professionals in Esfahan”, PhD thesis, Social Sciences Group, Chair Group of
Education and Competence Studies, Wageningen University and Research Centre,
Wageningen.
Karbasioun, M. and Chizari, M. (2005), “The attitude of agricultural extension instructors
regarding their own competencies in the teaching process during short-term courses for
farmers, Isfahan, Iran”, Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference of AIAEE, San Antonio,
USA.
Khandwalla, P.N. (1977), The Design of Organizations, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York,
NY.
Khandwalla, P.N. (1987), “Generators of pioneering-innovative management: some Indian
evidence”, Organization Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
Kidd, A., Lamers, J., Ficarelli, P. and Hoffmann, V. (2000), “Privatising agricultural extension:
caveat emptor”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 95-102.
King, D.A. and Boehlje, M.D. (2000), “Extension’s future: a conversation about what lies beyond
the brink”, CES-324-W, Purdue Extension, available at: www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/
EXTonBrink
Knight, G.A. (1997), “Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm
entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 213-25.
Kreiser, P., Marino, L. and Weaver, L.M. (2002), “Assessing the relationship between A model of
entrepreneurial orientation, the external environment and firm performance”, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, available at: www. intrapreneurship
babson;edu/entrep/fer/Babson2002/XVII/XVII_S4/SVII_S4_nav.html
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (1998), Entrepreneurship: A Contemporary Approach, 4th ed.,
The Dryden, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2004), Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process and Practice, 6th ed., 653
Thompson South-Western, Mason, OH.
Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V. and Hornsby, J.S. (1990), “Developing an intrapreneurial
assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment”, Strategic
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “Implementing
entrepreneurial thinking in established organizations”, Advanced Management Journal,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Lee, T.-S. and Tsai, H.-J. (2005), “The effects of business operation mode on market orientation,
learning orientation and innovativeness”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105
No. 3, pp. 325-48.
Lesjak, D. and Vehovar, V. (2005), “Factors affecting evaluation of e-business projects”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 409-28.
Luchsinger, V. and Bagby, D.R. (1987), “Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: behaviors,
comparisons, and contrasts”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 10-13.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 135-72.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2005), “The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating
corporate entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 147-56.
McAdam, R. and Galloway, A. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning and organizational
innovation: a management perspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105
No. 3, pp. 280-90.
McGrath, R.M. and MacMillan, I.C. (2000), The Entrepreneurial Mindset, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
MacMillan, I.C. (1986), “Progress in research on corporate venturing”, in Sexton, D.L. and
Smilor, R.W. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger Publishing,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 241-63.
MacMillan, I.C., Block, Z. and Narasimha, P.N.S. (1984), “Obstacles and experience in corporate
ventures”, in Hornaday, J.A. (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 280-93.
Mahaliyanaarachchi, P.R. and Bandara, M.A.S. (2006), “Commercialization of agriculture and
role of agricultural extension”, Sabaragamuwa University Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Martins, E.C. and Terblance, F. (2003), “Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity
and innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Maunder, A. (1973), Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual, abridged version, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Merrifield, D.B. (1993), “Intrapreneurial corporate renewal”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 383-9.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management
Science, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-91.
JEIT Miller, D. (1987), “Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
35,7 Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1982), “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two
models of strategic momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Miner, J.B. (1997), A Psychological Typology of Successful Entrepreneurs, Quorum Books,
Westport, CT.
654 Mintzberg, H. (1973), “Strategy making in three modes”, California Management Review, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 44-83.
Morris, M.H. (1998), Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for Individuals,
Organizations and Societies, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Morris, M.H. and Kuratko, D.F. (2002), Corporate Entrepreneurship, Harcourt College Publishers,
Orlando, FL.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Covin, J.G. (2008), Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
2nd ed., Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

Morris, M.H., Vuuren, J., Cornwall, J.R. and Scheepers, R. (2009), “Properties of balance:
a pendulum effect in corporate entrepreneurship”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 5,
pp. 429-40.
Morrow, J.L., Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Holcomb, T.R. (2007), “Creating value in the face of
declining performance: firm strategies and organizational recovery”, Strategic
Mullins, J., Linehan, M. and Walsh, J.S. (2001), “People-centered management policies: a new
approach in the Irish public service”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 25
Nos 2/3/4, pp. 116-25.
Muzyka, D.F., de Koning, A.J. and Churchill, N.C. (1995), “Entrepreneurial transformation:
a descriptive theory”, in Bygrave, W.D. (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson Park, MA, pp. 637-51.
Naman, J. and Slevin, D. (1993), “Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical
tests”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-53.
Narayanan, V., Yang, Y. and Zahra, S. (2009), “Corporate venturing and value creation: a review
and proposed framework”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 58-76.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Peterson, R. and Berger, D. (1972), “Entrepreneurship in organizations”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 97-107.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Pinchot, G. III (1985a), Intrapreneurship: Why You Don’t Have to Leave the Corporation to
Become an Entrepreneur, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pinchot, G. III (1985b), Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pittaway, L. (2001), “Corporate enterprise: a new reality for hospitality organizations?”,
Hospitality Management, Vol. 20, pp. 379-93.
Rivera, W.M., Zijp, W. and Alex, G. (2000), Contracting for Extension: Review of Emerging
Practice, AKIS Good Practice Note, Agricultural Knowledge and Information System
Thematic Group, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Rowe, W.G. (2001), “Creating wealth in organizations: the role of strategic leadership”, Academy
of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Russel, R.D. and Russel, C.J. (1992), “Examination of the effects of organizational norms:
organizational structure and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 639-56.
Ruzzier, M., Antoncic, B. and Konecnik, M. (2006), “The resource-based approach to the A model of
internationalisation of SMEs: differences in resource bundles between internationalised
and non-internationalised companies”, Zagreb International Review of Economics and intrapreneurship
Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 95-116.
Sathe, V. (1985), “Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: nurturing entrepreneurship and control
in large corporations”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley,
MA, pp. 636-56.
655
Scase, R. (2000), “The enterprise culture: the socio-economic context of small firms”, in Carter, S.
and Jones-Evans, D. (Eds), Enterprise and Small Business: Principles, Practice and Policy,
Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow/Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 32-47.
Scheepers, M.J., Hough, J. and Bloom, J.Z. (2008), “Nurturing corporate entrepreneurship
capability”, Southern African Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 50-75.
Schollhammer, H. (1982), “Internal corporate entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and
Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 209-29.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1975), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Row, New York, NY,
(originally published in 1942 by Harper & Brothers).
Slevin, D. and Covin, J. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 17-27.
Stopford, J.M. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994), “Creating corporate entrepreneurship”, Strategic
Swanson, B.E. (2010), “Changing extension paradigms within a rapidly changing global
economy”, Rural Development News, Vol. 1, pp. 59-63.
Tan, J., Li, S. and Li, W. (2006), “Building core competencies in a turbulent environment:
an exploratory study of firm resources and capabilities in Chinese transitional economy”,
Managing Global Transitions, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 197-214.
Toness, A.S. (2001), “The potential of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) approaches and
methods for agricultural extension and development in 21st century”, Journal of
International Extension and Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Umali, D.D. (1997), “Public and private agricultural extension: partners or rivals?”, World Bank
Research Observer, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 203-24, available at: http://wbro.oxfordjournals.org/
cgi/content/abstract/12/2/203
Van den Ban, A.W. and Samanta, R.K. (Eds) (2006), Changing Roles of Agricultural Extension in
Asian Nations, B.R. Publishing, Delhi.
Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. (1995), “Agricultural extension in the context of environmental
degradation: agricultural extension as social welfare”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 20-35.
Vesper, K.H. (1984), “Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship”, in Hornaday, J.A. (Ed.),
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 294-320.
Vesper, K.H. (1990), New Venture Strategies, rev. ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Volberda, H.W., Baden-Fuller, C. and Van den Bosch, F.A.J. (2001), “Mastering strategic renewal:
mobilising renewal journeys in multi-unit firms”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 59-178.
JEIT Von Hippel, E. (1977), “Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: an empirical analysis”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 163-74.
35,7
Wei, C.C., Choy, C.S. and Yeow, P.H.P. (2006), “KM implementation in Malaysian
telecommunication industry: an empirical analysis”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 1112-32.
Wong, K.Y. (2005), “Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small
656 and medium enterprises”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3,
pp. 261-79.
World Bank (2000), Decentralizing Agricultural Extension: Lessons and Good Practice, The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Wright, P., Kroll, M., Krug, J.A. and Pettus, M. (2007), “Influences of top management team
incentives on firm risk-taking”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 81-9.
Yang, Z., Li-Hua, R., Zhang, X. and Wang, Y. (2007), “Corporate entrepreneurship and market
performance: an empirical study in China”, Journal of Technology Management in China,

Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 154-62.
Yurttas, Z. and Atsan, T. (2006), Agricultural Extension and Communication Techniques,
Ataturk University Faculty of Agriculture Publications Number 67, Faculty of
Agriculture, Ataturk University, Erzurum.
Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship:
an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-85.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance:
a taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-40.
Zahra, S.A. (1995), “Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of
management leveraged buyouts”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 225-47.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, G. (1995), “Contextual influences on the corporate
entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F. and Kuratko, D.F. (1999a), “The antecedents and consequences of
firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 45-65.
Zahra, S.A., Nielesen, A.P. and Bogner, W.C. (1999b), “Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge,
and competence development”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 169-89.
Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D., Gutierrez, I. and Hitt, M.A. (2000), “Privatization and entrepreneurial
transformation: emerging issues and a future research agenda”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 509-24.
Zamani Miandashti, N., Malek Mohammadi, I., Hoseini, S.M. and Zamani, G.H. (2008),
“An investigation of the effectiveness of research-extension joint human resource
development programmes in Iran’s agriculture sector”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 435-44.
Zdunczyk, K. and Blenkinsopp, J. (2007), “Do organizational factors support creativity and
innovation in Polish firms?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 25-40.
Zinnah, M.M., Steele, R.E. and Mattocks, D.M. (1998), “From margin to mainstream: revitalization
of agricultural extension curricula in universities and colleges in Sub-Saharan Africa”,
FAO Training for Agriculture and Rural Development 1997-98, Vol. 55, FAO, Rome,
pp. 16-28.
Further reading A model of
Burgelman, R.A. (1983), “Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a intrapreneurship
process study”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1349-64.
Burgelman, R.A. (1985), “Managing the new venture division: research findings and implications
for strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. and McFarlin, D. (2005), “The role of entrepreneurial orientation in
stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Executive, 657
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 147-56.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (2002), Entrepreneurship, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kanter, R.M. and Richardson, L. (1991), “Engines of progress: designing and running
entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies – the enter-prize program at Ohio Bell,
1985-1990”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 209-29.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “Implement
entrepreneurial thinking in established organizations”, SAM Advanced Management

Journal, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 28-33, 39.
Rule, E.G. and Irwin, D.W. (1988), “Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive edge”,
The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 44-7.
About the authors

Asef Karimi is a PhD Student in Agricultural Extension with the University of Tehran, Iran. His
PhD dissertation is “Configuration model of agricultural extension intrapreneurship in process of
agricultural sustainable development”. He has published several papers in high quality journals
and international conferences on intrapreneurship and information and communication
technology in an agricultural context.
Iraj Malekmohamadi is Professor in Agricultural Extension with the University of Tehran,
Iran. His expertise is human resource development and management in an agricultural context.
Mahmoud Ahmadpour Daryani is Assistant Professor in Entrepreneurship in the University
of Tehran, Iran. His expertise is entrepreneurship extension and education, intrapreneurship and
human resource management.
Ahmad Rezvanfar is Associate Professor in Agricultural Extension with the University of
Tehran, Iran. His expertise is agricultural knowledge and information systems, innovation and
communication technology in extension, human resource development in agriculture.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Kateřina Venclová, Martina Königová, Jiří Fejfar. 2013. Current state of the employee performance
appraisal system in agricultural organizations in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et
Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61:4, 1183-1189. [CrossRef]

CP

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CP

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of European Industrial Training

A conceptual model of intrapreneurship in the Iranian agricultural extension

Downloaded on: 31 January 2015, At: 00:52 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Mahmoud Ahmadpour Daryani

organizations that support and facilitate people involved in agricultural production to

certain conclusions can be drawn, highlighting that in order to engender

The concept of intrapreneurship

Intrapreneurship may result in “new” organizations being created as “spin-out

Toward a conceptual model of intrapreneurship in Iranian agricultural

The phenomenon of model

Thus in agricultural extension organization, when an activity demonstrates some

of these four dimensions in the process of organization, there is no reason to suggest

The prerequisites of model

P1. Intrapreneurship is more positively related to organizational outcomes

management support than among organizations with low organizational

among agricultural extension organizations with organic structures and

leadership than among organizations with a not appropriate style of

among agricultural extension organizations that are more attention on

development can be considered critical consequence factors of intrapreneurship in

that influence the process of intrapreneurship in extension organizations including

A significant contribution of this paper is to propose an original relationship between

Implications and suggestions for further research

manufacturing industry relative to other service perspective organizations such as

Vol. 31 No. 1, available at: www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/tp1.html (accessed February 7,

facilitate the perpetuation of entrepreneurship in large South African organizations”,

2nd ed., Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

performance: an empirical study in China”, Journal of Technology Management in China,

entrepreneurial thinking in established organizations”, SAM Advanced Management

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Potrebbero piacerti anche