International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
The dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation, transformational leadership,

and intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D sector
Seyed Hadi Razavi, Kamarulzaman Ab Aziz,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Seyed Hadi Razavi, Kamarulzaman Ab Aziz, (2017) "The dynamics between entrepreneurial
orientation, transformational leadership, and intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D sector",
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJEBR-10-2016-0337
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 04:56 27 June 2017 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2016-0337
Downloaded on: 27 June 2017, At: 04:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 187 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:333301 []
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 on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
EO, TL, and

The dynamics between intrapreneurial
entrepreneurial orientation, intention
transformational leadership, and

intrapreneurial intention in
Iranian R&D sector Received 13 October 2016
Revised 17 January 2017
Accepted 10 February 2017
Seyed Hadi Razavi and Kamarulzaman Ab Aziz
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and
intrapreneurial intentions among knowledge workers in the Iranian R&D sector using transformational leadership
(TL) as a moderator and to also investigate the extent of the knowledge workers’ intrapreneurial intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – The research was tested as a cross-sectional survey of knowledge
workers involved in the R&D centers in Iran under the Society of the Centers for Research. The sampling
method in this study was based on simple random sampling. Finally, 380 valid questionnaires were collected
from 48 R&D centers of different industries.
Findings – The findings of this study reveal that except for the “need for achievement (NFA),” other
variables such as “innovativeness,” “proactiveness,” “risk taking,” and “networking” had a significant and
positive relationship toward “intrapreneurial intention.” Moreover, it was found that “TL” had a moderating
role in the relations between innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking with intrapreneurial intention;
however, TL did not have a moderating role in the relations between NFA and networking with
intrapreneurial intention.
Research limitations/implications – Reliance on cross-sectional questionnaires instead of an
experimental design imposes caution about the relationships between the predictors and intrapreneurial
intention.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the few studies on the EO at the individual level with new
dimensions on the intrapreneurial intention, which examined moderating role of TL at this relationship, which
took place in Iranian R&D sector.
Keywords Entrepreneurial orientation, Transformational leadership, Intrapreneurship, Intrapreneurial intention
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The global economy is constantly faced with changes. Nowadays, it is not enough to be in front
of rivals with just the intention to compete. Companies are expected to come up with innovative
products to entice the markets. Innovation plays an important role in social and economic
development. Innovation has been recognized as the key source of growth in the economy
(Gursoy and Guven, 2016; Mcgowan and Hu, 2014). Given this situation, entrepreneurs and
intrapreneurs play a major function in helping organizations enter a new market or business
(Maier and Zenovia, 2011), as well as coming up with new innovative products.
According to Antoncic and Hisrich (2003), intrapreneurship can be defined as the
entrepreneurial efforts in the current organizations. The behavior of intrapreneurship is
present in organizations regardless of its size. Intrapreneurship includes the creation of a
new business and actions that are innovative by implementing the development of a new
product and service as well as business processes, planning and competitive actions with
the use of new technology (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). International Journal of
Hisrich and Kearney (2012) pointed out that intrapreneurship is advantageous to an Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
organization, as it is able to create a robust organizational culture, reduce employee © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
turnover, create employees who are energized, develop new ideas for business, create new DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-10-2016-0337
IJEBR processes for business, develop organizational learning, as well as create positive results in
terms of revenue and profit. Moreover, intrapreneurship enhances the sales of products and
increases the volume of production while reducing the costs involved (Ekeh et al., 2016).
Many developed companies are now beginning to look for ways to sustain themselves in
business by becoming intrapreneurial via the discovery and enhancement of the
intrapreneurial characteristics of its employees. If the management of organizations is
able to identify employees with high intrapreneurial traits or potential and uses these traits
appropriately to direct them, then the employees will be able to explore their intrapreneurial
potential even deeper and display these attitudes in the organization.
Past studies reveal that innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness are the main
traits of people who are entrepreneurial or intrapreneurial (Miller, 1983; Shirokova et al.,
2016). These traits are called the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) (Covin and
Slevin, 1989). Several factors have an effect on intrapreneurship. According to past studies,
dimensions of EO are critical characteristics for employees to possess, and these traits can
result in further intrapreneurial intention, as well as lead to intrapreneurial behaviors

(Bolton and Lane, 2012; Ferreira et al., 2016). Moreover, several factors help create
intrapreneurship among employees, which are associated with the manager’s function.
Research shows that if managers possess a high level of transformational leadership (TL)
traits, then the employees’ level of intrapreneurial activities tends to increase as well
(Moriano et al., 2014).
This study was carried out in Iran, specifically on the R&D sector. It is well known that
one of the major roles of the employees, particularly knowledge workers, is to create an
innovative product or service (Golestanizadeh and Zavaripour, 2014). This role is among the
major consequences of intrapreneurship (Gil-Pechuan et al., 2013).
Based on Vision 2025 of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the nation is geared toward
becoming a developed country and the first in economy and science and technology in the
region of the Middle East. In order to achieve the Vision 2025’s economic objectives, it is
essential that organizations focus on innovations and creativity. The R&D sector plays a
major role in innovation in any organization and is essential in undertaking the role of
addressing the market’s needs and in providing organizations with a competitive advantage
in relation to the competitors (Ale-Ebrahim et al., 2007). Intrapreneurship is among the
factors that is able to have a synergistic effect on the various dimensions of long-term
development, such as economic, social, as well as cultural via its utilization of creativity,
innovation, and risk taking, which are traits that are prevalent in the R&D sector
(Golestanizadeh and Zavaripour, 2014).
Thus, this paper focuses on the association between individual EO, TL, and
intrapreneurial intention among knowledge workers in Iranian R&D sectors.
The study will attempt to answer questions such as follows:
• What is the association between individual EO of knowledge workers and their
intrapreneurial intention in the R&D sector in Iran?
• Does TL have a moderating effect on the association between individual EO of
knowledge workers and their intrapreneurial intention in the R&D sector in Iran?
• What is the extent of intrapreneurial intention among Iranian knowledge workers in
the R&D sector?
Intrapreneurship and intrapreneurial intentions

Intrapreneurship has been described by researchers as a process used by employees when
searching for unavailable opportunities, given the current controlled resources (Stevenson
and Jarillo, 1990). They claim that it represents the spirit of entrepreneurship in an
organization (Hisrich et al., 2010), or as the development of a new business for the EO, TL, and
organization, or the instigation to be innovative with renewed energy in an organization intrapreneurial
(Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). For the purpose of this study, intrapreneurship refers to the intention
entrepreneurship characteristics available in the present organization. An individual who is
an intrapreneur behaves in an entrepreneurial manner in the organization. According to
Pinchot and Pellman (1999), intrapreneurs develop innovation in a type of method form in
an organization.
Identifying how intrapreneurial intention is developed can lead to better knowledge of
behaviors related to intrapreneurship (Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2011). Ajzen (2001) revealed
that intention is a strong indicator or persuasive mechanism for behaviors that occur
subsequently (Solesvik, 2013). Botha and Nyanyom (2011) pointed out that intention involves
the identification of an individual’s knowledge, belief systems, and attitudes with the potential
of becoming intrapreneurial, the ability to be innovative, and to be successful in innovation.
Studies on intrapreneurial intentions focus primarily on an individual’s intention to become
the founder and the manager of an enterprise (Fitzsimmons and Douglas, 2011; Gupta et al.,
2009; Krueger, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Thompson, 2009). In this study, intrapreneurial
intention deals with the likelihood of an employee starting a new project or branch that involves
new opportunities and ideas, specifically for becoming entrepreneurial in an organization, or in
short, to be intrapreneurial (Menzel et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2010; Wu, 2009).
Entrepreneurial intention deals with an entrepreneur that is self-employed (Douglas and
Fitzsimmons, 2012) and enters into a risky business enterprise. They begin and continue
managing their own firms (Pihie and Akmaliah, 2008) while being committed to growing
their business using mostly their own resources and loans (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).
On the other hand, intrapreneurial intention relates to the objective of the employed
individual who is intrapreneurial in nature (Douglas and Fitzsimmons, 2012) and intends to
develop a new branch, spin-off, or diversify the business that they are working in
(Wu, 2009), irrespective of how they personally benefit from shares; they are responsible for
developing innovative ideas, new products, services and even new markets and are
passionate about their work and tend to motivate others to be equally innovative (Ireland
et al., 2009). However, they utilize the firm’s financial and non-financial resources instead of
their own, which could in fact be limited (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).
EO
Many researchers have examined the concept of EO at the organizational level, including
Agca et al. (2012), Gil-Pechuan et al. (2013), Martiarena (2013), Lau et al. (2012), Tajeddini and
Mueller (2012), and Vora et al. (2012). Miller’s (1983) was one of the first to analyze EO. It was
suggested that an entrepreneurial organization involves developing an innovative product
that is marketable, risky, and pioneers’ “proactive” innovation. Therefore, an
entrepreneurial organization is an organization that is innovative, is proactive, and takes
risks. Subsequent studies utilized the original theory espoused by Miller (1983) on EO (Covin
and Slevin, 1989; Naman and Slevin, 1993). According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996),
EO involves an organization’s entrepreneurial activities. Begley and Boyd (1987) and Wu
(2009) proposed that EO involves a set of psychological characteristics associated with the
personality of the entrepreneur. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) suggested that this specific
personality trait could not be seen and was only visible when using and carrying out major
functions, including the level of risk taking, the tendency to be proactive, and the
willingness to be innovative. It was also proven that organizations with a high level of EO
are more likely to be more innovative (Manimala, 1992), in addition to experiencing a higher
level of performance (Smart and Conant, 2011). Nevertheless, EO prompted the best
results in the commercialization of innovations (Zhang and Bruning, 2011), which is
among the most critical feature of the behavior that is intrapreneurial or entrepreneurial
IJEBR (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, 2001; Runyan et al., 2008). EO is also regarded as the direct
motivator of success in an organization (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Runyan et al., 2008).
The dimensions of EO could be determined based on individuals, since small firms
established by entrepreneurs are the direct result of their respective behaviors.
The willingness of entrepreneurs to undertake risks and willingness to be proactive in
managing their businesses are critical behaviors that can be emulated in other aspects of life
as well. Individuals, just like employees, can be categorized into people who take risks and
are innovative, and those who are not like that. Thus, one can utilize these descriptions to
categorize employees, which would be beneficial in creating valuable guidelines dependent
on the behaviors displayed by employees in organizations. Bolton and Lane (2012), on their
work on individual EO, outlined three major factors that are reliable and valid, such as
innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness; these factors are directly linked to the
measures of entrepreneurial intention. Other research also reveals an essential association
between a person’s EO and entrepreneurial intention and performance in business
(Bolton and Lane, 2012; Chye, 2012; Hughes and Morgan, 2007; Ibrahim and Mas’ud, 2016;
Kollmann et al., 2007; Wu, 2009; Zhang and Bruning, 2011).
Dimensions for EO
At present, there is a lack of research focusing on EO at the individual level investigating
the concept of intrapreneurial intentions, which happens to be a strong predictor of
intrapreneurial behavior. However, works by Agca et al. (2012), Gil-Pechuan et al. (2013),
Hughes and Morgan (2007), Lau et al. (2012), Martiarena (2013), Mueller and Thomas (2001),
and Sebora and Theerapatvong (2010) emphasized one of the three dimensions, or three
major dimensions, namely, innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness. These factors
were observed to be directly correlated with the measures of entrepreneurial intention.
Since this study concentrates on an organization’s employees, it can be seen that some
determinants are missing, which could effect on the activities and intentions of individual’s
characteristics that are intrapreneurial or entrepreneurial. Based on literature review,
another two critical dimensions were added, namely, “networking” and “need for
achievement (NFA),” both of which are regarded as components of EO. They will be detailed
in the following subsections.
Risk. One of the dimensions of EO is risk taking at the level of the organization, which
involves firms taking risks by venturing into risky businesses, committing into ventures that
utilize most of their resources, and getting into high liability with large sums of loans.
However, it must be noted that taking risk involves calculating it to ensure it is advantageous
instead of just gambling using the resources of the firm (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). Risk taking
is also recognized as an essential intrapreneurial characteristic (Martiarena, 2013;
Monsen et al., 2010), but compared to individual entrepreneurs, organizational
intrapreneurs who take risks share that risk with their firms as well. The firms provide a
different form of support to the intrapreneurs, i.e., the firm will undertake the financial risk
while providing operational and administration help if necessary (Luchsinger and
Bagby, 1987). Researchers such as Antoncic and Hisrich (2003, 2004) reported that risk
taking is effective toward intent for intrapreneurship. Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2012)
discovered that risk taking is related to intrapreneurial intention.
Proactiveness. Being proactive at the organization level involves the ability of the
organization to engage new opportunities, manage new and coming trends, forecast future
needs and demands of the customers, and identify challenges that may accompany new
business ventures (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983; Wu, 2009). Proactiveness displays
the strong pursuit by an organization to seek market opportunities and a keen focus on
being a pioneer in innovation in an industry sector (Gil-Pechuan et al., 2013; Shirokova et al.,
2016). At the level of the individual, a proactive person constantly initiates (Crant, 2000)
preferred conditions that change and influence the status quo with a behavior based on action EO, TL, and
(Bateman and Crant, 1993). Individuals with a proactive characteristic do not let the situation intrapreneurial
around them affect their pursuit of goals. Such people are proactive (Bandura, 1986), intention
transcendent (Maddi, 1989), and manipulative (White, 1959), in addition to having an
eagerness to create a competitive advantage for themselves. Crant (1996) conducted a study
that assessed the association between the proactive personality scale and entrepreneurial
intention and found that proactive personality was indeed related positively to entrepreneurial
intention. Prieto (2010) revealed a positive link between possessing a proactive personality
and entrepreneurial intention. Kickul and Gundry (2002) and Wu (2009) also discovered
several relations between proactiveness and entrepreneurial activities.
Innovativeness. Innovativeness in EO can be conceptualized as organizations willing to
create new ideas and experimenting with these ideas (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Shirokova et al.,
2016). Innovativeness can be seen via solving problems, deriving solutions in a creative
manner, and designing a new product or service (Kropp et al., 2008) by researching and
utilizing new ideas (Madsen, 2007). Innovativeness is a concept that studies use, and it is a
behavior or action at individual and organizational levels. Innovativeness in this study is
described as an individual’s tendency to take part in a creative process to experiment with new
ideas to derive a new product or service for new or current markets. Researchers such as
Ferreira et al. (2011), Hisrich et al. (2010), Mcclelland (1967) and Marques et al. (2013) recognized
the fact that innovation is an important characteristic in the psyche of an entrepreneur.
Researchers view innovation as being central to intrapreneurial activities, and
intrapreneurs are viewed as idea generators and innovators (Agca et al., 2012). Zampetakis
et al. (2011) conducted a research consisting of 180 undergraduates from business schools
and found that young people who consider themselves to be more creative and innovative
have higher entrepreneurial intentions.
NFA. This is the dimension that has not much used before as a component of EO but was
added to our model based on literature review. According to Winarno (2010), the NFA is a
dimension that refers to the desire or preference to prevail through hindrances, examine
one’s strengths, and persevere through a difficult job. Fynn (2005) pointed out that a strong
NFA makes individuals, particularly entrepreneurs, act in a manner that allows them to
reach the goals of entrepreneurship successfully. Similarly, based on Botha and Nyanyom
(2011), NFA is a strong motivator for entrepreneurs, and for them, a challenge is more
pleasurable than mundane tasks. Moreover, Mcfadzean et al. (2005) claim that individuals
with a strong NFA are more likely to venture into entrepreneurial work compared to
individuals with weak NFAs. Many studies have also recognized the fact that the NFA is a
critical feature of an entrepreneur’s psychology (Hisrich et al., 2010; Kobia and Sikalieh,
2010; Marques et al., 2013; Mcclelland, 1967). According to Wu et al. (2007), NFA is positively
associated with the continuity of entrepreneurship, while NFA is an essential characteristic
for an organization’s employees. NFA also has an effect on an individual’s performance at
the workplace, making it crucial for intrapreneurs as well (Carraher et al., 2010). Pradhan
and Nath (2012) defined EO at individual levels with features such as tendencies to risk,
proactivity, innovation, and achievement. Moreover, researchers such as Bolton and Lane
(2012) and Khan and Budhwani (2011) claimed a positive link between the NFA and
Networking. The other dimension that we added to the model is networking, and it can be
described as the tendency to relate and interact with other individuals. This tendency was
used by Maslow et al. (1970) to describe a psychological or personality characteristic. It was
pointed out that the main goal of networking is to achieve a competitive edge in enlarging
the availability of resources far beyond the assets owned by an entrepreneur (Schallenkamp
and Smith, 2009). Research shows that networking is a critical component of being
IJEBR successful in activities related to entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurs who are network
oriented remain successful (Dollinger, 2005; Groen, 2005; Neergaard and Madsen, 2004;
O’donnell, 2004). Oviatt and Mcdougall (2005) reported that networking is beneficial for
entrepreneurs to identify cooperative strategies and global business opportunities. Maritz
(2010) suggested a critical relationship between productivity and networking. Aldrich (1999)
discovered that networking influences entrepreneurial intention. It is also pointed out that
networking develops intrapreneurship, and it is a critical component for intrapreneurs as
well (Thorgren et al., 2009; Toledano et al., 2010). On the other hand, the importance of
networking is more, since networking is crucial for knowledge sharing in knowledge-centric
organizations such as R&D centers (Banerjee, 2006; Davenport, 2005; Horwitz et al., 2003).
Johannisson and Mønsted (1997) and Schallenkamp and Smith (2009) underlined certain
advantages for networking, including helping for innovation, examining opportunities, and
building social capital that are all critical for entrepreneurial activities. The anticipation of
this behavior and attitude relationship can be referred to as the theory of reasoned action
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). These theories
are cognitive-motivation theories, suggesting that individuals are rational and their
behaviors are based on the availability of information. In summary, these theories suggest
that an individual’s beliefs affect his/her attitude, individuals’ attitudes affect his/her
behavioral intentions, and in turn, individuals’ behavioral intentions affect his/her behavior.
Therefore, when an individual regards networking as a positive behavior, this favorable act
will positively affect the individual’s behavioral intentions, which will in turn motivate the
individual to take action on that attitude and begin an enterprise (Taormina and Lao, 2007).
According to Lau et al. (2012), networking is an essential determinant in activities and
intention related to entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship and must be studied in depth.
Gursoy and Guven (2016), in a recent study, also proved the importance of networking for
intrapreneurs and stated that the unsuccessful ones are more networking oriented.
TL
Top- and mid-level managers are critical toward the development of organizational
environment that facilitates and promotes intrapreneurship (Kuratko et al., 2005; Moriano
et al., 2014). However, they should encourage their employees to embrace activities related to
intrapreneurship using various approaches by spurring ideas that are innovative and,
offering the necessary resources and knowledge, or by encouraging small research ventures
(Kuratko et al., 2005). An important factor to motivate entrepreneurial activities is for the
leader to encourage intrapreneurship by creating avenues for employees to share new ideas
and by offering financial resources for these new ideas to be put into practice (Elenkov and
Manev, 2005; Podolski, 2016).
Among the various theories of leadership, TL has been identified as a leadership style
that is most conducive for intrapreneurship, since such leaders tend to encourage their
followers to be innovative and creative (Elenkov and Manev, 2005; Ling et al., 2008; Moriano
et al., 2014). A record number of studies have shown that managers with a high level of TL
style could be associated with the development of high innovation at work, extra effort, as
well as certain organizational cultural behaviors among the employees ( Jung et al., 2003;
Koh et al., 1995). TL could also offer the basic atmosphere for intrapreneurship to thrive
given a few related factors. First, leaders with a TL style will set up clear goals and
objectives, along with the right approaches for the followers/employees to utilize them to
find new opportunities for the organization (Moriano et al., 2014). Second, leaders with a TL
style motivate workers to think and develop new ideas while being free to query any current
processes and regulations that are unprofitable and helpful in achieving the objectives and
vision of the organization ( Jung et al., 2003). Third, leaders who are transformational
enhance the skills and confidence levels of the workers to make and implement innovative EO, TL, and
ideas that address the present day issues in reaching the objectives of the organization intrapreneurial
(Chen et al., 2014). Moreover, Yeh and Lai (2001) as well as Darzini and Khandan (2009) intention
argued that knowledge workers need leadership instead of management, and the function of
TL is essential in improving innovation and sharing of knowledge (Liu and Defrank, 2013;
Manafi and Subramaniam, 2015).
It has been proven that the effects of TL affects innovation given the behavior of
intrapreneurs (Gilley and Dixon, 2008; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Gumusluoğlu and
Ilsev, 2009; Jung and Wu, 2008; Michaelis and Stegmaier, 2010; Wang et al., 2014). In recent
studies, it has been demonstrated that TL has a positive effect on employees’ intrapreneurial
actions (Moriano et al., 2014). However, it has also been noted that TL directly affects the
intention of employees based on aspects such as turnover (Alatawi, 2013; Deconinck and
Beth, 2013; Dimaculangan and Aguiling, 2012; Hamstra et al., 2011; Welty Peachey et al.,
2014). TL is also able to grow intentions toward intrapreneurship within an organizational
culture (Yukl, 2010). Kearney et al. (2009) demonstrated that the intention of an employee to
be intrapreneurial within a firm depends on the characteristics of the managers’ TL.
Researchers such as Aarons et al. (2011) as well as Green et al. (2013) have found that TL
plays a moderating role on intention quite effectively. Therefore, given the context of this
study, the use of TL style is quite beneficial.
Research model and hypotheses

According to literature review, a research model was designed to investigate the multi-
dimensions of relationships between the EO (at individual level) and intrapreneurial
intention, as shown in Figure 1. The independent variable in this framework is the
individual EO and the dimensions, while the dependent variable is intrapreneurial intention.
Besides EO and TL theories, which are mentioned before, the resource-based view (RBV)
theory can help to understand this relationship’s expectation. The RBV theory is an
essential theory in the study of human resource management as it focuses a lot on the
significance of the human resource in achieving a sustainable competitive edge (Alvarez and
Busenitz, 2001; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Penrose, 1959). Barney (1995) claims that
human resources can be utilized as a mechanism to achieve a sustainable competitive edge;
this is because human resources (particularly human capital) are valuable, inimitable, rare,
Transformational
leadership
Entrepreneurial
H2c
H2d
H2e
H2a
H2b
orientation
Innovativeness H1a
Proactiveness H1b
Risk taking H1c Intrapreneurial

intention
Need for H1d
achievement
H1e Figure 1.
Networking Research model
IJEBR and cannot be substituted. The thrust of this theory is that resources, particularly human
resource, have the highest potential to earn a company its sustainable competitive
advantage if used properly (Wernerfelt, 1984). Innovation has been identified as a critical
source of competitive advantage for organizations in the R&D sector, particularly in
technology systems. As innovation is highly dependent on entrepreneurship in maximizing
the technology-to-market relationship, entrepreneurship is realized to be a key component in
gaining a competitive advantage (Meng, 1995). Based on this understanding, it is observed
that the perception and ability of the human resource in relation to entrepreneurship could
affect future entrepreneurial intention positively, resulting in processes that could be
utilized as a competitive edge.
Past researchers (Camisón and Villar-López, 2014; Chen and Huang, 2009; Damanpour
et al., 2009; Galende and De La Fuente, 2003; Huselid, 1995; Kostopoulos et al., 2002; Manafi
and Subramaniam, 2015; Mol and Birkinshaw, 2009; Wright et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2009)
have clarified the function of human resources in enhancing the sharing of knowledge,
innovation, and performance in organizations via the RBV theory. As the human resource is
able to carry many functions, it is possible to direct them toward entrepreneurship as well;
thus, its features could be utilized to improve intrapreneurial intention. This theory has been
utilized in some current research (Bolton and Lane, 2012; Ekpe and Mat, 2012; Ibrahim and
Lucky, 2014; Ismail et al., 2015; Wu, 2009).
However, the link between EO (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking) and the
intention has been justified (Bolton and Lane, 2012; Ekpe and Mat, 2012; Ibrahim and Lucky,
2014; Ismail et al., 2015; Wu, 2009), Evidence showed that we can account for the NFA and
networking as components of EO at the individual level, inside the organization for the
purpose of intrapreneurship, which can also impact the intention (Bolton and Lane, 2012;
Khan and Budhwani, 2011; Lau et al., 2012).
Based on the definitions, EO encompasses several psychological traits linked to the
entrepreneur’s personality (Begley and Boyd, 1987; Wu, 2009), with tendencies toward being
innovative (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Salavou, 2004), taking risks (Pradhan and Nath, 2012),
as well as being proactive (Prieto, 2010). According to the definitions, networking and the
NFA are also psychological traits (Hisrich et al., 2010; Kobia and Sikalieh, 2010; Marques
et al., 2013; Mcclelland, 1967). The NFA is the desire to perform a complicated job quickly
and efficiently and very motivated for success (Winarno, 2010), whereas networking is the
tendency to relate and interact with other people (Maslow et al., 1970). These two factors are
critical in the field of both intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship (Botha and Nyanyom,
2011; Fynn, 2005; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Mcclelland, 1967; Mcfadzean et al., 2005;
Pradhan and Nath, 2012, Stewart et al., 2003).
Researchers highlighted the fact that NFA is critical to entrepreneurship (Botha and
Nyanyom, 2011; Wu et al., 2007; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Mcclelland, 1967; Pradhan
and Nath, 2012; Stewart et al., 2003). Okhomina (2007); moreover, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
also underlined a positive connection between EO and NFA, which is also the case for
intrapreneurs (Carraher et al., 2010; Pinchot and Pellman, 1999; Winarno, 2010). Green (2016)
suggests that the higher the NFA in a person for their career and job, the higher the
commitment to the organization, co-workers, customers, investors, and suppliers. As such,
the NFA is an enabler for an entrepreneur to become knowledgeable and indispensable.
Several researchers such as Khan and Budhwani (2011) and Bolton and Lane (2012) claim
that there is a positive link between the NFA and the intention to be intrapreneurial.
Similarly, most studies point out the importance of all kinds and levels of networking for
entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship (Birley, 1986; Dollinger, 2005; Gartner and Bellamy,
2008; Gil-Pechuan et al., 2013; Larson and Starr, 1993; Neergaard and Madsen, 2004;
Taormina and Lao, 2007; Ulhøi, 2005). As pointed out earlier, intrapreneurs are natural team
builders, and networking is part and parcel of the efficacy of teamwork and team building
(Morris et al., 2010). According to Thorgren et al. (2009) and Toledano et al. (2010), EO, TL, and
networking increases the act of entrepreneurship in a firm (intrapreneurship), and it is an intrapreneurial
essential criterion for intrapreneurs as well. Saha and Hajela (2015) and Lau et al. (2012) intention
claim that networking is a critical element in activities as well as intentions
related to entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, and further research in this area is
definitely needed.
Therefore, this study offers the following hypotheses for relationship between the EO at
the individual level and intrapreneurial intention:
H1a. There is positive relationship between individual innovativeness and
H1b. There is positive relationship between individual proactiveness and intrapreneurial
intention.
H1c. There is positive relationship between individual risk taking and intrapreneurial
intention.
H1d. There is positive relationship between individual NFA and intrapreneurial
intention.
H1e. There is positive relationship between individual networking ability and
Figure 1 demonstrates this relationship in a model form.
The proposed model also focuses on the aspect of TL that is able to affect the link
between the individual EO and intrapreneurial intention. Even though past literature
reveals studies that have attempted to examine the direct relationship of leadership styles
with intrapreneurship or innovation (Chen et al., 2012, 2014; Díaz-García and
Jiménez-Moreno, 2010; Jung et al., 2003; Moriano et al., 2014; Politis and Politis, 2009;
Yitshaki, 2012), it is evident that there is a lack of resources on the study of this factor,
particularly the moderating role of TL. Past research reveals that TL is able to moderate the
relationship with intention. Researchers such as Green et al. (2013) and Aarons et al. (2011)
claimed that TL has a moderating effect on the turnover intention. As was previously
known, a variable that moderates is the one that changes (negatively or positively) a fixed
effect of an independent variable on the dependent one (Field, 2013). This model claims that
the TL management style is able to affect the relations of the EO of individuals and their
intrapreneurial intention via a moderating effect. Figure 1 demonstrates this relationship
in model form.
Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypotheses for moderating role of
transformation leadership between the EO’s dimensions and entrepreneurial intention:
H2a. Transformation leadership will moderate the relationship between individual
innovativeness and intrapreneurial intention.
H2b. Transformation leadership will moderate the relationship between individual
proactiveness and intrapreneurial intention.
H2c. Transformation leadership will moderate the relationship between individual risk
taking and intrapreneurial intention.
H2d. Transformation leadership will moderate the relationship between individual NFA
and intrapreneurial intention.
H2e. Transformation leadership will moderate the relationship between individual
networking ability and intrapreneurial intention.
IJEBR Research method
Data
The objective of this study is to examine individual factors related to EO that affect the
intrapreneurial intention of Iranian knowledge workers from the R&D sector.
The respondents in this study are full-time researchers who are knowledge workers in
the R&D sector in the engineering department.
The study population includes Iranian industries with an R&D division. In order to
identify the R&D divisions, we searched the Iranian Society of the Centers for Research &
Development of Mines & Industries, a society that is accredited by the Ministry of
Industry, Mines, and Commerce of Iran. According to the current data found on their
website and from updated feedback from industry experts, it was discovered that this
society has 2,000 organizations as members from various industry sectors throughout the
country. Based on the IRANRD announcement, close to 10,000 individuals are employed
full time in their R&D centers as knowledge workers, almost all of whom are highly
educated. Thus, the target population for this study is the 10,000 knowledge workers.
The Sample Size Cochran was utilized to obtain the size of the sample for this study
(Kotrlik and Higgins, 2001). Consequently, 370 individuals would be the appropriate
sample size to represent the entire population.
The task of collecting data for this study took approximately four months (April-August
2015) as the companies were scattered throughout the country. Finally, 380 complete and
valid responses were obtained for analysis from 48 organizations, selected using the random
sampling technique.
Results
Descriptive findings
The descriptive analysis of the data offers an overall perspective of the variables employed
in the study and its corresponding calculations. This type of analysis is useful for a
thorough analysis of the results and conclusion. The descriptive analysis of the different
variables of this study, as well as the related dimensions, is performed through a series of
descriptions and summary of the findings displayed via tables, revealing the mean,
frequencies, and standard deviation. A five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree, was utilized to measure the variables and its dimensions.
Table I contains the list of items, their sources, and mean and standard division for each
item. The correlations for the study variables appear in Table II.
The findings reveal that the general mean for all the indicators is 3.504, which shows that
intrapreneurial intention level exceeds that of the median of scale (3). According to the
descriptive analysis, the variable with the highest result is networking (M ¼ 3.7) with other
variables also being higher than the median of scale (3), while the lowest result was for risk
taking. The table demonstrates that the overall mean result is 2.76, which indicates that the
risk-taking level is lesser than the median of scale (3).
The relationships’ findings. Table III denotes that all the independent variables have a
significant effect on intrapreneurial intention with the exception of NFA. Innovativeness has
the highest positive and significant effect on intrapreneurial intention ( β ¼ 0.327, po 0.01)
while proactiveness has a significant effect on intrapreneurial intention ( β ¼ 0.301, po 0.01).
Risk taking ( β ¼ 0.163, p o0.01) and networking ( β ¼ 0.142, p o0.004) have a significant
and positive effect on intrapreneurial intention.
Moderating effect of TL
The moderating effect of TL was tested in two steps on its effect on the general path model.
First, six models such as the measurement weight model, the unconstrained model, the
Model variable Item descriptions Mean (SD)
EO, TL, and
intrapreneurial
Innovativeness (Bolton I often like to try new and unusual activities that are not typical but not intention
and Lane, 2012; Scott necessarily risky 3.32 (0.947)
and Bruce,1994) In general, I prefer a strong emphasis in projects on unique, one-of-
a-kind approaches rather than revisiting tried and true approaches used
before 3.29 (0.95)
I prefer to try my own unique way when learning new things rather
than doing it like anyone else does 3.33 (0.996)
I favor experimentation and original approaches to problem solving
rather than using methods others generally use for solving their problem 3.36 (0.94)
I obtain more satisfaction from coming up with a new idea than
mastering a skill 3.33 (0.958)
I usually searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or
product ideas 3.4 (0.903)
I consider myself as an innovative person 3.24 (0.900)

Risk taking (Knight, I have a strong proclivity for low-risk projects (with normal and certain
1997; Sauka, 2008; rates of return) 2.76 (1.03)
Wu, 2009) I believe that, owing to the nature of the environment, it is best to
explore it gradually via timid, incremental behavior 2.67 (0.987)
When confronted with decision-making situations involving
uncertainty, I typically adopt a cautious, “wait-and-see” posture in order
to minimize the probability of making costly decisions 2.78 (1.004)
I always avoid dangerous situations 2.78 (1.053)
I would never make a high-risk investment 2.78 (1.129)
I always stick to the rules 2.76 (1.107)
I would never go hang-gliding or bungee-jumping 2.76 (1.138)
Proactiveness I typically respond to actions which competitors initiate 3.12 (0.998)
(Wu, 2009) I am never the first to introduce anything new 3.09 (0.996)
I typically seek to avoid competitive clashes, preferring a “live-and-
let-live” posture 3.09 (1.025)
I have a strong tendency to “follow the leader” in many things 3.15 (1.036)
I believe that unfortunate events occur because of bad luck 3.09 (0.958)
I always do things at the last minute 3.12 (1.046)
Need for achievement I seldom compete with others 3.33 (1.068)
(Kahl, 1965; Wu, 2009) I strive for more ordinary success 3.39 (1.053)
I concentrate more on short-term and daily tasks 3.24 (1.002)
I just do enough work to get by 3.12 (1.035)
I put little time and effort into my work 3.12 (1.031)
I am not motivated to succeed 3.12 (1.076)
I shirk my duties whenever possible 3.12 (1.191)
Networking ability I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with others 3.82 (0.82)
(Dutta, 2013; Hellriegel At work, I know a lot of important people and am well connected 3.46 (0.939)
and Slocum, 2009; I am good at using my connections and networks to make things
Pfeffer, 2010) happen at work 3.76 (0.852)
I have developed a large network of colleagues and associates at work
who I can call on for support when I really need to get things done 3.73 (0.818)
I spend a lot of time at work developing connections with others 3.66 (0.871)
I am good at building relationships with influential people at work 3.76 (0.815)
Transformational Has a clear understanding of where we are going 3.29 (1.028)
leadership (Podsakoff Has a clear sense of where he/she wants our unit to be in 5 years 3.31 (0.993)
and Organ, 1986; Has the idea where the organization is going 3.31 (1.053)
Rafferty and Griffin, Says things that make employees proud to be a part of this organization 3.24 (1.039)
2004) Says positive things about the work unit 3.39 (1.038)
Encourages people to see changing environments as situations full of
opportunities 3.32 (1.025) Table I.
Study’s items utilized
and descriptive
(continued ) statistics
IJEBR Model variable Item descriptions Mean (SD)
Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways 3.35 (0.965)

Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some things that I have never
questioned before 3.24 (1.018)
Has challenged me to rethink some of my basic assumptions about
my work 3.18 (1.111)
Considers my personal feelings before acting 3.16 (1.109)
Behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal needs 3.12 (1.076)
Sees that the interests of employees are given due consideration 3.08 (1.127)
Commends me when I do a better than average job 3.07 (1.065)
Acknowledges improvement in my quality of work 3.1 (1.108)
Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work 3.13 (1.121)
Intrapreneurial I intend to help with the development of a new product or new service
intention (Ireland et al., and new market 3.5 (1.003)
2009; Pinchot, 1985; I would be happy to be involved in any entrepreneurial behavior of the firm 3.56 (0.955)
Wu, 2009) I would take initiative in doing anything that might have high return for
the company I am working for, even though the task might be risky 3.42 (1.048)
I intend to Start a new branch, or a spin-off for the company I am
working for 3.56 (0.955)
I will encourage others to implement ideas for innovation in the
organization 3.4 (1.079)
I enjoy having responsibility to transform prototypes or ideas into
profitable outcomes 3.41 (1.092)
I enjoy pursuing opportunities despite limited resources 3.54 (1.085)
I intent to involve in recognizing and creating new opportunities in
relation to products, methods, operations, or markets, establishes a
strategic vision for the organization 3.56 (1.067)
I would prefer to push the senior management team to adopt these
opportunities 3.5 (1.034)
I will make every effort to peruse the organization’s resources to carry
Table I. out their ideas 3.59 (1.014)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Intrapreneurial intention 1
2. Innovativeness 0.617 1
3. Risk taking 0.419 0.302 1
4. Proactiveness 0.618 0.589 0.467 1
Table II. 5. Need for achievement 0.376 0.404 0.275 0.523 1
Correlation of 6. Networking 0.392 0.420 0.110 0.321 0.266 1
the variables 7. Transformational leadership 0.284 0.141 0.137 0.199 0.128 0.118 1
Path B SE β CR P
II ← Need for achievement 0.001 0.045 0.001 0.014 0.989

II ← Proactiveness 0.273 0.061 0.301 4.484 0.001
Table III. II ← Risk taking 0.174 0.053 0.163 3.309 0.001
Test of the total
II ← Innovativeness 0.321 0.059 0.327 5.402 0.001
effects of IVs on
intrapreneurial II ← Networking 0.161 0.056 0.142 2.906 0.004
intention Note: II, intrapreneurial intention
structural weight model, the structural covariance model, the structural residual model, as EO, TL, and
well as the measurement residual model were developed using the option for multi-groups in intrapreneurial
AMOS. Nevertheless, just the unconstrained model (the variant group that assumes the intention
models for the two groups are different) and the measurement residual model (the invariant
group that assumes the models for the two groups are indifferent) were compared to
examine if both models were significant ( p o0.05), and if so the model that was better
(smaller CMIN, χ2). After that, with the assumption that the unconstrained model needs to be
corrected, the difference between CMIN χ2 of both models was tested. If there is a significant
difference ( p o0.05), this shows that there is a certain level of moderation effect by the TL
on the overall model.
The CFA of the multi-group was carried out to test the moderating effect of TL on each of
the individual paths including IN → II, PR → II, RT → II, NA → II, and NT → II.
According to Hair (2010), the moderation effect is present on the individual path under
two situations, namely the individual path for the first group is significant ( p o0.05) while
for the second group, it is insignificant ( p W0.05), or vice versa, and both groups’ individual
paths are significant ( p o0.05) but the β for the first group is positive, while for the second
group, it is negative, or vice versa (Table IV).
Even though both models are significant ( p o 0.05), the unconstrained model
( χ2 ¼ 1529.4) is better than the measurement of the residual model ( χ2 ¼ 1805.056)
because of the recorded smaller χ2 (Table V).
Discussion
Previous studies have pointed out the significance of EO in organizational performance
(Covin and Slevin, 1991; Runyan et al., 2008; Smart and Conant, 2011; Wu, 2009; Zahra, 1993;
Zhang and Bruning, 2011). However, the EO performs best when it is merged with
commercialization of innovation (Zhang and Bruning, 2011). Empirical studies revealed that
organizations with high levels of EO have the tendency to more involved in behaviors that
are innovative (Manimala, 1992), which is one of the most important aspects of
intrapreneurial or entrepreneurial behaviors (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, 2001; Runyan et al.,
2008). An individual’s intentions are the fundamental requirement for the implementation of
behaviors that are entrepreneurial in order to increase organizational performance
(Fini et al., 2012; Solesvik, 2013). Bolton and Lane (2012) reiterated a direct relationship with
the measurements of entrepreneurial intention.
According to our results (Table III), innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking, and
networking have a significant effect on intrapreneurial intention. These findings are in line
with the findings from past studies such as Hamidi et al. (2008), Huarng and Yu (2011),
Model NPAR CMIN df P CMIN/df

Table IV.
Unconstrained 192 1,529.4 1.214 0 1.260 CMIN ( χ2) for
Measurement residuals 96 1,805.056 1.310 0 1.378 moderating
Note: Model fit – CMIN ( χ2) for moderating effect of transformational leadership effect of TL
Model df CMIN P Table V.

Model unconstrained
Measurement residuals 44 102.937 0 to be correct for
Note: Assuming model unconstrained to be correct for moderating effect of transformational leadership by moderating effect of
comparison TL by comparison
IJEBR Gil-Pechuan et al. (2013), Zampetakis et al. (2011), and Welbourne et al. (2012) for
innovativeness, while studies by Crant (1996), Kickul and Gundry (2002), Prieto (2010),
and Wu (2009) support proactiveness. The research studies by Begley and Boyd (1987),
Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2012), Forlani and Mullins (2000) and Hull et al. (1980) showed
support for risk taking, and studies by Groen, (2005), Gil-Pechuan et al. (2013), O’donnell
(2004), Saha and Hajela (2015), and Taatila and Down (2012) supported networking.
Our findings show that the NFA does not have a significant effect on intrapreneurial
intention. Begley and Boyd (1987) compared entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs and
found a significant mean difference statistically. This shows that the founders of companies
have a higher “NFA” compared to non-entrepreneurs. However, this may not be true for
intrapreneurs. The findings of this study are in line with the findings obtained by Hull et al.
(1980) and Collins et al. (2004). However, findings by Bolton and Lane (2012) and Khan and
Budhwani (2011) differed from the results of this study, with the NFA having a positive
relation with intrapreneurial intention. The reason that NFA does not have an influencing
effect on intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D centers might be due to culture, structure,
and the Iranian R&D center’s management which do not encourage personal achievements
(Vedadi et al., 2011). According to Mcclelland (1980, 1985), great success in performance is a
strong indicator of spontaneous success traits if an individual is given the freedom to
initiate their own actions based on their effort, which is unfortunately lacking in the Iranian
case. On the other hand, Iran suffers from sanctions recently, which severely affects the
economy and R&D centers and curtailed innovation (Shatouri et al., 2012). Knowledge
workers’ high NFA lacks the benefit for the organization and does not lead to
intrapreneurship. This can only be addressed if they leave the organization independently.
This study also proposed that the intrapreneurial intention of an employee with the EO
features in an organization is affected by the TL style of the senior management, which has
gained popularity in recent decades (Kearney et al., 2009). In terms of RBV (Barney, 1991),
this study examined managers’ behaviors of leadership as one of the intangible resources
that facilitates the impact of EO in response to the suggestion of Miller (2011) to examine the
role of internal resources in attempting to leverage the effects of EO. As expected, it was
discovered that TL does act as a moderator in the association between EO and
intrapreneurial intention. Thus, managers have a critical role in improving the tendency and
abilities of the employees’ EO while simultaneously encouraging them to enthusiastically
embrace intrapreneurship. Aarons et al. (2011) and Green et al. (2013) found a similar
moderating effect of transformation leadership on intention.
Even though the findings of this paper reveal that TL moderates the relations of the EO
dimensions with intrapreneurial intention, TL had no significant moderating effect between
two of the independent variables (networking and NFA) on the intention. The cause for the
inability of TL to moderate the link between networking and intrapreneurial intention
among the knowledge workers in the Iranian R&D sector could be due to issues regarding
connections in the R&D centers. Ale-Ebrahim et al. (2007) revealed that the R&D divisions
face challenging issues, including insufficient interactions between similar R&D
departments, insufficient interactions between R&D departments, especially the
engineering service divisions, and insufficient cooperation within the group itself.
Thus, TL cannot have any impact in these conditions. This study’s model had earlier
rejected the link between NFA and intrapreneurial intention, and now it has been found that
TL is ineffective upon associations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has managed to fill the gap in literature on intrapreneurship and TL.
The research hypotheses were examined using a cross-sectional survey of the Iranian R&D
center’s knowledge workers from the R&D society. The findings revealed the presence of a
positive and significant relation between innovativeness and intrapreneurial intention, EO, TL, and
proactiveness and intrapreneurial intention, and risk taking and intrapreneurial intrapreneurial
intention. Moreover, a positive and significant relation is present between networking and intention
intrapreneurial intention among the Iranian knowledge workers. The study also revealed the
moderating effect of TL on these relationships. Thus, the impact of TL in this study on the link
between innovativeness and intrapreneurial intention, proactiveness and intrapreneurial
intention, and risk taking and intrapreneurial intention was significant and positive.
The study’s findings reveal that the managers should be concerned about the impacts of
the EO dimensions on the intention and suggest that the managers should hire individuals
who demonstrate high characteristics of these dimensions by carrying out self-assessments
using a questionnaire on the EO and by training to enforce these capabilities.
Based on the findings of this study on the R&D centers in Iran, the dimension of risk
taking among knowledge workers is lower than the average scores. Since intrapreneurs
have been known to take more measured risks (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004), centers of R&D
should enhance their environments by restructuring their workplace with more work
freedom or by injecting sufficient investment into projects so that those involved in R&D
can work with more confidence and under less stressful conditions.
As noted, this study’s contribution to the entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship
literature is the theorizing of individual EO and inclusion of networking as a new dimension
to better describe a larger portfolio of intrapreneurial proceedings. Based on the results,
networking positively impacts intrapreneurial intentions. It is also a major factor when it
comes to knowledge sharing in firms, particularly in the R&D sector (Keyes, 2008), making
it necessary for managers to conduct trainings and reinforce this ability among the
knowledge workers while enhancing the work culture and environment.
Moreover, we also pointed out that the transformation of intrapreneurial intention as well as
intrapreneurial potential of employees would be incomplete without the pursuit of TL behaviors
by the management. It is fortunate that TL can be taught and learned (Bass, 1999), and this style
of leadership creates employees who accept strategies related to intrapreneurship and are tasked
to go for personal training to motivate enterprise-wide intrapreneurial culture. Companies that
invest in such ventures tend to gain by becoming more intrapreneurial (Hayton, 2005).
Our study’s limitations offer opportunities for further research. One important limitation
in this study was the data collection process. First, because the target population was
among R&D centers, accessing one of the strategic and important section of organizations
was really difficult, and it took quite a while to find the right people to make it happen.
Because one of the questionnaire sections was about TL and asked employees’ opinion on
managerial behaviors, we had to assure them that their answers are totally confidential and
will only be dealt with by the researcher. For future studies, using this model in different
areas, such as whole sections of the organizations, could help to extend the results to other
employees and eliminate difficulties in collecting data.
Relationships between IEO, TL, and the intention were found to be effective in Iranian
R&D centers. Future studies should examine whether there are specific cultural and
economic differences among nations and countries that affect these relationships. Future
research could also investigate how these relationships are facilitated by a meditator.
References
Aarons, G.A., Sommerfeld, D.H. and Willging, C.E. (2011), “The soft underbelly of system change:
the role of leadership and organizational climate in turnover during statewide behavioral health
reform”, Psychological Services, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 269-281.
Agca, V., Topal, Y. and Kaya, H. (2012), “Linking intrapreneurship activities to multidimensional firm
performance in Turkish manufacturing firms: an empirical study”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15-33.
IJEBR Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 27-58.
Alatawi, M.A. (2013), “The relationship between transformational leadership style and managerial-
caused turnover intention: PIHRA members and their subordinates”, ProQuest, UMI
Dissertations Publishing, University of La Verne, La Verne.
Aldrich, H. (1999), Organizations Evolving, Sage, London.
Ale-Ebrahim, N., Ghazizadeh, A., Golnam, A. and Tavakoli, H.T. (2007), R&D Management in Iran,
Opportunities and Threats, MPRA, Tehran.
Alvarez, S.A. and Busenitz, L.W. (2001), “The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 755-775.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001), “Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation”, 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. 518-550.
Bandura, A. (1986), “Social foundations of thought and action”, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Banerjee, D. (2006), “Information technology, productivity growth, and reduced leisure: revisiting end
of history”, WorkingUSA, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 199-213.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (1995), “Looking inside for competitive advantage”, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 49-61.
Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), “The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure
and correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P. (1987), “A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small business
firms”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 99-108.
Birley, S. (1986), “The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 107-117.
Bolton, D.L. and Lane, M.D. (2012), “Individual entrepreneurial orientation: development of a
measurement instrument”, Education + Training, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 219 -233.
Botha, M. and Nyanyom, M.D. (2011), Corporate Entrepreneurship Orientation and the Pursuit of
Innovating Opportunities in Botswana, University of Pretoria.
Camisón, C. and Villar-López, A. (2014), “Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological
innovation capabilities and firm performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1,
pp. 2891-2902.
Carraher, S.M., Buchanan, J.K. and Puia, G. (2010), “Entrepreneurial need for achievement in China,
Latvia, and the USA”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 378-396.
Chen, C.-J. and Huang, J.-W. (2009), “Strategic human resource practices and innovation
performance– the mediating role of knowledge management capacity”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 104-114.
Chen, M.-C., Lin, C.-Y., Lin, H.-E. and Mcdonough, E. III (2012), “Does transformational leadership
facilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative culture and incentive
compensation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 239-264.
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q. and Li, J. (2014), “CEOs’ transformational leadership and product EO, TL, and
innovation performance: the roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation”, intrapreneurial
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. S1, pp. 2-17.
intention
Chye, L.T. (2012), “Entrepreneurial orientation and managerial competence: are they complementary or
contradictory to SME performance in Malaysia?”, Newcastle University.
Collins, C.J., Hanges, P.J. and Locke, E.A. (2004), “The relationship of achievement motivation to
entrepreneurial behaviour: a meta-analysis”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 95-117.
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. 7-25.
Crant, J.M. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, p. 42.
Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 435-462.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R.M. and Avellaneda, C.N. (2009), “Combinative effects of innovation types
and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 650-675.
Darzini, B.F. and Khandan, N. (2009), “Role of R&D unit on Entrepreneurship and added value at
SMEs”, Incubators & Science Parks Journal (IN PERSIAN), Vol. 4 No. 14, pp. 34-46.
Davenport, T.H. (2005), Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results from
Knowledge Workers, Harvard Business School Press.
Deconinck, J. and Beth, M. (2013), “The relationship among transformational leadership, supervisory
trust, performance and turnover intentions”, GSTF Business Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, p. 205.
Dess, G.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2005), “The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective
corporate entrepreneurship”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 147-156.
Díaz-García, M. and Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 261-283.
Dimaculangan, E.D. and Aguiling, H.M. (2012), “The effects of transformational leadership on
salesperson’s turnover intention”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 19.
Dollinger, M.J. (2005), Strategies and Resources, Pearson’s Educational, Singapore.
Douglas, E.J. and Fitzsimmons, J.R. (2012), “Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial
intentions: distinct constructs with different antecedents”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 115-132.
Dutta, S. (2013), “An interactive model of employee intrapreneurial behavior”, PhD, Central Michigan
University.
Ekeh, O.L., Nongo, S. and Aloh, P. (2016), “Effect of intrapreneurship on productivity of manufacturing
companies in North Central Nigeria”, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 32-48.
Ekpe, I. and Mat, N. (2012), “The moderating effect of social environment on the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial intentions of female students at Nigerian
universities”, International Journal of Management Sciences and Business, Vol. 1 No. 4.
Elenkov, D.S. and Manev, I.M. (2005), “Top management leadership and influence on innovation:
the role of sociocultural context”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 381-402.
Ferreira, F.A., Jalali, M.S., Bento, P., Marques, C.S. and Ferreira, J.J. (2016), “Enhancing individual
entrepreneurial orientation measurement using a metacognitive decision making-based
framework”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 327-346.
IJEBR Ferreira, J.J., Azevedo, S.G. and Ortiz, R.F. (2011), “Contribution of resource-based view and
entrepreneurial orientation on small firm growth/contribución del enfoque de recursos y
capacidades y la orientación emprendedora en el crecimiento de las pequeñas empresas”,
Cuadernos de Gestión, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 95.
Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, Sage.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G.L. and Sobrero, M. (2012), “The determinants of corporate
entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 387-414.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and
research”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5, pp. 177-189.
Fitzsimmons, J.R. and Douglas, E.J. (2011), “Interaction between feasibility and desirability
in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 431-440.
Forlani, D. and Mullins, J.W. (2000), “Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs’ new venture
decisions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 305-322.
Fynn, C.A. (2005), A Founder’s Strategy and Entrepreneurial Leadership are Critical Elements in
Growing and Developing a Mid-Sized Venture, University of Pretoria.
Galende, J. and De La Fuente, J.M. (2003), “Internal factors determining a firm’s innovative behaviour”,
Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 715-736.
Gartner, W. and Bellamy, M. (2008), Creating the Enterprise, Cengage Learning.
Gil-Pechuan, I., Exposito-Langa, M. and Tomas-Miquel, J.V. (2013), “International entrepreneurship in
SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Gilley, A. and Dixon, P. (2008), “Characteristics of leadership effectiveness: implementing change and
driving innovation in organizations”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 153-169.
Golestanizadeh, M. and Zavaripour, R.H. (2014), “The role of entrepreneurship in economic
development and resistive economy”, Second National Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Sustainable Management, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, 15-16 October.
Green, A.E., Miller, E.A. and Aarons, G.A. (2013), “Transformational leadership moderates the
relationship between emotional exhaustion and turnover intention among community mental
health providers”, Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 373-379.
Green, J.V. (2016), The Opportunity Analysis Canvas for Corporate Entrepreneurs, CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform.
Groen, A.J. (2005), “Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship in networks: towards a multi-level/multi
dimensional approach”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Gumusluoglu, L. and Ilsev, A. (2009), “Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational
innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 461-473.
Gumusluoğlu, L. and Ilsev, A. (2009), “Transformational leadership and organizational innovation:
the roles of internal and external support for innovation”, The Journal of Product Innovation
Gupta, V.K., Turban, D.B., Wasti, S.A. and Sikdar, A. (2009), “The role of gender stereotypes in
perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 397-417.
Gursoy, A. and Guven, B. (2016), “Effect of innovative culture on intrapreneurship”, International
Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 152-162.
Hair, J.F. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education, London and
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamidi, D.Y., Wennberg, K. and Berglund, H. (2008), “Creativity in entrepreneurship education”, EO, TL, and
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 304-320. intrapreneurial
Hamstra, M.R.W., Van Yperen, N.W., Wisse, B. and Sassenberg, K. (2011), “Transformational- intention
transactional leadership styles and followers’ regulatory focus: fit reduces followers’ turnover
intentions”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 182-186.
Hayton, J.C. (2005), “Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management
practices: a review of empirical research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 21-41.
Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. (2009), Organizational Behavior, South-West Cengage Learning,
Mason, OH.
Hisrich and Kearney, C. (2012), Corporate Entrepreneurship: How to Create a Thriving Entrepreneurial
Spirit throughout Your Company, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Hisrich, R.D., Peters, M.P. and Shepherd, D.A. (2010), Entrepreneurship, McGrawHill, New York.
Horwitz, F.M., Heng, C.T. and Quazi, H.A. (2003), “Finders, keepers? Attracting, motivating and
retaining knowledge workers”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 23-44.
Huarng, K.-H. and Yu, T.H.-K. (2011), “Entrepreneurship, process innovation and value creation by a
non-profit SME”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 284-296.
Hughes, M. and Morgan, R.E. (2007), “Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 651-661.
Hull, D.L., Bosley, J.J. and Udell, G.G. (1980), “Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: identifying
potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 11.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity,
and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 635-672.
Ibrahim, N. and Mas’ud, A. (2016), “Moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship
between entrepreneurial skills, environmental factors and entrepreneurial intention: a PLS
approach”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 225-236.
Ibrahim, N.A. and Lucky, E.O.-I. (2014), “Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation,
entrepreneurial skills, environmental factor and entrepreneurial intention among Nigerian
students in UUM”, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 203-213.
Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Kuratko, D.F. (2009), “Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship
strategy”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 19-46.
Ismail, K., Anuar, M.A., Omar, W.Z.W., Aziz, A.A., Seohod, K. and Akhtar, C.S. (2015), “Entrepreneurial
intention, entrepreneurial orientation of faculty and students towards commercialization”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 181, pp. 349-355.
Johannisson, B. and Mønsted, M. (1997), “Contextualizing entrepreneurial networking: the case of
Scandinavia”, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 109-136.
Jung, D. and Wu, A. (2008), “Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs’
transformational leadership on firm innovation”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 582-594.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4-5, pp. 525-544.
Kahl, J.A. (1965), “Some measurements of achievement orientation”, Studies in Comparative
International Development, Vol. 1 No. 13, pp. 199-211.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D. and Voelpel, S.C. (2009), “When and how diversity benefits teams:
the importance of team members’ need for cognition”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 581-598.
IJEBR Keyes, J. (2008), Identifying the Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Intensive Organizations,
New Art Technologies.
Khan, B.A. and Budhwani, Z.R. (2011), “Practicing the intrapreneurship: a case of service-sector firms
in Pakistan”, Journal of Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Kickul, J. and Gundry, L. (2002), “Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial
personality and small firm innovation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 85-97.
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. 213-225.
Kobia, M. and Sikalieh, D. (2010), “Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 110-127.
Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R. (1995), “The effects of transformational leadership on teacher
attitudes and student performance in Singapore”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 319-333.
Kollmann, T., Christofor, J. and Kuckertz, A. (2007), “Explaining individual entrepreneurial orientation:
Conceptualisation of a cross-cultural research framework”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 325-340.
Kostopoulos, K.C., Spanos, Y.E. and Prastacos, G.P. (2002), “The resource-based view of the firm and
innovation: identification of critical linkages”, European Academy of Management Conference,
Stockholm, 9-11 May.
Kotrlik, J.W.K.J.W. and Higgins, C. (2001), “Organizational research: determining appropriate sample
size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research”, Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, p. 43.
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N.J. and Shoham, A. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation and international
entrepreneurial business venture startup”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Krueger, N.F. (1993), “The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-91.
Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Hornsby, J.S. (2005), “A model of middle‐level managers’
entrepreneurial behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 699-716.
Larson, A. and Starr, J.A. (1993), “A network model of organisation formation”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 5-16.
Lau, T.L., Shaffer, M.A., Chan, K.F. and Man, T.W.Y. (2012), “The entrepreneurial behaviour inventory:
a simulated incident method to assess corporate entrepreneurship”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 673-696.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H. and Veiga, J.F. (2008), “Transformational leadership’s role in
promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 557-576.
Liu, Y. and Defrank, R.S. (2013), “Self-interest and knowledge-sharing intentions: the impacts of
transformational leadership climate and HR practices”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1151-1164.
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. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2001), “Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm
performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 429-451.
Mcclelland, D. (1980), “Motive dispositions: the merits of operant and respondent measures”, Review of EO, TL, and
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 10-41. intrapreneurial
Mcclelland, D.C. (1967), Achieving Society, Simon and Schuster. intention
Mcclelland, D.C. (1985), “How motives, skills, and values determine what people do”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 40 No. 7, p. 812.
Mcfadzean, E., O’loughlin, A. and Shaw, E. (2005), “Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 1:
the missing link”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 350-372.
Mcgowan, R. and Hu, K. (2014), “Innovation policy and corporate R&D”, Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Organization Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Maddi, S.R. (1989), Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis, Dorsey Press.
Madsen, E.L. (2007), “The significance of sustained entrepreneurial orientation on performance of firms –
a longitudinal analysis”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-204.
Maier, V. and Zenovia, C.P. (2011), “Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship”, Review of International
Comparative Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 971-976.

Manafi, M. and Subramaniam, I.D. (2015), “The role of the perceived justice in the relationship between
human resource management practices and knowledge sharing: a study of Malaysian
universities lecturers”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. 131.
Manimala, M.J. (1992), “Entrepreneurial heuristics: a comparison between high PL (pioneering-
innovative) and low PI ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 477-504.
Maritz, A. (2010), “Networking, entrepreneurship and productivity in universities”, Innovation:
Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 18-25.
Marques, C.E., Ferreira, J.M., Ferreira, F.F. and Lages, M.S. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
motivation to start up a business: evidence from the health service industry”, International
Martiarena, A. (2013), “What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs?”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Maslow, A.H., Frager, R., Fadiman, J., Mcreynolds, C. and Cox, R. (1970), Motivation and Personality,
Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Meng, J. (1995), “Fostering innovation and intrapreneurship in an R&D organization”, DTIC Document,
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER NEWPORT DIV RI, Washington DC.
Menzel, H.C., Aaltio, I. and Ulijn, J.M. (2007), “On the way to creativity: engineers as intrapreneurs in
organizations”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 732-743.
Michaelis, B. and Stegmaier, R. (2010), “Shedding light on followers’ innovation implementation
behavior: the role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, and climate for
initiative”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 408-429.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management Science,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-791.
Miller, D. (2011), “Miller (1983) revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the
future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 873-894.
Mol, M.J. and Birkinshaw, J. (2009), “The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new
management practices”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 12, pp. 1269-1280.
Monsen, E., Patzelt, H. and Saxton, T. (2010), “Beyond simple utility: incentive design and trade-offs for
corporate employee-entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 105-130.
Moriano, J., Molero, F., Topa, G. and Lévy Mangin, J.-P. (2014), “The influence of transformational
leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship”, International
Morris, M., Kuratko, D. and Covin, J. (2010), Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Cengage
Learning.
IJEBR Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2001), “Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of
locus of control and innovativeness”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-75.
Naman, J.L. and Slevin, D.P. (1993), “Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical
tests”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-153.
Neergaard, H. and Madsen, H. (2004), “Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship in a social capital
perspective”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 105-125.
O’donnell, A. (2004), “The nature of networking in small firms”, Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 206-217.
Okhomina, D. (2007), “Does level of education influence psychological traits? Evidence from used car
entrepreneurs”, Academy of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 43.
Oviatt, B.M. and Mcdougall, P.P. (2005), “Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling
the speed of internationalization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 537-554.
Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Firm, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Pfeffer, J. (2010), Power: Why Some People Have it and Others Don’t, 1st ed., HarperBusiness.
Pihie, L. and Akmaliah, Z. (2008), “An analysis of academic experience to develop entrepreneurial
attributes and motivation among at-risk students”, The International Journal of Learning,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 207-218.
Pinchot, G. (1985), Intrapreneuring: Why You Don’t Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an
Entrepreneur, Harper & Row.
Pinchot, G. and Pellman, R. (1999), Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook for Business Innovation,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Podolski, P. (2016), “The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviours
stimulating creativity and intrapreneurship of employees”, Knowledge Economy Society, Cracow,
p. 381.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Politis, J. and Politis, D. (2009), “The relationship of mainstream leadership styles to entrepreneurial
orientation”, The 5th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance, Greece,
5-6 November.
Pradhan, R.K. and Nath, P. (2012), “Perception of entrepreneurial orientation and emotional intelligence;
a study on India’s future techno-managers”, Global Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-108.
Prieto, L.C. (2010), The Influence of Proactive Personality on Social Entrepreneurial Intentions among
African American and Hispanic Undergraduate Students: The Moderating Role of Hope, Georgia
Southern University.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and
empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.
Runyan, R., Droge, C. and Swinney, J. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation versus small business
orientation: what are their relationships to firm performance?”, Journal of Small Business
Saha, K. and Hajela, A. (2015), “Networking as inherent dimension of entrepreneurial orientation”,
WEI International Academic Conference, Harvard, 8-10 June.
Salavou, H. (2004), “The concept of innovativeness: should we need to focus?”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Sauka, A. (2008), Productive, Unproductive and Destructive Entrepreneurship: A Theoretical and
Empirical Exploration, Peter Lang.
Schallenkamp, K. and Smith, W.L. (2009), “Networking and entrepreneurial ventures”, International
Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 230-239.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of EO, TL, and
individual innovation in the workplace”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, intrapreneurial
pp. 580-607.
intention
Sebora, T.C. and Theerapatvong, T. (2010), “Corporate entrepreneurship: a test of external and internal
influences on managers’ idea generation, risk taking, and proactiveness”, International
Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J.J. (1999), “Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 11-27.
Shatouri, R.M., Omar, R. and Ismail, W.K.W. (2012), “Endeavoring innovation via research
and development management: a case of Iranian industrial sector”, International Journal of
Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 9,
pp. 2392-2396.
Shirokova, G., Bogatyreva, K., Beliaeva, T. and Puffer, S. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm
performance in different environmental settings: contingency and configurational approaches”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 703-727.
Smart, D.T. and Conant, J.S. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing competencies
and organizational performance”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 28-38.
Solesvik, M. (2013), “Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education
major”, Education+Training, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 722-740.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C.J. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 17-27.
Stewart, W.H. Jr, Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., Watson, W.E. and Sweo, R. (2003), “Entrepreneurial
dispositions and goal orientations: a comparative exploration of United States and Russian
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Taatila, V. and Down, S. (2012), “Measuring entrepreneurial orientation of university”,
Education + Training, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 744-760.
Tajeddini, K. and Mueller, S. (2012), “Corporate entrepreneurship in Switzerland: evidence from a case
study of Swiss watch manufacturers”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 355-372.
Taormina, R.J. and Lao, S.K.-M. (2007), “Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivation”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 200-221.
Thompson, E.R. (2009), “Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification and development
of an internationally reliable metric”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 669-694.
Thorgren, S., Wincent, J. and Örtqvist, D. (2009), “A cause-effect study of inter-firm networking and
corporate entrepreneurship: initial evidence of self-enforcing spirals”, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 355-373.
Toledano, N., Urbano, D. and Bernadich, M. (2010), “Networks and corporate entrepreneurship:
a comparative case study on family business in Catalonia”, Journal of Organizational Change
Ulhøi, J.P. (2005), “The social dimensions of entrepreneurship”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 939-946.
Vedadi, A., Kheiri, B. and Abbasalizadeh, M. (2011), “The relationship between cultural intelligence
and achievement: a case study in an Iranian company”, Iranian Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 25-38.
Vora, D., Vora, J. and Polley, D. (2012), “Applying entrepreneurial orientation to a medium sized firm”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 352-379.
Wang, C.-J., Tsai, H.-T. and Tsai, M.-T. (2014), “Linking transformational leadership and employee
creativity in the hospitality industry: the influences of creative role identity, creative
self-efficacy, and job complexity”, Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 79-89.
IJEBR Welbourne, T.M., Neck, H. and Meyer, G.D. (2012), “The entrepreneurial growth ceiling: using people
and innovation to mitigate risk and break through the growth ceiling in initial public offerings”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 778-796.
Welty Peachey, J., Burton, L.J. and Wells, J.E. (2014), “Examining the influence of transformational
leadership, organizational commitment, job embeddedness, and job search behaviors on
turnover intentions in intercollegiate athletics”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 740-755.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
White, R.W. (1959), “Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence”, Psychological Review, Vol. 66
No. 5, p. 297.
Winarno, P. (2010), “Intrapreneurial attitude and its correlation with corporate culture, leadership style,
and employees achievement motivation”.
Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M. and Moynihan, L.M. (2003), “The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 21-36.
Wu, J. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial intent and new venture creation: test of a
framework in a Chinese context”, PhD, Virginia Tech.
Wu, S., Matthews and Dagher, G.K. (2007), “Need for achievement, business goals, and entrepreneurial
persistence”, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 928-941.
Yang, C.-C., Marlow, P.B. and Lu, C.-S. (2009), “Assessing resources, logistics service capabilities,
innovation capabilities and the performance of container shipping services in Taiwan”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 4-20.
Yeh, Q.J. and Lai, M.K. (2001), “Advancement intentions and job attitudes – a study on the career
setting of high tech engineers in Taiwan”, R&D Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Yitshaki, R. (2012), “How do entrepreneurs’ emotional intelligence and transformational leadership
orientation impact new ventures’ growth?”, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 357-374.
Yukl, G.A. (2010), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and
extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 5.
Zampetakis, L.A., Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C. and Moustakis, V. (2011), “Creativity and entrepreneurial
intention in young people: empirical insights from business school students”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 189-199.
Zhang, D.D. and Bruning, E. (2011), “Personal characteristics and strategic orientation: entrepreneurs
in Canadian manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Further reading
Kuratko, D.F. and Welsch, H.P. (2003), “Strategic entrepreneurial growth”, Recording for the
Blind & Dyslexic.
Corresponding author
Seyed Hadi Razavi can be contacted at: hadi.dba@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

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

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

The dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation, transformational leadership,

Permanent link to this document:

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

EO, TL, and

transformational leadership, and

result in further intrapreneurial intention, as well as lead to intrapreneurial behaviors

Intrapreneurship and intrapreneurial intentions

Research model and hypotheses

Risk taking H1c Intrapreneurial

I consider myself as an innovative person 3.24 (0.900)

Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways 3.35 (0.965)

II ← Need for achievement 0.001 0.045 0.001 0.014 0.989

Model NPAR CMIN df P CMIN/df

Model df CMIN P Table V.

Comparative Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 971-976.

Potrebbero piacerti anche