Corporate entrepreneurs or silent followers?

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to explore how employee attitudes affect management behaviour in the corporate entrepreneurship (CE) setting. The paper focuses on the co‐evolutionary processes of practices and elements of the social structure, i.e. simultaneous top‐down and bottom‐up influences.Design/methodology/approachOrganisation‐level data from individuals in the Finnish public‐sector health and social care organisation was obtained. The questionnaire comprised Likert‐scale attitude statements on different aspects of management behaviour, enabling structures, and individual attitudes. The data analysed consisted of 523 responses. Factor analysis and reliability tests were used to create aggregated measures for different CE antecedents and hierarchical regression analysis in order to test the causal model derived from the previous literature.FindingsEmpirical evidence of the crucial role of individual attitudes and action in CE was found, thus indicating that certain attitude types influence management behaviour. Straightforward communication emerged as the most important bottom‐up modality in that it is needed if individual attitudes are to influence managers.Originality/valueThe results challenge and complement previous research in the field of CE in recognising the crucial role of individual employees. The findings suggest that CE is not catalysed from the bottom up by silent followers, even though superiors find them comfortable to manage. It is rather the self‐confident and satisfied corporate entrepreneurs with initiative who critically question the existing working modes and thus catalyse CE. Finally, suggestions for further research were offered.

Contextual Determinants of Employee Entrepreneurial Behavior in Support of Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

“…likelihood that employees will ignore formal structures when promoting their ideas and gathering their own resources to support their bootlegging efforts Heinonen and Toivonen (2008) Leadership and Org Development J.…”

“…A total of 5 studies attempt to link employee entrepreneurial behavior to firm-level entrepreneurship. For instance, Brunaker and Kurvinen (2006), Heinonen and Toivonen (2008) and Belousova and Gailly (2013) showed how managers willingness to challenge the status quo and act as change agents could bring about CE. However, only two studies considered how employee entrepreneurial behavior can further stimulate pro-organizational behaviors and attitudes such as increased job satisfaction and commitment as well as an increased willingness to search out useful information (Park, Kim and Krishna, 2014;Rutherfold and Holt, 2007) In addition to thematic diversity, the sample articles also adopted different methodological approaches.…”

“…Individual risk-taking emerged as the third most common dimension of employee entrepreneurial behavior. Individual risk-taking includes challenging the existing status quo (Heinonen and Toivonen, 2008) by boldly moving forward with initiatives (Brunaker and Kurvinen, 2006) or deliberately cutting through red tape (Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2007;. Such risk-taking behaviors appear to be different from that at the firm-level which often involves venturing into the unknown, borrowing heavily or committing significant resources to unknown environments (Rauch et al, 2009), and may also take place without the explicit permission of management.…”

“…Specifically, management's positive attitudes towards innovative and entrepreneurial behaviors (Amo and Kolvereid, 2005;Park, Kim and Krishna, 2014) and their willingness to provide ongoing support (Kurtako et al, 2005b;Rutherford and Holt, 2007) was identified as raising employee's awareness and interest in entrepreneurship. Also, the role of managers in championing employee's initiative and acting as change agents also emerged as a source of motivation for employees entrepreneurial behavior (Heinonen and Toivonen, 2008;Kurtako et al, 2005b). For example, Belousova and Gailly (2013) showed how the promotional behavior of managers in the form of facilitating feedback, evaluation, continuous adjustment and experimentation facilitated entrepreneurial process.…”

“…This can, in turn, lead to the enhanced commitment of employees in decision-making processes and trust between management and employees (Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013). With regards to processes, various formal management processes which allow strategic autonomy (Globocnik and Salomo, 2015;Hornsby et al, 2009;Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013) and encourage open communication (Åmo and Kolvereid 2005;Heinonen and Toivonen, 2008;Park, Kim and Krishna, 2014;Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2007) were identified as relevant factors in ensuring an entrepreneurially friendly work environments (Kuratko et al, 2005b) and strengthening the commitment and participation of employees (Park, Kim and Krishna, 2014;Valsania, Moriano and Molero, 2016). Formalization of systems and process further ensures that resources, such as finances and coaching and training activities (Wakkee, Elfring and Monaghan, 2010;Zampetakis and Moustakis, 2007) are made available and distributed accordingly to support employee entrepreneurial behaviors (Kurtako et al, 2005b;Hornsby et al, 2009;Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013;Rutherford and Holt, 2007).…”