Keywords

Intrapreneurship, Intrapreneur Behavior, Intrapreneur Culture, Intrapreneur Structural Roles, Academician, Higher Education.

Introduction

Changing environmental scenario drives organizations to have competitive advantage. The most preferred means to achieve this is by innovation and this is true of educational institutions also. Successful intrapreneurial implementations in this context include quality, quantity, formal controls, organizational support, employee training and organizational values (Zahra, 1991; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Demirbag et al., 2006; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Organizations have identified many areas of intrapreneurship to become successful. There is a general tendency and ability to engage in intrapreneurship activities by the organizations that have rich resources compared to organizations with light resources (Ireland, et al, 2009). Researchers have adopted many means to measure the success of Intrapreneurs. This aspect inter alia focuses on different levels, focal areas, culture, and structural roles. Intrapreneurship research has evolved into three focal areas. One of the focal area identifies and encourages intrapreneur (Pinchot, 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Ross, 1987; Knight 1989; McKinney and McKinney, 1989; Jones and Butler, 1995; Jennings et al., 1994) recognizing the intrapreneur’s characteristics. The behavior of the intrapreneurs is a major characteristic that impacts the activities of the intrapreneurship in any organization. The first focal area recognizes and supports the entrepreneurs, the main emphasis being on the intrapreneurs characteristics. The other focal area touches the formation of new ventures (Vesper, 1984; Burgelman, 1985; Carrier, 1994; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Yet another area emphasises on the entrepreneurial organizations (Rule and Irwin, 1988; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Merrifield, 1993; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994). The intrapreneurship is affected to a larger extent by multiple factors. The level of intrapreneurship is affected by three key variables: individual, organization, and external environment (Mohanty 2006). The development of intrapreneurship varies on the area and the type of the organization and also on different levels. Intrapreneurship occurs on two levels: the level of the organization and on the level of the individual (Antoncic and Antoncic 2011). Culture is another major dimension which highly supports the growth and adaptation of intrapreneurship. Dess and Lumpkin (2005) propose that organizational culture is a strong stimulus for innovation that impacts the intrapreneurship process. Despite a higher number of research on Intrapreneurship covering different areas of work, the domain of higher education is relatively new and needs exploration. Educational institutions have started to recognize the importance of intrapreneurship. Academicians form the backbone of the developmental works of intrapreneurs and Intrapreneur behavior remains inextricable, linked to the process of intrapreneurship.

Hypothesis

The review of literature indicates limited research work in Intrapreneurship in Higher Education. Intrapreneurial behavior changes from time to time, from the initiation of ideas de novo to its implementation. Other factors also affect the intrapreneur behavior and therefore it is interesting to study the intrapreneur behavior which leads to framing a hypothesis as under:

H0: The intrapreneurial behavior of Academicians is affected uniformly by IntraCul, IntraStr, Gender, Age, Income, Level and Type of the Intrapreneurs.

Methods

Data are collected with a questionnaire administered to Academic Intrapreneurs. The participants comprised 600 academicians from different Universities, Affiliated Institutions and Autonomous Institutions of Higher Education in Bangalore. This study is exploratory in nature and primary data is collected from the respondents identifying 25% of the population from the identified quota. The population comprises of 24 Universities, 11 Autonomous Institutions and 205 Affiliated Colleges who have recognized Intrapreneurships in Bangalore. The questionnaire intends to gauge the effect of Age, Gender, Income, Level and Type of Intrapreneurs on the Intrapreneur behavior. Two indicators were developed in addition to these independent variables identified as IntraCult and IntraStr. IntraCult measures the cultural effects such as values, belief, attitudes, behavior and surrounding conditions. IntraStr measures the structural roles such as recognizing teaching experience, recognizing industrial experience, recognizing ideas and support provided. Intrapreneur behavior is measured by the ten freedoms as formulated by Pinchot (1985), of which four freedoms are considered in the study. A detailed account of the classification is shown in Table 1. In essence, IntraCult is about the Cultural environment of the Academician Intrapreneurs in higher education and IntraStr is about the Structural Roles of the Academician Intrapreneurs in higher education.

Table 1 Operationalization of Variables
Variable	Operationalization and Measurement
Intrapreneur – Freedoms	The freedoms as formulated by Pinchot (1985) of which the following are considered for the study 1)Self Determination 2) Tolerance of Risk 3) Rewards 4) Freedom
IntraCul - Cultural indicators	Cultural Indicators comprises of 1)Values  2) Beliefs 3) Attitude 4) Behaviour 5) Surrounding Condition
IntraStr – Structural Role Indicators	Structural Indicator comprises of 1)Recognition of Teaching  Experience 2) Recognition of Industrial Experience 3) Recognition of new ideas 4) Support provided – Availability of the resource affecting Intrapreneurship
Gender	Academician Intrapreneur –Male and Female
Age	Academician Intrapreneur  in three age groups; 25 – 35 Years, 35 – 50 Years and Above 50 Years
Income	Academician Intrapreneur  in three group classification; 0.25-0.5 million, 0.5-1 million and Above 1 million (Indian Rupees)
Level	Academician Intrapreneur  in three levels – University, Autonomous and Affiliated Institutions
Type	Academician Intrapreneur  in four types – Employee, Creator, Doer and Implementer

Results and Discussion

Data are analyzed with Analysis of Variance. The results are in Tables 2 & 3. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics of the independent variables. Most responses tilt in towards the responses being neutral on the opinion of Cultural Indicators (58.5%) and also Structural Role Indicators (47.33%). A contrasting feature in the opinion of these two variables is discerned. The seven respondents (1.17%) who opine Cultural Indicators being very good (SD = 0.9) and 6 respondents (1%) opine Structural Role Indicator being very poor (SD = 1.265) evidences this. The data has more female respondents (59.83%) compared to male respondents (40.17%). A higher number of respondents (47%) are aged between 35 and 50 years. Lower number of respondents draws income between 0.5 to 1 million (24%). The sample has more responses from affiliated institutions (85%). The SD of these variables is more uniform. The lowest number of respondents are implementer type of intrapreneurs (10.67%) but has higher SD (0.826)

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Intrapreneur Behavior
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error
Intra Cult [IntraCul]	Very Poor	5	3.60	0.894	0.400
	Poor	123	3.07	.776	0.070
	Neutral	351	3.18	.787	0.042
	Good	114	3.07	.620	0.058
	Very Good	7	3.14	.900	0.340
Intra Structural Roles [IntraStr]	Very Poor	6	3.00	1.265	0.516
	Poor	117	3.13	.726	0.067
	Neutral	284	3.12	.764	0.045
	Good	177	3.18	.762	0.057
	Very Good	16	3.13	.719	0.180
Gender	Male	241	3.15	.743	0.048
	Female	359	3.13	.770	0.041
Age	25 -35 Years	198	3.16	.743	0.053
	35 - 50 Years	282	3.12	.759	0.045
	Above 50 Years	120	3.13	.788	0.072
Income	0.25 - 0.5 million	298	3.14	.742	0.043
	0.5 to 1 million	144	3.10	.760	0.063
	Above 1 million	158	3.17	.792	0.063
Level	University	60	3.25	.751	0.097
	Autonomous	30	3.23	.728	0.133
	Affiliated	510	3.12	.761	0.034
Type	Employee	140	3.16	.774	0.065
	Creator	329	3.12	.733	0.040
	Doer	67	3.18	.796	0.097
	Implementer	64	3.13	.826	0.103

Table 3 Results of Anova for Intrapreneur Behavior
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
IntraCul	Between IntraCul	2.769	4	0.692	1.204	0.308
	Within IntraCul	342.024	595	0.575
	Total	344.793	599
IntraStr	Between IntraStr	0.586	4	0.147	0.253	0.908
	Within IntraStr	344.207	595	0.578
	Total	344.793	599
Gender	Between Gender	0.065	1	0.065	0.113	0.737
	Within Gender	344.728	598	0.576
	Total	344.793	599
Age	Between Age	0.198	2	0.099	0.171	0.843
	Within Age	344.596	597	0.577
	Total	344.793	599
Income	Between Income	0.409	2	0.205	0.355	0.701
	Within Income	344.384	597	0.577
	Total	344.793	599
Level	Between Level	1.235	2	0.618	1.073	.342
	Within Level	343.558	597	0.575
	Total	344.793	599
Type	Between Type	0.344	3	0.115	0.199	0.897
	Within Type	344.449	596	0.578
	Total	344.793	599

The analysis show that the Intrapreneur behavior neither varies with IntraCul, nor does it vary with IntraStr. The academician intrapreneurs show more uniformity in their approach. However, the interesting feature of this study is that the respondent’s opinion is also more uniform among the other variables – Gender, Age, Income, Level and Type of the Intrapreneurs. Intrapreneur in higher education happens in all the levels (University, Affiliated and Autonomous Institutions) but the Intrapreneur behavior remains same across all these levels. The study emphasizes the importance attached to intrapreneurship by all the higher education types. The study indicates that all the variables show uniform approach of the Intrapreneur behavior. The academicians’ enthusiasm to exhibit and carry on with intrapreneur exercises is not differentiated by any of the variables considered in the study suggesting the value of the intrapreneurship is always held high despite differences existing between the respondents. Intrapreneurship has been around for nearly four decades and is relatively a new area compared to entrepreneurial activities. However, intrapreneurship activities in higher education are still nascent and not much work has been carried out in this domain. This could be probably a strong reason behind a very high consensus that the study has revealed.

Conclusion

This study focuses how intrapreneur behaviour is affected by the cultural and structural indicators inter alia the age, income, level, type of intraprenuership among the academicians. The study reveals that all these affect the intrapreneur behaviour uniformly ( p>0.05). In essence, all the variables contemplated in the study showing a higher uniformity in approach blurs the potential of an individual variable over the other in affecting the intrapreneur behaviour. However, Intrapreneurship happens in higher education and its purpose is recognized by the intrapreneurs, irrespective of the level of the institutions or the type of the intrapreneurs. This study contributes to the literature on intrapreneurship. The topic on intrapreneur being relatively new in origin offers plethora of promises for enthusiastic researchers. Expansion in the variables and covering different regions may provide granular details of the variables affecting Intrapreneur behaviour.

References

Antoncic, B. & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship; Construct Refinement and Crosscultural Validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527

Google Scholar , Cross Ref

Antonic, J.A., & Antonic, B (2011). Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 589-607

Indexed at, Google Scholar , Cross Ref

Burgelman, R. A (1985), Managing the new venture division; research findings and implications for strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol 6(1), 39-54

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Carrier, C. (1994), Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: a comparative study.  International Small Business Journal, Vol 12(3), 54-61

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., Tekinkus, M. & Zaim, S (2006). An analysis of the relationship between Total Quality Management Implementation and Organizational Performance Turkish SMEs. Jorunal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(6), 829-847

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 147-156.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic management journal, 5-15.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(1), 19-46.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Jennings, R., Cox, C. and Cooper, C.L. (1994), Business Elites: The Psychology of Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs, Routledge, New York, NY

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory perspective. Journal of management, 18(4), 733-749.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Knight, R. M. (1989). Technological innovation in Canada: A comparison of independent entrepreneurs and corporate innovators. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(4), 281-288.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Krueger Jr, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18(3), 91-104.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Luchsinger, V., & Bagby, D. R. (1987). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Behaviors, comparisons, and contrasts. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 10.

Google Scholar

McKinney, G., & McKinney, M. (1989). Forget the corporate umbrella-entrepreneurs shine in the rain. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(4), 77.

Google Scholar

Merrifield, D.B. (1993), Intrapreneurial corporate renewal, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 8(5), 383-9

Mohanty, R. P. (2006). Intrapreneurial levers in cultivating value-innovative mental space in Indian corporations. Vikalpa, 31(1), 99-106.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Pinchot III, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Google Scholar

Ross, J. (1987). Corporations and entrepreneurs: Paradox and opportunity. Business Horizons, 30(4), 76-80.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rule, E. G., & Irwin, D. W. (1988). Fostering intrapreneurship: The new competitive edge. The journal of business strategy, 9(3), 44.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Stevenson, H.H and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11, 17-27

Stopford, J.M. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994), Creating corporate entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 15(7), 521-36

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Vesper, K. H. (1984), Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship, in Hornaday. J. A et.al (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, 294-320

Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of business venturing, 6(4), 259-285.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 19-Mar-2024, Manuscript No. AMSJ-24-14626; Editor assigned: 20-Mar-2024, PreQC No. AMSJ-24-14626(PQ); Reviewed: 10-May-2024, QC No. AMSJ-24-14626; Revised: 28-Jun-2024, Manuscript No. AMSJ-24-14626(R); Published: 16-Jul-2024