Content uploaded by Tony Ward
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tony Ward on Jan 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Metamorphosis of intrapreneurship as an effective
organizational strategy
Bidyut Baruah &Anthony Ward
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract The current economic environment is getting progressively more competitive,
demanding and challenging for most organizations. Organizations are currently
witnessing a significant rise in globalization trends and revolutionary changes in technol-
ogies. This gives rise to several organizational complexities and in order to survive and be
successful, organizations need to tackle them by constantly working on their products,
services and business models to maintain a competitive advantage. This paper reviews
some of the key literature in the intrapreneurial research field and discusses how
intrapreneurship can be an effective solution for managing innovation progression in
different organizations and thereby resolving a range of such complexities.
Intrapreneurship as an organizational concept has evolved substantially over the years
and this review highlights how several organizations have now adopted intrapreneurial
initiatives to derive distinct benefits. An innovation culture attained through such intra-
preneurial initiatives can lead to considerable organizational development in terms of firm
performance, innovativeness, profitability and competitiveness. Top management leaders
should therefore prioritize intrapreneurship while structuring their management strategies.
Keywords Intrapreneurship .Intrapreneurs .Innovation .Organizational complexities .
Firm performance
Introduction
Intrapreneurship is a term that describes the innovation practice within an organization
through which employees undertake new business activities and pursue different
Int Entrep Manag J
DOI 10.1007/s11365-014-0318-3
B. Baruah (*)
Engineering Education and Management Research Group, PP104, Department of Electronics, The
University of York, York, UK
e-mail: bjb511@york.ac.uk
A. Ward
Engineering Education and Management Research Group, PP108, Department of Electronics, The
University of York, York, UK
e-mail: tony.ward@york.ac.uk
opportunities. Ping et al (2010) highlight that the essence of intrapreneurship is to
obtain innovation in every aspect which then leads to their transformation into business
value. However, Pinchot (1985) believes intrapreneurship to be more than just a way of
increasing the level of innovation and productivity of organizations. For him, it also
signifies a way of organizing vast businesses through which work can become a joyful
expression of people’s contribution towards the society. In more recent times Mohanty
(2006) observes that the concept of intrapreneurship has essentially become an ap-
proach that can be systematically adopted in an attempt to define specific strategies and
action plans that can help in order to incorporate significant employee contributions.
The aim of this paper is to explore different literature and present an up-to-date
account of intrapreneurship as an organizational strategy. The first section of the paper
will cover the developmental aspects of intrapreneurship as a concept and its metamor-
phosis. Later sections will highlight some of the key organizational complexities faced
by organizations in the 21st century and the relevance of intrapreneurship in terms of its
effectiveness. Advantages to tackle such complexities will be discussed followed by the
key challenges in adopting intrapreneurial initiatives in the final section.
Development of intrapreneurship concept
The term ‘intrapreneurship’was first introduced by Gifford and Elizabeth Pinchot in
1978. Miller (1983) gave new insights to the field of intrapreneurial research by
highlighting the concept of entrepreneurship at the enterprise level. Miller suggested
that firm level entrepreneurship can be considered in terms of the firm’s ability to
innovate, take risks and compete proactively. Scholars such as Pinchot (1985), Rule
and Irwin (1988), Guth and Ginsberg (1990), Zahra (1995), Antoncic and Hisrich (2001,
2003) and Ping et al. (2010) have then explored these entrepreneurial dynamics within
existing organizations and later conceptualized it as intrapreneurship.
The initial research believed intrapreneurship to be largely the characteristic of large
firms as seen in the prominent works of Schollhammer (1982), Norburn et al (1985),
Pinchot (1985) and Rule and Irwin (1988). In 1992, The American Heritage Dictionary
added the word ‘intrapreneur’to its dictionary defining it as “a person within a large
corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable finished
product through assertive risk-taking and innovation”. Even this definition illustrated the
role of an intrapreneur as someone innovative within a large organization. New light was
shed on the intrapreneurial dynamics of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) by
Carrie (1994) who highlighted the differences in terms of characteristics between SMEs
and large firms. The author identified certain differentiable aspects of intrapreneurship in
terms of structural context, rewards, strategic processes and intrapreneur’s dissatisfaction
in these firms. Carrie (1994) argued that although intrapreneurship is equally important in
both large firms as well as SMEs, due to their divergent properties their consideration
should be from separate viewpoints. Antoncic and Hisrich (2001,2003)thengave
significant evidence to demonstrate that intrapreneurship has substantial impact on
organizational and economic development regardless of the size of an enterprise. For
any organization, they believe that intrapreneurship should be viewed essentially as an
activity-based or activity-oriented concept that takes the organizational products and
services, technologies, structures or operations into new directions.
Int Entrep Manag J
The intrapreneurship concept which was initially an attempt to illustrate the inno-
vation process inside large organizations has now fully evolved into a major strategy
consideration for any organization regardless of their size. This will be further explored
and discussed in more detail in the later part of this paper.
Intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship- the association
Some researchers have closely associated the intrapreneurship concept with that of
entrepreneurship. Bosma et al. (2010) described intrapreneurship as a special type of
entrepreneurship which shares many of its key behavioral characteristics. Some defined
intrapreneurship simply as entrepreneurship within an existing organization (Antoncic
and Hisrich (2001,2003), Ping et al (2010)). Hisrich and Peters (1998)termedthis
concept as the spirit of entrepreneurship. For Anu (2007), intrapreneurship as a concept
is linked to the entrepreneurial orientation of an organization. Intrapreneurs according
to Veronica et al. (2013) are the domestic entrepreneurs as they pursue the interest of
that company while maintaining their focus on innovation and creativity.
Authors such as Morris and Kuratko (2002) however have highlighted some key
differences between these two concepts. For instance, an entrepreneur has to take the
risk and sole responsibility when it comes to start-up entrepreneurship whereas the
company takes the risk on behalf of an intrapreneur. In intrapreneurship, the company
usually owns the concept and intellectual rights whereas for entrepreneurs, it is the
other way round. The writers also point out that comparatively, organizations with an
intrapreneurial culture have more flexibility for management errors but potential
rewards for individual entrepreneurs are unlimited. In this case intrapreneurs have to
rely on their organizational structure and management policies. Organizational
innovative strategies sometimes propel intrapreneurs to make risky decisions using
resources of the company or organization in which they operate whereas for
entrepreneurs, they have to rely and utilize their own resources.
With such key differences being firmly established between these two concepts, the
path for further research in both fields is now clearer and more concise without creating
confusion. Antoncic and Hisrich (2003) agree that “the intrapreneurship concept is
now more clearly positioned in the management literature”. Veronica and Zenovia
(2011) imply that in economically difficult times both entrepreneurship and
intrapreneurship can be excellent tools for breaking out of the trend through innovation
and by bringing something new to the market.
Among recent developments, Gündoğdu (2012) has offered some new insights into
these fields by proposing a new metamorphosed term called ‘innopreneurship’. This is
more of prototype concept that harmonizes its predecessors: entrepreneurship,
intrapreneurship and innovation through an integrative perspective. Taking into con-
sideration the challenges of the current economic situation, Gündoğdu (2012)opines
that traditional entrepreneurs are not sufficient for SMEs as they are unlikely to
succeed. Innopreneurs show the balanced potential and talent to adapt in this dynamic
environment while responding to evolutionary expectations of different customers.
They thereby can be the suitable solution for the problems faced by different SMEs.
This writer has deemed them as a new type of innovation hunter demonstrating
powerful characteristics of a traditional entrepreneur along with the skills of an
Int Entrep Manag J
intrapreneur. Although this concept is at a very preliminary stage of practicality,
Gündoğdu (2012) believes that this innopreneurial mindset will take different organi-
zations towards sustainable competitive advantage in the long run.
Organizational complexities in the 21st century
Pinchot (1985) had strongly emphasized that “The Future is intrapreneurial”.Now
with the current economic environment which is getting progressively more
competitive, demanding and challenging, organizations are struggling with the
management of certain complexities. If the nature of the organizational complexities
is analyzed, they appear to be influenced by certain organizational factors such as
organizational structure, resources and culture and in some cases certain environmental
factors like customer demands and market competition. The traits of modern society
such as extensive globalization, revolutionary changes in technologies and standard of
living act as catalysts in enhancing such complexities. There are the challenges of
keeping up with a balance of innovation dynamics and efficient resource management
as per market competition and then there is the need for creating an interesting and
creative working environment. Such steps are more crucial today as organizations are
faced with severe challenges of high turnovers which might lead to a loss of efficient
intrapreneurs. Clarifying that, Parker (2011) points out that when an employee iden-
tifies a new venture opportunity either internally or externally, the firm usually faces
two choices: they can keep this opportunity a secret so as to quit the firm eventually to
exploit it in a new independent firm or they can choose to disclose it to the firm with the
hope of earning some company profits that arises from this joint development.
However, loss of innovators can have serious impact on the flow and progression of
organizational innovation and which is why Parker (2011) questions if managers can
actually design contracts and work environments to minimize the risk of talented
employees quitting and starting their own ventures. In the current economy where
there is fierce competition among different organizations in order to establish their hold
stronger and firmer in the market, retaining such talented intrapreneurs should become
a top priority for organizations. Any conclusive ways in which to attain that is now a
big concern.
According to a worldwide study conducted by IBM (2010), Chief Executives from
the leading global firms consider the current economic trends as substantially more
volatile, much more uncertain, increasingly complex and structurally different. Such
developmental changes however are part of the new world where the conscious
developments of people and organizations have a part to play (Lessem 1986). Benton
(1996) believes that organizations must have to have a certain amount of competitive
nature to thrive and that competition is a good thing for personal and professional
growth. For Charan (2001)intoday’s business environment, no growth means lagging
behind in a world that grows every day. If companies don’t grow, competitors will
eventually overtake them. Ironically, these organizational complexities can actually
keep the competitive nature of different organizations highly active. In order to survive
and be successful, organizations constantly have to work on their products, services and
business models to maintain that competitive advantage. Intrapreneurs will be actively
engaged with their innovativeness to structure and bring the right developments in their
Int Entrep Manag J
corporations. The competitive advantage for managing organizational complexities can
come from adopting intrapreneurial initiatives as key organizational strategies.
Intrapreneurship as the effective solution for organizational complexities
In order to attain a competitive advantage and strategic renewal within an organiza-
tional framework, a pivotal role is played by organizational innovativeness according to
authors like Dougherty and Hardy (1996), Ellonen et al (2008), Zhang and Bartol
(2010)andBysted(2013). Jong and Wennekers (2008) demonstrated how
intrapreneurship has this element of innovation within its framework and this is why
Nicolaidis and Kosta (2011) recommends adopting intrapreneurship as it comes across
as the unique competitive advantage.
Authors such as Peters and Waterman (1982), Kanter (1984) and Antoncic (2007)
have considered intrapreneurship to be a characteristic of successful organizations.
Organizational complexities can therefore be addressed substantially by creating a
proper route for innovation development and progression which comes from intrapre-
neurial initiatives.
Addressing organizational complexities
Within an organizational framework, organizational complexities can sometimes stem
from the attitude towards innovation and thereby the culture adopted or practiced. For
instance, if a firm is bureaucratic with rigid and conservative policies then such culture
will not encourage innovation. They usually do not tolerate failures or appreciate
innovation outside the firm’s interest. Such circumstances do not create the ideal
platform to innovate as intrapreneurs and their ideas or resources and facilities will
be bound by strong control and restrictions. The communication between different
organizational members will suffer as intrapreneurs will struggle to put forward their
innovative ideas and this can further digress and rupture the growth and progression of
an innovation culture. Morris et al (2008) believe that when intrapreneurs struggle to
execute their innovative ideas, they will most likely get frustrated with the level of
organizational rigidity leading them to consider quitting the job or the project.
Today the competition in the global market is quite fierce and organizations con-
stantly need to adapt and make innovative changes to meet the requirements of different
customers or clients. If the culture within an organization is resistant to change and
reluctant to experiment with new ideas, business models or markets then that might
discourage the enthusiastic spirit of innovators. Fry (1993) highlights that this inherent
resistive nature of organizations can prevent the progression of innovation. According
to Bysted and Jespersen (2013) increasing employees’innovative work behaviour is a
complex process and they believe that it involves developing an internal climate
supportive of idea generation and realization through the use of financial,
participative and decentralization mechanisms.
This now leads us to intrapreneurial firms where the scenario with innovation
progression and encouragement is much different. Hornsby et al (2002) found that
intrapreneurial culture allows employees the freedom in their work processes along
with tolerating failures which then encourages innovation. Baruah and Ward (2013)
Int Entrep Manag J
observe that the opportunities to explore new ideas, ventures and projects and new
technologies can exist within a flexible organizational environment which
intrapreneurship offers along with the resources for innovation practice. Within this
culture, communication trust and support which plays a prominent role gives
employees the enthusiasm and spirit to function as an organizational team and
Scheepers (2011) believes that this helps in achieving organizational objectives. It is
one of the reasons why authors such as Silva et al (2006) and Camelo-ordaz et al (2011)
have observed a strong relationship between intrapreneurship and technological
innovations.
One of the complexities observed in bureaucratic firms are job dissatisfaction
leading to high turnovers. Scheepers (2011) believes that employees who find their
jobs challenging and rewarding may be motivated by the nature of the work they
perform. Antoncic and Antoncic (2011) have identified a critical association among
employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth. They observed that
employee satisfaction comes from organizational and management support and
organizational values which are vital characteristics of intrapreneurial firms. They
found the elements within the employee satisfaction construct to be predictive
activities associated with intrapreneurship. Adding to this, Davis (2009) observes
a strong connection between job satisfaction and creativity and knowledge creation
which according to Bysted (2013) leads to more innovative initiatives and
performance within a firm.
Lankinen et al (2012) observed that intrapreneurs have the potential to find new
combinations of resources that build competitive advantage which can thereby help
them thrive in hostile environments. Scheepers (2011) reports that an intrapreneurial
climate where formal acknowledgement and encouragement of different skills and
talents takes place, financial resources for new initiatives are provided and
organizational freedom are supported can increase the route for innovation. Toftoy
and Chatterjee (2004) have suggested that corporations, by becoming more
intrapreneurial and by initiating a creative working culture, can retain the interest of
different intrapreneurs which can address the complexities associated with turnovers.
Organizational benefits from adopting intrapreneurship
Mohanty (2006) found that paradigm-breaking companies invest and nurture
intrapreneurship from which they can execute effective innovation processes leading
to innovations in new product, services and processes and superior business
performance results. Substantial benefits in terms of profitability and innovativeness,
strategic renewal and performance and international success can be attained from
intrapreneurship and this is why organizations today seem to be adopting
intrapreneurial initiatives. Antoncic (2007) stated that firms which structure
organizational values by aligning towards intrapreneurial activities and orientations
are more likely to have higher growth and profitability in comparison to organizations
that lack such characteristics.
Pinchot (1985) described intrapreneurs as “dreamers who do”. Intrapreneurs being
the smart innovators within an intrapreneurial climate of an organization work on the
design and creation of new ideas, products, ventures and business models and are
thereby an important part of intrapreneurship. By having intrapreneurship within an
Int Entrep Manag J
organizational framework, different companies can now address some of the issues
associated with the organizational complexities.
Pinchot’s prediction about the future being intrapreneurial is quite evident now. The
economic complexities demand the implementation and substantial use of innovative
strategies like intrapreneurship to keep up with the challenges of the environment.
Mohanty (2006) concludes “what is innovative about intrapreneurship today is the
realization that it can be achieved systematically”. With the significant benefits that
organizations can derive from intrapreneurship, it is no doubt that we have come across
a highly relevant time where organizations need to incorporate intrapreneurial dynam-
ics within their key strategies.
The challenges while adopting intrapreneurial initiatives
When the concept of intrapreneurship first arose, some authors did not realize or
acknowledge its potential. For instance, Duncan et al (1988) called intrapreneurs the
‘latest figment of journalist’s imagination’. They considered intrapreneurs to be as rare
as the type of business that might successfully manage them. They strongly believed that
the conventional corporation will not be able to supply and cope with the needs and
requirements of intrapreneurs. They emphasized that although organizations might have
the resources, the climate and culture to nurture intrapreneurs did not exist. However,
today the importance of intrapreneurship has been demonstrated in several literatures.
Large firms like 3 M and IBM who started intrapreneurial trends back in the 80’sstill
have their strategies prioritized within this framework and their glorious successful
history is enough to highlight the impact intrapreneurship has on innovation growth.
As discussed earlier in the paper, innovation can be nourished, facilitated and
developed within an intrapreneurial culture of an organization and today an intrapre-
neurial company is the best possible platform for any intrapreneur to thrive and engage
in the pursuit of organizational innovation and creativity. Innovation, although it plays
an important role for firm’ssurvivalintoday’s competitive environment, it can be quite
chaotic or unplanned and also systematic depending on its nature (Toftoy and
Chatterjee 2004). Some of the environmental and organizational challenges that influ-
ence intrapreneurial growth which organizations face today were not quite evident
20 years ago.
Challenges on intrapreneurship from environmental influences
The extent of globalization today has led to wider international activities for different
firms pursuing larger scale R&D and global market competition. Companies are
constantly looking for better opportunities to expand their knowledge base for renewing
and revitalizing their organizational strategies. Such urge for competing in the interna-
tional market place and gaining larger customer base wasn’t this fierce two decades
ago. New technologies that come in with modern trends add more competitiveness to
the market and according to Huse et al (2005) environment changes will initiate
organizations to look for new means to remain highly competitive. It is therefore
important for intrapreneurial firms to understand the influences from different
environmental factors.
Int Entrep Manag J
MorrisandLewis(1995) highlighted environmental turbulence present in soci-
ety in their model for studying the determinants of intrapreneurship. Their study
involved three dimensions of the external environment: heterogeneity, dynamism
and hostility which influences the innovation approach adopted by any
organization. Huse et al (2005) believe that firms operating in heterogeneous
environments have to deal aggressively with a greater number of customer
demands and tastes and this will push the organization to gain access to newer
innovations desired by the market. For instance, Kathuria and Joshi (2007) observe
several challenges that extensive internet usage and growth in various aspects of
modern lifestyle has brought in which they believe forces companies to re-orient
their innovation approach to maintain their existence. Customers these days can
separate information about products and services from the actual products and
services and the geographical distance between consumers and providers has
shrunk incredibly. Kathuria and Joshi (2007) found some of these dynamic shifts
in the environment to have a negative impact on a firm as they might now face
threats that didn’t exist before. Today organizations might face some unfavorable
external forces represented during environmental hostility which could threaten
their mission and output. Huse et al (2005) believe that these hostile factors might
shrink a firms’profit margin adding more pressure for attaining extreme innovation.
Intrapreneurial firms now not only have the challenges to keep up with these
changing trends and demands of the market, they must also take necessary steps
to adapt and evolve subsequently.
Social values and norms, as part of these environmental influences, also have great
influence on the innovation approaches adopted by different organizations and they
tend to drive different political, social and technological changes which are also key for
intrapreneurial growth and success. Intrapreneurs must learn to monitor various cultural
aspects of their target market and customer base and their innovation should primarily
aim to offer greater customer value and satisfaction so as to gain a superior advantage
over their competitors. The complexity and volatility of the environment requires an
organization to be constantly open about current and future conditions of the market
and Huse et al (2005) believe that having this market knowledge will help organiza-
tions in attaining long-term competitiveness through changes in their behavior and
timely establishment in the market. So, for intrapreneurs the key aspect for facing these
challenges here is to be aware of the environmental changes and attain sufficient
knowledge and understanding of customer and market needs and future predictions.
Different universities and organizations should be encouraged to create more awareness
about intrapreneurial approaches in innovation growth and development in their
curriculum and program.
Challenges on intrapreneurship from organizational influences
Nurturing intrapreneurial initiatives can sometimes be difficult as it usually puts
pressure on the firm and demands a radical shift in the internal way of working
according to Lankinen et al (2012) and these might lead to some organizational
challenges. Parker (2011) questions if organizations can strategically identify and
groom prospective and future intrapreneurs but it must be noted that not all intrapre-
neurs can be motivated and facilitated in the same manner. Intrapreneurship being
Int Entrep Manag J
incubative by nature requires commitment from top-management for its proper survival
and growth.
If the structure and environment of an organization does not provide any encour-
agement for innovation then the existence of intrapreneurship and nourishment of
intrapreneurs is very bleak. Intrapreneurial activity should therefore be appropriately
rewarded according to Scheepers (2011) and one of the prime responsibilities for top-
management leaders is to emphasize organizational culture to allow and appreciate
failures for encouraging intrapreneurs (Rule and Irwin (1988), Toftoy and Chatterjee
(2004), Mohanty (2006), Seshadri and Tripathy (2006), Arslan and Cevher (2014)).
Today organizations might face the challenge of selecting and using suitable
motivational techniques and Scheepers (2011) investigated these techniques within
the intrapreneurial reward system. Lack of systematic encouragement and
empowerment of innovative actions can deteriorate innovation propensity. So for
intrapreneurial firms, Scheepers (2011) found that formal acknowledgment, social
incentives and organizational freedom can boost and encourage innovation. The
intrapreneurial spirit of employees can be disoriented and damaged if there are any
inconsistencies, sporadic enthusiasm or lack of commitment of the top management
(Seshadri and Tripathy 2006). Antoncic (2007) suggests organizational culture to
embrace more intrapreneurial characteristics such as open and quality
communication, formal controls, intensive environmental scanning, management
support, organizational support and values. Antoncic and Hisrich (2003)proposeda
multi-dimensional concept of intrapreneurship and suggested managers should analyze,
nurture and promote these dimensions as it will be effective in improving organiza-
tional performance. This might also be a conclusive way today for grooming and
facilitating intrapreneurs so top management leaders must thereby prioritize
intrapreneurship in their management criteria.
The challenges of intrapreneurship should be tackled not only by sincere man-
agerial commitment of the top leaders but also by the intrapreneur’s own dedication.
Lessem (1986) believes that the intrapreneur here cuts across the division between
management and enterprise as they form a bridge between enterprise and
development. The learning aspects of an intrapreneurial environment are
influenced by the structure of the industry according to Lankinen et al (2012)and
intrapreneurs learn by significantly engaging with it and seeking information.
Ahmad et al. (2012) predicts a long term growth and sustainability of any organi-
zation that manages an internal eco-system of intrapreneurial work-force and
Mohanty (2006) found intrapreneurship to be successful only when such intrapre-
neurs are motivated to take action and value an innovation policy projecting the
organization’s culture and operating principles.
Mohanty (2006) suggests managers make their organizational commitment more
clear to employees by using distinct policies and practices along with the dedication
and willingness to make systematic changes. Internal opportunities such as develop-
mental training, funding and mentoring should be provided for intrapreneurs by top-
management so as to utilize their skills, capabilities and knowledge. Managerial
commitment appears to be the key for addressing intrapreneurial challenges which
requires a high degree of risk propensity and this is why Lankinen et al (2012)have
emphasized that managers both corporate management and middle management, play a
vital role in supporting and encouraging it.
Int Entrep Manag J
Further recommendation
Although intrapreneurial research has been around for more than 25 years now, surpris-
ingly Jong and Wennekers (2008) and Bosma et al. (2011) found that it is not a very
wide-spread phenomenon. They found fewer than 5 % of employees to be intrapreneurs
in their global study and they were found to be roughly twice more prevalent in high
income countries than in low income countries. Intrapreneurship might seem like a risk
when it comes to prioritizing it as one of the top organizational strategies but Toftoy and
Chatterjee (2004) advise that it has to start somewhere. Any organization, regardless of
their size and structure must try and adopt intrapreneurial strategies at some stage and
even if it is a small start or moves with a relatively slow pace but under substantial
corporate guidance and commitment, these writers believe that people will build up
more confidence to accept and embrace it. This will not only add competitive advantage,
it will also subsequently result in impressive firm performance and the corporation can
venture comfortably towards a fully intrapreneurial status.
Conclusion
Intrapreneurship is an established field of organizational management research with an
impressive history of around 25 years. Although it is frequently compared with
entrepreneurship, its position as a distinct organizational concept is clearly documented
in several contributions from authors across different countries. The early intrapreneur-
ial literatures concentrated mostly on its impact on large organizations but some recent
studies on SMEs have acknowledged the importance of intrapreneurial initiatives in
any firms regardless of their sizes or age.
Today the current economic environment has been described by different organiza-
tions as highly competitive, demanding and challenging which lead to several organi-
zational complexities. However, the benefits that firms can derive from intrapreneurship
are tremendous especially in this complex economic environment. Intrapreneurship
comes across as an effective solution to effectively tackle and manage these organiza-
tional hurdles and complexities associated with innovation progression. The adoption
and practice of intrapreneurial initiatives should therefore be highly encouraged today to
attain a competitive advantage and this is the responsibility of both top-management
leaders as well as intrapreneurs. Intrapreneurship, initially started as a concept to
illustrate the innovations inside large enterprises, has now evolved and established itself
as a way of improving business performance which is why organizations regardless of
their sizes should prioritize it as one of their key management strategies.
References
Ahmad, N. H., Nasurdin, A. M., & Zainal, S. R. M. (2012). Nurturing intrapreneurship to enhance job
performance: the role of pro-intrapreneurship organizational Architecture. Journal of Innovation
Management in Small and Medium Enterprises, 2012, 868880.
Antoncic, B. (2007). Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural; equation modelling study. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 107(3), 309–325.
Int Entrep Manag J
Antoncic, J. A., & Antoncic, B. (2011). Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 589–607.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7–24.
Anu, L. (2007). Fostering intrapreneurship—the new competitive edge. Conference on Global Competition &
Competitiveness of Indian Corporate (pp. 149–156).
Arslan, E. T., & Cevher, E. (2014). Intrapreneurship enabling organizations to drive innovation. [Online]. Available
at http://ecs.epoka.edu.al/index.php/icme/icme2008/paper/viewFile/381/277. Accessed 12 Jan 2014.
Baruah, B., & Ward, A. (2013). Can CEOs be influential facilitators? Vo i c e o f R e s e a rc h , 2 (3), 47–54.
Benton, D. A. (1996). How to think like a CEO (1st ed.). New York: Times Warner Book Group.
Bosma, N., Stam, E., & Wennekers, S. (2010). Intrapreneurship—an international study. Scientific Analysis of
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Zoetermeer, 12,1–29.
Bosma, N., Stam, E., & Wennekers, S. (2011). Intrapreneurship versus independent entrepreneurship: A
cross-national analysis of individual entrepreneurial behaviour. Discussion paper. [Online]. Available at
http://www.uu.nl/rebo/economie/discussionpapers. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.
Bysted, R. (2013). Innovative employee behaviour: the moderating effects of mental involvement and job
satisfaction on contextual variables. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(3), 268–284.
Bysted,R.,&Jespersen,K.R.(2013).Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work
behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14719037.2013.806576#.UxXvKLRFCjM. Accessed 10
Feb 2014.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., F., Ruiz-Navarro. J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2011). The intrapreneur and
innovation in creative firms. International Small Business Journal 1–23. doi:10.1177/0266242610385396
Carrie, C. (1994). Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: a comparative study. International Small
Business Journal, 12(3), 54–61.
Charan, R. (2001). What the CEO wants you to know (1st ed.). New York: Crown Business.
Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: a meta-analysis.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 25–38.
Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organisations: overcoming
innovation to-organisation problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153.
Duncan, W. J., Ginter, P. M., Rucks, A. C., & Jacobs, T. D. (1988). Intrapreneurship and the reinvention of the
corporation. Business Horizons, 31,16–21.
Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Puumalainen, K. (2008). The role of trust in organisational innovativeness.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2), 160–181.
Fry, F. L. (1993). Entrepreneurship: A planning approach. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Gündoğdu, M. Ç. (2012). Re-thinking entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and innovation: a multi-concept
perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41(2012), 296–303.
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’introduction: corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Management Journal, 11,5–15.
Hisrich, R. D. M., & Peters, P. (1998). Entrepreneurship (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’perception of the internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business
Venturing, 17, 253–273.
Huse, M., Neubam, D. O., & Gabrielsson, J. (2005). Corporate innovation and competitive environment.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 313–333.
IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity, Insights from the global Chief Executive Officer Study. [Online].
Ava ila bl e a t: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/ceo/ceostudy2010/. Accessed 10 Sep 2013.
Jong, J. D., & Wennekers, S. (2008). Intrapreneurship; conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behavior.
Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs (SCALES), Zoetermeer: EIM.
Kanter, R. M. (1984). The change masters. New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster.
Kathuria, R., & Joshi, M. P. (2007). Environmental influences on corporate entrepreneurship: executive
perspectives on the internet. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 3,127–144.
Lankinen, L., Taimela, E., Toskovic, T., & Wallin, G. (2012). Intrapreneurship-act different. [Online].
Available at: http://users.tkk.fi/toskovt1/intrapreneurship/intrapreneurship_finland.pdf. Accessed 11
April 2013.
Lessem, R. (1986). Intrapreneurship: How to be an enterprising Individual in a successful business (1st ed.).
Great Britain: Wildwood House Limited.
Int Entrep Manag J
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29,
770–791.
Mohanty, R. P. (2006). Intrapreneurial levers in cultivating value-innovative mental space in indian corpora-
tions. VIKALPA, 31(01), 99–105.
Morris,M.H.,&Kuratko,D.F.(2002).Corporate entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial development within
organizations. Orlando: Harcourt college publishers.
Morris, M. H., & Lewis, P. S. (1995). The determinants of entrepreneurial marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 29(7), 31–48.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and inno vation. Mason:
Thomson South-Western.
Nicolaidis, C. S., & Kosta, G. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship as a unique competitive advantage. Worl d A c ade m y
of Science, Engineering and Technology, 59,1121–1125 .
Norburn. D., Manning. K., & Birley. S. (1985). Beyond intrapreneurship: The metamorphosis of large
corporations. (Working paper). Cranfield School of Management. Bedford.
Parker, S. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run
companies (1st ed.). USA: Harper and Row Publishers. Inc.
Pinchot, G., III. (1985). Intrapreneuring: You don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur.
New York: Harper and Row.
Ping, W. L., Naiqiu, L., Jie, J., & Zhengzhong, X. (2010). A review and prospects of research on human
resource management of intrapreneurship. Advanced Management Science (ICAMS), IEEE. (03), 456–
460.
Rule, E. G., & Irwin, D. W. (1988). Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive edge. The Journal of
Business Strategy, 9(3), 44–47.
Scheepers, M. J. D. V. (2011). Motivating intrapreneurs: the relevance of rewards. Industry & Higher
Education, 25(4), 249–263.
Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Clipp: Prentice Hall.
Seshadri, D. V. R., & Tripathy, A. (2006). Innovations through intrapreneurship: the road less travelled.
VIKALPA, 31(01), 17–29.
Silva, F. G. D., Hartman, A., & Reis, D. R. D. (2006). The relationship between the intrapreneurial culture and
the degree of technological innovation in the productive organizations: a test for the tools. Third
International Conference on Production Research –Americas’Region
Toftoy, C., & Chatterjee, J. (2004). The intrapreneurial revolution: now is the time for action, [Online].
Ava ila bl e a t: http://sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/2005../paper192.pdf. Accessed 11 April 2013.
Veronica, M., & Zenovia, C. P. (2011). Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship. Review of International
Comparative Management, 12(5), 971–976.
Veronica, M., Anca, B., & Răzvan, N. (2013). Intrapreneurship as a platform for internal networks [Online].
Available at: emnet.univie.ac.at/uploads/media/Maier_et_al..doc. Accessed 10 Oct 2013.
Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of management leveraged
buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10,225–247.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of
psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. The Academy of
Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.
Int Entrep Manag J
