Personal Costs and Benefits of Employee Intrapreneurship: Disentangling the Employee Intrapreneurship, Well-Being, and Job Performance Relationship

Abstract

Ample studies have confirmed the benefits of intrapreneurship (i.e., employee behaviors that contribute to new venture creation and strategic renewal activities) for firm performance, but research on the personal costs and benefits of engaging in intrapreneurial activities for employees is lacking. Building on job demands–resources and reinforcement sensitivity theories, we examined how employees’ reinforcement sensitivity qualified the relationship among their intrapreneurial behavior, subjective well-being, and other-rated job performance. Using a sample of 241 employee dyads, the results of moderated mediation analyses confirmed that employee intrapreneurship related positively to work engagement for employees high (vs. low) in sensitivity to rewards (behavioral approach system), which subsequently related positively to innovativeness and in-role performance and negatively to work avoidance. In contrast, employee intrapreneurship related positively to exhaustion for employees high (vs. low) in sensitivity to punishments (behavioral inhibition system), which subsequently related positively to work avoidance and negatively to in-role performance (but not to innovativeness). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Full text

Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology
Personal Costs and Benefits of Employee
Intrapreneurship: Disentangling the Employee
Intrapreneurship, Well-Being, and Job Performance
Relationship
Jason C. Gawke, Marjan J. Gorgievski, and Arnold B. Bakker
Online First Publication, December 28, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000105
CITATION
Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2017, December 28). Personal Costs and Benefits
of Employee Intrapreneurship: Disentangling the Employee Intrapreneurship, Well-Being, and Job
Performance Relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000105

Personal Costs and Benefits of Employee Intrapreneurship: Disentangling
the Employee Intrapreneurship, Well-Being, and Job
Performance Relationship
Jason C. Gawke and Marjan J. Gorgievski
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Arnold B. Bakker
Erasmus University Rotterdam and University of Johannesburg
Ample studies have confirmed the benefits of intrapreneurship (i.e., employee behaviors that contribute
to new venture creation and strategic renewal activities) for firm performance, but research on the
personal costs and benefits of engaging in intrapreneurial activities for employees is lacking. Building on
job demands–resources and reinforcement sensitivity theories, we examined how employees’ reinforce-
ment sensitivity qualified the relationship among their intrapreneurial behavior, subjective well-being,
and other-rated job performance. Using a sample of 241 employee dyads, the results of moderated
mediation analyses confirmed that employee intrapreneurship related positively to work engagement for
employees high (vs. low) in sensitivity to rewards (behavioral approach system), which subsequently
related positively to innovativeness and in-role performance and negatively to work avoidance. In
contrast, employee intrapreneurship related positively to exhaustion for employees high (vs. low) in
sensitivity to punishments (behavioral inhibition system), which subsequently related positively to work
avoidance and negatively to in-role performance (but not to innovativeness). Theoretical and practical
implications are discussed.
Keywords: BIS–BAS, job performance, moderated mediation, proactive work behavior, work engagement
Modern organizations increasingly depend on the entrepreneur-
ial activities of their employees (i.e., intrapreneurship) to maintain
and maximize organizational effectiveness and competitiveness
(Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Ireland, Kuratko, & Morris, 2006a,
2006b). Indeed, ample studies have shown that organizations with
a strong emphasis on intrapreneurship are more profitable and
have a better return on sales and assets (Bierwerth, Schwens,
Isidor, & Kabst, 2015). In contrast, studies seeking to understand
the potential implications of an employee’s intrapreneurial behav-
ior for employee well-being and job performance are lacking. Yet,
because employee intrapreneurial activities are the microfounda-
tion of intrapreneurship, the costs and benefits of such behavior for
employee well-being and job performance are important to address
(Belousova & Gailly, 2013; Ireland, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009). Our
study aims to expand the current intrapreneurship literature to the
individual level by providing theoretical and empirical insights
into how an employee’s intrapreneurial behavior, a phenomenon
we coin employee intrapreneurship (EI),
1
relates to employee
well-being and job performance.
The contribution of this study to the literature is threefold. First,
this article adds to the current literature by providing empirical
insights into how EI relates to positive and negative facets of
employee well-being, namely, work engagement and exhaustion,
and different types of indicators of employee job performance
(Fineman, 2006), namely, innovativeness, in-role performance,
and work avoidance. Second, we contribute to the theoretical
development of the job demands–resources (JD-R) theory by test-
ing the generalizability of the motivational process and the health
impairment process in the context of EI (Bakker & Demerouti,
2014, 2017). Specifically, we test and expand its core predictions
regarding two separate pathways relating employee behavior at
work, employee well-being, and job performance. Insights into
these processes are important for management and employees
themselves (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Third, empirical research on
how employee characteristics and behavior interact is scarce. Yet,
such research is needed to advance our understanding of anteced-
ents of well-being and performance at work (Barrick & Mount,
2005). We use reinforcement sensitivity theory (Corr, 2004) to
examine how dispositions (i.e., sensitivity toward rewards and
punishment) qualify the impact of EI on well-being and perfor-
mance. In addition, we show the incremental value of this neuro-
1
To avoid semantic confusion with the firm-level concept of intrapre-
neurship, we use the term employee intrapreneurship when referring to the
intrapreneurial activity of an individual employee.
Jason C. Gawke and Marjan J. Gorgievski, Department of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Arnold B.
Bakker, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, and Department of Industrial Psychology and Peo-
ple Management, University of Johannesburg.
This research was supported by the Foundation for Labor Market and
Education of the Dutch Central Public Administration.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason C.
Gawke, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, Woudestein, Mandeville Building, Room T16-16,
P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: gawke@
fsw.eur.nl
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 1, No. 2, 000 1076-8998/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000105
1

biological rooted theory for research in the field of occupational
health psychology.
Theoretical Background
Employee Intrapreneurship
Employees’ intrapreneurial behaviors have been a topic of in-
terest since the 1980s (Pinchot, 1985) because of their potential to
contribute to two important organizational outcomes, namely, new
venture creation (i.e., the creation of new business for the organi-
zation) and strategic renewal (i.e., the renewal or alteration of
processes to enhance an organization’s ability to react to internal
and market developments; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Morris, Ku-
ratko, & Covin, 2011). To date, intrapreneurship has most often
been discussed in relation to the benefits for the organization.
Research on intrapreneurship at the employee level (i.e., EI) has
been less extensively studied. Moreover, employee intrapreneurial
behaviors have often been defined rather broadly as employee
activities characterized by showing initiative, taking risks, and
developing novel ideas (Bolton & Lane, 2012; De Jong, Parker,
Wennekers, & Wu, 2013). Although such a conceptualization
provides us with an understanding of the degree to which employ-
ees have an intrapreneurial orientation, this conceptualization is
too broad to enable a clear distinction from other proactive work
behaviors (for a review, see Parker & Collins, 2010).
Recently, Gawke, Gorgievski, and Bakker (2017) proposed a
conceptualization of EI that better articulates its defining features
and more clearly differentiates it from other proactive work be-
haviors. Taking Guth and Ginsberg’s (1990) firm-level definition
of intrapreneurship as a starting point (see also Morris et al., 2011),
they conceptualized EI as an individual employee’s agentic and
anticipatory behavior aimed at creating new businesses for the
organization (i.e., venture behavior) and enhancing an organiza-
tion’s ability to react to internal and market advancements (i.e.,
strategic renewal behavior). Following this conceptualization, we
position EI as a specific type of proactive behavior that is related
to organizational change and improvement (similar to, for in-
stance, innovative work behaviors) and differentiate it from pro-
active concepts that focus on achieving compatibility between
one’s own attributes and the organizational environment (e.g., job
crafting).
Moreover, EI can be differentiated from related proactive be-
haviors, such as innovative work behaviors (i.e., the creation of
new and useful products, services, and processes; Janssen, 2000),
because EI is not always innovation-related (Antoncic & Hisrich,
2003). For example, intrapreneurial activity may enhance an or-
ganization’s ability to take risks and seize opportunities (e.g.,
scanning for environments with no fast-food services to establish
a prime new outlet for a fast-food chain). Although such activity is
central to intrapreneurship, it is not considered innovative, as no
novel processes, services, or products are created. In addition, EI
can be distinguished from organizational citizenship behavior (i.e.,
a type of extrarole work behavior promoting effective functioning
of the organization; Organ, 1988) in its specific emphasis on new
venture creation and strategic renewal.
Job Demands–Resources Theory
To investigate how EI may relate to employee well-being and
job performance, we build on JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti,
2014, 2017). JD-R theory, which is a recent extension of the JD-R
model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), proposes that well-being and
performance at work are explained by two independent pathways,
namely, the motivational process and the health impairment pro-
cess. Central to the motivational process is that employees need to
have sufficient resources to thrive at work. Resources are physical,
psychological, social, or organizational aspects of work that help
employees achieve work goals, reduce job demands, and stimulate
personal growth, learning, and development (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007). As such, when employees have sufficient resources avail-
able at work, they will experience a motivational reaction toward
their job that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption
(i.e., work engagement; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), which in turn
fosters job performance (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). In
contrast, the health impairment process is set into motion by job
demands. Job demands are aspects of the job that require sustained
physical, emotional, or cognitive effort (Demerouti, Bakker, Nach-
reiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Subsequently, job demands are asso-
ciated with psychological costs, such as exhaustion at work (i.e.,
an extreme form of fatigue at work), which in turn hampers job
performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Leiter, 2014).
The present study focuses on in-role performance, innovative-
ness, and work avoidance as criteria of both the motivational
process and the health impairment process. We argue that these
performance indicators are particularly relevant to examine the
costs and benefits of EI. Specifically, in-role performance reflects
how an employee accomplishes core job tasks and is often used to
evaluate employee performance (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007);
innovativeness captures the creation of new ideas for an organi-
zation (Janssen, 2000) and is considered an important outcome of
EI for an organization (McFadzean, O’Louhglin, & Shaw, 2005);
and work avoidance is a form of workplace deviance and reflects
poor attendance without a legitimate reason (Gruys & Sackett,
2003). The latter indicator may provide us with direct insights into
the possible negative effect of EI for performance (Fineman,
2006).
Building on JD-R theory, we propose that EI can trigger both the
motivational and health impairment processes and can thus have
both benefits and costs for employees. According to JD-R theory,
employee work behaviors can increase employee work engage-
ment through personal goal achievement at work (i.e., increasing
personal resources such as self-efficacy) and through proactively
crafting a more resourceful work environment (i.e., increasing job
resources such as task variety). Although scarce, recent quasi-
experimental studies support the premises of JD-R theory on how
work behaviors can affect well-being at work. For instance, the
intervention study of Van Wingerden, Bakker, and Derks (2017)
showed that participants who had learned how to proactively craft
their job demands and resources reported significantly higher
levels of work engagement after the intervention compared with
before the intervention, whereas the control group showed no
change over time. However, work behaviors may simultaneously
result in exhaustion, through increasing work demands. For exam-
ple, going beyond the line of duty to expand an organization’s
business or volunteering to take on additional responsibilities may
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2GAWKE, GORGIEVSKI, AND BAKKER

increase work stress and workload. For instance, Bolino, Hsiung,
Harvey, and LePine (2015) showed that citizenship behaviors
(e.g., helping others) increased workload to such an extent that
employees felt worn out and tired.
The Motivational Pathway
In line with the JD-R premise regarding the motivational pro-
cess, we argue that EI may relate to increased performance and
decreased work avoidance, through high levels of work engage-
ment (i.e., the experiences of absorption, dedication, and vigor).
Drawing from the work of Bakker and Demerouti (2014) and
Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, and Zhang (2007), we argue that EI
may foster experiences of absorption, dedication, and vigor at
work because it contributes to personal goal achievement and a
more resourceful work context. For instance, engaging in EI may
entail proactively conceptualizing a new service to reach a new
market (McFadzean et al., 2005). The subsequent appraisal that
one’s self-initiated effort may have contributed to the achievement
of such a goal may result in increased positive affect (Bandura,
1997) and energy at work (i.e., vigor). Such experiences may
increase employees’ capability to handle job requirements more
effectively (Kanfer, 1990). In addition, involvement in new proj-
ects, which is characteristic of EI, will presumably offer ample
opportunities for task and skill variety, which is known to posi-
tively increase employees’ immersion (i.e., absorption) and enthu-
siasm at work (i.e., dedication; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). As a
result, employees’ innovative output may be increased, as high
levels of immersion and dedication allow them to expend more
discretionary effort and capitalize on created opportunities.
Although ample research has confirmed the positive relationship
between work engagement and in-role performance and innova-
tiveness (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008; Chris-
tian et al., 2011) and has shown that work engagement negatively
relates to counterproductive work behaviors (Sulea et al., 2012),
only a few studies tentatively supported the notion that EI may
foster work engagement. A qualitative study by Marvel, Griffin,
Hebda, and Vojak (2007) based on 24 in-depth interviews with
employees in the technical sector showed that engaging in intra-
preneurship enriched employees’ work by being part of challeng-
ing projects. Subsequently, employees experienced motivation and
enthusiasm in their work—two central indicators of work engage-
ment (Bakker, 2011). Research on other proactive work behaviors
that share some conceptual overlap with EI concurs with these
findings. For instance, a longitudinal study by Simbula and Gug-
lielmi (2013) among school teachers showed that organizational
citizenship behavior related positively to work engagement mea-
sured 5 months later. Based on this argumentation, we formulated
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Work engagement mediates the relationships
between EI and (a) in-role performance, (b) innovativeness,
and (c) work avoidance.
The Health Impairment Pathway
In addition to the theorized beneficial effect of EI for work
engagement and job performance, we argue that EI may also have
a negative relationship with employee well-being and job perfor-
mance. Building on the health impairment process (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2014, 2017), we reason that EI may be related to more
exhaustion at work, because employee intrapreneurial behaviors
require additional energy, time, and resources that may not directly
contribute to formal work goals. For instance, EI often requires
that employees “go the extra mile” (e.g., come in early for work or
stay late) to meet the requirements of the job and the additional
challenges that come with EI (Birkinshaw, 1997). As a result,
employees may experience an increased sense of time pressure,
anxiety, and worry at work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Further-
more, entrepreneurial projects often need to be terminated due to
falling short of their goals (Clancy & Stone, 2005), evoking
negative reactions in employees (Shepherd, Patzelt, & Wolfe,
2011). Subsequently, employees’ increased exhaustion may neg-
atively influence their job performance (Demerouti et al., 2014), as
exhausted employees may no longer be able to handle core job
tasks well (i.e., decreased in-role performance) and may, for ex-
ample, decide to leave work early without a legitimate reason (i.e.,
increased work avoidance).
Although the negative relationship between exhaustion and job
performance has been established in the literature, to our knowl-
edge, research on the relationship between EI and exhaustion is
lacking. Some empirical research exists on related proactive work
behavior, which has shown possible implications for job strain. For
instance, in their study among 98 couples, Bolino and Turnley
(2005) found employee initiative (i.e., task-related behavior that
goes beyond what is required or generally expected) to be posi-
tively associated with employee role overload, job stress, and
work–family conflict. Furthermore, in their longitudinal study
among 273 employees and their peers, Bolino and colleagues
(2015) showed that engaging in organizational citizenship behav-
ior is related to higher levels of fatigue over time. Thus, building
on JD-R theory’s health impairment process and the discussed
literature on EI, exhaustion, and performance, we formulated the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Work exhaustion mediates the relationships
between EI and (a) in-role performance, (b) innovativeness,
and (c) work avoidance.
Reward and Punishment Sensitivity
Grounded in neurological research on brain activity in response to
stimuli (Gray, 1991), reward sensitivity theory postulates that indi-
vidual differences in reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity
predispose individuals’ reactions to cues from the environment owing
to increased vigilance toward positive and negative stimuli (Corr,
2004). Reward sensitivity, which has a biological basis in the behav-
ioral approach system (BAS), refers to an individual’s sensitivity
toward potentially rewarding situations and positive outcomes. For
example, for BAS⫹individuals (i.e., individuals with a heightened
sensitivity toward reward), monetary incentives have a stronger in-
fluence on task motivation and experiences of positive affect, as
compared with BAS⫺individuals (Jackson, 2001). In contrast, pun-
ishment sensitivity, which has a biological basis in the behavioral
inhibition system (BIS), captures the responsiveness toward poten-
tially harmful or unpleasant stimuli. Accordingly, BIS⫹individuals
will react more strongly when faced with situations that involve pain,
loss, or social disapproval as compared with BIS⫺individuals (He-
poniemi, Keltikangas-Järvinen, Puttonen, & Ravaja, 2003).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE INTRAPRENEURSHIP

In the context of our study, we propose that sensitivity toward
rewards (BAS) strengthens the relationship between EI and work
engagement. Specifically, because BAS⫹individuals focus more on
positive outcomes and are more sensitive to positive stimuli (Corr,
2004), we argue that they will have a stronger positive reaction to
positive events that coincide with intrapreneurial behavior. For in-
stance, such individuals will be more sensitive to (personal) goal
achievement and enrichment of one’s work (Marvel et al., 2007).
Consequently, because personal goal achievement and job enrichment
are known factors that foster work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004), BAS⫹individuals will be more inclined to experience work
engagement as compared with BAS⫺individuals when engaging in
EI. In contrast, we theorize that sensitivity toward punishment (BIS)
strengthens the relationship between EI and exhaustion. We argue so
because BIS⫹individuals are more responsive to harmful and un-
pleasant stimuli (Corr, 2004) and may thus react more negatively to
negative events that relate to intrapreneurial behavior, such as set-
backs and increased work pressure (Shepherd et al., 2011). Subse-
quently, engaging in EI will be more exhausting for BIS⫹individuals
relative to BIS⫺individuals.
Although, to our knowledge, studies on the proposed moderating
effect of BIS and BAS in the context of EI are absent, the influence
of BIS and BAS on how tasks and events are experienced has been
investigated. For instance, the experimental study of Heponiemi and
colleagues (2003) showed that BAS⫹individuals had higher levels of
positive affect after engaging in an appetitive task (i.e., a task that
positively reinforces participants’ correct behavior) compared with
BAS⫺individuals. In contrast, BIS⫹individuals had higher levels of
negative affect after completing an aversive task (i.e., a task that
negatively reinforces participants’ incorrect behavior) as compared
with BIS⫺individuals. Furthermore, software developers with high
levels of trait positive affect, a personality trait associated with BAS⫹
(Pickering & Corr, 2008), showed higher levels of work engagement
regardless of the positive or negative events that happened during the
day, as compared with individuals with low levels of positive affect
(Bledow, Schmitt, Frese, & Kühnel, 2011). Thus, building on the
discussed literature, we formulated two moderated mediation hypoth-
eses:
Hypothesis 3a: BAS moderates the strength of the mediated
relationship between EI and job performance (i.e., innovative-
ness, in-role performance, and exhaustion) via work engage-
ment; the higher individuals score on BAS⫹, the stronger the
relationship between EI and work engagement.
Hypothesis 3b: BIS moderates the strength of the mediated
relationship between EI and job performance (i.e., innovative-
ness, in-role performance, and exhaustion) via exhaustion; the
higher individuals score on BIS⫹, the stronger the relation-
ship between EI and exhaustion.
Method
Procedure
Data were gathered with an online questionnaire among em-
ployees working in various private organizations. These employ-
ees were part of a panel database and had agreed to participate in
research for pay. Firm size ranged from small (25– 49 employees;
5%) to large (ⱖ250 employees; 58%). To receive data from the
employees and a significant peer, the data collection spanned two
phases. First, 1,000 employees within this database were randomly
selected and contacted via e-mail with a request to participate in
this research. The e-mail contained a brief summary of the research
and a link to the survey. Data were received from 535 respondents
(response rate ⫽54%). Furthermore, the respondents were kindly
requested to provide contact details of a colleague with whom they
closely collaborated (i.e., with whom they had a work-related
contact at least 3 days a week).
In the second stage, the “close collaborator” of the respondent
was sent an e-mail containing a brief summary of the research, a
kind request from their colleague (the respondent) to fill in a
questionnaire about him or her, and a link to the online survey.
Data were received from 243 close collaborators (total response
rate ⫽24%). The complete data set, therefore, consisted of 243
pairs. This data set was used for the analyses. A nonresponse
analysis showed that the participants who did not provide contact
details of a close collaborator had slightly lower scores on work
engagement and slightly higher scores on exhaustion, with abso-
lute mean differences of 0.24, t⫽2.38, p⬍.05, and 0.31,
t⫽⫺2.74, p⬍.05.
2
Participants
Participants worked in a variety of sectors, namely, industry
(17%); property and construction (6%); sales (12%); retail (2%);
transport (9%); accountancy, banking, and finance (7%); business,
consulting, and management (11%); marketing, advertising, and
public relations (3%); health care (18%); culture (1%); environ-
ment and agriculture (1%); and other (13%). The mean age of the
participants was 41.5 years (SD ⫽11.52), 34% was female, and
the majority of the participants had finished intermediate or higher
vocational education (76.1%). On average, the participants had
held their current job for 11 years (SD ⫽9.31) and had a total of
21 years of work experience (SD ⫽12.67). For the close collab-
orators, 40% were female, and the mean age was 41 years (SD ⫽
11.1). They had worked at their current job for 9.5 years (SD ⫽
7.8). The majority of the close collaborators had finished interme-
diate or higher vocational education (84.4%).
Measures
All measures were administered in Dutch. Measures that were
not available in Dutch were translated from English to Dutch using
the forward– backward translation method (Behling & Law, 2000).
EI was measured with the eight-item Employee Intrapreneurship
Scale of Gawke, Gorgievski, and Bakker (2015, 2017). Four items
2
Additionally, to examine to what extent the significant differences in mean
values between employees who received other ratings versus those who did
not may have influenced the results, we compared the interrelationship be-
tween employee intrapreneurship and work engagement/exhaustion between
groups. First, we calculated the correlations between these variables in each
group separately. Subsequently, we transformed the correlations in both
groups using Fisher’s r-to-zmethod to compare them (Weaver & Wuensch,
2013). The results showed that the correlations did not differ between groups;
thus, it can be argued that attrition did not have a substantial impact on either
the employee intrapreneurship–work engagement relationship, Z⫽1.47 (not
significant), or the employee intrapreneurship– exhaustion relationship,
Z⫽⫺.46 (not significant).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4GAWKE, GORGIEVSKI, AND BAKKER

measured the subdimension employee venture behavior (e.g., “I
undertake activities to set up new units for my organization”), and
four items assessed employee strategic renewal behavior (e.g., “I
undertake activities to realize change in my organization”). Re-
sponses were given on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽never,7⫽always).
The Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale was .96. In their validity
study among four independent samples, Gawke et al. (2015)
showed that the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale has good facto-
rial validity (i.e., EI consists of employee strategic renewal and
employee venture behaviors). In addition, Gawke and colleagues
showed that the scale has convergent and discriminant validity
vis-a
`-vis employee innovativeness (Janssen, 2000), employee risk-
taking behavior (Van den Brink, Koch, Ardts, & Van Lankveld,
2004), and employee personal initiative (Frese, Fay, Hilburger,
Leng, & Tag, 1997).
Work engagement was assessed with the nine-item version of
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, including the three subdi-
mensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker,
& Salanova, 2006). Some example items are as follows: “At my
work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor), “I am enthusiastic about
my job” (dedication), and “I am immersed in my work” (absorp-
tion). Responses were given on a 7-point frequency scale (1 ⫽
never,7⫽always). The Cronbach’s alpha of the combined scale
was .95.
Exhaustion was measured with the five-item exhaustion sub-
scale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey (Schutte,
Toppinnen, Kalimo, & Schaufeli, 2000). A sample item is “I feel
used up at the end of the workday.” Items were scored on a 7-point
scale (1 ⫽never,7⫽always), and the Cronbach’s alpha was .92.
The BAS and the BIS were assessed with the validated Dutch
version of the BIS/BAS scales of Carver and White (1994), created
by Franken, Muris, and Rassin (2005). The BAS scale was as-
sessed with 12 items representing sensitivity for rewards (four
items, e.g., “When good things happen to me, it affects me
strongly”), drive (four items, e.g., “When I want something, I
usually go all-out to get it”), and fun (four items, e.g., “I’m always
willing to try something new if I think it will be fun”). BIS was
measured with five items, including “I worry about making mis-
takes.” Responses were given on a 4-point scale (1 ⫽totally
disagree,4⫽totally agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of the com-
bined BAS scale was .79 and that of the BIS scale was .80.
Other-rated performance was operationalized using three scales
capturing two types of work performance, namely, innovativeness
and in-role performance, and one type of workplace deviance,
namely, work avoidance. Additionally, the items of the scales were
reformulated so that a colleague could rate the respondent.
Innovativeness was measured with nine items of Janssen (2000),
representing three dimensions (three items each), namely, idea
generation, idea promotion, and idea realization. The following are
example items: “[name of participant] creates new ideas for im-
provements” (idea generation), “[name of participant] mobilizes
support for innovative ideas” (idea promotion), and “[name of
participant] transforms innovative ideas into useful applications”
(idea realization). Responses were given on a 7-point frequency
scale (1 ⫽never,7⫽always). The Cronbach’s alpha of the
combined scale was .95.
In-role performance was assessed with three items of Goodman
and Svyantek (1999). A sample item is “[name of participant]
achieves the objectives of the job.” Responses were given on a
5-point scale (1 ⫽totally disagree,5⫽totally agree). The
Cronbach’s alpha was .85.
Work avoidance was measured with five items taken from
Gruys and Sackett (2003). A sample item is “[name of participant]
is often absent from work without a legitimate reason.” Responses
were given on a 6-point frequency scale (1 ⫽not characteristic for
[name of participant], 6 ⫽very characteristic for [name of par-
ticipant]). The Cronbach’s alpha was .92.
Data Analysis Strategy
Data were analyzed in R (Lavaan package; R Core Team, 2015).
We applied path analysis using manifest variables
3
to test our
hypotheses (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Path analysis is an
adequate method to test our hypothesized conditional indirect
effects, because it allows for analyzing in one coherent model
whether a number of mediation effects hold under different con-
ditions, thus decreasing chance capitalization in comparison with
other methods that require separate analyses for each hypothesis
(e.g., multiple regression analyses). To further reduce bias, we
controlled for age, education, sex, and tenure of participants in all
our analyses. Given that we have mediation and moderation hy-
potheses in the current study, we used bootstrapping to increase the
accuracy of our analyses (k⫽2,000; Preacher et al., 2007) and
mean-centered model variables to facilitate a straightforward in-
terpretation of the results of our moderation analyses (Shieh, 2011;
Dawson, 2014). Model fit was based on the normed chi-square
(␹
2
/df), standardized root mean square residuals, incremental fit
index, comparative fit index, Tucker–Lewis index, and root mean
square error of approximation (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Before testing our hypotheses, we created a “correlation model”
containing composite measures of each of the eight variables in the
study and the four control variables (i.e., age, education, sex, and
tenure). All measures were allowed to correlate. Table 1 presents
the descriptive statistics of all the study variables (means and
standard deviations) and the correlation coefficients between the
study variables and control variables. As can be seen in Table 1, all
correlations were in the expected direction. Given that the control
variables showed significant relations with our study variables, we
have included the control variables in our analyses to test our
hypotheses.
Hypothesis Testing
To test the mediation effects (Hypotheses 1 and 2), we modeled
paths from EI to work engagement, exhaustion, innovativeness,
in-role performance, and work avoidance. Additionally, we added
3
We analyzed our moderated mediation hypotheses with manifest vari-
ables to optimize the ratio parameter estimates and observations, thus
increasing the power of our analyses (Jackson, 2003). We also tested our
moderated mediation hypotheses with latent moderated mediation struc-
tural equation modeling (Little, Card, Bovaird, Preacher, & Crandall, 2007)
and found similar results.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE INTRAPRENEURSHIP

paths from work engagement and exhaustion to innovativeness,
in-role performance, and work avoidance. This formed our “me-
diation model.” All relationships were controlled for age, sex,
education, and tenure. Correlations were allowed between the
exogenous variables (i.e., the variables that were not predicted by
any other variable) and between work engagement and exhaustion.
Because the mediation model was fully saturated, it showed a
perfect fit to the data.
To test Hypothesis 1, according to which EI has a positive
indirect relationship with innovativeness and in-role performance
and a negative indirect relationship with work avoidance, we first
examined the significance of the paths of the mediation model. The
results showed significant paths from EI to work engagement (␤⫽
.49, p⬍.01) and, subsequently, from work engagement to inno-
vativeness (␤⫽.26, p⬍.01), in-role performance (␤⫽.38, p⬍
.01), and work avoidance (␤⫽⫺.19, p⬍.01).
To examine the significance of the indirect pathways (i.e.,
␤
indirect
) between EI and performance through work engagement,
we followed Shrout and Bolger (2002) and examined the strength
of the product of the pathway from EI to work engagement and the
pathway from work engagement to each of the performance mea-
sures (i.e., innovativeness, in-role performance, and work avoid-
ance). The results support Hypothesis 1: The indirect relationships
between EI and the criteria via work engagement were all signif-
icant, namely, for innovativeness, ␤
indirect
⫽.10, p⬍.01, 95%
confidence interval (CI) [.05, .16], and for in-role performance,
␤
indirect
⫽.13, p⬍.01, 95% CI [.07, .18]. For work avoidance,
there was a negative indirect relationship, as hypothesized,
␤
indirect
⫽⫺.09, p⬍.05, 95% CI [⫺.15, ⫺.02]. Thus, engaging
in EI was positively related to work engagement, which in turn was
related to higher levels of innovativeness and in-role performance
and lower levels of work avoidance.
Before testing Hypothesis 2, in which we proposed that EI had
a negative indirect relationship with innovativeness and in-role
performance and a positive indirect relationship with work avoid-
ance via work exhaustion, we first examined the significance of the
paths in the mediation model between EI, exhaustion, and perfor-
mance. The results showed that EI was significantly related to
exhaustion, ␤⫽.41, p⬍.01, and subsequently, exhaustion was
related to in-role performance, ␤⫽⫺.14, p⬍.05, and work
avoidance, ␤⫽.35, p⬍.01. The relationship between exhaustion
and innovativeness was nonsignificant, ␤⫽⫺.06, p⫽.36.
To test whether the indirect relationships between EI and other-
rated performance via exhaustion are significant, we again fol-
lowed the method of Shrout and Bolger (2002). The results sup-
ported Hypotheses 2b and 2c. The strength of the indirect
relationship between EI and in-role performance through exhaus-
tion was ␤
indirect
⫽⫺.04, p⬍.05, 95% CI [⫺.08, .00], and the
indirect relationship between EI and work avoidance was
␤
indirect
⫽.14, p⬍.01, 95% CI [.07, .18]. Thus, the results
indicated that engaging in EI was positively related to exhaustion,
which in turn was related to lower levels of in-role performance
and higher levels of work avoidance. Hypothesis 2b was not
supported, because no relationship was found between exhaustion
and innovativeness; the indirect relationship was also not signifi-
cant, ␤
indirect
⫽⫺.02, p⫽.36, 95% CI [⫺.06, .02]. In addition to
the reported indirect relationships in the mediation model, we also
found that EI was directly related to innovativeness, ␤⫽.34, p⬍
.01, and to work avoidance, ␤⫽.27, p⬍.01. Results of the
mediation analyses are presented in Figure 1.
To examine the moderating impact of sensitivity toward BAS
and BIS on the relationships between EI and work engagement
(Hypothesis 3a) and exhaustion (Hypothesis 3b), we created prod-
uct terms of EI and BAS (EI ⫻BAS) and of EI and BIS (EI ⫻
BIS). Subsequently, we included both interaction variables in the
mediation model and added paths from EI ⫻BAS to work en-
gagement and EI ⫻BIS to exhaustion. In addition, we added paths
from both EI ⫻BAS and EI ⫻BIS to innovativeness, in-role
performance, and work avoidance to address our moderated me-
diation hypotheses (Preacher et al., 2007). This formed the “mod-
Table 1
Correlations Between Self-Rated and Other-Rated Study Variables (N ⫽243)
Construct MSD
Study variables
12345678
Study variables
a
Self-rated
1. Employee intrapreneurship (Employee Intrapreneurship Scale) 3.36 1.45
2. Work engagement 4.59 1.16 .50
ⴱⴱ
—
3. Exhaustion 2.95 1.27 .38
ⴱⴱ
⫺.01 —
4. BAS (reward sensitivity) 2.82 0.34 .52
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
.22
ⴱⴱ
—
5. BIS (punishment sensitivity) 2.68 0.52 .04 ⫺.05 .41
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱ
—
Other-rated
6. In-role performance 4.76 1.00 .06 .36
ⴱⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
.14
ⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
—
7. Innovativeness 4.60 1.17 .47
ⴱⴱ
.43
ⴱⴱ
.07 .33
ⴱⴱ
⫺.04 .38
ⴱⴱ
—
8. Work avoidance 1.71 1.20 .30
ⴱⴱ
⫺.08 .50
ⴱⴱ
.12
ⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
⫺.28
ⴱⴱ
.10 —
Control variables
b
Age 41.49 11.52 .04 ⫺.14
ⴱ
.23
ⴱⴱ
.05 .09 ⫺.13
ⴱ
.04 .27
ⴱⴱ
Education 4.41 1.06 .17
ⴱⴱ
.04 ⫺.02 .12 ⫺.08 .09 .21
ⴱⴱ
⫺.05
Sex 1.33 1.34 ⫺.14
ⴱ
⫺.17
ⴱⴱ
.04 ⫺.07 .19
ⴱⴱ
⫺.10 ⫺.11 ⫺.03
Tenure 20.66 11.67 ⫺.05 .13
ⴱ
⫺.26
ⴱⴱ
⫺.06 ⫺.08 .13
ⴱ
⫺.04 ⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
Note. BAS ⫽behavioral approach system; BIS ⫽behavioral inhibition system.
a
Results are based on correlations in the correlation model.
b
Control variables represent age, education, sex, and tenure of the participants.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6GAWKE, GORGIEVSKI, AND BAKKER

erated mediation model.” The moderated mediation model showed
a good fit to the data (␹
2
/df ⫽2.52, standardized root mean square
residual ⫽.02, comparative fit index ⫽.99, incremental fit in-
dex ⫽.99, Tucker–Lewis index ⫽.88, and the root mean square
error of approximation ⫽.08; Marsh et al., 2004).
Before testing Hypothesis 3a, in which we proposed that sensi-
tivity toward BAS strengthens the relationship between EI and
work engagement and, in turn, job performance, we first examined
whether the relationship between EI and work engagement was
enhanced by employees’ BAS. In line with our predictions, the
higher an individual’s BAS⫹scores, the stronger the relationship
between EI and work engagement; the ␤of the interaction term
was .13 (p⬍.05). The interaction effect is plotted in Figure 2. We
continued to examine whether the interaction effect between EI
and BAS was indirectly related to the performance outcomes via
work engagement using Shrout and Bolger’s (2002) method. Con-
sistent with Hypothesis 3a, we found significant indirect relation-
ships for the interaction term of EI and BAS and innovativeness,
␤
indirect
⫽.07, p⬍.05, 95% CI [.00, .13], and in-role perfor-
mance, ␤
indirect
⫽.07, p⬍.05, 95% CI [.00, .13], via work
Figure 1. The standardized regression weights of the significant paths between latent variables in the mediation
model. All paths in the model were tested simultaneously.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
+1SD -1SD
Employee Intrapreneurship
-1.00
-1.00
0.00
-.50
0.50
Work Engagement
-1SD Reward
Sensitivity (BAS)
+1SD Reward
Sensitivity (BAS)
Figure 2. The interaction between reward sensitivity (behavioral approach system [BAS]) and employee
intrapreneurship for work engagement. The slope is .05 (SE ⫽.25, not significant) for the ⫺1SD reward
sensitivity (BAS) group and .46 (SE ⫽.21, p⬍.05) for the ⫹1SD reward sensitivity (BAS) group.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE INTRAPRENEURSHIP

engagement. However, no indirect relation was found for work
avoidance, ␤
indirect
⫽⫺.05, p⫽.07, 95% CI [⫺.08, .01]. Thus, in
line with Hypothesis 3a, the results indicated that employees’
reward sensitivity enhanced the indirect relationship between EI
and employee in-role performance and innovativeness via work
engagement.
To test whether BIS strengthened the indirect relationship be-
tween EI and the performance measures via exhaustion (Hypoth-
esis 3b), we first examined whether BIS moderated the relationship
between EI and exhaustion. Consistent with our hypothesis, the
higher an individual’s BIS⫹scores, the stronger the relationship
between EI and exhaustion; the ␤of the interaction term was .18
(p⬍.01). The interaction effect is plotted in Figure 3. To examine
Hypothesis 3b, we again followed Shrout and Bolger (2002) and
tested the significance of the indirect relationship between the
interaction term and all three performance outcomes via exhaus-
tion. Consistent with Hypothesis 3b, we found that the indirect
relationship between EI and work avoidance via exhaustion was
positively moderated by BIS, ␤
indirect
⫽.09, p⬍.01, 95% CI [.03,
.15]. However, no indirect relationship was found on innovative-
ness, ␤
indirect
⫽⫺.01, p⫽.56, 95% CI [⫺.05, .03], or in-role
performance, ␤
indirect
⫽⫺.02, p⫽.24, 95% CI [⫺.05, .01]. Thus,
the results indicated that only the indirect relationship of EI and
work avoidance via exhaustion was strengthened by employees’
BIS.
Discussion
The current study investigated the relationships among EI, em-
ployee well-being, and employee performance. In general, our
findings suggest that EI is part of two concurrent processes that
differentially relate to employee well-being and job performance.
Specifically, EI positively relates to employee innovativeness,
in-role performance, and decreased work avoidance via work
engagement (i.e., a motivational process). At the same time, EI
relates to exhaustion (i.e., an energy depletion process; cf. JD-R
theory; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017), which in turn relates to
impaired in-role performance and increased work avoidance. Thus,
our results indicate that EI can have both a beneficial and a
detrimental relationship with employees’ well-being and job per-
formance. Furthermore, our results show that employees’ reward
sensitivity and punishment sensitivity influence their emotional
and motivational responses to behavior in such a way that BAS⫹
individuals are more likely to have higher levels of work engage-
ment when engaging in EI and BIS⫹individuals are more likely
to feel exhausted when engaging in EI. These findings have several
important theoretical implications for literature on intrapreneur-
ship, employee work behavior, and employee well-being.
First, our study provides empirical evidence for the benefits of
EI for employee well-being and performance. Given that studies
addressing the relation among employees’ intrapreneurial behav-
ior, employee well-being, and job performance are lacking, our
results extend current studies of intrapreneurship to the individual
level. In addition, our finding that work engagement and exhaus-
tion are important explanatory factors in the EI–performance re-
lationship indicates that the dual-process model based on JD-R
theory provides a valid framework to explain how EI relates to job
performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017). Regarding the
motivational process, the consequences of work behaviors are
expected to result in heightened levels of positive affect and
motivation (such as work engagement), which in turn positively
influence performance. Accordingly, we reason that EI can in-
crease work engagement, because of its capacity to enrich working
conditions through (personal) goal attainment at work and crafting
beneficial job circumstances. For instance, when engaging in EI,
+1SD -1SD
Employee Intrapreneurship
-1.00
-1.00
0.00
-.50
0.50
Exhaustion
-1SD Punishment
Sensitivity (BIS)
+1SD Punishment
Sensitivity (BIS)
Figure 3. The interaction between punishment sensitivity (behavioral inhibition system [BIS]) and employee
intrapreneurship for exhaustion. The slope is .03 (SE ⫽.16, not significant) for the ⫺1SD punishment sensitivity
(behavioral approach system [BAS]) group and .56 (SE ⫽.14, p⬍.01) for the ⫹1SD punishment sensitivity
(BAS) group.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8GAWKE, GORGIEVSKI, AND BAKKER

employees initiate new projects, combine existing resources to
develop new and novel ideas (McFadzean et al., 2005), and ex-
change information and resources with both internal and external
stakeholders (Anderson & Jack, 2002). Such activities can result in
new knowledge, experience, and self-insights and can increase the
task variety and skill variety of work (Clegg & Spencer, 2007)—
factors that are known to foster work engagement (Bakker, 2011).
We encourage scholars to validate these premises by conducting
longitudinal research on the role of EI in the motivational process.
Second, regarding the health impairment process, we provide
new insights into the “dark side” of employee intrapreneurial
behavior for employee well-being and performance. Our results
indicate that EI may negatively influence job performance, that is,
it may decrease in-role performance and increase work avoidance
(no effect was found for innovativeness) through increased ex-
haustion. This implies that EI is simultaneously part of a motiva-
tional and an energy depletion process. In an energy depletion
process, some work behaviors are reasoned to increase levels of
exhaustion because they create obstacles at work (e.g., increased
time pressure, work role overload), which in turn result in de-
creased performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017). In the
context of our study, we reason that engaging in EI may coincide
with extra working hours and additional responsibilities that do not
always contribute to achieving formal work goals (Antoncic &
Hisrich, 2003). Furthermore, entrepreneurial projects within orga-
nizations are often terminated due to falling short of the intended
goals (Clancy & Stone, 2005), which evokes strong negative
emotions in employees (Shepherd et al., 2011). Such factors are
known to increase employee exhaustion, decrease in-role perfor-
mance (Demerouti et al., 2014), and, over time, even result in
chronic employee health impairment (e.g., burnout; Hobfoll &
Shirom, 1993; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Hence, similar to recent
research that underlined negative effects of “positive” proactive
behaviors (Bolino et al., 2015), we argue that it is important to also
address the “dark side” of intrapreneurship. For instance, the
reciprocal process of how EI can negatively affect employee
well-being and employee performance over time (e.g., short-term
positive outcomes vs. long-term negative outcomes) may be of
heightened interest for further scholarly work.
Third, our results contribute to the theoretical development of
JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017) by providing
empirical evidence that the motivational and energy depletion
pathways from behavior to well-being occur concurrently. Specif-
ically, our results show that although EI is positively related to
beneficial performance outcomes due to higher levels of work
engagement, it may at the same time also hamper performance due
to higher levels of exhaustion. This apparent paradox may be of
heightened interest because it sheds new light on how work be-
haviors can simultaneously be beneficial and detrimental to em-
ployee well-being and performance. Thus, complementing the
assumption of JD-R theory that a specific type of proactive be-
havior either increases work engagement (e.g., job crafting; cf.
Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013) or increases exhaustion (e.g., self-
undermining behaviors that harm performance; Bakker, 2015), we
argue that some proactive behaviors, such as EI, may simultane-
ously be part of both processes. As such, we encourage scholars to
address both processes of JD-R theory concurrently when exam-
ining the outcomes of work behavior for employees in future
research. We believe that such an approach will provide new
insights into the consequences of work behavior, such as EI, and
open up a new research agenda on factors influencing these pro-
cesses (e.g., personal characteristics; see also next paragraph).
Finally, by applying reward sensitivity theory (Corr, 2004) to
EI, we have shown first evidence for personal differences in the
way EI relates to employee well-being (and, indirectly, job per-
formance). Our findings indicate that employees who are more
sensitive to rewards (BAS⫹) show higher levels of work engage-
ment when engaging in EI relative to employees who are less
sensitive. In contrast, for employees who are more sensitive to
punishment (BIS⫹), EI relates more strongly to exhaustion. These
findings are in line with experimental studies showing that BAS
and BIS color the way individuals react to events (Heponiemi et
al., 2003). In the context of our study, the results may imply that
BAS⫹employees are more responsive toward (personal) goal
achievement or the enrichment of one’s work, thus fostering work
engagement. In contrast, BIS⫹employees may react more
strongly to setbacks and may be more easily distressed by resis-
tance when engaging in EI, resulting in higher levels of exhaus-
tion. Consequently, we argue that to adequately examine how
work behaviors affect employee outcomes, it is necessary to ad-
dress how employee personality characteristics interact with work
behavior. Hence, a fruitful avenue for future research would be to
focus on how employee sensitivity toward reward and punishment
may color the individual experience of work behaviors and the
perception of the work environment to increase our understanding
of the mechanisms that underlie employee well-being and perfor-
mance.
Limitations
Despite its merits, this study also has some limitations. First,
although the use of multisource data and path analyses provides us
with insights into the costs and benefits of EI for employees, the
cross-sectional design does not allow us to make causal inferences.
For example, it is conceivable that EI is not only a predictor but
also a consequence of work engagement (i.e., the two variables are
reciprocal). Hakanen and colleagues (2008) showed that work
engagement at the baseline was positively related to personal
initiative and work unit innovativeness measured 3 years later.
Furthermore, recent studies (Simbula & Guglielmi, 2013) have
indicated that the relationship between motivation and behavior is
reciprocal (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Therefore, it may be of
heightened interest for future studies to examine the role of EI in
the motivational process with a longitudinal study design and in
more detail. Such studies should aim to incorporate at least three
repeated measurement moments (Ployhart & Ward, 2011).
Second, our participants are Dutch employees who worked in a
wide range of privately owned companies differing in firm size
and sector. Although the premises of JD-R theory have been
cross-culturally validated across a wide range of contexts (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2014, 2017), cultural differences have been shown
to affect individual appraisal of the consequences of EI (Hayton,
George, & Zahra, 2002; Turró, Urbano, & Peris-Ortiz, 2014).
Hayton and colleagues (2002) indicated in their review that the
motives, values, and beliefs of individuals regarding entrepreneur-
ial activity differ across cultures. Similarly, Turró and colleagues
(2014) reported that entrepreneurial culture (e.g., popularity of
entrepreneurial activities, funding for entrepreneurial activities
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE INTRAPRENEURSHIP

within a country) moderated entrepreneurial activity. Accordingly,
we reason that culture may influence an individual’s expectation of
whether EI yields beneficial or harmful consequences, thus im-
pacting the strength of the relationship between EI and work
engagement versus exhaustion. Future studies may address this
issue by conducting cross-cultural research and incorporating cul-
ture as a moderator.
Third, consistent with the motivational and health impairment
process of JD-R theory, we have shown that EI simultaneously
relates to positive and negative work outcomes via work engage-
ment and exhaustion. Investigating the role of job characteristics
was beyond the scope of our current study. Based on JD-R theory,
reciprocal relationships can be expected among job characteristics
(i.e., job demands and job resources), work behaviors (i.e., EI),
work engagement, and exhaustion (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014,
2017). Including job characteristics in future studies may yield
valuable insights into how intrapreneurial behavior may relate to
work engagement and exhaustion, for example, through crafting
more-resourceful versus more-demanding work environments.
Including job characteristics may also increase our understand-
ing of the role of job types. For instance, job type may relate to job
characteristics that affect employees’ intrapreneurial capability
and motivation (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, 2017; Grant & Ash-
ford, 2008). When favorable (e.g., high on autonomy), EI may
boost innovative output or provide employees with leeway to
better combine intrapreneurship with in-role activities. Hence, it
can be expected that employees with favorable jobs are more likely
to enter a positive gain spiral, whereas the energy depletion pro-
cess would be buffered. This premise is supported in a study
among managers showing that higher-level managers more effec-
tively used organizational resources (i.e., managerial support,
work discretion) to implement intrapreneurial ideas (Hornsby,
Kuratko, Shepherd, & Bot, 2009). We encourage scholars to
investigate the generalizability of our findings across job contexts
in future studies.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
Besides theoretical implications, this study yields interesting
practical implications. As organizations are becoming increasingly
dependent on proactive employee behaviors, such as EI, to remain
competitive in a dynamic environment (Grant & Ashford, 2008), it
is important to understand the consequences intrapreneurial behav-
ior may have for employees. Our results show that EI is a double-
edged sword for employees, with the potential to boost motivation
and performance but increase exhaustion, which in turn hampers
performance. Top management should be aware that adopting and
encouraging intrapreneurial behavior may yield beneficial and
harmful consequences for employees.
Furthermore, we show that differences in employee dispositions
may be essential to determine what effect intrapreneurial behavior
may have on the employee. Specifically, our results show that
individuals who have higher reward sensitivity (i.e., sensitivity
toward potentially rewarding situations and positive outcomes)
will most likely reap the benefits of engaging in EI. In contrast,
individuals who are more sensitive to punishments (i.e., sensitivity
toward potentially harmful situations and negative outcomes) will
most likely experience detrimental effects of engaging in EI. Thus,
it may be advisable to specifically target individuals based on their
reward sensitivity when promoting intrapreneurship. Not only will
such a strategy potentially boost employees’ engagement but it
may also increase their innovative output for the organization and
in-role performance. In addition, we argue that organizations
should avoid motivating employees who are easily distressed to
contribute to strategic renewal or new venture creation, as such
activity may result in increased exhaustion and hamper perfor-
mance (i.e., work avoidance).
In sum, building upon JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014,
2017) and reinforcement sensitivity theory (Corr, 2004), we
showed that EI may have both beneficial and detrimental impli-
cations for employee well-being and performance. We also dem-
onstrated that employee characteristics may play a key role in
explaining when proactive behaviors can be expected to positively
or negatively affect well-being and performance. We hope that our
study will inspire future research on the personal costs and benefits
of EI, as proactive work behaviors seem crucial in ever-changing
modern organizations.
References
Anderson, A. R., & Jack, S. L. (2002). The articulation of social capital in
entrepreneurial networks: A glue or a lubricant? Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 14, 193–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
08985620110112079
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship con-
cept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10, 7–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000310461187
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265–269. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0963721411414534
Bakker, A. B. (2015). A job demands-resources approach to public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 75, 723–732. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/puar.12388
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309 –328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In
P. Y. Chen & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Well-being: A complete reference
guide, Vol. 3: Work and well-being (pp. 1–28). West Sussex, United
Kingdom: Wiley Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415
.wbwell019
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory:
Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 22, 273–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving
on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18, 359 –372. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How
emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather
than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,
167–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other
research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986373
Belousova, O., & Gailly, B. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship in a
dispersed setting: Actors, behaviors, and processes. International Entre-
preneurship and Management Journal, 9, 361–377. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11365-013-0259-2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 GAWKE, GORGIEVSKI, AND BAKKER

Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Corporate
entrepreneurship and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Business
Economics, 45, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9629-1
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The
characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal,
18, 207–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199703)18:
3⬍207::AID-SMJ864⬎3.0.CO;2-Q
Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift
model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1246 –
1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024532
Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well,
I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship
fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 56 –74. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0037583
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship
behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role over-
load, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 740 –748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740
Bolton, D. L., & Lane, M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orienta-
tion: Development of a measurement instrument. Education and Train-
ing, 54, 219 –233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210314
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319 –333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engage-
ment: A quantitative review and test of its relations with tasks and
contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89 –136. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Clancy, K., & Stone, R. (2005). Don’t blame the metrics. Harvard Business
Review, 86, 26 –28.
Clegg, C., & Spencer, C. (2007). A circular and dynamic model of the process
of job design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,
321–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317906X113211
Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neu-
roscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.005
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why,
when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
De Jong, J. P. J., Parker, S. K., Wennekers, S. & Wu, C.-H. (2013).
Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matter?
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39, 981–995. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/etap.12084
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. (2014). Burnout and job
performance: The moderating role of selection, optimization, and com-
pensation strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19,
96 –107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035062
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 499 –512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. The
Academy of Management Review, 31, 270 –291. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/AMR.2006.20208680
Franken, I. H. A., Muris, P., & Rassin, E. (2005). Psychometric properties
of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behav-
ioral Assessment, 27, 25–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-005-
3262-2
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept
of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two
German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 70, 139 –161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997
.tb00639.x
Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M., & Bakker, A. B. (May, 2015). The “I” in
intrapreneurship: Development and validation of the employee intra-
preneurship scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Euro-
pean Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Oslo, Nor-
way.
Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Employee
intrapreneurship and work engagement: A latent change score approach.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 88 –100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jvb.2017.03.002
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and
contextual performance: Do shared values matter? Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 55, 254 –275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1682
Grant, A., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Gray, J. A. (1991). Neural systems of motivation, emotion and affect. In J.
Madden (Ed.), Neurobiology of learning, emotion and affect (pp. 273–
306). New York, NY: Raven Press.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con-
texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11, 30 – 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editor’s introduction: Corporate
entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive
gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal
initiative and work unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
73, 78 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and
entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 26, 33–52.
Heponiemi, T., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., Puttonen, S., & Ravaja, N.
(2003). BIS–BAS sensitivity and self-rated affects during experimen-
tally induced stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 943–
957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00079-X
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burnout in work organi-
zations. In R. T. Golmebiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (pp. 41– 61). New York, NY: Dekker.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Shepherd, D. A., & Bott, J. P. (2009).
Manager’s corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and
position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 236 –247. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.03.002
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing
corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice, 33, 19 – 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00279.x
Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006a). A health audit for
corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels—Part I. The Journal
of Business Strategy, 27, 10 –17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0275666
0610640137
Ireland, R. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2006b). A health audit for
corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels—Part II. The Jour-
nal of Business Strategy, 27, 21–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756660
610650019
Jackson, C. J. (2001). Comparison between Eysenck’s and Gray’s models
of personality in the prediction of motivational work criteria. Personality
and Individual Differences, 31, 129 –144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0191-8869(00)00124-0
Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter
estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation
Modeling, 10, 128 –141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM
1001_6
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE INTRAPRENEURSHIP

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and
innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73, 287–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S.
(2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with
contextual factors. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.),
Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules:
Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for
fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999)
findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320 –341. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J., & Vojak, B. (2007). Examining the
technical corporate entrepreneurs’ motivation: Voices from the field.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 753–768. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00198.x
McFadzean, E., O’Louhglin, A. E., & Shaw, E. (2005). Corporate entre-
preneurship and innovation. Pt. 1: The missing link. European Journal
of Innovation Management, 8, 350 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14601060510610207
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate entre-
preneurship and innovation. Boston, MA: Cengage South-Western Pub-
lishers.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and
differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management,
36, 633– 662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Pickering, A. D., & Corr, P. J. (2008). J. A. Gray’s reinforcement sensi-
tivity theory (RST) of personality. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H.
Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assess-
ment (pp. 239 –256). London, United Kingdom: Sage Ltd. http://dx.doi
.org/10.4135/9781849200462.n11
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you do not have to leave the
corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A.-K. (2011). The “quick start guide” for
conducting and publishing longitudinal research. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 26, 413– 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-
9209-6
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00273170701341316
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schutte, N., Toppinen, S., Kalimo, R., & Schaufeli, W. (2000). The
factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey
(MBI-GS) across occupational groups and nations. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 73, 53– 66. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1348/096317900166877
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2011). Moving forward from
project failure: Negative emotions, affective commitment, and learning
from the experience. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1229 –1259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0102
Shieh, G. (2011). Clarifying the role of mean centring in multicollinearity
of interaction effects. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 64, 462– 477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2010
.02002.x
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4
.422
Simbula, S., & Guglielmi, D. (2013). I am engaged, I feel good, and I go
the extra-mile: Reciprocal relationships between work engagement and
consequences. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29,
117–125.
Sulea, C., Vigra, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., &
Sava, F. A. (2012). Work engagement as a mediator between job
characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. The Ca-
reer Development International, 17, 188 –207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
13620431211241054
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting
on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 18, 230 –240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032141
Turró, T., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation:
The moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 360 –369. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.004
Van den Brink, F., Koch, B., Ardts, J., & Van Lankveld, J. (2004). Wat
heeft Kramer in zijn mars? De rol van persoonlijkhidskemerken bij
verschillende typen ondernemerschap. Tilburg, The Netherlands: GITP.
Van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2017). Fostering employee
well-being via a job crafting intervention. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 100, 164 –174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.008
Weaver, B., & Wuensch, K. L. (2013). SPSS and SAS programs for
comparing Pearson correlations and OLS regression coefficients. Behav-
ior Research Methods, 45, 880 – 895. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-
012-0289-7
Received December 15, 2016
Revision received September 7, 2017
Accepted September 15, 2017 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 GAWKE, GORGIEVSKI, AND BAKKER