Explaining the entrepreneurial intentions of employees: The roles of societal norms, work-related creativity and personal resources

Abstract

This article addresses the important question of why those in paid employment might be hesitant to start their own businesses. In particular, we predict how diminished work-related creativity of employees might mediate the relationship between their perceptions that societal norms do not support initiative taking and their own entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, we consider how risk tolerance and passion for work might buffer this process. Survey data, collected among public-sector employees in the United Arabic Emirates, confirm these predictions with the exception of indications for a buffering role of passion for work. For entrepreneurship stakeholders, this research reveals a critical factor – a diminished propensity to generate new ideas at work – by which employee beliefs about limited normative support for enterprising efforts may escalate into a reluctance to consider an entrepreneurial career. It also identifies how this process can be muted when employees are willing to take risks.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242621996614
International Small Business Journal:
Researching Entrepreneurship
1 –23
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0266242621996614
journals.sagepub.com/home/isb
S
mall Firms
is
b
j
Explaining the entrepreneurial
intentions of employees:
The roles of societal norms,
work-related creativity and
personal resources
Poh Yen Ng
Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
Dirk De Clercq
Brock University, Canada
Abstract
This article addresses the important question of why those in paid employment might be hesitant
to start their own businesses. In particular, we predict how diminished work-related creativity of
employees might mediate the relationship between their perceptions that societal norms do not
support initiative taking and their own entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, we consider how
risk tolerance and passion for work might buffer this process. Survey data, collected among public-
sector employees in the United Arabic Emirates, confirm these predictions with the exception
of indications for a buffering role of passion for work. For entrepreneurship stakeholders, this
research reveals a critical factor – a diminished propensity to generate new ideas at work – by
which employee beliefs about limited normative support for enterprising efforts may escalate
into a reluctance to consider an entrepreneurial career. It also identifies how this process can be
muted when employees are willing to take risks.
Keywords
conservation of resources theory, entrepreneurial intentions, normative adversity, passion for
work, risk tolerance, work-related creativity
Introduction
Why might employees who hold a steady job consider an entrepreneurial career? There are both
positive and negative aspects to this question. On the positive side, if they are willing to start their
The authors have contributed equally to this article.
Corresponding author:
Dirk De Clercq, Goodman School of Business, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1,
Canada.
Email: ddeclercq@brocku.ca
996614ISB0010.1177/0266242621996614International Small Business JournalNg and De Clercq
research-article2021
Full Paper

2 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
own businesses, they may enjoy greater decision autonomy, job control, financial rewards and a
sense of meaning (Delanoë-Gueguen and Liñán, 2019; Parasuraman and Simmers, 2001). For
society at large, employees who launch their own ventures promise heightened innovation levels,
new job creation and an infusion of new and improved products or processes (Acs et al., 2013).
However, the decision to leave a solid job and embark on an entrepreneurial career path is not
easy or straightforward. Thus, on the negative side, employees might resist entrepreneurial moves
due to their concerns about giving up a secure source of income, uncertainty about whether the
new business will succeed, the risk of losing their professional reputation or the prospect of the
seemingly relentless efforts required to keep a business afloat (Hormiga et al., 2013; Prottas and
Thompson, 2006).
These challenges may be exacerbated if employees believe that the broader macro-environment
inhibits rather than facilitates enterprising efforts (Kebaili et al., 2017; Solesvik et al., 2014).
Resistance to the idea of creating a new firm becomes especially problematic when societal envi-
ronments discourage such activities in parallel. For example, entrepreneurial propensities might be
subdued when people perceive insufficient financial support mechanisms, excessive red tape,
administrative burdens or poor legal protection for new product ideas (Feola et al., 2019; Fernández-
Serrano and Romero, 2014; Reynolds et al., 2005). Another critical inhibitor might stem from
beliefs that the norms that permeate society simply do not encourage personal initiative (Solesvik
et al., 2014; Sperber and Linder, 2019). Yet, research into the negative relationship between unsup-
portive societal norms and entrepreneurial intentions predominantly features samples of students
or young adults, just starting out in their careers (Ephrem et al., 2019; Siu and Lo, 2013). Compared
with these informants, securely employed potential entrepreneurs may confront additional hurdles
and considerations, particularly with respect to how broader societal norms may inform organisa-
tional leader’s attitudes towards ‘entrepreneurship-friendly’ behaviours at work (Chiu and Kwan,
2010; Chua et al., 2015).
Accordingly, with a sample of well-ensconced employees, we consider how greater or lesser
engagement of employees in work-related creativity might inform the ways in which their percep-
tions that norms discourage initiative taking determine their own entrepreneurial intentions. Work-
related creativity refers to the extent to which employees devise with new solutions to organisational
problems in the course of their work (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). If employees sense that the
surrounding environment does not value personal initiative, they might be reluctant to generate
new ideas in their current jobs, because they would worry that organisational authorities will regard
these efforts negatively, which could compromise their organisational standing (Chua et al., 2015).
An important consequence, we assert, might be that their reluctance then spills over into reduced
perceptions of their ability to leverage their creativity in other settings, such as by starting their
own businesses (Hormiga et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2011).
We also consider some ways in which this negative process might be contained, such as if
employees possess valuable personal resources that diminish their fear of a tarnished organisa-
tional standing even if they were to undertake creative activities at work. That is, the extent to
which employees exhibit conservative behavioural tendencies in response to adverse normative
conditions, with respect to enterprising efforts, likely decreases when they have access to personal
resources that mitigate the experienced fear (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2019; Hobfoll and
Shirom, 2000). We thus postulate that risk tolerance and passion for work, as two personal
resources, might diminish the chances that employees avoid creative behaviours at work in the
presence of normative adversity, with positive consequences for their entrepreneurial intentions.
Risk tolerance captures the extent to which employees are willing to try new things, even if the
outcomes are uncertain (Zhao et al., 2005). Passion for work instead refers to the extent to which
people derive personal joy from working hard (Baum and Locke, 2004).

Ng and De Clercq 3
With these predictions, we seek to make several research contributions. First, we argue and
empirically demonstrate that employee perceptions of adverse normative macro-environments can
reduce the propensity to start a new firm, given fears that a diminished organisational reputation
leaves them reluctant to undertake creative work-related efforts that contradict prevailing norms
(Amabile, 1996; Hormiga et al., 2013). Organisational behaviour research has already established
that employee propensity to limit creative behaviours is an intermediate mechanism that connects
adverse work conditions, such as role stressors (Mishra and Shukla, 2012) and surface acting (Liu
et al., 2013), with negative work outcomes. We examine a similar mediator in a novel context,
pertaining to the plans employees make to start their own business when they perceive a lack of
normative support for entrepreneurial efforts in their external environments (Sperber and Linder,
2019). Formally, we posit that the reduced likelihood that employees are creative in the course of
their work functioning —an underexplored manifestation of entrepreneurial inaction relevant for
entrepreneurial intention formation (Wood et al., 2017) —is an important mechanism that may
explain why their perceptions of unsupportive societal norms diminish the probability that they
make plans to start their own business. This is an important mechanism that may explain why per-
ceptions of unsupportive societal norms diminish the probability of business creation.
Second, we address calls for more research that applies contingency approaches to the com-
bined effects of factors that operate at different levels when predicting entrepreneurial intentions
(Schillo et al., 2016; Siu and Lo, 2013). In particular, we generate expanded insights into how
diminished entrepreneurial intentions, as a response to macro-level normative adversity, might be
mitigated by pertinent personal resources that employees can leverage to guard against negative
consequences if exhibiting creativity at work. Employees are likely to react differently to unfa-
vourable normative conditions; one element that determines their behavioural reactions is their
ability to deal effectively with related challenges (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). By considering
specifically how employee risk tolerance (Zhao et al., 2005) and passion for work (Ho et al., 2011)
may mitigate the mediating effect by which diminished work-related creativity channels normative
adversity into diminished plans to start a business, we seek insights for policy makers and other
stakeholders interested in spurring entrepreneurship. To diminish the risk that unfavourable soci-
etal norms negatively interfere with an employee’s interest in starting a new firm, they should
encourage greater willingness to take risks among these employees or heed the personal excite-
ment they show in their work.
To explore these issues, the article is organised as follows. First, we outline the theory and
hypotheses development. Next, we present the methodology and statistical results. We conclude
with a discussion of the study’s key theoretical insights, limitations and future research directions,
and implications for practice.
Theoretical background and context
To establish our contributions, we address the specific question of how employee work-related
creativity might serve as a conduit through which perceptions of unfavourable societal norms
inform entrepreneurial intentions. Considering this distinct type of work behaviour is important
and relevant, in light of its opportunities and challenges. Employees can contribute effectively to
their organisation’s success by developing and introducing novel ideas to improve its current situ-
ation (Maimone and Sinclair, 2014; Oltra and Vivas-López, 2013). Such creative activities also
offer opportunities for personal growth and can generate a sense of personal accomplishment (Kim
et al., 2009; Mishra and Shukla, 2012). Yet, the pursuit of novel ideas, which by definition upset
the status quo, also creates important risks for employees. Other members, including organisa-
tional authorities, may find such efforts upsetting and perceive them as undermining prevailing

4 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
organisational practices (Van Dijk and Van Dick, 2009; Yuan and Woodman, 2010). For example,
organisational leaders may interpret these behaviours as challenges to the quality of their decisions
or fear that implementing the novel ideas will compromise their personal turf and privileges (Hon
et al., 2014; Sutton and Hargadon, 1996). Employees might, therefore, think twice before they risk
expressing work-related creativity to avoid resistance or rejection by those in authority.
These challenges should be particularly prominent when employees believe that society at large
regards disruptive, change-invoking initiatives negatively and this informs how organisational
leaders evaluate such initiatives in work settings (Borins, 2002; Chiu and Kwan, 2010). Creative
work behaviours clearly can be discouraged by organisational or industry factors, but we propose
that employees may also avoid such behaviours in response to external forces that indirectly deter-
mine how the internal organisation evaluates such behaviours (Chua et al., 2015). The connection
between perceptions of normative adversity and work-related creativity is indirect and somewhat
remote. Therefore, for this study, we select public-sector organisations as our empirical context,
noting that the members of these organisations, including their leaders, should be strongly influ-
enced by norms that permeate society at large (Van Wart, 2013). That is, the employees of govern-
ment organisations should be particularly inclined to believe that their perceptions of societal
norms mirror those held by those in authority (Elenkov and Manev, 2005). With this logic, we
propose that employee beliefs about normative adversity towards initiative taking may leave them
reluctant to undertake creative efforts at work, for fear that these efforts will be poorly received by
leaders (Chiu and Kwan, 2010).1
Moreover, dedicated creative efforts may be challenging for public-sector employees in general,
to the extent that these efforts contradict the prevailing bureaucratic rules set by government man-
dates (Borins, 2002; Moussa et al., 2018). Government bureaucracies already have a tendency to
discourage work behaviours that upset the status quo, so it becomes particularly relevant to exam-
ine how variations in employee beliefs about societal norms related to initiative taking may enter
the workplace and inform the variations in their work-related behavioural responses. That is, our
focus on public-sector organisations enables us to investigate how the likelihood that employees
will develop disruptive ideas at work depends on the extent to which they believe the wider norma-
tive environment is (un)supportive of these efforts (Sperber and Linder, 2019), beyond any organ-
isation-specific bureaucracy, and importantly, to pinpoint the implications of their work-related
behavioural responses for their plans to start a business (Hormiga et al., 2013).
Conservation of resources theory
Even if this empirical focus on public-sector employees is highly relevant, our theoretical argu-
ments also should apply across different sectors and settings,2 in that the links between employee
perceptions of limited normative support for enterprising efforts, work-related creativity and entre-
preneurial intentions are anchored in conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989;
Hobfoll et al., 2018). According to this theory, work-related activities and preferences of employ-
ees reflect their desire to shield their existing resource reservoirs and avoid resource losses, which
sets the stage for two key premises. First, the threat of resource drainage caused by adverse situa-
tions tends to elicit behavioural responses that enable employees to counter such drainage (Hobfoll
and Shirom, 2000). Second, certain personal features can mitigate this process, especially those
that make it less probable that the experienced adversity converts into actual resource drainage
(Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000).
A broad conceptualisation of the notion of ‘resources’ entails all ‘those objects, personal char-
acteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued in their own right or that are valued because they
act as conduits to the achievement or protection of valued resources’ (Hobfoll, 2001: 339). In our

Ng and De Clercq 5
proposed theoretical framework, the role of organisational standing of employees should be espe-
cially relevant, and it also reflects one of the key COR resources (status at work) that Hobfoll
(2001: 342, Table 2) identifies. We propose, in particular, that employee perceptions of normative
adversity with respect to taking initiatives diminish their work-related creativity given efforts to
protect workplace standing (Fiske, 2010). That is, the perceived threat to their organisational posi-
tion if employees were to propose novel ideas in the presence of normative conditions that reject
such efforts may steer them towards more conservative, rather than disruptive, work behaviours
(Chua et al., 2015). In essence, diminished work-related creativity is a behavioural response by
employees seeking to maintain their organisational standing and avoid negative judgements of
their work-related actions (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000).
In a further application of COR theory, we postulate that this protective behavioural response is
less likely to the extent that employees can draw on personal resources that make the response less
needed (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). In particular, employee motivation to protect their organisa-
tional reputation by avoiding work-related creativity, in the presence of normative adversity, likely
is subdued when they possess the personal resources of risk tolerance (Zhao et al., 2005) and pas-
sion for work (Baum and Locke, 2004). As we detail in the ‘Hypotheses’ section, employees who
perceive normative adversity but are more risk prone or excited about work may experience less
need to reduce their work-related creativity to shield their organisational standing, so they then
have more chances to identify opportunities for new business creation (Hormiga et al., 2013).
The focus on these two personal resources is not random but informed by their complementary
roles. That is, even if both of these personal resources, conceptualised as moderators in our pro-
posed framework, can help employees cope with the challenges of unsupportive social norms for
initiative taking, they do so in different ways. Employee risk tolerance is primarily cognitive in
nature, capturing how they make decisions when they recognise the likelihood of uncertain out-
comes (Dinis et al., 2013). This passion for work speaks to the positive emotions experienced in
the course of executing work tasks (De Clercq et al., 2013). Together, these two resources provide
a consistent, encompassing perspective of whether and how employee beliefs about normative
adversity might escalate into reduced entrepreneurial intentions, through their diminished work-
related creativity.
Hypotheses
The proposed conceptual framework is summarised in Figure 1. We theorise that normative adver-
sity thwarts entrepreneurial intentions, because the fear of diminished organisational standing
steers employees away from undertaking creative activities at work. Risk tolerance and passion for
work serve as two complementary buffers of this connection. We detail the arguments for the con-
stitutive hypotheses in this section.
Mediating role of work-related creativity
According to the tenets of COR theory, employee propensity to engage in certain work behaviours
is influenced by motivation to conserve existing resource bases and diminish the chances of further
resource depletion, particularly in the presence of unfavourable circumstances (Hobfoll and
Shirom, 2000). If societal norms seem unsupportive of initiative taking, employees may fear that
exhibiting creativity at work will jeopardise their organisational standing as those in authority take
negative views of such behaviours (Chua et al., 2015; Sperber and Linder, 2019). Such beliefs
generate a discouraging sense overall so employees have little motive to exert the effort needed to
devise novel solutions to work-related problems (Anderson, 1992; Hormiga et al., 2013). That is,

6 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
a broader normative environment that appears to discourage initiative taking may compromise
employee motivation to be creative in their jobs as they fear these activities will undermine their
reputation at work (Chiu and Kwan, 2010). Conversely, if employees believe that broader societal
norms encourage personal initiative taking, they are more likely to engage in creative work behav-
iours, because such behaviours can generate resource gains, including positive recognition from
organisational leaders (Chua et al., 2015; Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Similarly, if employees perceive a lack of support for initiative taking, and believe that organi-
sational decision makers are influenced by the same norms (Chua et al., 2015), the discouraging
environment might seem like a form of disrespect for their creative efforts. This further under-
mines motivation to allocate energy to new idea generation within the workplace (Ryan and Deci,
2000). That is, employees may justify their diminished creative efforts by referring to the lack of
normative support that such ideas receive (Anderson, 1992; Chiu and Kwan, 2010). Consistent
with the COR logic (Hobfoll et al., 2018), refusing to engage in creative activities at work provides
a protective mechanism that conserves organisational standing (key resource) in the presence of
norms that conflict with such activities (Hobfoll, 2001). If employees are convinced that society
does not look favourably on personal initiative, they will not waste valuable time devising new
work-oriented ideas likely to be ignored by leaders engrained with societal norms. With these argu-
ments, we postulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Employee perceptions of normative adversity with respect to initiative taking
relate negatively to their work-related creativity.
We also argue that the extent to which employees avoid work-related creativity has a negative
relationship upon entrepreneurial intentions. Although the form of creativity we analyse refers to
employee efforts within their existing jobs, such diminished creativity may spill over and limit
their ability to make plans to create a new firm. If they do not engage in efforts to find solutions to
problems encountered at work, they are less well positioned to detect other opportunities to exploit
Normative
adversity
Work-related
creativity
Entrepreneurial
intentions
Risk tolerance
Passion for work
Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Ng and De Clercq 7
through a new business (Hormiga et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2011); rather, attention rests on how to
maintain and preserve current employment. Frequent anecdotal accounts indicate that new busi-
ness ideas tend to result from problems or deficiencies that employees encounter at work (Barringer
and Ireland, 2019); empirical research affirms that limited creativity at work leads to lower entre-
preneurial intentions (Biraglia and Kadile, 2017). Conversely, the premises underpinning COR
theory suggest that employees may be motivated to leverage work-related insights, derived from
their creative work behaviours, in plans to attain additional personal resource gains (Hobfoll and
Shirom, 2000). Employees who display creative efforts in the workplace are more optimistic about
the chances of success from commercialising their ideas within a new business (Biraglia and
Kadile, 2017), expecting enhanced financial rewards, work-related freedom or a sense of personal
accomplishment (Delanoë-Gueguen and Liñán, 2019). We therefore hypothesise the following:
Hypothesis 2: Work-related creativity of employees relates positively to their entrepreneurial
intentions.
The integration of these hypotheses implies a critical mediating role of work-related creativity.
Employee beliefs about adverse societal norms in relation to taking initiative may diminish their
entrepreneurial intentions as they are reluctant to undertake significant effort to devise novel ideas
that might resolve work-related problems (Chua et al., 2015). Extant research similarly reveals a
mediating role of diminished entrepreneurial attitudes and perceived control in the connection
between perceptions of societal corruption and entrepreneurial intentions (Traikova et al., 2017).
We add to such research by exploring how employee beliefs of uncertain supportive societal norms
prevent plans to create a new firm; this reflects self-protective behavioural responses to such
norms, including curtailing creative activities at work.
Hypothesis 3: Work-related creativity of employees mediates the relationship between their
perceptions of normative adversity with respect to initiative taking and their entrepreneurial
intentions.
Moderating role of risk tolerance
In COR theory, negative work-related behavioural responses to adverse, resource-draining condi-
tions vary with access to personal resources that inform an employee’s ability to cope with these
conditions (Abbas et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 2001). To engage in creative activities, in the absence of
normative support for initiative taking, employees must be able to deal with the fear of diminished
organisational standing if their creative behaviours were to be resisted by norm-guided organisa-
tional leaders who find such behaviours inappropriate (Chiu and Kwan, 2010; Chua et al., 2015).
If employees are highly tolerant to risk, this personal resource might diminish this fear (Arnesen
and Foster, 2016). That is, the probability that employees experience normative environments as
impediments to their organisational stature, if they were to engage in work-related creative activi-
ties, should be subdued when they are willing to take risks (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000; Kim and
Choi, 2018). In contrast, employees with a low risk tolerance are less well able to protect them-
selves against reputation-related fears that arise from unfavourable norms with respect to work-
related creative efforts (Kim and Choi, 2018; Mmobuosi, 1988). Beliefs about normative adversity,
accordingly, are more likely to translate into a reluctance to undertake potentially disruptive crea-
tive activities at work.
These arguments, together with the aforementioned mediating role of work-related creativity,
suggest a moderated mediation effect (Preacher et al., 2007). That is, employee risk tolerance

8 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
represents an important contingency in the indirect relationship between beliefs about normative
adversity and entrepreneurial intentions, through diminished work-related creativity (Zhao et al.,
2005). Among risk-tolerant employees, the role of diminished work-related creative effort as a factor
that explains the escalation of resource-draining, unsupportive societal norms into lower entrepre-
neurial intentions is less evident (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). Conversely, their reluctance to seek
novel solutions to work problems – as informed by their fear that such actions may backfire and
undermine their organisational standing (Chua et al., 2015; Hobfoll, 2001) – should be especially
strong when employees are more risk averse (Amabile, 1996). In such cases, the hardships of an
unfavourable normative environment discourage them from developing start-up plans (Sperber and
Linder, 2019). When employees are unwilling to take risks, their limited work-related creativity
becomes a more critical factor for explaining how beliefs about normative adversity contribute to
reduced entrepreneurial intentions.
Hypothesis 4: The extent to which employee perceptions of normative adversity with respect
to initiative taking diminish their entrepreneurial intentions, through diminished work-related
creativity, is lower among employees who exhibit greater risk tolerance.
Moderating role of passion for work
We suggest a similar buffering effect of passion for work. In line with the same COR logic, this
personal resource should diminish protective behavioural responses of the employees to the experi-
ence of resource-draining normative adversity with respect to taking initiatives (Hobfoll, 2001).
Employees equipped with a strong passion for work are motivated to do something useful with
their individual talents and energy (Vallerand et al., 2003), so it becomes more likely that they seek
creative solutions to organisational problem situations, even in the presence of unsupportive soci-
etal norms (Klaukien et al., 2013). As passionate employees pay significant attention to how they
can make meaningful work contributions, rather than focus on the potential negative consequences
that their creative efforts might have on organisational standing, due to unfavourable societal
norms (Baum and Locke, 2004), they should be less affected by beliefs about normative adversity.
As such, they should be more focused upon resolving work-related problems (De Clercq and
Belausteguigoitia, 2017a). In addition, employee passion for work might make challenging norma-
tive conditions somewhat appealing as finding ways to generate novel ideas in such conditions
generates a sense of personal accomplishment (Ho et al., 2011). That is, the gratification they
derive from their ability to remain creative at work in the face of resource-draining normative
adversity may outweigh their refusal to exert creative efforts at work due to fears about norm-
driven, sceptical organisational leaders (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Similar to the case we made for risk tolerance, these considerations point to a moderated media-
tion dynamic (Preacher et al., 2007). Employee passion for work may serve as a buffer that miti-
gates the indirect relationship between their beliefs about normative adversity and their limited
interest in starting their own companies, due to a reluctance to undertake creative behaviours at
work. For employees who derive joy from working hard, diminished work-related creativity efforts
should be less influential in terms of escalating adverse societal norms into lower entrepreneurial
intentions (Klaukien et al., 2013). This buffer not only protects employees against the hardships
that arise with discouraging norms but also provides a source of personal excitement if they can
successfully overcome the norms (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2017a).
Hypothesis 5: The extent to which employee perceptions of normative adversity with respect
to initiative taking diminish their entrepreneurial intentions, through diminished work-related
creativity, is weaker among employees who exhibit greater passion for work.

Ng and De Clercq 9
Research method
Sample and data collection
The hypotheses were tested with survey data collected among public-sector employees in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE). This empirical context helps us address calls for more research on
the antecedents of people’s entrepreneurial intentions in Middle Eastern countries (Imran and
Khan, 2019; Karimi et al., 2016; Kebaili et al., 2017). Organisational norms inherently affect
employee creativity levels, but societal norms have especially strong influences on how people
make work-related decisions in collectivist societies such as the UAE, where members, including
organisational authorities, tend to conform to macro-level traditions and practices (Hofstede et al.,
2010). Moreover, government employment is mainly restricted to local nationals at all levels,
including those in leadership position who share similar characteristics and values, informed by
their Bedouin lifestyle (Mansour, 2008; Wilkins, 2001). In this national context, employees are
likely to hold strong beliefs that their own perceptions about societal norms, including those with
respect to initiative taking, match those in authority within the organisation (Chua et al., 2015;
Elenkov and Manev, 2005).
The UAE also offers an interesting context in light of two potentially opposing forces that may
inform the likelihood that employees consider starting their own businesses, in response to norma-
tive adversity towards initiative taking. On one hand, the UAE has launched programmes in the
past decade to encourage public-sector employees to consider careers as entrepreneurs, to reduce
dependence on full-time government jobs related to oil and gas production (Jabeen et al., 2017;
Tipu and Ryan, 2016). On the other hand, and as is the case for many government organisations,
public-sector employees in the UAE encounter significant rigidity and regulation, such that crea-
tive efforts in normative employment contexts tend to be discouraged (Hanouz and Yousef, 2007;
Mansour, 2008). The prevalence of this second force emphasises the challenges that employees
may encounter, related to their limited ability to leverage valuable work-related experiences as new
business opportunities. In addition, there is a potentially instrumental role of individual risk toler-
ance and passion for work in mitigating the harmful effects of beliefs about discouraging societal
norms on work-related creativity and subsequent entrepreneurial intentions. In light of these con-
siderations, the UAE represents a compelling setting in which to examine the likelihood that
employee beliefs about unsupportive norms may spill over into diminished plans to start their own
business.
We took several measures to protect the rights of the research participants and diminish the
chances of social desirability biases (Spector, 2006). In particular, the participants did not have to
disclose their names when completing the online survey; the invitation statement that accompanied
the survey offered a guarantee of complete confidentiality. It also emphasised that the objective
was to analyse aggregate, not individual, data patterns; that participation was entirely voluntary
and that participants could withdraw from the study at any time. The invitation statement further
indicated that there were no correct or incorrect answers and that it was important, for the validity
of the results, that the questions were answered truthfully.
The names of the target participants were randomly selected from a database maintained by the
university of a one of the co-authors containing about 1200 employees who work for one of three
organisations that operate in the public sector. We administered the survey to 1000 employees
selected by a random digit generator; we received 316 completed surveys. To check for non-
response bias, we performed an independent-group t test and compared the values for the focal
constructs across early and late respondents (median split), consistent with the well-accepted argu-
ment that late respondents share similarities with non-respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977;
Jiao et al., 2011). No significant differences emerged between these groups (p values ranged

10 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
between .371 and .806), which reduces concerns about non-response bias. The sample consisted of
65% women, 63% of the participants were younger than 30 years, 92% had a bachelor’s degree or
higher, 70% had a monthly income of 10,000 Arab Emirates Dirham (AED) or higher (£2000
British Pounds) and 42% had prior participation experience in an entrepreneurship training pro-
gramme; the employing organisations engaged in economic development (37%), education (38%)
or municipal services (25%). All respondents were employed full-time.
Measures
The assessments of the focal constructs used items drawn from previous studies. The 7-point
Likert-type anchors for each scale ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’).
Normative adversity. Employee beliefs that societal norms are not supportive of initiative taking
were measured with a six-item, reverse-coded scale of informal environment support (Sperber and
Linder, 2019). Two sample items were ‘Societal norms emphasise personal initiative, self-suffi-
ciency, and autonomy’ and ‘Societal norms are highly supportive of success achieved through
one’s own personal efforts’ (Cronbach’s α = .93).
Work-related creativity. To assess the extent to which employees generated novel solutions to
organisational problems, we applied four items drawn from previous research on work-related
creativity (Biraglia and Kadile, 2017). For example, the respondents indicated their agreement
with statements such as ‘I often come up with creative solutions to problems at work’ and ‘I often
provide a fresh approach to problems at work’ (Cronbach’s α = .94).
Entrepreneurial intentions. The extent to which employees consider starting their own businesses
was measured with three items used in prior research on entrepreneurial intentions (Kickul et al.,
2009). The respondents mentioned, for example, whether ‘I am likely to start my own business
soon’ and ‘I often think of having my own business’ (Cronbach’s α = .84).
Risk tolerance. We assessed an employee’s propensity to tolerate risks with three items from extant
research on risk taking (Zhao et al., 2005). Two example statements were ‘I am willing to take
significant risk if the possible rewards are high enough’ and ‘One should try new things even if
there is a risk they might fail’ (Cronbach’s α = .78).
Passion for work. To measure the extent to which employees tend to feel excited about diligent
work, we applied a five-item scale of passion for work (Baum and Locke, 2004). Two example
statements were ‘I derive most of my life satisfaction from working hard’ and ‘I love to work hard’
(Cronbach’s α = .91).
Control variables. The statistical models included six control variables: employee gender (1 =
female); age (in years); education level (1 = high school, 2 = bachelor’s degree, 3 = master’s
degree, 4 = doctorate); monthly income, to provide a (rough) proxy for employees’ job level (1 =
below 10,000 AED, 2 = 10,000–19,999 AED, 3 = 20,000–29,999 AED, 4 = 30,000–39,999 AED,
5 = 40,000–49,999 AED, 6 = 50,000 AED or more); participation in entrepreneurial training in
the past (1 = never, 2 = once or twice a year, 3 = three or more times a year) and the type of gov-
ernment organisation that employs them (economic development, education or municipal services;
the last category serves as the base case). Employee gender tends to influence creative and entre-
preneurial endeavours (Baer and Kaufman, 2008), as does confidence relating to

Ng and De Clercq 11
success (Amabile, 1996), which in turn may depend on age, education level, financial means and
entrepreneurship training. Including the organisation type also accounts for potential organisation-
level influences on work-related creativity and entrepreneurial intentions, even if all the organisa-
tions are government agencies.
Construct validity. We assessed the construct validity of the five focal constructs by estimating
a five-factor measurement model with a confirmatory factor analysis. The fit of this model was
good: χ2(480) = 601.96, confirmatory fit index = .92, incremental fit index = .92, Tucker–
Lewis index = .91, root mean square error of approximation = .08 and standardised root mean
square residual = .07. In support of the presence of convergent validity for the five constructs,
each item loaded very strongly (p < .001) on its corresponding construct, and the average vari-
ance extracted (AVE) values were higher than the benchmark of .50. Evidence for the presence
of discriminant validity appeared, in that all AVE values were greater than the squared correla-
tions of the associated construct pairs. The fit of the models with unconstrained construct pairs
(correlation between constructs was free to vary) also was significantly better than the fit of the
constrained counterparts (correlation between constructs was forced to equal 1), for all 10 con-
struct pairs (.
,.
)
()
∆χ 1
20
><
38
45
p.
Statistical technique
We tested the research hypotheses with the PROCESS macro (Hayes et al., 2017). It estimates
individual paths, together with a comprehensive assessment of mediation and moderated mediation
effects; it is applied in many studies that test such effects (Skiba and Wildman, 2019; Wang et al.,
2018). An important difference between the PROCESS macro and the traditional Sobel (1982) or
Baron and Kenny (1986) procedures is that the former does not assume normality for indirect and
conditional indirect effects. It instead relies on a bootstrapping technique that explicitly accounts
for the potentially asymmetric distributions of these effects, which may deviate from normality
(MacKinnon et al., 2004).
To check for the presence of mediation, we assessed the indirect relationship between normative
adversity and entrepreneurial intentions through work-related creativity, together with the associ-
ated confidence interval (CI), based on the PROCESS macro’s Model 4. In the first step, we
assessed the signs and significance levels of the associated direct paths between normative adver-
sity and work-related creativity and between work-related creativity and entrepreneurial inten-
tions. In the second step, we assessed the presence of moderated mediation by calculating two sets
of conditional indirect effects of normative adversity (and the corresponding CIs) at distinct levels
of risk tolerance and passion work. As established by the PROCESS macro, these CIs reflect two
scenarios, namely, when the moderator is one standard deviation (SD) below and above its mean.
Consistent with the proposed theoretical framework, the estimated models included the moderating
effects of risk tolerance and passion for work on the relationship between normative adversity and
work-related creativity but not between work-related creativity and entrepreneurial intentions (i.e.
Model 7 in the PROCESS macro).3
Results
Table 1 reports the correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics, and Table 2 reports the media-
tion results obtained from the PROCESS macro. The results for the control variables indicated
positive relationships of education level (β = .375, p < .01) and entrepreneurship education (β =
.314, p < .01) with entrepreneurial intentions. Normative adversity diminished work-related

12 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
Table 1. Correlation table and descriptive statistics (N = 316).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Normative adversity
2. Work-related creativity −.527**
3. Entrepreneurial intentions −.526** .491**
4. Risk tolerance −.489** .533** .540**
5. Passion for work −.566** .624** .439** .538**
6. Gender (1 = female) .001 −.042 −.096 −.185** −.008
7. Age .040 −.006 −.124* −.161** .040 .022
8. Education level −.027 .047 .148** .003 .087 −.042 .176**
9. Monthly income −.106 .055 .017 −.003 −.011 .006 .512** .222**
10. Entrepreneurship education .078 .002 .111* .006 .007 −.025 −.041 .130* −.098
11. Organisation: economic development −.218** .094 .073 .044 .009 −.003 .159** .035 .510** .043
12. Organisation: education .286** −.179** −.207** −.217** −.125* .102 −.040 −.117* −.336** −.005 −.600**
Mean 3.380 4.749 4.070 4.398 5.149 .649 3.570 2.104 2.715 1.475 .367 .383
Standard deviation 1.523 1.286 1.637 1.276 1.427 .478 1.613 .539 1.523 .604 .483 .487
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Ng and De Clercq 13
creativity (β = –.154, p < .001, Hypothesis 1), which in turn diminished entrepreneurial intentions
(β = .226, p < .01, Hypothesis 2). The formal test for mediation revealed an effect size of –.035
for the indirect relationship between normative adversity and entrepreneurial intentions through
work-related creativity; the CI did not include 0 [–.076, –.006], which affirmed the presence of
mediation (Hypothesis 3).
The PROCESS macro findings, as reported in Table 3, Panel A, indicated a positive, significant
effect of the normative adversity × risk tolerance interaction term (β = .121, p < .001) for predict-
ing work-related creativity, consistent with the expected buffering role of risk tolerance. That is,
the negative relationship between normative adversity and work-related creativity was weaker at
heightened levels of risk tolerance (–.323 at 1 SD below the mean and .001 at 1 SD above the
mean). The CI did not include zero at the lower level of the moderator ([–.434, –.211]), but the CI
included zero at its higher level ([–.108, .107]), which indicates a non-significant effect at this
higher level. Figure 2 depicts this interaction effect. The assessment of the presence of moderated
mediation included a comparison of the strength of the conditional indirect relationship between
normative adversity and entrepreneurial intentions through work-related creativity at different lev-
els of risk tolerance. Table 3 reveals diminishing effect sizes at higher levels of the moderator: from
–.073 at 1 SD below the mean, to .001 at 1 SD above the mean. The CI did not include zero at the
lower levels of the moderator ([–.136, –.021]) but did at its higher level ([–.035, .031]). With a
more explicit test of moderated mediation, we assessed the index of moderated mediation and its
corresponding CI (Hayes, 2015). This index equalled .027, and its CI did not include 0 ([.008,
.050]), in support of Hypothesis 4.
However, the findings in Table 3, Panel B, did not support Hypothesis 5. That is, we found no
significant effect of the normative adversity × passion for work interaction term (β = .021, ns) in
predicting work-related creativity. The unreported results of the moderated mediation test revealed
that each of the CIs for the indirect relationship between normative adversity and entrepreneurial
Table 2. Mediation results (PROCESS macro) (N = 316).
Work-related creativity Entrepreneurial intentions
Gender (1 = female) .014 −.080
Age .006 −.085
Education level −.007 .375**
Monthly income .021 .015
Entrepreneurship education .030 .314**
Organisation: economic developmenta.059 −.163
Organisation: education −.018 −.137
Normative adversity −.154*** −.322***
Risk tolerance .232*** .353***
Passion for work .358*** −.003
Work-related creativity .226**
R2.470 .441
Effect size Bootstrap SE LLCI ULCI
Indirect effect −.035 .018 −.076 −.006
SE: standard error; LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval.
aMunicipal services serves as the base category.
**p < .01; ***p < .001.

14 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
Table 3. Moderated mediation results (PROCESS macro) (N = 316).
Panel A: Moderation by risk tolerance
Work-related creativity Entrepreneurial intentions
Gender (1 = female) .060 −.080
Age −.003 −.085
Education level .024 .375**
Monthly income .003 .015
Entrepreneurship education .064 .314**
Organisation: economic developmenta.102 −.163
Organisation: education .014 −.137
Normative adversity −.685*** −.322***
Risk tolerance −.202* .353***
Passion for work .283*** −.003
Normative adversity × risk tolerance .121***
Work-related creativity .226**
R2.509 .441
Effect size Bootstrap SE LLCI ULCI
Conditional direct effect of normative adversity on work-related creativity
–1 SD −.323 .057 −.434 −.211
+1 SD .001 .055 −.108 .107
Conditional indirect effect of normative adversity on entrepreneurial intentions
–1 SD −.073 .030 −.136 −.021
+1 SD .001 .016 −.035 .031
Index of moderated mediation .027 .011 .008 .050
Panel B: Moderation by passion for work
Work-related creativity Entrepreneurial intentions
Gender (1 = female) .018 −.080
Age .003 −.085
Education level −.006 .375**
Monthly income .016 .015
Entrepreneurship education .041 .314**
Organisation: economic developmenta.065 −.163
Organisation: education −.012 −.137
Normative adversity −.259* −.322***
Risk tolerance .223*** .353***
Passion for work .272* −.003
Normative adversity × passion for work .021
Work-related creativity .226**
R2.472 .441
SE: standard error; LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval; SD: standard deviation.
aMunicipal services serves as the base category.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Ng and De Clercq 15
intentions failed to include zero, so the negative indirect relationship was significant across the
entire range of passion for work. The index of moderation equalled .005, and the CI of this index
included zero ([–.007, .021]). Overall, the empirical results showed that risk tolerance, not passion
for work, mitigated the negative indirect relationship between normative adversity and entrepre-
neurial intentions through work-related creativity.
Discussion
This study contributes to entrepreneurship research by investigating the role that perceived macro-
level normative adversity has in predicting the entrepreneurial intentions of employees, with a
particular focus on pertinent factors that explain or influence this process. Research that connects
unfavourable macro-level influences upon plans for new firm creation (Feola et al., 2019; Kebaili
et al., 2017) tends to rely on student samples, rather than employees, and do not address why, or
when, they shy away from plans to create a new business related to beliefs about unfavourable
societal norms. We have drawn upon COR theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018) to propose (1) that a dimin-
ished probability of starting one’s own firm in the presence of normative adversity with respect to
initiative taking can be explained by an employee’s diminished propensity to be creative at work
and (2) that risk tolerance, but not passion for work, buffers this effect.
A first theoretical insight that arises from the empirical findings is the importance of work-
related behaviours (creativity), as conduits through which employee beliefs about societal norms
translate into diminished plans for business creation. Consistent with COR theory, reflections upon
broader norms that discourage personal initiative diminish creative efforts at work reflecting
employee concerns that such efforts might undermine their workplace status (valuable resource)
among organisational leaders (Chiu and Kwan, 2010; Hobfoll, 2001). The link between beliefs
about societal norms and workplace behaviour reflects the premise that employees believe that
organisational leader opinion, regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour, mirrors those of
society at large (Elenkov and Manev, 2005). This premise should be valid in many settings, but
perhaps even more so in organisations whose leaders are expected to support the common good
(e.g. government), as well as in collectivistic countries in which shared beliefs about what is
acceptable spill over into the workplace (Hofstede et al., 2010). As this study reveals, employees
Figure 2. Moderating effect of risk tolerance on the relationship between normative adversity and work-
related creativity.

16 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
who decide not to act entrepreneurially at work, indicated by their limited creativity in the work
setting, and in response to the limited normative support for enterprising efforts, are ultimately less
well positioned to consider an entrepreneurial career. Thus, we contribute to extant research on
entrepreneurial inaction (Wood et al., 2017) by specifying an underexplored source and manifesta-
tion of such inaction, in the context of paid employment, regarding employee beliefs about unfa-
vourable macro-level norms and their subsequent reluctance to develop new solutions to workplace
problems.
A second critical insight notes the intermediate role of work-related entrepreneurial inaction is
subdued by risk tolerance; this also aligns with a COR logic. Hesitation about engaging in disrup-
tive activities that contradict prevailing norms about the (in)appropriateness of initiative taking,
which may threaten to undermine reputations among organisational authorities, is mitigated if
employees can rely on pertinent personal resources to assist in avoiding fears about reputation
losses (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Employees who are risk tolerant are less concerned about the negative
consequences that their potentially controversial work activities might evoke (Arnesen and Foster,
2016). As such, they are better equipped to avoid a scenario in which beliefs about normative
adversity compromise plans to start a business bolstered by a willingness to undertake creative
activities at work (Kim and Choi, 2018).
It is significant that identifying the buffering role of risk tolerance complements previous studies
regarding the direct beneficial effects of stimulating propensities to embark upon entrepreneurial
careers (Bell, 2019; Brandstatter, 2011). Thus, we identify how diminished work-related creativity
and entrepreneurial intentions, due to unfavourable normative conditions, might be averted by a
tolerance for risk; this helps employees cope with their fears under such conditions (Arnesen and
Foster, 2016). To the extent that employees are willing to take risks, they are better able to contain
concerns about the negative consequences that unsupportive normative conditions may have on
their organisational standing, if they engage in creative activities at work. Notably, the lack of evi-
dence of a similar buffering role of passion for work indicates that an employee’s cognitive energy,
as manifested by risk tolerance, is more important in this process than emotional energy, in the form
of passion. As a possible explanation, we posit that our conceptualisation of passion for work might
capture the excitement employees feel about their work in general (Baum and Locke, 2004), rather
than activities that entail elements of novelty. It would be useful to investigate the role of employee
passion for creativity, which might be more effective for diminishing the chances that they resort to
self-protective, conservative behaviours at work, in response to adverse societal norms.
Finally, we offer novel theoretical insights by bridging different levels. In particular, we connect
employee beliefs about expectations that permeate society at large with behavioural actions in the
realm of daily organisational work noting how this informs the likelihood that they may consider a
career as an entrepreneur. We explicate how a tendency to curtail creative behaviours at work func-
tions as a critical mechanism that links perceptions of adverse normative circumstances to dimin-
ished entrepreneurial intentions, with risk tolerance as an effective buffer.
Limitations and future research
This study has some weaknesses that open up possible areas for further research. First, the presence
of reverse causality cannot be completely excluded in the results because of the cross-sectional
research design. The very process of thinking about starting a new firm might spur the creative
abilities of employees, which could generate more favourable perceptions about the surrounding
environment. Our hypotheses are anchored in the well-established COR framework, according to
which resource-depleting normative adversity fuels a desire to avoid potentially disruptive creative

Ng and De Clercq 17
activities, which then has a curtailing influence on new business opportunity recognition (Hobfoll
and Shirom, 2000). Longitudinal designs that measure the focal constructs at different points in
time would be useful to estimate cross-lagged effects (Antonakis et al., 2010).4 Such research
could also assess whether entrepreneurial intentions lead to actual business creation, what moti-
vates employees to act and what types of new businesses they form, which in turn might reveal the
economic value created for society. A related extension would be to examine how the escalation of
entrepreneurial inaction in the workplace (diminished creativity) into the avoidance of an entrepre-
neurial career and actual business creation might be mitigated by pertinent factors such as antici-
pated regret or proactive personality (Hatak and Snellman, 2017; Neneh, 2019).
Second, we relied on COR theory to argue that the negative link between normative adversity
and work-related creativity can be explained by employee motivation to protect organisational
standing (Hobfoll, 2001). Future research could measure this motivation explicitly and test a
sequential mediation model that includes the intermediate roles of organisational reputation pro-
tection and work-related creativity in translating normative adversity into diminished entrepre-
neurial intentions. Continued studies also might investigate other mechanisms, beyond work
creativity, such as problem-focused voice (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2017b), or idea cham-
pioning (Walter et al., 2011), or goal commitment (De Clercq et al., 2009). An interesting extension
might detail the explanatory power of each behaviour, including creativity, and simultaneously
assess their roles.
Third, we predicted that risk tolerance and passion for work, as personal resources, buffer the
escalation of normative adversity into reduced work-related creativity and then diminished entre-
preneurial intentions. Future studies could examine other contingent personal resources such as
employee resilience (Pérez-López et al., 2016), creative self-efficacy (Tierney and Farmer, 2011)
or emotional stability (Beehr et al., 2015). Such studies might also consider previous work experi-
ence in entrepreneurship or business in general; these were not included in our data collection.
Furthermore, other types of resources could subdue the harmful process by which concerns about
unsupportive societal norms translate into lower work-related creativity and entrepreneurial inten-
tions, such as the extent to which creative and entrepreneurial endeavours are part of a team effort
(Knipfer et al., 2018), or whether employees can draw from formal institutional support mecha-
nisms provided by universities or government (Saeed et al., 2015). It would be interesting to com-
pare the relative potency of each alternative buffer, as well as specify the mitigating role of risk
tolerance in their presence.
Fourth, the empirical context reflects a specific sector (government) and country (UAE). As
noted in the ‘Theoretical background and context’ section, our arguments are anchored in COR
theory and expected to apply to various settings. Yet, the current study setting is particularly rele-
vant, because the likelihood that beliefs about societal norms spill over into the workplace and
influence work behaviours of employees should be higher in organisations in which senior leaders
(i.e. government officials) are strongly influenced by broader societal norms, as well as in collec-
tivistic countries. That is, even if we expect that the nature of the hypothesised relationships
remains the same, their strength might vary across organisations, industries or countries.
Comparative studies that test the proposed theoretical framework in diverse organisations, span-
ning different sectors of the economy, thus would be useful. Such studies also could investigate the
relative importance of societal-level normative adversity versus organisation-specific factors, such
as size or the extent to which the organisational climate discourages change (Scott and Bruce,
1994) or is unforgiving of mistakes (Guchait et al., 2016). Cross-country comparisons similarly
could reveal the roles of pertinent cultural values, such as uncertainty avoidance, that tend to influ-
ence the sensitivity of employees to societal norms that discourage them from taking initiative
(Hofstede et al., 2010).

18 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
Practical implications
The study findings have important implications for entrepreneurs and societal stakeholders with an
interest in boosting start-up activities. When employees are preoccupied by the lack of normative
support for initiative taking, they may halt their efforts to find novel solutions to problems, for fear
that organisational leaders will criticise these efforts, which ultimately can hamper their ability to
detect relevant opportunities for new business creation. These employees also seem unlikely to
openly criticise or complain about such societal norms, whether because they worry they might be
the only ones with this opinion or because they do not want to gain a reputation as a critic (Chiu
and Kwan, 2010; Solesvik et al., 2014). Educators and policy makers accordingly should be proac-
tive in identifying fears about negative reactions to novel ideas at work; more broadly, they should
actively promote a climate, in organisations and society at large, that encourages enterprising activ-
ities. Even if the adverse norms may change only relatively slowly, they can be altered or improved
by complementary forces, such as educational programmes that expose people to the appeal of
creativity and entrepreneurship at an early age (Elert et al., 2015).
Beyond this general advice to establish societal norms to support initiative taking, this study
provides some recommendations for countries in which this goal is unrealistic in the short term.
For example, historical patterns and persistent values might create shame-based responses to
entrepreneurial failures (Fernández-Serrano and Romero, 2014). To the extent that pertinent
educational programmes and government initiatives (e.g. tax breaks) diminish risk perceptions,
it may be less likely that potential entrepreneurs halt their work-related creative activities, even
when faced with these unfavourable societal norms, which should have positive consequences
for the likelihood that they ultimately start a business. Even before they enter the job force,
entrepreneurship educators should recognise the risks that employees might encounter if they
devise new ideas in conflict with prevailing societal expectations (Chiu and Kwan, 2010; Sperber
and Linder, 2019). To increase the likelihood that risk-averse employees still generate new solu-
tions, even in the presence of normative adversity, educators could showcase role models with
similar risk profiles who have been successful in launching their own businesses, due to their
creative efforts at work.
Conclusion
This article has detailed the process by which employee perceptions of normative adversity, with
respect to initiative taking may escalate into a diminished propensity to create their own firms, as
well as explicated the ramifications of such perceptions for behavioural choices at work. The ten-
dency to avoid creative activities is an important factor that explains this process. In turn, the
buffering role of risk tolerance informs entrepreneurs and their stakeholders about a specific means
through which they can disrupt the process. With these insights, this study has potential to act as a
platform for further investigations of why employees consider entrepreneurial careers, even when
they encounter challenges from society at large.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: The research is funded by United Arab Emirates University (UAEU Startup Grant
#31B085).
ORCID iD
Dirk De Clercq https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-2965

Ng and De Clercq 19
Notes
1. As explained in the ‘Research method’ section, we focus on employees who work for government organ-
isations in the United Arab Emirates, a collectivist country in which broader societal norms likely have
a strong impact on the internal functioning of these organisations, which also are run by local nationals
who are strongly engrained by the country’s culture (Mansour, 2008; Wilkins, 2001).
2. We accordingly refer to employees in general in our theorising and hypotheses development.
3. A post hoc analysis affirmed that risk tolerance and passion for work did not moderate the second
relationship.
4. To get a sense of whether reverse causality might be a concern, we performed a post hoc analysis with
the PROCESS macro to estimate two alternative models: (1) a mediation model that links entrepreneurial
intentions with normative adversity through work-related creativity and (2) a corresponding moderated
mediation model in which the second path is moderated by risk tolerance. The size of the indirect effect
in the first model equalled –.024 (cf. a value of –.035 in Table 2), and the index of moderated mediation
of the second model equalled .013 (cf. a value of .027 in Table 3). These lower values mitigate concerns
about reverse causality to some extent, but longitudinal designs would be needed to address this issue
formally.
References
Abbas M, Raja U, Darr W, et al. (2014) Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on
job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Management 40: 1813–1830.
Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB and Lehmann EE (2013) The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics 41: 757–774.
Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Anderson JV (1992) Weirder than fiction: The reality and myths of creativity. The Executive 6: 40–47.
Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, et al. (2010) On making causal claims: A review and recommendations.
Leadership Quarterly 21: 1086–1120.
Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research 14: 396–402.
Arnesen DW and Foster TN (2016) Planning for the known, unknown, and impossible: Responsible risk
management to maximize organizational performance. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences 28:
40–48.
Baer J and Kaufman JC (2008) Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 42: 75–105.
Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-
cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 51: 1173–1182.
Barringer B and Ireland R (2019) Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures. New York:
Pearson.
Baum JR and Locke EA (2004) The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent
venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 587–598.
Beehr TA, Ragsdale JM and Kochert JF (2015) Effects of initial resources on the development of strains dur-
ing a stressful training situation: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36:
467–490.
Bell R (2019) Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Education & Training 61:
815–831.
Biraglia A and Kadile V (2017) The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing entrepre-
neurial intentions: Insights from American homebrewers. Journal of Small Business Management 55(1):
170–188.
Borins S (2002) Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 23(8): 467–476.
Brandstatter H (2011) Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and
Individual Differences 51: 222–230.

20 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
Chiu C-Y and Kwan LY-Y (2010) Culture and creativity: A process model. Management and Organization
Review 6: 447–461.
Chua RYJ, Roth Y and Lemoine J (2015) The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and
cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Administrative Science Quarterly 60:
189–227.
De Clercq D and Belausteguigoitia I (2017a) Overcoming the dark side of task conflict: Buffering roles of
transformational leadership, tenacity, and passion for work. European Management Journal 35: 78–90.
De Clercq D and Belausteguigoitia I (2017b) The usefulness of tenacity in spurring problem-focused voice:
The moderating roles of workplace adversity. Journal of Business and Psychology 32: 479–493.
De Clercq D and Belausteguigoitia I (2019) Coping and laughing in the face of broken promises: Implications
for creative behavior. Personnel Review 49: 993–1014.
De Clercq D, Honig B and Martin B (2013) The roles of learning orientation and passion for work in the for-
mation of entrepreneurial intention. International Small Business Journal 31: 652–676.
De Clercq D, Menzies TV, Diochon M, et al. (2009) Explaining nascent entrepreneurs’ goal commitment: An
exploratory study. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 22: 123–140.
Delanoë-Gueguen S and Liñán F (2019) A longitudinal analysis of the influence of career motivations on
entrepreneurial intention and action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36: 527–543.
Dinis A, do Paço A, Ferreira J, et al. (2013) Psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial intentions
among secondary students. Education & Training 55: 763–780.
Elenkov DS and Manev IM (2005) Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of
sociocultural context. Journal of Management 31: 381–402.
Elert N, Andersson FW and Wennberg K (2015) The impact of entrepreneurship education in high school on
long-term entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 111: 209–223.
Ephrem AN, Namatovu R and Basalirwa EM (2019) Perceived social norms, psychological capital and entre-
preneurial intention among undergraduate students in Bukavu. Education & Training 61: 963–983.
Feola R, Vesci M, Botti A, et al. (2019) The determinants of entrepreneurial intention of young research-
ers: Combining the theory of planned behavior with the triple helix model. Journal of Small Business
Management 57: 1424–1443.
Fernández-Serrano J and Romero I (2014) About the interactive influence of culture and regulatory barriers
on entrepreneurial activity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10: 781–802.
Fiske ST (2010) Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert D and
Lindzey G (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.941–982.
Guchait P, Lanza-Abbott JA, Madera JM, et al. (2016) Should organizations be forgiving or unforgiving? A
two-study replication of how forgiveness climate in hospitality organizations drives employee attitudes
and behaviors. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57: 379–395.
Hanouz MD and Yousef T (2007) Assessing competitiveness in the Arab world: Strategies for sustaining the
growth momentum. In: Arab Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp.3–20.
Hatak I and Snellman K (2017) The influence of anticipated regret on business start-up behaviour. International
Small Business Journal 35: 349–360.
Hayes AF (2015) An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research 50:
1–22.
Hayes AF, Montoya AK and Rockwood NJ (2017) The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies:
PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal 25: 76–81.
Ho V, Wong S and Lee C (2011) A tale of passion: Linking job passion and cognitive engagement to employee
work performance. Journal of Management Studies 48(1): 26–41.
Hobfoll SE (1989) Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist
44: 513–524.
Hobfoll SE (2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing
conservation of resource theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50: 337–369.
Hobfoll SE and Shirom A (2000) Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in
the workplace. In: Golembiewski RT (ed.) Handbook of Organization Behavior (2nd edn). New York:
Dekker, pp.57–81.

Ng and De Clercq 21
Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu J-P, et al. (2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational con-
text: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior 5: 103–128.
Hofstede GH, Hofstede GJ and Minkov M (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind:
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (3rd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hon AHY, Bloom M and Crant JM (2014) Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative perfor-
mance. Journal of Management 40: 919–941.
Hormiga E, Hancock C and Valls-Pasola J (2013) The relationship between employee propensity to innovate
and their decision to create a company. Management Decision 51: 938–953.
Imran MA and Khan AA (2019) Dynamics encouraging women towards embracing entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 11: 379–389.
Jabeen F, Mohd NF and Katsioloudes MI (2017) Entrepreneurial mindset and the role of universities as stra-
tegic drivers of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 24: 136–157.
Jiao H, Alon I and Cui Y (2011) Environmental dynamism, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: The case of
China. Journal of Enterprising Communities 5: 131–144.
Karimi S, Biemans HJA, Lans T, et al. (2016) The impact of entrepreneurship education: A study of
Iranian students’ entrepreneurial intentions and opportunity identification. Journal of Small Business
Management 54: 187–209.
Kebaili B, Al-Subyae SS and Al-Qahtani F (2017) Barriers of entrepreneurial intention among Qatari male
students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 24: 833–849.
Kickul J, Gundry LK, Barbosa SD, et al. (2009) Intuition versus analysis? Testing differential models of
cognitive style on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the new venture creation process. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 33: 439–453.
Kim MJ and Choi JN (2018) Group identity and positive deviance in work groups. Journal of Social
Psychology 158: 730–743.
Kim T-Y, Hon AH and Crant JM (2009) Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology 24(1): 93–103.
Klaukien A, Shepherd DA and Patzelt H (2013) Passion for work, nonwork-related excitement, and innovation
managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities. Journal of Product Innovation Management
30(4): 574–588.
Knipfer K, Schreiner E, Schmid E, et al. (2018) The performance of pre-founding entrepreneurial teams:
The importance of learning and leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review 67: 401–427.
Lee L, Wong PK, Foo MD, et al. (2011) Entrepreneurial intentions: The influence of organizational and indi-
vidual factors. Journal of Business Venturing 26: 124–136.
Liu C, Liu X and Geng Z (2013) Emotional labor strategies and service performance: The mediating role of
employee creativity. Journal of Applied Business Research 29: 1583–1596.
MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM and Williams J (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution
of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39: 99–128.
Maimone F and Sinclair M (2014) Dancing in the dark: Creativity, knowledge creation and (emergent) organ-
izational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27(2): 344–361.
Mansour AME (2008) The impact of privatization on United Arab Emirates federal public sector. International
Public Management Review 9: 66–89.
Mishra R and Shukla A (2012) Impact of creativity on role stressors, job satisfaction and organisational com-
mitment. Journal of Organisation and Human Behaviour 1: 18–26.
Mmobuosi IB (1988) Problems of creativity and organisational change: The experiences of some chief execu-
tives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 9: 23–31.
Moussa M, McMurray A and Muenjohn N (2018) A conceptual framework of the factors influencing innova-
tion in public sector organizations. The Journal of Developing Areas 52: 231–240.
Neneh BN (2019) From entrepreneurial intentions to behavior: The role of anticipated regret and proactive
personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior 112: 311–324.
Oldham GR and Cummings A (1996) Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy
of Management Journal 39: 607–634.

22 International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 00(0)
Oltra V and Vivas-López S (2013) Boosting organizational learning through team-based talent management:
What is the evidence from large Spanish firms? International Journal of Human Resource Management
24: 1853–1871.
Parasuraman S and Simmers CA (2001) Type of employment, work-family conflict and well-being. A com-
parative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22: 551–568.
Pérez-López MC, González-López MJ and Rodríguez-Ariza L (2016) Competencies for entrepreneurship
as a career option in a challenging employment environment. Career Development International 21:
214–229.
Preacher KJ, Rucker DD and Hayes AF (2007) Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods,
and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42: 185–227.
Prottas DJ and Thompson CA (2006) Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: A comparison of
self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 11: 366–378.
Reynolds P, Bosma N, Autio E, et al. (2005) Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and
implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics 24: 205–231.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000) The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs
as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry 11: 319–338.
Saeed S, Yousafzai SY, Yani-de-Soriano M, et al. (2015) The role of perceived university support in the
formation of students’ entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 1127–1145.
Schillo RS, Persaud A and Jin M (2016) Entrepreneurial readiness in the context of national systems of entre-
preneurship. Small Business Economics 46: 619–637.
Scott SG and Bruce RA (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation
in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37: 580–607.
Siu W and Lo ES (2013) Cultural contingency in the cognitive model of entrepreneurial intention.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37: 147–173.
Skiba T and Wildman JL (2019) Uncertainty reducer, exchange deepener, or self-determination enhancer?
Feeling trust versus feeling trusted in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Business and
Psychology 34: 219–235.
Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In:
Leinhardt S (ed.) Sociological Methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association,
pp.290–312.
Solesvik M, Westhead P and Matlay H (2014) Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention. Education &
Training 56: 680–696.
Spector PE (2006) Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational
Research Methods 9: 221–232.
Sperber S and Linder C (2019) Gender-specifics in start-up strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial eco-
system. Small Business Economics 53: 533–546.
Sutton RI and Hargadon A (1996) Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 685–718.
Tierney P and Farmer SM (2011) Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time.
Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 277–293.
Tipu SAA and Ryan JC (2016) Predicting entrepreneurial intentions from work values: Implications for
stimulating entrepreneurship in UAE national youth. Management Decision 54: 610–629.
Traikova D, Manolova TS, Möllers J, et al. (2017) Corruption perceptions and entrepreneurial intentions
in a transitional context: The case of rural Bulgaria. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 22:
223–240.
Vallerand RJ, Blanchard C, Mageau GA, et al. (2003) Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious
passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(4): 756–767.
Van Dijk R and Van Dick R (2009) Navigating organizational change: Change leaders, employee resistance
and work-based identities. Journal of Change Management 9(2): 143–163.
Van Wart M (2013) Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration
91: 521–543.

Ng and De Clercq 23
Walter A, Parboteeah KP, Riesenhuber F, et al. (2011) Championship behaviors and innovations success: An
empirical investigation of university spin-offs. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28: 586–598.
Wang Q, Bowling NA, Tian Q-T, et al. (2018) Workplace harassment intensity and revenge: Mediation and
moderation effects. Journal of Business Ethics 151: 213–234.
Wilkins S (2001) International briefing 9: Training and development in the United Arab Emirates. International
Journal of Training and Development 5: 53–165.
Wood MS, Williams DW and Drover W (2017) Past as prologue: Entrepreneurial inaction decisions and
subsequent action judgments. Journal of Business Venturing 32: 107–127.
Yuan F and Woodman RW (2010) Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image
outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal 53(2): 323–342.
Zhao H, Seibert SE and Hills GE (2005) The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepre-
neurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1265–1272.
Author biographies
Poh Yen Ng is Senior Lecturer in Christ Church Business School at Canterbury Christ Church University,
United Kingdom. Her research interests are in entrepreneurship, family business and sustainability.
Dirk De Clercq is Professor of Management in the Goodman School of Business at Brock University, Canada.
His research interests are in entrepreneurship, organizational behavior and cross-country studies.