Content uploaded by Itziar Cerro Urcelay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Itziar Cerro Urcelay on Jul 10, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
396
www.journaljmbe.com ISSN: 2605-1044 Published by Academia Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.
Risk taking as a distinctive intrapreneurial competence among university
students
La asunción de riesgos como competencia intraemprendedora distintiva entre jóvenes
universitarios
Itziar Cerro-Urcelay*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1800-8954 (ORCID iD)
Rey Juan Carlos University (Spain)
María José Pinillos
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5526-7210 (ORCID iD)
Rey Juan Carlos University (Spain)
María Rita Blanco
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2899-7634 (ORCID iD)
Rey Juan Carlos University (Spain)
Cerro-Urcelay, I.; Pinillos, M.J.; & Blanco,M.R. (2024). Risk taking as a distinctive intrapreneurial competence among
university students. Journal of Management and Business Education, 7(3), 396-418.
https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2024.0022
*Corresponding author: itziar.cerro@urjc.es
Language: English
Received: 30 Apr 2024 / Accepted: 7 Jul 2024
Funding. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Ethical Statement. The authors confirm that the research obtained the informed consent of the
participants, explaining the processing of the data provided. In addition, this research has been
approved by the ethics committee of the Rey Juan Carlos University.
Declaration of conflicting interests. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
CRediT author statement. Itziar Cerro-Urcelay: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft.
María José Pinillos: Supervision; María Rita Blanco: Supervision.
ABSTRACT
The development of entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial initiatives is a significant factor for the
economic and social progress of countries and is having a increasing interest in academic settings.
The study was conducted on a sample of 337 Spanish university students from three fields of study
(Education, Engineering, and Social Sciences). This work aims to measure intrapreneurial
competencies in young Spanish university students, adapting the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale for this
purpose. A quantitative methodology was employed through the administration of self-reported
397
surveys to the selected sample. The results indicate a proper behavior of the model in terms of the
number of constituent dimensions and the competencies they encompass. Statistically significant
differences were observed in the intrapreneurial competency dimension "Risk Taking", with higher
scores among engineering students. This research seeks to contribute to a better understanding
of the overall construct of intrapreneurship, intrapreneurial competencies, and the dimensions that
form it.
Keywords. Intrapreneurship, Intrapreneurial Competencies, Intrapreneurship and undergraduates,
Measurement Model, Quantitative Methodology, Risk Taking
RESUMEN
El desarrollo de iniciativas emprendedoras e intraemprendedoras constituye un factor de
relevancia para el progreso económico y social de los países, y es de interés creciente en el
entorno académico. El estudio se ha realizado sobre una muestra de 337 universitarios españoles
de tres ramas de estudio. (Educación, Ingeniería y Ciencias Sociales). Este trabajo busca medir
las competencias intraemprendedoras en jóvenes estudiantes universitarios, adaptando y
evaluando el ajuste de la escala COIN_CR1 ©2017. Se ha planteado una metodología de tipo
cuantitativo a través de la aplicación de encuestas auto informadas a la muestra seleccionada. Los
resultados obtenidos apuntan hacia un comportamiento adecuado del modelo, tanto en cuanto al
número de dimensiones constituyentes como en lo relativo a los constructos competenciales que
lo integran, y señala diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la dimensión competencial
intraemprendedora “Asunción de Riesgos”, con mayor puntuación entre los universitarios de
ingeniería. Esta investigación busca contribuir a un mayor conocimiento del constructo general de
intraemprendimiento, las competencias intraemprendedoras y las dimensiones que lo configuran.
Palabras clave. Intraemprendimiento, Competencias Intraemprendedoras, Intraemprendimiento y
estudiantes universitarios, Modelo de medición, Metodología cuantitativa, Asunción de riesgos
INTRODUCTION
Several studies have previously addressed the variables of intrapreneurship and university
students. Rahman et al., (2022) emphasize the importance of integrating intrapreneurial practices
into curricula to foster an entrepreneurial mindset, considering that intrapreneurship strategies
within organizations can enhance innovation and competitiveness. In the work of Ordoñez Párada
et al., (2019) and Torralbas and Chávez, (2022), it is concluded that collaboration in educational
environments boosts creativity and innovation, preparing them for real business challenges, as well
as the importance of creating innovative digital environments, which promote intrapreneurship,
allowing students to experiment with innovative projects.
Universities play a crucial role in the generation, dissemination, and transfer of knowledge
(Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Veciana, 2007). They have become key actors in the new economy, society,
and culture, where knowledge is recognized as a strategic resource that provides competitive
advantages and contributes to the differentiation and sustainability of organizations (Drucker, P,
2012). It can be stated that universities are experiencing a structural change in their traditional
functions: from focusing solely on education and research to a third task, which involves the
transmission and transfer of new knowledge to drive economic development (Etzkowitz et al.,
2000). Already in the first half of the 20th century, Ortega y Gasset (1937) articulated the idea of
the third mission of the university, urging educational institutions to develop and transfer knowledge
for the well-being of the community. Therefore, universities play a crucial role by being recognized
398
as one of the main sources of innovation in a country or region (Veciana, 2007). According to
Amorós et al. (2023), individual factors such as education have a significant impact on the likelihood
of individuals undertaking entrepreneurial activities. In this context, university students play an
essential role (Moraes Abrahão, E et al., 2023) in acquiring knowledge and beginning to develop
their intrapreneurial behavior. This implies that, through their actions, they will generate benefits
both at the university level and in society in general, contributing positively to the progress and well-
being of the community, although it is true that in education, competitiveness often has a negative
reputation, preferring collaborative and cooperative learning methodologies. However, from an
economic perspective, competitiveness is closely linked to prosperity and economic growth
(Erdmann et al., 2022).
It is relevant at this point to define intrapreneurship as an individual proactive action aimed at
creating new businesses within the organization, which involves taking risks, as well as improving
its capacity to adapt and respond to internal and external changes through strategic innovation
(Gawke et al., 2019). Organizationally, intrapreneurial efforts enhance competitive advantage,
stimulating the growth and well-being of the company (Hayton and Kelley, 2006). This may lead to
the creation of a new organization, the renewal of the existing one, or the introduction of innovations
in products and processes (Rubio, 2015). It is worth mentioning that 84.5% of the companies
surveyed in Spain promote corporate entrepreneurship and that more than half of them (55.8%)
(CISE, 2020), have been doing so for at least the last five years, which seems to indicate that
intrapreneurship is not only a new field of study but also enriching for companies.
Speaking in individual terms, intrapreneurs are characterized by their willingness to take
calculated risks, meeting the growth and improvement needs of the organization, and, what is
particularly relevant, possessing an entrepreneurial spirit that drives them to initiate or promote
change (Varela and Irizar, 2009; Vargas-Halabí, et al., 2017). From an individual perspective, the
study of intrapreneurship and the intrapreneurial competencies that enable new opportunities for
innovation without leaving the organization is addressed (Garzón et al, 2004). In terms of academic
literature, the focus has been more directed towards analyzing the influence of organizational
variables (expressed as collective) than in identifying the characteristics of individual intrapreneurs
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Stull, 2005). Despite recognizing their influence, a gap is detected in
the literature concerning the desirable qualities in an intrapreneurial subject, beyond education and
work experience (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017). In this sense, Blanka (2019) and Itzkovich and Klein
(2017), among others, highlighted the scarcity of research at the individual level of subjects, as
most previous research focused on organizational concepts such as corporate entrepreneurship.
Huang et al. (2021) echo this situation by highlighting the scarcity of studies that specifically
address individual intrapreneurial employees. Previously, Hayton and Kelley (2006) pointed out the
need to do so in a clear and coherent competency framework. The importance of their study has
been noted to contribute to understanding and fostering such competencies and thus having more
chances of business success (Jain et al., 2015).
This work seeks to study the latent intrapreneurial competencies among young Spanish
university students, mostly with little or no work experience, and analyze if there are differences
between them based on the field of study they come from. Work experience has been considered
as a discriminating variable, considering that only 8% of Spanish university students combine both
activities (El País, 2023). Also, authors like Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018,
emphasize that intrapreneurship activities in the university environment are crucial for developing
entrepreneurial skills, although it is true that the focus of their studies did not include the
competency base in these groups.
Consequently, this work proposes to cover this gap in the literature, through the measurement
and analysis of the intrapreneurial competencies in young undergraduate students at Spanish
universities. For this, it is proposed to adapt and validate the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale (Vargas-
Halabí et al., 2017), with two main objectives; the first, to assess the fit of the dimensional model
399
proposed by the authors, initially designed for a sample of workers - managers in Costa Rica, and
the second, to verify if there are differences in the intrapreneurial competency dimensions of the
students based on the branches of study they come from.
Thus, the article makes several contributions to the study topic. First, it contributes to the
research on the understanding of intrapreneurial profiles from the analysis of their competencies,
adapting a scale already developed to a group of interest, such as undergraduate students.
Additionally, it addresses the gap pointed out by Slavec and Drnovsek (2012) regarding the little
emphasis that the entrepreneurship field has placed on the development of a valid measurement
scale, being the present a contribution of utility to refine measurement tools of intrapreneurial
competencies with potential for implementation in the field of management and research. Finally, it
responds to the need to identify and meet the support needs of students with entrepreneurial skills
exposed by Huang et al. (2021) as it addresses the study of intrapreneurship among young
university students, most of them with little or no work experience. From a practical perspective, it
is expected that this research will contribute to a greater understanding of intrapreneurship,
intrapreneurial competencies, and the structural dimensions that define it.
This work continues with a section dedicated to conceptualizing the main constructs of the
study, namely, intrapreneurship and intrapreneurial competencies. Subsequently, the
methodological design used in the study is presented, and then the results obtained are exposed.
Finally, the conclusions, limitations of the work, and future lines of research are included.
Additionally, understanding this relationship between the intrapreneurial competencies of the
subject and the branch of studies they pursue can influence the planning of studies by universities,
in the decisions of companies that opt for their selection) and in the individual's career
management. Understanding this relationship can influence the planning of studies by universities,
in the decisions of companies that opt for their selection, and in the individual's career management.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Intrapreneurship
The term "intrapreneurship" is adopted to refer to the strategic renewal of the company (Pinchot,
1985) or to the entrepreneurial behavior that uses internal resources to develop innovation that
creates value (Kuratko and Audretsch, 2013), distinguishing in the literature between ventures that
emerge within and outside the organizational boundaries. Intrapreneurship is defined as innovation
initiated by employees (Carrier, 1996), but there is no single definition universally recognized
(Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). The approach to the term is complex, as there are different names
for it in the literature: corporate entrepreneurship, organizational entrepreneurship, or
Intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). For Varela and Irizar (2009), intrapreneurship is
defined as an activity that ultimately aims to generate projects and businesses for the parent
company. Other authors, such as McGinnis and Verney (1987), refer to intrapreneurship as a
requirement to direct the entrepreneurial spirit within organizations. Thus, intrapreneurship defines
a process in which an individual or group of individuals, part of an existing organization, identify,
pursue, and foster innovative value-creating opportunities for that organization (Ma and Tan, 2006),
a definition that has been adopted in the course of this work.
The study area of intrapreneurship has recently sparked interest (especially in the second
decade of the 21st century) in the scientific community, although it is still a niche area, as compared
to the field of entrepreneurship, it barely accounts for 1% of the publications recorded in it (Cerro-
Urcelay et al., 2023). Although the line of study of intrapreneurship is still under construction, it is
possible to identify some common characteristics or elements; first, it recognizes that the event or
phenomenon originates within the organization (Burgelman, 1983; Goodale et al., 2011; Ma et al.,
2016). Second, these actions can be undertaken as a result of intertwined business activities of
multiple participants (Burgelman, 1983) at different organizational levels, i.e., management, a unit,
400
or operations (Miller, 1983), including an individual or group of individuals within the company
(Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Third, it indicates that business actions
are directed towards developing innovation for the company. As Covin and Miles (1999) state,
innovation is at the core of the nomological network that encompasses the construction of corporate
entrepreneurship.
Efforts to promote processes that enable employees to convert opportunities into innovation are
increasingly frequent and coincide with the growing dynamism of organizations, consumers, and
industries (Hisrich and Kearney, 2012). This capability, which we call intrapreneurship, arises from
fostering the entrepreneurial spirit of employees. Intrapreneurs can identify, generate, and develop
new opportunities that allow them to create utility, wealth, and value for the company. As Hayton
and Kelly (2006) highlighted, this significantly enhances the competitive advantage of the company
while also aiding its growth.
As previously mentioned, the literature has focused more on analyzing the influence of
organizational variables than on identifying the characteristics of intrapreneurs (Antoncic and
Hisrich, 2001; Stull, 2005). The importance of studying this has been noted to understand and
promote such competencies and thus have more chances of business success (Jain et al., 2015).
Intrapreneurial Competencies
As specified by the World Economic Forum (2021), five main competencies are identified for
development by employees from 2025: critical thinking, active learning, creativity and initiative,
technological design, and innovation. Regarding innovation, its pursuit is one of the main facets
within the context of intrapreneurship, as well as the creation of new businesses, the internal
renewal of the organization, and proactivity (Bedoya et al., 2017). In relation to other perspectives
of entrepreneurship, the creation of new businesses focuses on exploring new sources of revenue
through identifying opportunities in both existing and new markets (Corduras et al., 2011), while
the strategic repositioning required by the organization is closely related to the dimension of internal
renewal (Ireland and Webb, 2009). Finally, regarding proactivity, it manifests in the orientation of
senior management towards greater competitiveness, which involves initiative and risk-taking
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001).
Other authors also include risk disposition as a central competency, defined as the inclination
toward situations that have the potential to offer beneficial rewards in case of success but also
carry severe consequences in case of failure. It refers to an individual's willingness to engage with
opportunities despite the risk of failure (Moriano et al., 2009). Thus, the intrapreneur ventures into
unknown areas for the organization without knowing the potential outcomes.
Competency models in the business realm are theoretical approaches that seek to identify and
define the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to perform effectively in a specific
job role. Boyatzis (2008) defines job competency as the inherent characteristics of an individual
related to effective performance in a job, which has the advantage of being learned in adulthood.
Woodruffe (1993) defines competency as a set of behavior patterns that the holder must bring to a
certain level to successfully perform their tasks and functions. In this sense, he considers
competencies as a particular aspect of individual behavior that must be appropriate for performing
a job, and that these patterns may be better executed by some individuals than others.
This last point aligns with the view of Hayton and Kelley (2006), who maintain that individuals
may or may not have the competency level to meet the performance criteria required in a specific
work context. They understand it, therefore, as a continuous, not discrete concept, highlighting its
attitudinal component. The performance will be competent if the individual "knows how and is willing
to" carry it through successfully. Thus, an individual's competencies are conceived as inherent
characteristics, including specific combinations of knowledge, skills, and personality traits. The
authors also note that empirical evidence shows the influence of human capital in the field on
intrapreneurship; one of them is the competencies related to individuals. However, they consider
401
that there remains a gap in the current literature related to the connection between human capital
and intrapreneurship, particularly in terms of a clear definition of the characteristics that are
desirable in an individual.
Following the work of Vargas-Halabí et al. (2017), the theoretical model of competencies is
based on two main components: knowledge, skills, and attitudes on one side, and innovative
outcomes or roles on the other. For this, they rely on the holistic model of professional competence
proposed by Cheetham and Chivers (1998), which assumes the existence of three basic
components of competencies: cognitive, functional, and behavioral. Each of these components
possesses its own constitutive competencies and they interact with each other.
- Cognitive competence is understood as possessing adequate knowledge for a task and the
ability to effectively develop that knowledge.
- Functional competence is defined as the ability of the individual to perform work tasks
adequately to achieve specific results.
- Finally, behavioral competence is seen as the ability of the individual to develop appropriate
behaviors in such situations.
Hayton and Kelley (2006) propose in their model a higher tier called meta-competencies, more
generic, which in their interaction with the basic components provide final indicators (outcomes) of
the subject's competence. They include, additionally, contextual variables such as the
organizational environment or work context.
In this context, and for the measurement of subjects' intrapreneurial competencies, we will adapt
the model suggested by Vargas-Halabí et al. (2017) for the development of scales. In this model,
the competency approach based on attributes is combined with the approach based on observable
performance, which is the result required to demonstrate competent performance (Hoffmann,
1999). The combinations of attributes of knowledge, skills, and attitudes are explained by different
dimensions of intrapreneurial competencies, and, on the other hand, these dimensions are related
to the innovative activities of the subjects studied (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017). This model does not
attend to the concept of metacompetencies or organizational and contextual factors but assumes
that the basic competencies undoubtedly impact the intrapreneurial outcome.
The development of the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale for the measurement of intrapreneurial
competencies among employees of companies in Costa Rica identified five sub-dimensions of
attributes, which it titled as: opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, driver, and risk-taking
(Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017).
Intrapreneurship, University, and National Cultures
Given that the original sample for measuring intrapreneurship was drawn from managers in
Costa Rica, and the one investigated in this study is with university students in Spain, it is worth
asking how cultural differences might affect the measurement results of intrapreneurial
competencies between both groups. The theory of intrapreneurship originated in the United States
and various studies have questioned its universality (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). Several
comparative research studies on intrapreneurship across cultures (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001;
Urbano et al., 2013; Covin and Miller, 2014) indicate that national culture influences the
development of intrapreneurship. Moreover, there is some evidence that cultural values such as
individualism and uncertainty avoidance are significantly related to traits such as internal locus of
control, risk-taking, and innovation capacity, which are associated with the entrepreneurial spirit
(Mueller and Thomas, 2000).
Considering the two cultural variables mentioned, framed within Hofstede et al.'s model of
national cultures (2010) and identified by Mueller and Thomas (2000) with respect to the two
countries analyzed, Spain and Costa Rica offer similar values in terms of uncertainty avoidance
(86), and differ in terms of individualism-collectivism. In the case of Spain, with a score of 67
according to Hofstede Insights (2023), it represents an individualistic society. This means there is
402
a high preference for a loose social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of
themselves. In individualistic societies, the employer/employee relationship is based on a contract
for mutual benefit, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based solely on merit, and
management focuses on managing individuals. On the other hand, teamwork is considered natural,
and employees tend to work this way without needing strong motivation from management.
Conversely, Costa Rica, with a score of 15, maintains the general tone of Latin American countries
as a collectivist society. In collectivist countries, trust, loyalty, personal relationships, and social
networks with the family group are essential.
Furthermore, when an appropriate relationship between the University and its students is
established, and they show a commitment to generating new ideas arising from the needs of the
educational institution, a student-led project with intrapreneurial behaviors can be carried out
(Cabana et al., 2018). This involves creating activities from within the university, beneficial for the
academic institution and that can have positive effects on society. Moreover, this experience can
contribute to the development of entrepreneurial skills in students, whether in a corporate
environment or as individual entrepreneurs, allowing them to impact businesses, communities, and
globally (Cortés Salcedo, 2012).
RESEARCH AIMS
This analytical perspective raises the research problem of evaluating intrapreneurial
competencies in university students, from which studies on the competency frameworks required
by the business society for intrapreneurial development in their companies can be derived and
promoted. We have mentioned that previous studies have addressed the variables of
intrapreneurship and university students (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018; Ordoñez
Párada et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2022; Torralbas and Chávez, 2022), but the focus of their
studies did not include the competency base in these groups. Therefore, from this individual
approach, the aim is to study the latent intrapreneurial competencies among young university
students, mostly with little or no work experience, and to analyze if there are differences between
them based on their field of study.
Thus, the main objective of this work is to measure and evaluate the intrapreneurial
competencies in a group of Spanish university students in the final years of their degree (3rd and
4th years) from three different fields of knowledge (Engineering, Educational Sciences, and Social
Sciences) through an adaptation of the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017).
The research questions posed are as follows:
- Will the results of the evaluation of intrapreneurial competencies in this particular sample of
Spanish students confirm the five dimensions obtained in the sample (company employees) in
Costa Rica (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017)?
- Will similar or different competency values be obtained among the three subgroups (fields of
knowledge) of surveyed university students?
Based on this, the following specific objectives are highlighted:
1. Adapt the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale for measuring intrapreneurial competencies in young
university students and evaluate its validity.
2. Analyze whether the results of the application in this sample confirm the five dimensions
obtained in the previous application (company employees) in Costa Rica.
3. Confirm whether similar or different competency values are obtained among the three
subgroups (fields of knowledge) of university students posed.
403
METHODOLOGY
As previously mentioned, the main objective of this work is to evaluate intrapreneurial
competencies in a group of Spanish university students in the final years of their degree (3rd and
4th years) from three different fields of knowledge (Engineering, Educational Sciences, and Social
Sciences) through an adaptation of the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017).
To achieve these objectives, a quantitative methodology was proposed through the application
of self-reported surveys to the selected sample. The process carried out is detailed below.
Phases and Stages of the Methodological Design
Phase 1: Adaptation of the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale and preparation of the final questionnaire.
For the adaptation and validation of the scale to the pursued objectives, a three-stage process was
followed, according to suggestions found in the academic literature (Camisón and Cruz, 2008;
Slavec and Drnovsek, 2012).
Adaptation of the scale to the context of interest: Spanish university students (with little or no
work experience). Expert judgment (Escobar-Pérez and Cuervo-Martínez, 2008) was used to adapt
the items of the original scale to the measurement objectives. Six prestigious experts participated:
two university professors with more than 20 years of teaching experience (including Professor
Tomás Vargas-Halabí, precursor of the original scale), two with extensive experience in the private
sector, and two entrepreneurial businessmen with more than 25 years of professional career. This
strategy sought to contrast the adaptation of the scale context, as the initial one is focused on the
business domain. In their review, the expert panel agreed on the items that needed adaptation and
proposed alternative wording for each of them.
Subsequently, the "cognitive interview" or pilot test technique, frequently used to adapt scales
(Beatty and Willis, 2007), was applied to refine the language so that the information obtained aligns
the items with the corresponding construct. The scale was administered to five students to confirm
that it was correctly understood.
Once the adapted scale was agreed upon by the expert committee, the complete structured
self-administered online questionnaire was prepared, lasting approximately 5-7 minutes, thus
configuring the COIN_ESP1 2024 scale, which includes the adapted COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale for
measuring intrapreneurial competencies and incorporates other classification questions (Field of
study, age, gender, work experience).
Phase 2. Application – Sample
The test was applied to a total sample of 337 Spanish university students (sampling error of
5.4% with a 95% confidence level). For conducting an exploratory factor analysis, the literature
suggests that the number of observations should be 5 or 10 times greater than the number of
variables, in this case, the 20 items of the scale (Hair et al., 2012). Minimum quotas of 100 subjects
per field of study were established, and 100 participants from Educational Sciences, 127 from
Social Sciences (Business Administration and Marketing), and 110 Engineering students were
obtained.
The convenience sampling technique was used. The non-probabilistic approach was chosen
due to the accessibility of the users, while the convenience sampling strategy was chosen due to
its time efficiency. Although convenience sampling can lead to over or under-representation of
particular groups within the sample (Saunders et al., 2009), in this study, the quotas for the field of
study were controlled to prevent over or under-representation. The research project was approved
by the Research Ethics Committee of the Rey Juan Carlos University (Madrid, Spain).
Regarding the composition of the sample, 69.4% were women, with an average age of 21.5
years (standard deviation 2.152) and a range of 19 to 44 years. In terms of work experience, 65%
(219) reported having some type of experience, but as they were in the final years of their degree,
404
only 14.8% reported having more than 2 years of full-time experience. Therefore, it can be stated
that 85% of the sample had less than 2 years of work experience.
Phase 3. Conceptual Model and Analysis
As shown below, the conceptual model and analysis are presented in Figure 1. The
methodology applied for data processing was structured in two stages. In the first stage, the
adequacy of the dimensions resulting from an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is evaluated, and
the reliability and validity of the measurement scales are analyzed through Cronbach's alpha in the
student sample, compared to those found and previously reported by the authors of the original
scale (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Analysis
A factor analysis is a technique used to discover groupings of variables such that the variables
within each group are highly correlated, while the groups are relatively uncorrelated. This reduces
a number of intercorrelated variables to a smaller number of factors that explain most of the
variability of each variable (Montoya Suárez, 2007). Following the authors of the scale (Vargas-
Halabí et al., 2017), principal components extraction and Oblimin rotation were performed due to
the high degree of interrelation estimated between the dimensions. A high proportion of studies in
the context of EFA use the Varimax rotation procedure as it simplifies the interpretation of factors
by imposing orthogonality between them. However, imposing the orthogonality of rotated factors
results in hiding the possible dependency relationship between them (Ferrando and Lorenzo-Seva,
2014). Allowing the obliquity of factors does not imply imposing it, and if the factors are independent
by nature, the solution will show correlations close to zero. Hence, authors like Browne (2001)
recommend systematically applying oblique rotations, especially when correlation between the
analyzed constructs is presumed. IBM SPSS V-28.0.1.0 software was used for the statistical
analysis of the data.
In a second stage, a comparative analysis of results on S2 (sample of the study - Spain) is
performed, segmenting the results to analyze the influence of the university students' field of study
variable.
Instruments/Measures/Assessment Scales
As mentioned, the instrument used for intrapreneurial competencies is an adaptation of the
COIN_CR1 ©2017 Scale (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017). The adapted model has been used as a
measurement instrument for the intrapreneurial competencies of young university students. The
order of presentation of the 20 items of the scale was automatically randomized for the subjects in
the sample.
Variables Dimensions
V1 = SAMPLE (S1 = C. Rica / S2 - = Spain)
V2 - RCI = Intrapreneurial Competencies Outcome
FCIE 1-5 = Dimensions of Intrapreneurial Competencies Factors:
Opportunity Promoter, Proactivity, Flexibility, Driver, and Risk Taking
V1
SAMPLE
S2
V2
RCI
FCIE-1
FCIE-2
FCIE-5
FCIE-4
FCIE-3
f
fff
CI
E-
1
FCIE-2
C
IE-
2
FCIE-3
C
IE-
3
FCIE-4
C
IE-
4
FCIE-5
C
IE-
Intrapreneurship
Measurement
COIN ESP1
S1
405
The adaptation made by the group of experts essentially focused the questions on the
"university" environment instead of the "company" context of the original scale. The dimensions
reported in their work by the authors of the scale and the conceptual framework associated with
each were as follows:
• Opportunity Promoter: Behaviors aimed at identifying, seizing, convincing others, and
being diligent in the face of opportunities for new initiatives in the company (6 items /
OP1 – OP6)
• Proactivity: Behaviors aimed at supporting actions and provoking efforts for new
initiatives (3 items / PR1 – PR3)
• Flexibility: Behaviors oriented towards flexibility and the lack of attachment to rigid
schemes and procedures (4 items / FL1 – FL4)
• Driver: Behaviors that reflect the individual's ability to be interested in the progress and
support of new initiatives and even take actions to convince other people (4 items / DR1
– DR4)
• Risk Taking: Capacities oriented towards taking risks in new initiatives for the company
(3 items / RT1 – RT3)
RESULTS
Stage 1. Comparative results in intrapreneurial dimensions S2 (study sample – Spain) vs S1
(original sample – Costa Rica).
Factor Structure: Table 1 shows the main parameters found; the KMO = 0.942 obtained
indicated sample adequacy (Montoya Suárez, 2007), being slightly higher (KMO = 0.927) than that
found by the authors in their original scale. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is used to test the null
hypothesis that the variables are not correlated in the population. That is, it checks if the correlation
matrix is an identity matrix (Cea, 2002). In this case, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the analysis
continues. The determinant of the correlation matrix is very low (1.632E-5), which means that there
are variables with high intercorrelations, mostly above 0.3, making it feasible to continue with the
factor analysis. In the anti-image correlation matrix, values higher than 0.9 were observed on the
diagonal and the rest close to 0, so the factor analysis can proceed (Montoya Suárez, 2007).
Table 1. KMO test and Bartlett
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
0,942
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
3621,173
gl
190
Sig.
0
Although three factors met Kaiser's criterion of an eigenvalue greater than or equal to one
(DeVellis, 2012), some of the communalities were poorly represented, so it seemed reasonable to
retain the five-factor solution proposed by the authors of the scale. This solution explained 67.079%
of the variance, as seen in Table 2, a value even higher than the result in the original tests by the
authors of the scale (63.140%). The component correlation matrix (Table 3) shows moderate
correlations between the factors. Table 4 includes the pattern matrix with details of the items from
the adapted scale and the weight they load on each dimension.
406
Table 2. Total of Variance explained
.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Components
Component
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
0,423
0,298
0,445
0,502
2
0,423
1
0,212
0,379
0,255
3
0,298
0,212
1
0,214
0,244
4
0,445
0,379
0,214
1
0,459
5
0,502
0,255
0,244
0,459
1
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 4. Pattern Matrix with Item Details
Component
Total
% Variance
% Aggregate
1
9,335
46,675
46,675
2
1,310
6,55
53,225
3
1,187
5,937
59,162
4
0,828
4,141
63,303
5
0,755
3,776
67,079
Variable
ITEMS
Components or Factors of Vargas-Halabí et al., (2017)
FL = Flexibility
DR = DRIVE
RT = Risk Taking
OP = Opportunity
Promoter
PR = Proactivity
1
2
3
4
5
I have methods to evaluate the "pros and cons" of a new
initiative at the university.
FL4
0,697
-0,082
0,109
-0,091
0,178
I recognize how to obtain the resources (human/material)
to develop a new initiative at the university.
FL3
0,683
-0,137
-0,007
0,165
0,182
I am willing to evaluate new opportunities for the
development of the university with others
(students/professors/managers).
PR1
0,666
0,331
0,172
-0,093
-0,164
I identify what type of resources will be needed to start and
sustain a new initiative.
DR2
0,592
0,004
-0,073
0,203
0,197
I have a well-defined framework for recognizing
opportunities to generate new initiatives at the university.
FL1
0,525
0,163
-0,101
0,271
0,176
I identify the key resources to promote a new initiative at
the university.
FL2
0,519
0,100
0,014
0,442
-0,085
I act as a delegate or coordinator to follow up on the
progress of a proposed new initiative at the university.
DR1
0,002
0,798
-0,198
0,019
0,136
I act quickly to seize opportunities to make changes or
generate new initiatives (academic, cultural, sports) at the
university
OP1
0,049
0,687
0,201
0,089
-0,029
I have the ability to convince others of the usefulness of
carrying out new initiatives within the university.
OP3
-0,030
0,600
0,314
0,058
0,095
407
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. The rotation has converged in 14
iterations. Note: items with the most significant loadings related to the original model are highlighted.
In this research, the first and clearly most important factor, which in this study is proposed to be
titled "Extended Flexibility," consists of six items, four of which were assigned by the authors of the
original scale to the category "Flexibility" (FL1; FL2; FL3; FL4). This factor captures behaviors
oriented towards flexibility and the lack of adherence to rigid schemes, and it includes the ability to
manage resources, in addition to an item associated with the "Proactivity" dimension and another
from the "Driver" category.
The second factor, which we would title "Leadership," incorporates behaviors that reflect the
individual's ability to be interested in the progress and support of new initiatives and even take
actions to convince others. It includes four items, two of which (DR1; DR3) correspond to the
"Driver" dimension in the original scale. Additionally, it includes two items associated with the
original "Opportunity Promoter" dimension.
Third, we find the "Risk Taking" (RT) factor, which matches the originally proposed factor
through these three items (RT1; RT2; RT3) and reveals capacities oriented towards taking risks in
new initiatives for the organization.
Fourth, the "Opportunity Promoter" (OP) dimension appears, represented by three items, two
of which coincide with the original scale (OP2; OP4). This dimension is oriented towards behaviors
aimed at identifying, seizing, convincing others, and being diligent in the face of opportunities for
new initiatives in the organization. Additionally, the "Proactivity" dimension completes this
dimension with one item.
Lastly, weakly represented in this case, is the factor we title "Proactivity and Initiative." It includes
four items (only PR3 from the original scale) that seem to refer to the individual's involvement based
on behaviors aimed at supporting actions and provoking efforts for new initiatives.
Reliability and Validity
An internal consistency analysis of the scale was conducted using Cronbach's alpha following
the evaluation criteria proposed by DeVellis (2012). The result obtained with α = 0.938 reflects a
I seek to clarify to university officials what a proposed new
initiative means for the university.
DR3
0,251
0,332
-0,011
0,169
0,309
I am more inclined towards high-risk new initiatives.
RT1
0,096
0,101
0,795
0,047
-0,05
I am willing to take risks in new initiatives with uncertain
outcomes.
RT3
0,032
-0,095
0,648
0,04
0,381
I enjoy betting and taking chances on new initiatives at the
university.
RT2
-0,016
0,148
0,391
0,542
0,076
I ask questions that challenge how things are done at the
university.
OP2
0,046
-0,109
0,105
0,729
0,09
I take actions aimed at uniting efforts among groups of
different classes/grades/faculties/colleagues to implement
new initiatives at the university.
PR2
0,034
0,253
-0,186
0,642
0,135
I have the ability to turn opportunities into manageable
initiatives for the university.
OP4
0,281
0,257
0,091
0,495
-0,036
I support new ideas for the development of the university
regardless of who proposes them.
PR3
-0,047
-0,018
-0,004
0,163
0,740
I remain supportive of the new initiative even when others
say it cannot be done.
DR4
0,151
0,061
0,172
-0,047
0,691
I show confidence that the proposed new initiatives will be
carried out at the university.
OP5
0,206
0,204
-0,038
-0,098
0,641
I encourage others to maintain enthusiasm during the
implementation of new initiatives within the university.
OP6
0,095
0,079
0,102
0,189
0,598
408
high internal consistency of the measurement scale for the set of 20 items. Cronbach's alpha
coefficient is an internal consistency coefficient expressed based on the covariation between the
items of a questionnaire or test, such that the higher the covariation, the higher the alpha score
(Barrios and Cosculluela, 2013). One advantage of this measure is the possibility of evaluating how
much the reliability of the test would improve (or worsen) if a particular item were excluded.
Table 5 shows the high reliability and internal consistency of each obtained dimension, through
the measurement of Cronbach's alpha for the resulting dimensions and intra-dimension items.
Table 5. Internal reliability of the new dimensions
ORIGINAL DIMENSION
Original Ítem
RENAMED DIMENSION
Ítems
Cronbach Alfa α
Cronbach Alfa if the
item is deleted
FLEXIBILITY
FL1
EXTENDED FLEXIBILITY
FE1
0,872
0,844
FL2
FE2
0,834
FL3
FE3
0,842
FL4
FE4
0,865
FL5
FE5
0,865
FL6
FE6
0,842
DRIVER
DR1
LEADERSHIP
LD1
0,774
0,745
DR2
LD2
0,719
DR3
LD3
0,702
DR4
LD4
0,712
RISK TAKING
RT1
RISK TAKING
RT1
0,738
0,634
RT3
RT3
0,666
RT2
RT2
0,653
OPPORTUNITY
PROMOTER
OP1
OPPORTUNITY
PROMOTER
OP1
0,744
0,722
OP 2
OP 2
0,630
OP 3
OP 3
0,616
PROACTIVITY
PR1
PROACTIVITY AND
INITIATIVE
PI1
0,827
0,763
PR2
PI2
0,814
PR3
PI3
0,791
PR4
PI4
0,757
409
Discriminant Validity (Table 6). It is confirmed if the external loading for each item representing
a construct is greater than any of its cross-loadings on other constructs, and if the square root of
the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeds any of its correlations with other
constructs (Hair et al., 2014; Zait and Bartea, 2011). Furthermore, the square root of AVE serves
as a measure of the variance explained by the construct, indicating whether the items within that
construct represent more variance than the items of other constructs (Hair et al., 2012). This
parameter is confirmed in Table 6.
Table 6. Discriminant validity
Construct
GR
LD
RT
OP
P/I
FE
0,682
LD
0,179
0,700
RT
0,089
0,045
0,725
OP
0,198
0,144
0,046
0,687
P/I
0,252
0,065
0,060
0,211
0,692
In conclusion, the tool (scale) shows a high degree of reliability and internal validity (α = 0.938)
and the five-factor solution explained 67.079% of the variance. The fit concerning the assignment
of items to dimensions from the original scale is not perfect, but it shows an appreciable alignment.
In all cases, the item with the highest loading on the factor corresponds to one of the expected
ones, and the dimensions” Extended Flexibility” and “Risk Taking” are particularly well represented.
Stage 2. Comparative results on S2 (study sample – Spain) analyzing the influence of the field
of study variable.
The global variable “Intrapreneurship” has been included as the result of the simple sum of the
subjects' scores on the set of 20 items. This variable is configured as an Intrapreneurial
Competencies Index (ICI). As observed in the descriptives represented in Table 7, the mean score
of the sample is 53.477 with a standard error of 1.443. This reflects a median position on the scale,
which could have a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 100. The three fields of study show very
similar scores in ICI.
Additionally, five other variables have been generated, each corresponding to the students'
scores in each of the factors or dimensions, calculated in a weighted manner based on the loading
of each item. The highest scores are found in the dimensions “Proactivity and Initiative” (mean =
3.195; standard error = 1.152), “Extended Flexibility” (mean = 2.908; error = 1.131), and “Risk
Taking” (mean = 2.878; error = 1.085). Below we find the dimensions “Leadership” (mean = 2.411;
error = 1.142) and “Opportunity Promoter” (mean = 2.386; error = 1.174).
410
Tabla 7. Descriptive statistics of intrapreneurial competencies vs. fields of study
VARIABLE
Field of Study
N
Mean
ST Deviation
ST Error
INTRAEMPRENEURSHIP –
TOTAL (ICI)
Education Sciences
100
55,2400
14,46006
1,44601
Social Sciences
127
52,4016
16,48292
1,46262
Engineering
110
53,1182
15,13774
1,44333
Total
337
53,4777
15,46714
0,84255
EXTENDED FLEXIBILITY
Education Sciences
100
2,9897
1,09156
0,10916
Social Sciences
127
2,8426
1,14006
0,10116
Engineering
110
2,9094
1,16257
0,11085
Total
337
2,9080
1,13161
0,06164
LEADERSHIP
Education Sciences
100
2,4715
1,04073
0,10407
Social Sciences
127
2,4675
1,20855
0,10724
Engineering
110
2,2907
1,15466
0,11009
Total
337
2,4110
1,14298
0,06226
RISK TAKING
Education Sciences
100
2,7160
0,99876
0,09988
Social Sciences
127
2,8125
1,02337
0,09081
Engineering
110
3,1021
1,19839
0,11426
Total
337
2,8784
1,08555
0,05913
OPPORTUNITY PROMOTER
Education Sciences
100
2,5564
1,20384
0,12038
Social Sciences
127
2,2730
1,20071
0,10655
Engineering
110
2,3621
1,10703
0,10555
Total
337
2,3862
1,17425
0,06397
PROACTIVITY AND INITIATIVE
Education Sciences
100
3,4177
1,06667
0,10667
Social Sciences
127
3,1042
1,19556
0,10609
Engineering
110
3,0994
1,15800
0,11041
Total
337
3,1956
1,15201
0,06275
After confirming the normality of the distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov criterion, an
ANOVA test is carried out to verify the association between intrapreneurial competencies and the
subjects' field of study. Through the ANOVA test, the means of "Y" associated with the different
levels of the factor (X1, X2, ... Xn) are basically compared. A measure of variation between different
levels (MS-factor) is compared with a measure of variation within each level (MS-error). If the MS-
factor is significantly greater than the MS-error, we conclude that the means associated with
different levels of the factor are different. This means that the factor significantly influences the
dependent variable "Y" (García-Ferrer, 2016).
As seen in Table 8, statistically significant differences are found in the "Risk Taking" dimension
(F = 3.750; P = 0.025). When reviewing the scores of each group, it is observed that the Engineering
field obtains significantly higher scores in this dimension (mean = 3.102; error = 1.198) compared
to the Social Sciences field (mean = 2.812; error = 1.023) and the Educational Sciences field (mean
= 2.716; error = 0.998). The "Proactivity and Initiative" dimension also shows statistical significance,
although at a lower level (F = 2.667; P = 0.071). In this case, it is observed that the Educational
Sciences field achieves the highest scores (mean = 3.417; error = 1.066), ahead of Social Sciences
(mean = 3.104; error = 1.195) and Engineering (mean = 3.099; error = 1.158).
411
Table 8. ANOVA - intrapreneurial competencies VS. Field of study
Sum of squares
gl
Mean squares
F Value
INTRAEMPRENEURSHIP – TOTAL (ICI)
471,86
2
235,93
0,986
EXTENDED FLEXIBILITY
1,211
2
0,605
0,471
LEADERSHIP
2,363
2
1,182
0,904
RISK TAKING
8,696
2
4,348
3,75**
OPPORTUNITY PROMOTER
4,591
2
2,295
1,671
PROACTIVITY AND INITIATIVE
7,011
2
3,505
2,667*
Note: ** p < 0,05; * p < 0,10
In conclusion, significant differences have been found in the dimensions of "Risk Taking" and
"Proactivity and Initiative" between the values obtained in intrapreneurial competencies according
to the tested fields of study (Engineering, Educational Sciences, Social Sciences), but not in the
overall scale (ICI) nor in the rest of the evaluated dimensions.
Once it has been determined that there are differences between the means, Post-Hoc tests of
multiple pairwise comparisons allow determining which means differ. Multiple pairwise
comparisons contrast the difference between each pair of means and generate a matrix where
asterisks indicate group means that are significantly different at an alpha level of 0.05. It provides
several comparison tests when equal variances are assumed (Table 9).
Table 9. Tests of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene
Statistics (1)
gl1
gl2
Sig.
INTRAEMPRENEURSHIP – TOTAL (ICI)
2,791
2
334
0,063
EXTENDED FLEXIBILITY
0,504
2
334
0,604
LEADERSHIP
1,607
2
334
0,202
RISK TAKING
2,452
2
334
0,088
OPPORTUNITY PROMOTER
0,201
2
334
0,818
PROACTIVITY AND INITIATIVE
1,417
2
334
0,244
(1.- Based in the Mean)
For multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni test has been used, which utilizes t-tests to perform
pairwise comparisons between group means while controlling the overall error rate. Thus, the
observed significance level is adjusted for the fact that multiple comparisons are being made (Table
10). The results show statistically significant differences only in the "Risk Taking" dimension
between the fields of Educational Sciences and Engineering, but not in the rest of the studied
dimensions.
412
Table 10. Post-Hoc Tests / Multiple Comparisons - Bonferroni
Dependant Variable
(I) FACULTY
(J) FACULTY
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
ST Error
EXTENDED FLEXIBILITY
Education Sciences
Social Sciences
0,1471
0,15153
Engineering
0,08023
0,1566
Social Sciences
Education Sciences
-0,1471
0,15153
Engineering
-0,06686
0,14762
Engineering
Education Sciences
-0,08023
0,1566
Social Sciences
0,06686
0,14762
LEADERSHIP
Education Sciences
Social Sciences
0,00391
0,15285
Engineering
0,18074
0,15797
Social Sciences
Education Sciences
-0,00391
0,15285
Engineering
0,17683
0,14891
Engineering
Education Sciences
-0,18074
0,15797
Social Sciences
-0,17683
0,14891
RISK TAKING
Education Sciences
Social Sciences
-0,09653
0,14396
Engineering
-,38616*
0,14878
Social Sciences
Education Sciences
0,09653
0,14396
Engineering
-0,28962
0,14025
Engineering
Education Sciences
,38616*
0,14878
Social Sciences
0,28962
0,14025
OPPORTUNITY PROMOTER
Education Sciences
Social Sciences
0,28348
0,15668
Engineering
0,19438
0,16192
Social Sciences
Education Sciences
-0,28348
0,15668
Engineering
-0,0891
0,15264
Engineering
Education Sciences
-0,19438
0,16192
Social Sciences
0,0891
0,15264
PROACTIVITY AND INITIATIVE
Education Sciences
Social Sciences
0,31343
0,15326**
Engineering
0,31832
0,15839**
Social Sciences
Education Sciences
-0,31343
0,15326**
Engineering
0,00488
0,14931
Engineering
Education Sciences
-0,31832
0,15839**
Social Sciences
-0,00488
0,14931
Note: ** p < 0,05; * p < 0,10
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to measure intrapreneurial competencies in young Spanish university students
by adapting the COIN_CR1 ©2017 scale originally developed on a sample of workers from Costa
Rica. The objective was to explore the relationship between students' intrapreneurial competencies
and their fields of study.
To achieve this, the adapted COIN_ESP1 2024 scale was developed. The scale has
demonstrated high reliability and internal validity (α = 0.938), with the solution to five factors
explaining 67.079% of the variance. While the alignment with the item allocation from the original
scale's dimensions is not perfect, it indicates a significant degree of harmony. Each obtained
dimension shows high reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant validity.
413
However, some items in the scale do not contribute as expected to the theoretical factor-
dimension of the original scale. Specifically, in the realm of flexibility, two elements from other
dimensions of the original scale were integrated. It is noteworthy that both "willingness to evaluate
new opportunities with others" and "ability to identify necessary resources" are closely linked to
flexibility, demonstrating an open, adaptable mindset receptive to diverse perspectives. They also
illustrate the capability to adjust to changing limitations and conditions in generating and promoting
new initiatives within the university environment.
Therefore, the item "I am willing to evaluate new opportunities with others
(students/professors/managers) that arise for the university's development" shows flexibility by
being open to collaboration and consultation with others to assess new opportunities. The
willingness to debate and consider different perspectives and opinions reflects a flexible mindset
willing to adapt to various ideas and approaches in the process of evaluating and developing new
opportunities.
Similarly, the item "I identify what type of resources will be needed to initiate and maintain a new
initiative" illustrates the ability to adapt to resource constraints and adjust plans accordingly.
Continuously identifying necessary resources involves a readiness to adjust resource requirements
based on availability and changing circumstances. This adaptability to different conditions and
constraints reflects a flexible attitude towards developing and implementing new initiatives.
Overall, both elements are closely related to flexibility and the lack of adherence to rigid
schemes and procedures, hence their inclusion in the flexibility dimension. This dimension
represents 46.7% of the variance in university students' intrapreneurial competence.
Additionally, items related to the original dimensions of "Opportunity Promotion" (OP) and
"Proactivity" are less prominent in the results of the Spanish university student sample. This is
consistent with the anticipated correlation between dimensions as per the theoretical framework,
with previous research suggesting that differences in contextual settings (students vs. managers)
can affect results.
Results, including those in Table 5, indicate the model's appropriate behavior in the tested
student sample, both in terms of constituent dimensions and the competency constructs they
integrate. It should be noted, as suggested by the original scale's authors, that these factors
represent different competencies resulting from item development based on competency
dimensions and attributes.
Regarding its application in the tested sample, statistically significant differences were found in
"Risk Taking" (F = 3.750; P = 0.025) and "Proactivity and Initiative," albeit at a lower level (F =
2.667; P = 0.071). Engineering students scored significantly higher in "Risk Taking," suggesting a
potential correlation between preparation in dealing with complex problems and confidence in their
abilities. This hypothesis warrants further investigation.
The scale did not show statistically significant differences in other dimensions or in the overall
measure termed "Intrapreneurial Competence Index" (ICI) in this study. Nevertheless, this index
serves as a benchmark for future research in this field, exploring potential significant differences
among different fields of study and similar geographic cohorts of non-university young individuals.
In conclusion, this study confirms the feasibility of measuring intrapreneurial competencies to
compare results among diverse samples, both globally (ICI) and across each identified dimension
(factors). This finding not only facilitates result comparison across different groups, allowing for
segmentation of interest (e.g., groups with higher extended flexibility) but also enables the
development of strategies targeting the differential development of desired intrapreneurial
competencies for specific roles.
Moreover, the study's measurement was conducted on a very specific group (young university
students) with little to no work experience. Traditionally, intrapreneurship (like entrepreneurship)
has been almost exclusively linked to the professional environment, but it appears necessary to
expand its scope beyond purely labor perspectives. This aligns with Ma and Tan's (2006) definition,
414
which extends intrapreneurship to a process where individuals or groups within an existing
organization identify, pursue, and foster innovative opportunities that create value for the
organization, thus surpassing purely entrepreneurial realms.
The humanistic perspective on intrapreneurship study emphasizes that intrapreneurial
competencies are found in individuals without work experience, suggesting that individuals
contribute their competencies to the work context rather than the organization providing them. This
perspective does not negate the importance of studying the organizational environment that fosters
the internal development of these skills.
This article contributes to the literature on intrapreneurship by enhancing understanding of
intrapreneurial profiles through competency analysis, adapting an already developed scale to a
relevant group such as undergraduate students. It also addresses the gap highlighted by Slavec
and Drnovsek (2012) regarding the emphasis on developing a valid measurement scale within
entrepreneurship, serving as a valuable contribution to refining tools for measuring intrapreneurial
competencies for potential implementation in management and research fields. Lastly, it explores
intrapreneurship among young university students, most of whom have little or no work experience.
Understanding the relationship between a person's intrapreneurial competencies and their field of
study can influence university curriculum planning, company hiring decisions, and personal career
management.
As for the study's limitations, two are noteworthy. Firstly, the tool was designed based on a
competency model that deliberately excludes external, organizational, and contextual variables
(Hayton and Kelley, 2006). Secondly, the sample was restricted to final-year university students in
Spain (specifically from Madrid), so it remains to be seen if results differ in other contexts (city,
country, field of study, public vs. private education).
Looking ahead, future research should delve into the intrapreneurial competency baggage that
university graduates bring to the job market upon completing their higher education. This involves
questioning whether competencies vary depending on the field of study, expanding to other
educational branches, the work experience gained during studies, and other socio-demographic
variables of interest (national culture, gender, age, among others).
Understanding how an individual's intrapreneurial skills relate to their field of study can impact
university curriculum planning, company hiring decisions, and personal career management. From
a practical standpoint, it is expected that this research will contribute to a better understanding of
intrapreneurship and the structural dimensions and competencies that define it.
REFERENCES
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5) 495-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(00)00069-7
Amorós, JE, Leporati, M., & Torres-Marín, AJ (2023). Senior entrepreneurship dynamics: Latin
America perspective, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. ahead-
of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2022-0650
Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention among engineering
students: The role of entrepreneurship education. European Research on Management and
Business Economics, 24(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.09.002
Barrios, M., & Cosculluela, A. (2013). Fiabilidad. Psicometría. UOC.
Beatty, P., & Willis, G. (2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interview. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287-311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006
Bedoya, M. A., Toro, I. D., & Arango, B. (2017). Emprendimiento corporativo e innovación: Una
revisión y futuras líneas de investigación. Revista Espacios, 38(17).
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18741.23529
415
Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward.
Review of Managerial Science, 13 (5), 919-961.
Boyatzis, R. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development,
27(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 36, 111-150.
Burgelman, R. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a
process study. Management Science, 19(12), 1349-1364.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349
Cabana, S. R., Narea, H. J., & Orrego, R. D. (2018). Factores determinantes de la conducta
intraemprendedora en pequeñas y medianas empresas (PyMes) de la región Coquimbo en
Chile. Información Tecnológica, 29(4), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
07642018000400167
Camisón, C., & Cruz, S. (2008). La medición del desempeño organizativo desde una perspectiva
estratégica: creación de un instrumento de medida. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía
de la Empresa, 17(1), 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1135-2523(09)70190-1
Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in small businesses: an exploratory study. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 21(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879702100102
Cea, M. (2002). Análisis multivariable. Teoría y práctica en la investigación social. Editorial
Síntesis.
Cerro-Urcelay, I., Pinillos, M. J., & Blanco, M. R. (2023). Comparativa del Emprendimiento y el
Intraemprendimiento: Una Visión Actual. Revista Venezolana De Gerencia, 28(10), 1194-1215.
https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.28.e10.20
Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: a model of
professional competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence-
based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(7), 267-276.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599810246827
Corduras, M.A., Levie, J., Kelley, D.J., Saemundsson, R.J. and Schott, T., Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training,
Babson Park, MA: Babson College, 2010.
Cortés Salcedo, R. A. (2012). Prácticas de ciudadanización en la escuela contemporánea 1984-
2004. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 38, 63-69.
Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual
considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12073
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102
Covin, J., & Miles, M. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 47-63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300103
DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: una
aproximación a su utilización. Avances en medición, 6(1), 27-36.
Drucker, P. (2012). Tecnología, gestión y sociedad. Rutledge.
Erdmann, a., garcía-monleón, f., & nuñez-canal, m. (2022). Enhancing entrepreneurial skills
through co-opetitive learning experience: a case study in a spanish university. Journal of
Management and Business Education, 5(2), 76-96. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2022.0006
416
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and
‘‘Mode 2’’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29,
109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: algunas
consideraciones adicionales. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 1170–1175.
https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199991
García-Ferrer, G. (2016). Investigación Comercial. ESIC.
Garzón, D. M., Amaya, C., & Castellanos, Ó. (2004). Modelo conceptual e instrumental de
sostenibilidad organizacional a partir de la evaluación del tejido social empresarial. Innovar,
14(24), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v14n24.55247
Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2019). Measuring intrapreneurship at the individual
level: Development and validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS). European
Management Journal, 37(6), 806-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.003
Goodale, J., Kuratko, D., Hornsby, J., & Covin, J. (2011). Operations management and corporate
entrepreneurship: the moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate
entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 29(1), 116-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.10.003
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2012). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th
ed.). Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th
ed.). Pearson.
Hall, J. K., Daneke, G., & Lenox, M. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and futures directions. Journal of Business Venturing.
Hayton, J. C., & Kelley, D. J. (2006). A competency‐based framework for promoting corporate
entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 407-
427.https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20115
Hisrich, R., & Kearney, C. (2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship: How to Create a Thriving
Entrepreneurial Spirit throughout Your Company. McGraw-Hill.
Hoffmann, T. (1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(6),
275-285. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599910295576
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind .McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede Insights (2023). Recuperado de https://www.hofstede-insights.com/
Huang, Y., An, L., Wang, J., Chen, Y., Wang, S., & Wang, P. (2021). The role of entrepreneurship
policy in college students’ entrepreneurial intention: the intermediary role of entrepreneurial
practice and entrepreneurial spirit. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 585698.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.585698
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2009). Crossing the great divide of strategic entrepreneurship:
Transitioning between exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons, 52(5), 469-479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.05.008
Itzkovich, Y., & Dolev, N. (2017). The relationships between emotional intelligence and
perceptions of faculty incivility in higher education. Do men and women differ?. Current
Psychology, 36(4), 905-918.
Jain, R., Ali, S., & Kamble, S. (2015). Entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial attitudes:
conceptualization, measure development, measure test and model fit. Management and Labour
Studies, 40, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X14554688
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 323–335.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0234-4
417
Ma, H., & Tan, J. (2006). Key components and implications of entrepreneurship: A 4-P framework.
Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 704–725.
Mcginnis, M. A., & Verney, T. P. (1987). Innovation management and intrapreneurship. Sam
Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 19-23.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science,
29(7), 770-791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
Montoya Suárez, O. D. (2007). Application of the factorial analysis to the investigation of markets.
Revista Colombiana de Marketing, 1(1), 63-69.
Moraes Abrahão, E, Vaquero-Diego, M, & Beltrán Garcia, E. (2023). Indicators of university social
responsibility as a challenge for educational quality: Teacher perception . . . Journal of
Management and Business Education, 6(Special), 572-586.
https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2023.0030
Moriano, J. A., Topa, G. V., & Lévy, J. P. (2009). Identificación organizacional y conducta
“intraemprendedora”. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 25(2), 277-287.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2000). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine-country study
of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51-75.
Mundial, F. E. (2021). El Gran Reinicio: Una cumbre gemela única para empezar el 2021. In World
Economic Forum. Recuperado de https://es.weforum.org/press/2020/06/el-gran-reinicio-una-
cumbre-gemela-unica-para-empezar-el-2021
Ordóñez Parada, A. I., Chávez Márquez, I. L., & Flores Morales, C. R., S. (2019). Intrapreneur's
Competencies and Skills: Evidence from Mexico. International Journal of Management and
Marketing Research, 12(1), 51-60.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1937). Misión de la universidad. Revista de Occidente.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don’t Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an
Entrepreneur. Harper & Row.
Rahman, H. H., Syah, D. H., Sagala, G. H., & Prayogo, R. R. (2022). Intrapreneurship: As the
outcome of entrepreneurship education among business students. Cogent Education, 9(1),
2149004. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2149004
Rubio, G. (2015). Las contribuciones del intraemprendimiento a la estrategia de manufactura.
Revista Dimensión Empresarial, 13(1), 95-109.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson
Education.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11-28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300103
Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator
between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763982
Slavec, A., & Drnovsek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship
research. Economic and Business Review, 14(1), 39-62.
Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management.
Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110503
Stull, M., & Singh, J. (2005). Intrapreneurship in nonprofit organizations: Examining the factors that
facilitate entrepreneurial behavior among employees, 24(2005), 192-210.
Torralbas Blázquez, A. D., & Lamoth Borrero, L. (2022). El emprendimiento corporativo en Cuba,
reto en la relación Universidad-Empresa.
Urbano, D., Alvarez, C., & Turró, A. (2013). Organizational resources and intrapreneurial activities:
an international study. Management Decision, 51(4), 854-870.
418
Varela, J., & Irizar, I. (2009). Caracterización de los Intraemprendimientos en el Grupo Mondragón
de España y en las empresas de Ibagué en Colombia. Recuperado de
http://www.clee2008.ufsc.br/31.pdf
Vargas-Halabí, T., Mora-Esquivel, R., & Siles, B. (2017). Intrapreneurial competencies:
development and validation of a measurement scale. European Journal of Management and
Business Economics, 26(1), 86-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-006
Veciana, J. M. (2007). Entrepreneurship as a scientific research programme. In Entrepreneurship:
Concepts, theory and perspective (pp. 23-71). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Woodruffe, C. (1993). What is meant by a competency? Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 14(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739310026000
Zaiţ, A., & Bertea, P. S. (2011). Methods for testing discriminant validity. Management & Marketing
Journal, 9(2), 217-224.
