Entrepreneurial Behavior In Large Traditional Organizations:
Identifying Key Drivers
Work in progress
Comments are welcome
Johanna Mair
INSEAD
77305 Fontainebleau
France
+33-1-60712560 (tel)
+33-1-60724242 (fax)
johanna.mair@insead.fr
Key words
Strategy implementation
Managing large traditional organizations
Entrepreneurial behavior
ABSTRACT
Innovative use of resources to pursue opportunities has become vital for all—even large
traditional—organizations. While traditional management literature has identified contextual
features to foster entrepreneurial behavior, little research has looked at why—in the same
organizational context–some manager’s act entrepreneurially and others don’t. Integrating
different literatures, I suggest that variance in entrepreneurial behavior within the same
objective context can be best explained at the individual level. I propose and empirically test a
micro-model on how to induce entrepreneurial behavior in large traditional organizations .
Using structural equation modeling, I analyze survey data on 150 managers of a large
European financial service company striving to become “entrepreneurial”. Results reveal that
managers’ subjective interpretation of their sociopolitical support and access to resources
stimulates entrepreneurial behavior. Contrary to the predictions of the literature, individual
cognitive and emotional competencies do not affect entrepreneurial behavior directly, but are
critical in shaping managers’ perceptions of their “playground for action”. Findings also show
that managers’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs—managers’ perceived capability to
perform entrepreneurial tasks—are a powerful predictor of entrepreneurial behavior. They are
critical to translate perceptions of context and individual dispositions into behavior, and
represent an important cognitive and motivational device to steer and regulate entrepreneurial
behavior.
2
INTRODUCTION
According to the business press and practitioners the preferred managerial mindset for the
next decade is “entrepreneurial”. Entrepreneurial behavior—innovative use of resources to
pursue opportunities—is perceived as vital for “virtually all” sizes and types of organization
(Normann 1971; Dess, Lumpkin et al. 1999; Morris and Jones 1999; Sharma and Chrisman
1999). Thus it is not surprising that over the last decade many large hierarchical organizations
operating in stable and mature markets have established a strategic long-term orientation
based on entrepreneurial initiative. Entrepreneurship in these companies is not restricted to
grand entrepreneurship, aiming at new venture creation or new product development
(Normann 1971; Vesper 1985), but refers to day-to-day entrepreneurship, a new management
style aimed at “doing things in an entrepreneurial way”.
Entrepreneurial approaches within established organizations are not a new
phenomenon. Even large hierarchical organizations have been encouraging entrepreneurial
behavior for decades. In general, innovative and entrepreneurial projects in these
organizations were relatively isolated, i.e., carried out predominately in specialized new
venture or new product development divisions. As a result, entrepreneurial and traditional
(administrative) management styles were often considered as mutually exclusive and
incompatible within the same division (Vesper 1985; Jelinek and Litterer 1995). Yet,
empirical evidence shows that managers in companies such as 3M or Hewlett Packard do
have the capability to enact both managerial and entrepreneurial behavior more or less
simultaneously (Birkinshaw 1997). Today, an increasing number of large corporations
actively seek a management model that integrates entrepreneurial and traditional management
methods. The entrepreneurial behavior (EB) constituting this new management model is at the
core of this paper.
3
A considerable amount of literature has investigated ways to induce EB in large
organizations. Scholars in strategic management have traditionally focused on the role of
organizational and behavioral context 1 in fostering entrepreneurial activity. These studies
have led to a comprehensive understanding of the “ideal” behavioral context for
entrepreneurial initiative to flourish (Ghoshal and Bartlett 1994). I do recognize the
importance of context in shaping managerial behavior. I argue that differences in the
behavioral context might explain variance in EB between companies, yet, they do not address
the puzzling phenomenon of why some mangers act entrepreneurially and others, facing the
same objective behavioral context, do not. I propose that variance in EB within the same
objective context can be best explained at the individual level and present a model on the
micro-foundations of EB in large traditional organizations. Accordingly, EB is affected by
managers’ subjective interpretations of their “playground for action” and their cognitive and
emotional competencies. Acknowledging a proactive role of individuals in controlling their
own behavior, context and cognition (Castaneda, Kolenko et al. 1999), I introduce
entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs—defined as managers’ perceived capability to perform
entrepreneurial tasks—as a critical cognitive and motivational device to steer and regulate
managers’ EB. I empirically test this model and use structural equation modeling (SEM) to
analyze data from 150 middle managers of a large European financial service company
striving to become “entrepreneurial”.
In the following sections I first conceptualize EB in the context of large traditional
organizations. Secondly, I review existing literature on the key drivers of EB and present the
theoretical model, key constructs and hypotheses. In a third step I describe the research design
and discuss results from the empirical analysis. To conclude I emphasize the main
contributions of the paper and derive implications for managerial practice.
1
In the management literature ‘behavioral context’ is often used interchangeably with the terms ‘organizational climate’ or
‘culture’. In this paper I follow Ghoshal and Bartlett (1997), who note that ‘culture’ is heavily loaded, and use the term
4
BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS
Entrepreneurial activities are widely conceived as key drivers for corporate success
(Stevenson, Roberts et al. 1989). They are important means (1) to seize opportunities
regarding new businesses, markets and processes, (2) to proactively compete against more
flexible small companies, (3) to develop innovative and adaptive capabilities through resource
combinations, and, (4) to stimulate employees and keep managerial talent within the
organization (Pinchot 1985; Burgelman and Sayles 1986; Kanter 1989; Kuratko and Hodgetts
1989).
Besides their relevance for managerial practice, entrepreneurial activities are of
particular interest for research in strategic management. First, they enhance a company’s
competency base and extend its opportunities through internally generated processes. Second,
new resource combinations result in changes in strategy that alter the pattern and magnitude
of resource deployment (Guth and Ginsberg 1990). And finally, entrepreneurial activities
across hierarchical levels provide the raw material for strategic renewal (Burgelman 1983;
Guth and Ginsberg 1990), and constitute the base for continuous corporate transformation
processes (Shapero 1981; Ghoshal and Bartlett 1996).
The main objectives of this paper are to explain variance in EB within a homogenous
context, and to explore the micro-foundations of entrepreneurial behavior in large traditional
organizations to set the stage for future multilevel research. In the reminder of this section I
delineate my research approach and define EB in the context of this paper.
Entrepreneurial Behavior In Large Traditional Organizations
Studies on entrepreneurship in existing organizations differ substantially in approaches and
definitions employed. As Gartner notes, “the choice of words we use to define
entrepreneurship sets the boundaries of how we think about and study it” (Gartner 1993 p.
232). In this paper I follow a behavioral approach that emphasizes entrepreneurial activities
‘behavioral context’. For a more stylized distinction between these terms see (Denison 1996).
5
(Gartner 1988)2 , recognizes the role of context (Stevenson and Jarillo 1990) and is centered
on the individual (Bird 1988; Herron and Sapienza 1992).
While some authors delimit EB to entrepreneurial events such as the creation of new
organizations (Gartner 1988), new ventures (Vesper 1985) or new product development (von
Hippel 1977), others define it more broadly (Stevenson & Jarillo 1990). I view EB in large
traditional organizations as a broad set of activities required in all firms (Penrose 1959), and
define it as
…a set of activities and practices by which individuals at multiple levels
autonomously generate and use innovative resource combinations to identify and
pursue opportunities. 3
The defining elements of EB are innovation, autonomy, opportunities and balanced
nature. Opportunities represent future states that are both desirable and feasible; they depend
on individuals’ preferences and perceived capabilities, and vary over time (Stevenson and
Jarillo 1990). The term innovation, as used in this paper, does not solely refer to technological
novelty but is employed in a commercial sense. Innovation is not limited to technological
development but can be understood as a process through which resources are developed and
utilized to generate higher quality or lower cost processes, products and services. 4 The
meaning of autonomy, as employed here, goes beyond traditional views—perceiving
autonomy as “free” from structural or hierarchical constraints—and refers to independent
behavior based on “the ability and will to be self-directed in the pursuit of opportunities”
(Lumpkin and Dess 1996, p. 140).
While innovation, autonomy and opportunities are defining elements of EB in general
(Miller 1983; Stevenson and Jarillo 1990; Lumpkin and Dess 1996), EB within large
2
While studies following a trait approach view entrepreneurship as a set of personality traits and characteristics, behavioral
approaches conceive entrepreneurship seen as a set of activities (Gartner 1988).
3
I am deliberately focusing on a definition that is based on the individual taking entrepreneurial actions. This does not
exclude that groups and teams or even organizations do engage in EB. However, groups and organizations are composed of
individuals and in the end it is those individuals who have to carry out actions.
4
Already Schumpeter (1934) notes that innovation is aiming at original combinations of resources affecting new ventures,
product development or technological advancement, but also organizational processes and environmental influences.
6
traditional organizations is particular because it comprises a spectrum of activities ranging
from independent/autonomous to integrative/cooperative behavior (Ghoshal and Bartlett
1994; Kanter 1982). It implies heedful stretching of organizational boundaries as well as
dealing with corporate politics, both requiring innovative approaches to control, incentives
and communication. Also, entrepreneurial oriented managers need to continuously balance
“exploration” of new resource combination with “exploitation” of existing of organizational
capabilities.
As mentioned before, EB as employed in this paper denotes a specific management
style, “a way to use or expand companies’ resources to raise long-term capacity” (Kanter
1982). While various authors distinguished between entrepreneurial and administrative
management techniques (Birkinshaw 1997; Kanter 1985)5 , I argue that the new
entrepreneurial management style envisioned by many large traditional companies integrates
and combines both entrepreneurial and administrative approaches: it includes (1) the
identification of opportunities regarding business, internal processes and procedures, markets,
products, approaches towards customer and employees; (2) the allocation, commitment and
innovative use of resource to pursue these opportunities; and (3) supervision and integration
of entrepreneurial opportunities into ongoing activities. In the next section I present the
theoretical model and derive hypotheses based on an extensive interdisciplinary literature
review.
THE THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS
Aiming at a more comprehensive picture of the key determinants of entrepreneurial initiative
in large traditional business organizations, I introduce a model that considers managers’
subjective interpretation of their behavioral context and their emotional and cognitive
competencies. Furthermore, I introduce entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs—managers’
7
perceptions of their entrepreneurial capability—as a key concept. I argue that entrepreneurial
self-efficacy beliefs are a critical mediating variable to translate perceptions of behavioral
context and individual emotional and cognitive competencies into EB and a powerful
predictor of EB. Figure 1 summarizes the model proposed for empirical testing.
-----------------Insert Figure 1
------------------
The Effect Of Individual Competencies On Entrepreneurial Behavior
As Edith Penrose notes, entrepreneurial behavior is “a slippery concept, not easy to
work into formal economic analysis because it is so closely associated with the temperament
or personal qualities of individuals” (Penrose 1959, p.33). While it is widely accepted that
individual characteristics matter (Stevenson & Jarillo 1990), findings on which ones matter
most remain ambiguous and inconclusive (Brockhaus 1982; Gartner 1985; Low and
MacMillan 1988). A large number of studies—grounded in psychology and aiming at
psychological profiles of entrepreneurs —has examined innate personality traits (Kets De
Vries 1977; Brockhaus 1982; Miner 1997). Entrepreneurs are largely depicted as risk takers
(Brockhaus 1980) and high in need for achievement (McClelland 1961) and internal locus of
control (Brockhaus 1982). Despite their popularity, studies merely focusing on psychological
predisposition of entrepreneurs have been repeatedly criticized. First, they are regarded as
inadequate to predict EB as the identified psychological profiles do not significantly differ
from profiles of successful managers in general (Burt 1999; Gartner 1985, Low & MacMillan
1988); second, they are incomplete as they do not consider situational aspects, and third; they
suffer from conceptual and methodological inadequacies (Greenberger and Sexton 1988) 6 .
5
Birkinshaw (1997), for example, refers to the “entrepreneurial challenge” as to “ move from an idea to a commitment of
resource”, while the “managerial challenge” consists of making “resultant business activity profitable” (p. 209).
6
Studies differ substantially in sample size and selection, are very often based on inadequate psychometric properties and
multidimensionality of constructs (Greenberger and Sexton 1988).
8
Traditional studies based on individual traits portray a rather static picture of
entrepreneurs and EB, implying “a state of being” (Gartner 1988) rather than an “a process of
becoming”. Cognitive and emotional competencies—dynamic in time and space—are largely
ignored. However competencies dealing with recognition, regulation and expression of
thoughts and feelings are increasingly important in today’s business organizations (Fox &
Spector 2000). To enhance parsimony of the model I confine my analysis to the following set
of four competencies associated with the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and
emotions, to discriminate among them and to use one’s information to guide one's thinking
and actions (Salovey and Mayer 1990): self-monitoring and perspective taking—capturing
cognitive aspects—and emotional self-awareness and positive emotions at work—capturing
affective aspects. Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence indicate that these cognitive
and emotional competencies positively influence EB.
Self-monitoring. People differ in the extent to which they monitor, i.e., observe, and
control their expressive behavior, self-presentation and nonverbal displays of emotion and
affect (Snyder 1979). Self-monitoring refers to the tendency to regulate one’s own behavior to
meet the demands of social situations. Being sensitive to strategic self-presentation, high selfmonitors are willing and able to adapt and modify their behavior as they move from one
situation to another (Brehm, Kassin et al. 1999). Entrepreneurial activities in hierarchically
organized firms involve a series of very different tasks. High self-monitors are more likely to
better adapt to changing situation, and may also do better in switching between different tasks
involved in EB. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 1: Self-monitoring has a direct, positive effect on EB.
Perspective taking. Perspective taking—the cognitive dimension of empathy (Davis
1983)—reflects the ability to adopt the perspective, or point of view, of other people, a basic
requirement of all social behavior (Hass 1984). It involves the cognitive comprehension of
9
others’ internal thoughts and feelings. With respect to the topic of this paper, individuals high
on perspective taking are assumed to more easily adopt and internalize new entrepreneurial
approaches envisioned by top management, and are more likely to cooperate, a critical aspect
of EB within large organizations. Accordingly, I propose that managers able to take the
perspective of others more readily engage in new entrepreneurial patterns of behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Perspective taking has a direct, positive effect on EB.
Positive emotions at work. The pervasiveness and utility of emotions in
organizational life has been increasingly emphasized by management research (Ashforth and
Humphrey 1995). Extensive empirical evidence exists on the effect of positive emotions on
task performance and other work related outcomes (Ashforth and Humphrey 1995; George
and Brief 1996). Isen and Baron (1991) point to robust empirical evidence on the effect of
positive emotions on creativity and divergent thinking on one hand, and cooperative and
helping behavior on the other. Additionally, positive emotions do enhance problem-solving
capabilities and promote a sense of personal freedom or self-determination in action taking7 .
In sum, positive emotions seem to be beneficial to both integrative and autonomous behavior,
the two building blocks of EB within traditional organizations. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 3: Positive emotions at the workplace have a direct, positive effect on
EB.
Emotional self-awareness. Emotional self-awareness refers to individuals’ ability to
recognize their own emotions and their effects (Goleman 1998). Individuals who are selfaware of their emotions are able to link their feelings with their thoughts and actions, and
more readily express, share and describe their feelings. Emotional self-aware managers are
assumed to be more sensitive to changes in behavioral standards and values induced by
changes in the strategic orientation of a firm. Baron theoretically establishes a strong link
7
For detailed references refer to Isen and Baron (1991).
10
between “careful and effortful thought” and entrepreneurship (Baron 1998, p.289). Thus I
propose:
Hypothesis 4: Emotional self-awareness has a direct, positive effect on EB.
The Effect Of Perceived Behavioral Context On Entrepreneurial Behavior
Theoretical and empirical findings from research in entrepreneurship and strategic
management provide a comprehensive understanding on the “ideal” behavioral context for EB
in established organizations (Kanter 1985; Sathe 1985; MacMillan, Block et al. 1986; Schuler
1986; Sykes 1986) 8 . Kuratko et al. (1990), for example, establish and validate a
multidimensional instrument to assess the effectiveness of behavioral context (culture) to
induce EB. They identify management support, organizational culture, and resource
availability as critical factors. Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994) apply a case based approach and
detect stretch, support, trust and discipline as key contextual features to nurture and diffuse
entrepreneurial spirit. Although studies differ substantially in working definitions of EB as
well in methodology9 , one message is conveyed by almost all studies: support is critical to
induce EB in large traditional organizations. “If managers feel the atmosphere within their
organization does not support their efforts, intrapreneuring will probably not occur” (Kuratko,
Montagno et al. 1990, p.50). Supportive behavioral context can be viewed as a
multidimensional construct being composed of four sub-dimensions: freedom to act (often
referred to as autonomy) (Peters and Waterman 1982; Schollhammer 1982; Lumpkin and
Dess 1996; Ghoshal & Bartlett 1994, Schuler 1986), availability of and access to resources
(Kanter 1985; Hisrich & Peters 1986; Kuratko, Montagno et al. 1990; Ghoshal and Bartlett
1994; Conger and Kanungo 1988; Sewell Jr. 1992; Spreitzer 1996), and information
8
See Kuratko et al. 1990 for review.
Empirical studies are mainly case based (Ghoshal & Bartlett 1994; Burgelman 1983; MacMillan et al. 1986), however the
spectrum of methodologies also includes multiple cases (Sykes 1986), quasi experiments (Kuratko et al. 1990) and survey
studies (Hisrich and Peters 1986).
9
11
(MacMillan, Block et al. 1986; Churchill and Muzyka 1994), and interpersonal or sociopolitical support (Hisrich & Peters 1986, Kuratko et al.1990, Ghoshal, 1994; Spreitzer 1996).
Again, while the “ideal” contextual features identified by this stream of literature
might explain variance in EB between firms, they do not elucidate the puzzling phenomenon
of why some managers do act entrepreneurially and others, facing the same organizational
context, do not. In this paper I apply a cognitive lens and explicitly consider the role of
managers’ perceptions in creating the “ideal” behavioral context from EB.
The fact that a manager might perceive the same objective behavioral context very
differently is hardly considered in studies on EB within established firms. However, empirical
and theoretical evidence shows that the way individuals interpret and perceive their
“playground” for managerial activities guides their (entrepreneurial) behavior and influences
performance (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Brazeal 1993). Dutton et al. claim that when
perceptions are altered in content or evaluation, individuals are likely to modify their behavior
(Dutton, Dukerich et al. 1994). And Brazeal (1993) argues that perceptions may even explain
the gap between entrepreneurial potential and intentions.
Perceptions are multidimensional constructs. They consist of personal assessments
brought about by a combination of different factors, such as knowledge, insight, judgment and
personal values (Liles 1974). As a detailed examination of the perception-formation process
went beyond the scope of this paper, I focus on the effect of individual cognitive and
emotional competencies on perceptions of behavioral context. I briefly propose—
speculative—hypotheses on the impact of cognitive and emotional competencies on perceived
supportive behavioral context.
While it is widely accepted that individual competencies are critical for forming
perceptions, little research—within the field of management—has looked at how single
competencies affect perceptions of support. I propose that managers perceive their objective
12
supportive context very differently depending on their set of emotional and cognitive
competencies and that high levels in self-monitoring, perspective taking, positive emotions at
work, and emotional self-awareness positively affect managers’ perceptions of their
supportive behavioral context. 10
Subsequently I derive hypotheses on the effect of perceived supportive behavioral
context on EB.
Perceived freedom to act (autonomy). The term freedom to act includes both a sense
of independence and lack of structural constraints. It is widely recognized that how managers
perceive their freedom to act (autonomy) substantially influences their level of entrepreneurial
activity (Ghoshal and Bartlett 1994). Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 5: Perceived freedom to act has a direct, positive effect on EB.
Perceived sociopolitical support. Sociopolitical support—viewed as assistance from
various organizational constituencies—is typically gained from membership in social
networks (Kanter 1983). These networks, informal or formal, provide the “social glue” of
an organization and constitute important channels for getting things done (Brass and
Burkhardt 1993; Ibarra and Andrews 1993). Support networks comprise individuals’ boss,
peers, subordinates and members of working groups (Spreitzer 1996). The perception of
social support and social exchange encourages a sense of empowerment and stimulates
innovative autonomous behavior. Thus I propose:
Hypothesis 6: Perceived sociopolitical support has a direct, positive effect
on EB.
Perceived access to information. Free flow of information and information creation
is critical for innovative behavior within organizations (Nonaka 1988). Information creates a
sense of meaning and purpose (Conger and Kanungo1988), which encourages alignment of
individual and organizational goals. It is critical to understand the strategic orientation
10
The hypotheses put forward in this paper are of explorative nature. A more detailed elaboration on the relationship between
13
towards entrepreneurial initiative set by top management, and to internalize and enact it.
Furthermore, the availability and clarity of information regarding strategic orientation, daily
workflow, internal results and benchmarks, competitors and markets is critical for managers
to efficiently pursue opportunities with respect to business and internal processes. Thus, I
propose:
Hypothesis 7: Perceived access to information has a direct, positive effect on
EB.
Perceived access to resources. Access to resources allows managers to tap locally
what they need to get things done (Kanter 1986). Resources refer to tangible and intangible
assets, and include financial and human resources, material and know how. Greater
availability of resources encourages lower level initiatives and entrepreneurship (Ghoshal and
Bartlett 1994). Positive perceptions regarding access to resources favor proactiveness and a
sense of control over the environment and oneself (Spreitzer 1996). Accordingly I propose:
Hypothesis 8: Perceived access to resources has a direct, positive effect on EB.
Social Cognitive Theory – Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Social cognitive theory has enormous potential to enhance our understanding of
managerial effectiveness (Shipper and White 1999). It rejects classical stimulus response
models in explaining behavior (Ginsberg 1990), and claims that beliefs of personal efficacy
are key to human agency (Bandura 1997). Perceived self-efficacy refers to
…beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and
courses of action needed to meet given situational demands (Wood and Bandura
1989).
The main sources of self-efficacy beliefs—as discussed in the literature—are information cues
related to enactive mastery (repeated performance accomplishment), vicarious experience
(modeling), verbal persuasion (convincing), and psychological state (physiological and
emotional arousal) (Bandura 1977). It is the way individuals cognitively appraise and
individual dispositions and perceptions of context will be the topic of a separate research paper.
14
integrate any relevant information regarding these sources that ultimately determines
perceived self-efficacy (Bandura 1982; Stajkovic and Luthans 1998).
Perceived self-efficacy differs from traditional personality and motivational concepts
such as self-esteem (Rosenberg 1979), expectancy theory (Vroom 1964) or locus of control
(Rotter 1954). First, it is a dynamic construct that changes in reaction to new information on
behavioral context and task experience; and second, it involves the judgment of one’s ability
to perform a specified behavior rather than the judgment of the outcome of behavior or causal
beliefs of action-outcome contingencies (Gist and Mitchell 1992; Bandura 1997; Stajkovic
and Luthans 1998). It is because of its dynamic nature and the described mobilization aspect
that self-efficacy beliefs assume significant explanatory power in understanding why
individuals with a similar level of objective technical ability and/or exposure to the same
organizational circumstances behave differently (Gist and Mitchell 1992; Stajkovic and
Luthans 1998). Individuals constantly weigh, integrate, and evaluate information about their
capabilities and accordingly regulate their choices and efforts (Bandura, Adams et al. 1980).
Self-efficacy beliefs have been conceived as a central construct in examining
behavioral self-regulation, i.e., the cognitive, individual determination of behavior (Scheier
and Carver 1988; Gist and Mitchell 1992). In situations where new behavioral patterns
“compete” with existing patterns, perceived self-efficacy proves an important motivational
and volitional device (1) to increase persistence and avoid inefficacious thought, (2) to reduce
discrepancies between new and old behavioral patterns (Bandura 1989), and (3) to translate
knowledge and ability into skilled performance (Gist and Mitchell 1992). It has been shown
that self-efficacy beliefs lead to greater willingness to seek feedback and encourage the
commitment to difficult goals and effective task strategies (Mitchell 1997). In sum, selfefficacy beliefs are assumed to enhance motivation and performance as they determine level
and magnitude of involvement and effort invested in a course of action (Bandura 1989).
15
The concept of self-efficacy has gained increasing attention in traditional management
literature; and the positive effect of self-efficacy beliefs on managerial behavior or task
performance in organizational settings is well documented in a number of empirical studies
(Barling and Beattie 1983; Frayne and Latham 1987; Lee and Gillen 1989). Self-efficacy
theory is also highly relevant to entrepreneurial phenomena (Jarillo & Stevenson 1990; Liles
1974) as entrepreneurship “rests heavily on a robust sense of efficacy to sustain one through
the stress and discouragement inherent in innovative pursuits” (Bandura (1997, p. 455).
Various authors provide empirical evidence on the positive relationship between
entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs and entrepreneurial activities: Baum (1994) shows that
managers achieved entrepreneurial performance through beliefs in their efficacy rather than
their general personality traits; Krueger and Dickson (1994) demonstrate that managers with
high levels of perceived self-efficacy see more opportunities and take more risks; Chen,
Greene et al. (1998) reveal that founders have higher levels of self-efficacy in innovation and
risk-taking; and Chandler and Jansen (1992) find a positive relation between founder’s selfefficacy beliefs and venture performance. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 9: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs have a direct, positive effect on EB.
Gist and Mitchell (1992) note that personal and contextual factors must be considered
to successfully assess self-efficacy beliefs and their impact on behavior. Although previous
empirical research examined the mediating influence of self-efficacy beliefs in a variety of
task domains (Prussia, Anderson et al. 1998), limited research has been conducted on the
mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs. I introduce a series of hypothesis that
underline the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs proposing an indirect
effect of emotional and cognitive competencies and perceptions of supportive behavioral
context on one hand and EB on the other.
The mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs
16
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring influences self-efficacy beliefs through its impact on
two critical information cues. High self-monitors are sensitive to outcomes of their own
behavior (enactive mastery) and behavior of others (vicarious learning). As a result they are
more likely to engage in self-modeling, which alters thought, affect, and action through
observation of task relevant experiences. I suggest that self-monitoring exerts significant
influence on EB through its mediating effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs. Thus:
Hypothesis 10: Self-monitoring indirectly influences EB through its positive effect
on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
Perspective taking. Perspective taking encourages self-regulatory processes and
allows the individual to better control the course of action. It enhances self-efficacy beliefs
through facilitating vicarious experience and verbal persuasion, two main information cues
informing perceived self-efficacy. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 11: Perspective taking indirectly influences EB through its positive
effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
Positive emotions at work. Individuals’ affective state and emotional competencies
provide the psychological and emotional support to enhance self-regulation and self-efficacy
beliefs. They lead to more favorable global self-evaluations and selective attention in the
information about the self (Mischel, Cantor et al. 1996). They affect self-efficacy beliefs via
two informational cues: first, positive emotions influence enactive mastery by making recall
of previous successes more likely; and second, positive mood prevents emotional distraction
and tendencies to be inhibited. Staw, Sutton et al. (1994) empirically show that positive
emotions bring about favorable outcomes at work through an intervening process. Positive
emotions enhance persistence and cognitive functioning, which increase the level of perceived
self-efficacy and positively affect task activity. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 12: Positive emotions at work indirectly influence EB through their
positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
17
Emotional self-awareness. Knowing and recognizing how their feelings affect
behavioral performance, emotionally self-aware managers are able to better control their
emotions, cognition and, last but not least, actions. Being sensitive to their inner workings
managers are particularly concerned about their ability to effectively perform specific tasks.
Accordingly I propose:
Hypothesis 13: Emotional self-awareness indirectly influences EB through its
positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
Perceived freedom to act. Besides its direct influence perceived freedom to act also
affects EB indirectly. It strengthens efficacy beliefs through enactive mastery of task
performance and facilitates internalization of behavioral goals through promoting volitional
and motivational regulation of behavior. Consequently, I propose:
Hypothesis 14: Perceived freedom to act indirectly influences EB through its
positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
Perceived sociopolitical support. Supportive relationships within the organization
positively affect self-efficacy beliefs via two important information cues, namely verbal
persuasion and vicarious experience. Managers who perceive their formal and informal
network as supportive are first, more easily convinced and open for verbal persuasion, and
second, they are more inclined to adopt new behavioral patterns through vicarious experience,
i.e., learning from other members of the network. Accordingly, I suggest:
Hypothesis 15: Perceived sociopolitical support indirectly influences EB through
its positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
Perceived access to information. Access to relevant information also critically affects
managers’ EB via self-efficacy beliefs. It enhances managers’ judgment of their
entrepreneurial capabilities by providing a more accurate understanding of task attributes,
complexity and environment (Gist and Mitchell 1992). Accordingly, I suggest:
Hypothesis 16: Perceived access to information indirectly influences EB through
its positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
18
Perceived access to resources. Managers’ perceptions of adequate access to resources
create a sense of control over environmental contingencies and therefore enhance perceived
self-efficacy (Gist and Mitchell 1992). Thus, I propose:
Hypothesis 17: Perceived access to resources indirectly influences EB through its
positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.
In sum, to provide a comprehensive model for investigation, I consider direct effects—as
suggested by the traditional literature—as well as indirect effects of individual competencies
and perceptions of context on EB.
RESEARCH DESIGN
To my knowledge, no general theory exists on the enactment of EB in large business
organizations. To capture and at the same time control for the complexity of the phenomenon
I focused on one company and combined in-depth clinical investigation with a survey.
Research Setting
In 1997, ABN AMRO—a large Dutch financial service company—launched a project
to promote entrepreneurial initiative, and accordingly reshuffled its operations in the
Netherlands. It split the domestic market into 215 micro markets and appointed an area
manager for each of these newly created autonomous (independent) units. Each area belongs
to one of 11 regional units, and area managers, although autonomous in principal, formally
report to their general regional manager. Area managers are expected to manage their unit in
an entrepreneurial way and diffuse entrepreneurial spirit throughout the organizations. While
all area managers faced the same objective organizational context, the manner in which they
implemented entrepreneurial approaches in their units was left to them. It is these area
managers and their actions that are at the center of this study.
19
Research Procedures
The data collection process included extensive clinical fieldwork to corroborate the
theoretical framework and to operationalize the key constructs. The total number of
interviews in the initial, qualitative, stage was 40. In the second phase—the survey phase—I
developed measurement items by drawing from my qualitative findings as well as from
relevant literature. The resulting items were pre-tested, first by a group of academics and
professionals, and secondly, by a restricted number of area managers. The final questionnaire
was mailed to the whole population under study (207 area managers) and returned by 150
managers, indicative of a highly satisfactory overall response rate of 72%. I evaluated nonresponse biases by comparing regional distribution, size, and financial performance of the
areas in the “returned” sample with the ones in the “not-returned” sample. No significant
differences were found. As suggested by the relevant literature I eliminated social desirability
effects as much as possible by clarifying introductions and accurate phrasing of questions
(Rossi, Wright et al. 1983).
Respondents. The sample of managers who returned the questionnaire exhibited the
following characteristics: 81.3% of the managers assumed the position of area manager in
1997, the year the entrepreneurial project was launched. The remaining 19.7% joined during
1998 (6.7%) and 1999 (12%). No significant differences could be identified in answers from
managers joining at separate times.
Four percent of all area managers in the return sample were female, and 71% of all
respondents were less than 50 years old. The educational level was quite elevated: 77.3%
have enjoyed higher education (39% hold university degrees). These results are consistent
with the distribution in the overall population of area managers. On average, area managers in
the sample had been with ABN AMRO for 22 years and were responsible for 59 employees.
Depending on the size of area the latter number ranged between 14 and 217 employees.
20
Model structure . Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and Fornell and Larcker
(1981) I chose a two-step structural modeling approach with latent constructs 11 . I selected
AMOS 3.61, a second-generation multivariate analysis technique analogous to LISREL, to
estimate the proposed model, and used Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimators,
which are recognized as efficient estimators for theory testing and development (Anderson
and Gerbing 1988) to assess the model.
The structural model—specifying the hypothesized relationships between constructs
(endogenous or endogenous latent variables—can be expressed as
12
η= βη + Γξ + ζ
The model is based on perceptual variables. Latent endogenous variables are
perceived freedom to act, perceived sociopolitical support, perceived access to resources,
perceived access to information, entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs and EB. Latent
exogenous variables are self-monitoring, perspective taking, positive emotions at the
workplace, and emotional self-awareness. I specified a variance-covariance matrix of latent
exogenous variables (φ) and allowed the exogenous constructs to inter-correlate freely.
The measurement model—specifying how constructs or latent variables are
measured in terms of observed variables— can be written as
13
y = Λyη + ε
x = Λxξ + δ
11
A latent construct is not directly observable and is defined by the loadings of all indicators or manifest variables used to
measure it.
12
Where:
β is an (m x m) matrix of endogenous variable coefficients (β ij = 0 means that ηj and ηi are not related),
Γ is an (m x n) matrix of exogenous variable coefficients (γij = 0 means that ηi is not related to ξj ),
η is an (m x 1) column vector of constructs derived from the latent endogenous (dependent) variables (y),
ξ is an (n x 1) column vector of constructs derived from the exogenous latent (independent) variables (x),
ζ is an (m x 1) column vector of the errors in the structural equation (residuals),
m is the number of constructs (latent variables) developed from the observed endogenous (dependent) variables,
n is the number if constructs (latent variables) developed from the observed exogenous (independent) variables.
13
Where:
y is a ((p x 1) column vector of observed dependent variables,
x is a (q x 1) column vector of observed independent variables,
Λy is a (p x m) regression coefficient matrix of y on η,
Λx is a (q x n) regression coefficient matrix of x on ξ,
ε is a (p x 1) column vector of measurement errors for the indicators of endogenous variables,
δ is a (q x 1) column vector of measurement errors for the indicators of exogenous variables.
21
I specified one indicator of each latent construct as having a factor-loading equal to
one to provide a metric (Bollen 1989).
Measures
Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 1, and results of the
measurement model are reported on Table 2.
---------------Insert Table 1
----------------
All measures were analyzed for validity and internal consistency following the guidelines
offered by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Factor analysis revealed one common factor for each
construct with items adequately correlated. Relevant survey questions for this study are
presented in the Appendix.
---------------Insert Table 2
----------------
Endogenous Variables. As frequently used general scales on perceived self-efficacy
or EB do not reflect the particular entrepreneurial tasks at the center of this study, I built
original indicators based on the qualitative findings from interviews with area managers,
subordinates, bosses and internal/external experts. To measure perceptions of behavioral
context I developed context specific indicators, with the exception of sociopolitical support.
All measures, with the exception of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs are based on sevenpoint Likert-type scale.
Entrepreneurial behavior. Given the context-specific conceptualization of EB, it was
essential that its measure captured its main aspects, i.e., balanced nature, innovation,
autonomy and opportunity. EB was operationalized by asking respondents about the extent to
which they engaged in particular activities focusing on new opportunities, processes and
22
procedures, and reorganization and targeted at employees, customers, and markets. Five
indicators covering the spectrum of activities were chosen to measure EB.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs.. In this study I followed Bandura’s original
approach and measured entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs in terms of people’s expectations
to successfully perform tasks leading to entrepreneurial success (Bandura 1977; Jones 1986).
Focusing on efficacy strength (Bandura 1977; Prussia, Anderson et al. 1998) to assess
entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs, I operationalized the construct by asking respondents to
indicate the level of confidence in their ability to perform specified tasks on a scale ranging
from ‘not confident at all’ (0) to ‘totally confident’ (10) (Lee and Bobko 1994). Six indicators
reflecting self-efficacy beliefs with respect to entrepreneurial tasks were extracted.
To capture the various dimensions of perceived supportive behavioral context I
adapted an existing scale on perceived sociopolitical support and developed specific
indicators to measure perceived freedom to act, and perceived access to information and
resources.
Freedom to act. I operationalized the level of perceived freedom to act (autonomy) by
assessing the extent to which respondents were allowed to manage their area in an
autonomous and self-determined manner. Three reflective indicators were employed.
Perceived sociopolitical support. I adapted a scale developed by (Spreitzer 1992) to
measure the level of perceived sociopolitical support, and used tree reflective indicators to
capture the respondents’ perceived level of support from bosses and peers at headquarter and
regional level.
Perceived access to resources. Two reflective indicators generated from fieldwork
were used to measure the level of perceived access to resources.
Perceived access to information. I measured the level of perceived access to
information using two reflective context-specific indicators generated from fieldwork.
23
Exogenous variables. I operationalized cognitive and emotional competencies by
adapting existing scales. Again, all indicators were based on seven-point Likert-type scales.
Self-monitoring. I focused on the cognitive aspect of self-monitoring, and measured it
by four reflective indicators, adapted from a scale developed by (Lennox and Wolfe 1984).
Perspective taking. The cognitive aspect of empathy was captured by five reflective
indicators adapted from a 9-item scale developed by (Davis 1980).
Positive emotions at work. Positive emotions at work was measured through three
indicators extracted from a 10-items scale developed by (Staw, Sutton et al. 1994). Staw,
Sutton et al. (1994) do not distinguish between felt and expressed emotions arguing that
strong reciprocal effects exist between the two. The items consisted of questions regarding the
frequency of felt emotions.
Emotional self-awareness. No validated scales for measuring emotional selfawareness could be found in the literature. Thus I captured emotional functioning by adapting
a subscale from the “BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory”, a frequently used intra-personal
measurement device in management education. The three indicators indicate individuals’
perceived ability to express, share, and describe their feelings.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
I first assessed reliability and validity of the measurement model, and second, the
relationships between constructs within the structural model (Anderson and Gerbing 1988;
Capron 1999).
Measurement Model Results
Internal
consistency,
average
variance
extracted
(convergent
validity),
and
discriminant validity are reported in Table 2. All non-fixed indicator loadings for each
construct are significant at a 0.01 level. Indicators’ loadings—ranging from 0.69 to 0.98—
24
largely in line with the widely accepted rule of thumb to accept items with loadings greater
than 0.70. 14
All scales demonstrate adequate internal consistency measured according a formula
suggested by (Fornell and Larcker 1981) 15 . Scores range between 0.89 and 0.95 and meet the
recommended ‘0.7 threshold’ (Fornell and Larcker 1981). I assessed the amount of variance
captured by the construct’s measure in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement
error and calculated the average variance extracted
16
—a more conservative measure for
convergent validity. Convergent validity of estimates is demonstrated as all scores exceeded
the 0.50-benchmark 17 .
Finally, I evaluated discriminant validity.18 Table 1 exhibits the correlation matrix for
the constructs as well as the square root of the average variance extracted (reported in the
diagonal). As all diagonal elements were significantly greater than the off-diagonal elements,
each construct shares more variance with its measure than it shares with other constructs.
Structural Model Results
I proposed a positive and significant influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs
on EB, significant effects of cognitive and emotional competencies on perceptions of
supportive behavioral context, and, last but not least, I hypothesized individual competencies
and perceptions of behavioral context to directly and indirectly influence EB. Figure 2
graphically presents the results for the structural model exhibiting significant standardized
path coefficients and correlations.
-----------------Insert Figure 2
------------------
14
Factor loading > 0.7 demonstrate more explanatory power than variance
Internal consistency = ((Σ λy i)2) / ((Σ λy i)2 + Σ var (εi))(Fornell and Larcker 1981)
16
Average variance extracted = ((Σ λy i)2) / (Σ λy i2 + Σ var (εi)) (Fornell and Larcker 1981)
17
Fornell and Larcker (1981) note, “if average variance extracted is less than 0.5, the variance due to measurement error is
larger than the variance captured by the construct, and the validity of the individual indicators as well as the construct
becomes questionable” (Fornell and Larcker 1981, p. 46).
18
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981) discriminant validity is supported if the square of the parameter estimate between
two constructs (F 2) is less than the square root of the average extracted of the two constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
15
25
Squared multiple correlations (SMC’s) for EB and entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs
exhibit a highly satisfactory fit. The proposed model explains 43 % of the variance in EB of
area managers, which is particularly satisfactory given the complexity of managerial behavior.
In addition, almost half of the variance in entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs (45%) is
captured by the proposed model (shown in Figure 2).
As hypothesized, entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs have a strong positive and
highly significant impact on EB (0.54, p < 0.01), suggesting entrepreneurial self-efficacy
beliefs are a powerful predictor of EB (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). With respect to their
formation, two variables in particular exhibit a highly significant and strong influence on
entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs: managers’ ability to self-monitor their own behavior and
perceived freedom to act (0.46, p < 0.01; and 0.36, p < 0.01 respectively).
Contrary to studies in entrepreneurship and social psychology that portray EB as
determined primarily by individual characteristics, data analysis revealed no significant direct
effect of cognitive and emotional competencies on EB. Instead, individual competencies
affect EB indirectly through a significant effect on perceptions of supportive behavioral
context and entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs, both key determinants of EB. Perspective
taking and positive emotions significantly influence perceptions of support in the predicted
positive manner (freedom to act: 0.30, p < 0.01 and 0.53, p < 0.01; socio-political support:
0.32, p < 0.01 and 0.34, p < 0.01; access to info: 0.47, p < 0.01 and 0.42, p < 0.01; access to
resources: 0.25, p < 0.05 and 0.64, p < 0.01). While I initially speculated on positive effects,
self-monitoring, exerts a significant negative effect on the different sub-dimensions of
perceived supportive behavioral context (freedom to act: -0.26, p < 0.05; socio-political
support: -0.39, p < 0.01; access to info: -0.40, p < 0.01; access to resources: 0.30, p < 0.05).
Emotional self-awareness has a significant negative effect on only one sub-dimension, i.e.,
26
perceived freedom to act (-0.20, p < 0.10). Effects on the remaining sub-dimensions are not
significant.
In addition to the significant effect on managers’ interpretation of their supportive
organizational environment, self-monitoring proves to be a highly significant and strong
predictor of managers’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs, i.e., their judgment of their
entrepreneurial capabilities.
Two out of the four sub-dimensions for supportive context considered in the model
directly affect EB: perceived socio-political support exerted a positive and significant (0.26, p
< 0.05), and perceived access to resources a positive and marginally significant (0.32, p
marginal) influence. Both variables do not reveal any indirect effect on EB. While not
exerting a direct effect on EB, perceived freedom to act significantly affects entrepreneurial
self-efficacy beliefs supporting the proposed indirect effect. Perceived access to information
reveals no significant direct and indirect on EB.
In sum, my analysis reveals that emotional and cognitive competencies are key in
determining managers’ perceptions of their supportive behavioral context. These perceptions
in turn significantly influence EB. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs not only is a powerful
predictor of EB, it also plays an important role in mediating the positive effect of managers’
self-monitoring competence and their perceptions of freedom to act on EB.
Correlation between exogenous variables. Analysis also demonstrates significant
correlations between exogenous variables (individual dispositions). Perspective taking is
significantly correlated with self-monitoring (0.38, p < 0.01), and positive emotions at the
workplace are significantly correlated with emotional self-awareness (0.45, p < 0.01). These
findings corroborate previous theoretical insights and support my earlier distinction between
cognitive and emotional competencies.
27
Fit measures. Assessing the overall goodness-of-fit in structural equation models is
not as straightforward as with other multivariate techniques (Morgan and Hunt 1994;
Netemeyer, Boles et al. 1997; Hair Jr., Anderson et al. 1998). Two frequently used measures,
the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the adjusted-goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and indicate
marginal fit (0.79 and 0.74 respectively). Incremental fit measures equally demonstrate
marginal fit: the estimates for the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), a comparative index between the
proposed and null model, and the comparative fit index (CFI), appropriate in the model
development stage and using small samples are 0.80 and 0.83 respectively. 19
Control variables. I controlled for potential sources of heterogeneity: tenure as area
managers, number of years within ABN AMRO, age, gender, salary, size and geographical
location of the area. A number of control variables had a significant effect on perceived
supportive behavioral context; one (age) had a significant effect on perceived self-efficacy;
and none had had a significant impact on entrepreneurial behavior. Overall, the stability and
robustness of previous results remained largely unaffected.
Age. Age significantly affects perceived self-efficacy (-.0186, p < 0.05), indicating
that older managers—in general—have lower levels of perceived ability in successfully
performing entrepreneurial tasks. This is not surprising as entrepreneurial tasks in the context
of this study are fundamentally different from the traditional set of behaviors exhibited over
years. Interestingly, age has no significant effect on actual EB. This suggests that although
older managers proceed with humility when judging their entrepreneurial abilities they still
engage in these new activities. I found no significant effect of age on perceived behavioral
context.
Education. The level of education exerts no significant effect on EB or perceived selfefficacy. However, it significantly affects the way managers perceived their supportive
19
The values for fit measures lie between 0 and 1.0, and higher values indicate better fit. While no established threshold
exists for GFI; levels of 0.9 for TLI and CFI are recommended (Hair Jr., Anderson et al. 1998).
28
organizational environment. In general, managers with an elevated level of education assume
a less favorable perspective on support in their organizational context than their colleagues
who enjoy lower levels of education. A high level of education has a negative and significant
impact on managers’ perceptions of socio-political support (-0.161, p < 0.10), access to
resources (-0.0172, p < 0.10), and access to information (-0.0210, p < 0.05).
Tenure within ABN AMRO. The number of years managers spent within ABN AMRO
before assume does not significant affect the endogenous variables.
Start as area manager. Whether area managers started their job in 1997—the
beginning of the entrepreneurial project—or later has a significant effect on how they
perceive their socio-political support (-0.151, p < 0.10) and their freedom to act (0.155, p <
0.10). In other words managers who joined the entrepreneurial project at an early stage
perceive their sociopolitical support more negatively than their colleagues who joined later.
On the other hand, managers who started in 1997 interpret their freedom to act more
favorably than their colleagues. Besides this effect on perceived supportive context, tenure as
“entrepreneurial area manager” has no significant impact on perceived self-efficacy and EB.
Professional background and gender. Both, professional background and gender of
managers has no significant effect on endogenous variables.
Salary. The level of salary only significantly affects managers perceived access to
resources. Mangers with higher salaries interpret their access to resource more negatively than
their colleagues with lower salaries.
Size of the area. While size of the area has any significant impact on neither
managers’ perceived self-efficacy nor their EB, it significantly and negatively affects their
perceptions of socio-political support (-0.161, p < 0.10) and of access to resources (-0.261, p
< 0.01).
29
Region. The fact that the different areas belong to 11 different regions only
significantly influences managers perceived access to information. This suggests that regional
managers substantially differ in their approaches to convey. No other regional effects was
detected.
The robust results of the model support and strengthen the main argument of the
paper. Perceptions of supportive behavioral context and individual cognitive and emotional
competencies are important to enact EB in large traditional organizations. However, the way
they influence EB is more complex than predicted by traditional literature in strategic
management, entrepreneurship and organizational behavior. First, in contrast to predictions of
traditional theories on entrepreneurial profiles, individual cognitive and emotional
competencies do not affect EB directly. Yet, they are critical for shaping managers’
perceptions of supportive behavioral context. Second, it is these perceptions of supportive
behavioral context that significantly affect EB and therefore explain part of the variance of
EB within the same organizational context. Third, individual dispositions and perceptions of
support also influence EB indirectly, through entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs, an
important mediating mechanisms. As such, entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs—managers’
own judgment of their entrepreneurial capabilities—are a powerful regulating force to
translate commitment and intentions to act entrepreneurial into actual EB.
CONCLUSIONS
Previous strategy process literature has emphasized the importance of contextual features in
fostering entrepreneurial initiatives and analyzed inter-firm differences in behavioral context.
I argued that, while variation in objective behavioral context might explain differences in
entrepreneurial behavior between companies, it fails to explain differences within the same
objective context. I argued that variance in entrepreneurial behavior—opportunity-oriented
30
behavior based on innovative use of resources—within the same objective context can be best
explained at the individual level, by taking into consideration how managers perceive their
“playground for action”, and their own capabilities to perform entrepreneurial tasks, and by
examining their emotional and cognitive competencies to regulate thought, feelings and
actions.
Integrating
literature
in
strategic
management,
organizational
behavior,
entrepreneurship, and social cognitive theory, I developed and empirically tested a model on
the micro-foundations of entrepreneurial behavior within large traditional organizations. Data
on 150 managers in a traditional company striving to become more “entrepreneurial” revealed
that the way managers perceive their supportive organizational context, notably their
perceptions on support from colleagues, peers and bosses as well as on access to resources,
drives entrepreneurial behavior. Perceptions of behavioral context in turn were critically
shaped by managers’ cognitive and emotional competencies. While positive emotions at work
and managers’ ability to take the perspective of others exerted a positive effect on perceived
supportive context, self-monitoring—managers’ ability to self-present themselves according
to changing situations—and emotional self-awareness negatively influenced perceived
supportive context.
Findings also accentuate the importance of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs—
defined as perceived capability to successfully perform entrepreneurial tasks—as a powerful
predictor of entrepreneurial behavior. They act as a mediating force to translate selfmonitoring—an individual cognitive disposition—and managers’ perceived level of freedom
to act into entrepreneurial behavior. The critical role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs—
conceived as an important self-regulatory device—suggests that managers apply an “inner
compass” to navigate through the perils of moving towards new entrepreneurial patterns of
31
behavior. This inner compass presents an important cognitive and motivational device to steer
and regulate entrepreneurial behavior.
This paper enhances existing research on entrepreneurial behavior in established firms
by focusing on “day-to-day entrepreneurship” examined at an individual level. It
complements traditional studies and sets the stage for future multilevel research on this
phenomenon. Given the exploratory nature of the phenomenon understudy, I chose to
examine one company in depth. This allowed me to capture richness and context-specificity
of the phenomenon, and ensured adequate and meaningful measurement of exogenous and
endogenous variables. The survey-instrument build for this study therefore effectively
combines existing measures and scales with context specific measures derived from
fieldwork.
However, a few limitations should be pointed out. First, it is difficult to derive
generalizations on how managers in traditional organizations engage in entrepreneurial
activities. Second, to examine the micro foundations of entrepreneurial initiative, I
concentrated on perceptual data, a method associated with well-known shortcomings
(Podsakoff 1986) . A third limitation of this study consists in the reciprocal nature of the
relationships between constructs. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs, for example, can be
perceived as both an antecedent and consequences of entrepreneurial behavior (Bandura 1978;
Bandura 1982). Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the survey data impedes insights on time
related issues, and causal effects can’t be assessed. 20
Meaningful implications for managerial practice can be derived. Findings suggest that
managers interpret and give subjective meaning to objective organizational context and
therefore “construct” their own behavioral context (Weick 1979; Dutton 1993). Perceptions,
however, are learned and learnable (Krueger and Brazeal 1994), and top management can
20
However, a longitudinal design to explore time-based effects was not feasible because of restricted access to the managers
undergoing the behavioral change process.
32
facilitate change towards entrepreneurial behavior by influencing this “sense-making” process
(Jelinek and Litterer 1995). Findings also reveal that entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs are
critical in explaining why some managers act entrepreneurially, and others, in the same
objective organizational context, do not: it is not because these mangers lack necessary skills
but because they don’t belief in their capabilities to perform entrepreneurial activities. Thus
identification and removal of such “self-doubts” enable managers are critical to enact
entrepreneurial behavior (Chen, Greene et al. 1998). Previous research showed that favorable
self-efficacy beliefs are readily teachable and that these amplified perceptions of self-efficacy
persist over time (Gist 1987; Krueger and Dickson 1994). Top management can deliberately
influence the primary sources of entrepreneurial self-efficacy beliefs. First, structuring
behavioral change programs in a way that initial objectives are easily attainable and executed
successfully allows managers more easily to accomplish behavioral goals, which in turn
reinforces self-efficacy beliefs (Beer 1980). Second, supervisors’ exemplary behavior
stimulates vicarious experiences, which foster self-efficacy beliefs of subordinates to perform
in a like manner (Conger and Kanungo 1988). Third, continuous encouragement and verbal
feedback exhibits a similar effect via verbal persuasion. And fourth, emotional and
psychological stimulation has been shown to enhance mangers’ personal competence
expectations (Bandura 1997).
33
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing (1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411-423.
Ashforth, B. E. and R. H. Humphrey (1995). “Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.” Human
Relations 48(2): 97-125.
Bandura, A. (1977). “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological
Review 84(2): 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.” American Psychologist 37: 122147.
Bandura, A. (1989). “Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory.” American Psychologist 44(9):
1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, Freeman.
Bandura, A., N. E. Adams, et al. (1980). “Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory.” Cognitive
Therapy and Research 4: 39-66.
Barling, J. and R. Beattie (1983). “Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management 5: 41-51.
Baron, R. A. (1998). “Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think
differently than other people.” Journal of Business Venturing 13(4): 275-294.
Baum, J. R. (1994). The relation of traits, competencies, vision, motivation, and strategy to venture
growth, University of Maryland.
Beer, M. (1980). Organizational change and development. Santa Monica, CA, Goodyear.
Berger, P. and T. Luckmann (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Bird, B. J. (1988). “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case For Intention.” Academy of
Management Review 13(3): 442-461.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). “Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of
subsidiary initiatives.” Strategic Management Journal 18(3): 207-229.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, John Wiley.
Brass, D. J. and M. E. Burkhardt (1993). “Potential power and power use: An investigation of
structure.” Academy of Management Journal 36(3): 441-470.
Brazeal, D. V. (1993). “Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures.” Journal of Business
Venturing 8(1): 75-90.
Brehm, S. S., S. M. Kassin, et al. (1999). Social Psychology, Houghton Mifflin (Academic).
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs.” Academy of Management Journal
23(3): 509-520.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. S. V.
Kent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 39-57.
Burgelman, R. (1983). “A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major
Firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 223-244.
Burgelman, R. A. and L. R. Sayles (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation Strategy, Structure and
Managerial Skills. New York, The Free Press.
Burt, R. S. (1999). Entrepreneurs, Distrust, and Third Parties. Shared Cognition in Organizations: The
Management of Knowledge. L. Thompson, J. Levine and D. Messick. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Capron, L. (1999). “The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions.” Strategic Management
Journal 20(11): 987-1018.
Castaneda, M., T. A. Kolenko, et al. (1999). “Self-management perceptions and practices: a structural
equation analysis.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 101-120.
Chandler, G. N. and E. Jansen (1992). “The Founder's Self-Assessed Competence and Venture
Performance.” Journal of Business Venturing 7(3): 223-236.
Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene, et al. (1998). “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers?” Journal of Business Venturing 13(4): 295-316.
Churchill, N. C. and D. F. Muzyka (1994). Entrepreneurial Management: A Converging Theory For
Large And Small Enterprises. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Center for Entrepreneurial
Studies Babson College.
34
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo R. N. (1988). “The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and
Practice.” Academy of Management Review 13(3): 471-482.
Davis, M. A. (1980). “A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.” JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10(85).
Davis, M. H. (1983). “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimesnional
Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(1): 113-126.
Denison, D. R. (1996). “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.” Academy of Management Review
21(3): 619-654.
Dess, G. G., G. T. Lumpkin, et al. (1999). “Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure,
and process: Suggested research directions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 85-102.
Dutton, J. E., Ed. (1993). The Making Of Managerial Opportunities: An Interpretative Pathway To
Organizational Change. Research in Organizational Behavior, Jay Press.
Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich, et al. (1994). “Organizational images and member identification.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2): 239-264.
Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research XVIII: 39-50.
Fox, S. and P. E. Spector (2000). “Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general
intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It's not all just 'G'.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 21(Special Issue): 203-220.
Frayne, C. A. and G. P. Latham (1987). “Application of social learning theory to semployee selfmanagement attendance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 387-392.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). “A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture
Creation.” Academy of Management Review 10(4):
696-706.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). “"Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question.” American Journal of Small
Business 12(4): 11-32.
George, J. M. and A. P. Brief (1996). “Motivational Agendas in the Workplace: The Effects of
Feelings on Focus of Attention and Work Motivation.” Research on Organizational Behavior 18: 75109.
Ghoshal, S. and C. Bartlett (1994). “Linking Organizational Context and Managerial Action: The
Dimensions of Quality of Management.” Strategic Management Journal 15: 91-112.
Ghoshal, S. and C. A. Bartlett (1996). “Rebuilding behavioral context: A blueprint for corporate
renewal.” Sloan Management Review(Winter): 23-36.
Ghoshal, S. and C. A. Bartlett (1997). The Individualized Coporation: A Fundamentally New
Approach to Management.
Ginsberg, A. (1990). “Connecting Diversification to Performance: A Sociocognitive Approach.”
Academy of Management Review15: 514-535.
Gist, M. E. (1987). “Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource
Management.” Academy of Management Review 12(3): 472-485.
Gist, M. E. and T. R. Mitchell (1992). “Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of its Determinants and
Malleability.” Academy of Management Review 17: 183-211.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional intelligence. London, Bloomsbury.
Greenberger, D. B. and D. L. Sexton (1988). “An Interactive Model of New Venture Initation.”
Journal of Small Business Management 26(3): 1.
Guth, W. D. and A. Ginsberg (1990). “Guest editors' introduction: corporate entrepreneurship.”
Strategic Management Journal 11: 5-15.
Hair Jr., J. F., R. E. Anderson, et al. (1998). Multivariate data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, Prentice
Hall.
Hass, R. G. (1984). “Perspective Taking and Self-Awareness: Drawing an E on your Forehead.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(4): 788-798.
Herron, L. and H. J. Sapienza (1992). “The Entrepreneur and the Initiation of New Venture Launch
Activities.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17(1): 49-55.
Hisrich, R. D. and M. P. Peters (1986). “Establishing a New Business Venture Unit Within a Firm.”
Journal of Business Venturing 1(2): 307-322.
35
Ibarra, H. and S. B. Andrews (1993). “Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network
centrality and proximity on employee perceptions.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38(2): 277-303.
Isen, A. M. and R. A. Baron (1991). “Positive Affect as a factor in Organizational Behavior.”
Research in Organizational Behavior 13: 1-53.
Jelinek, M. and J. A. Litterer (1995). “Toward entrepreneurial organizations: Meeting ambiguity with
engagement.” 19(3): 137-168.
Jones, G. R. (1986). “Socialization Tactics, Self-Efficacy, and Newcomers' Adjustments to
Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 29(2): 262-279.
Kanter, R. M. (1982). “The middle manager as innovator.” Harvard Business Review 60(4): 95-105.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Master. New York, Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (1985). “Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies.”
Journal of Business Venturing 1: 47-60.
Kanter, R. M. (1986). “Empowering people to act on ideas.” Executive Excellence(February): 5-6.
Kanter, R. M. (1989). “The New Managerial Work.” Harvard Business Review 67(6): 85-92.
Kets De Vries, M. D. R. (1977). “The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the Crossroads.”
Journal of Management Studies 14(1).
Krueger, N. F. J. and D. V. Brazeal (1994). “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice(Spring): 91-104.
Krueger, N. J. and P. R. Dickson (1994). “How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: perceived
self-efficacy and opportunity recognition.” Decision Sciences 25: 385-400.
Kuratko, D. F. and R. M. Hodgetts (1989). Entrepreneurship. Chicago, The Dryden Press.
Kuratko, D. F., R. V. Montagno, et al. (1990). “Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument
for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment.” Strategic Management Journal 11: 49-58.
Lee, C. and P. Bobko (1994). “Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Comparison of Five Measures.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 79(3): 364-369.
Lee, C. and D. J. Gillen (1989). “Relationship of type A behavior pattern, self-efficacy perceptions on
sales performance.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 10: 75-81.
Lennox, R. D. and R. N. Wolfe (1984). “Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 46: 1349-1364.
Liles, P. R. (1974). New Business Ventures And The Entrepreneur. Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin.
Low, M. B. and I. C. MacMillan (1988). “Entrepreneurship: Past Research And Future Challenges.”
Journal of Management 14(2): 139-161.
Lumpkin, G. T. and G. G. Dess (1996). “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance.” Academy of Management Review 21(1): 135-172.
MacMillan, I. C., Z. Block, et al. (1986). “Corporate Venturing: Alternatives, Obstacles Encountered,
and Experience Effects.” Journal of Business Venturing 1(2): 177-191.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ, Van Nostrand.
Miller, D. (1983). “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms.” Management Science
29(7): 770-791.
Miner, J. B. (1997). A Psychological Typology of Successful Entrepreneurs. Westport, CT, Quorum
Books.
Mischel, W., N. Cantor, et al. (1996). Principles of Self-Regulation: The Nature of Willpower and
Self-Control. Social Psychology - Handbook of basic principles. H. Kruglanski. New York, The
Guilford Press: 329-360.
Mitchell, T. R. (1997). “Matching Motivational Strategies with Organizational Contexts.” Research in
organizational Behavior 19: 57-149.
Morgan, R. M. and S. D. Hunt (1994). “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.”
Journal of Marketing 58(3): 20-38.
Morris, M. H. and F. F. Jones (1999). “Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of the
public sector.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(1): 71-91.
Netemeyer, R. G., J. S. Boles, et al. (1997). “An investigation into the antecedents of organizational
citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context.” Marketing Journal 61(3): 85-98.
Nonaka, I. (1988). “Toward Middle-Up-Down Management: Accelerating Information Creation.”
Management Science(Spring): 9-18.
36
Normann, R. (1971). “Organizational Innovativeness: Product Variation and Reorientation.”
Administrative Science Quarterly: 203-215.
Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Peters, T. J. and R. H. Waterman (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run
Companies, Harper&Row.
Pinchot, G. I. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York, Free Press.
Prussia, G. E., J. S. Anderson, et al. (1998). “Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The
mediating influence of self-efficacy.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 523-538.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, Basic Books.
Rossi, P. H., J. D. Wright, et al., Eds. (1983). Handbook of Survey Research. San Diego, Academic
Press Inc.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Salovey, P. and J. D. Mayer (1990). “Emotional Intelligence.” Imagination, Cognition and Personality
9(3): 185-211.
Sathe, V. (1985). Managing an entrepreneurial dilemma: Nurturing entrepreneurship and control in
large corporations. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA, Babson College: 636-656.
Scheier, M. F. and C. S. Carver (1988). “A model of behavioral self-regulation.” Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 21: 303-347.
Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. c.
A. S. Kent, D.L.; Vesper, K.H. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 209-229.
Schuler, R. S. (1986). “Fostering and Facilitating Entrepreneurship in Organizations: Implications for
Organization Structure and Human Resource Management Practices.” Human Resource Management
25(4): 607-629.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic development. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction
Publishers.
Sewell Jr., W. H. (1992). “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.” American
Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1-29.
Shapero, A. (1981). “Self-renewing economies.” Economic Development Commentary 5(April): 1922.
Sharma, P. and J. J. Chrisman (1999). “Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 11-27.
Shipper, F. and C. S. White (1999). “Mastery, frequency, and interaction of managerial behaviors
relative to subunit
effectiveness.” Human Relations 52(1): 49-66.
Snyder, M., Ed. (1979). Self-Monitoring Processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
New York, Academic Press.
Spreitzer, G. (1992). When Organizations Dare: The Dynamics of Individual Empowerment in the
Workplace. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.
Spreitzer, G. (1996). “Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment.” Academy of
Management Journal 39(2): 483-504.
Stajkovic, A. D. and F. Luthans (1998). “Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy: Going Beyond
Traditional and Behavioral Approaches.” Organizational Dynamics 26(4): 62-74.
Staw, B. M., R. I. Sutton, et al. (1994). “Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the
workplace.” Organization Science 5: 51-71.
Stevenson, H. H. and J. C. Jarillo (1990). “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management.” Strategic Management Journal 11: 17-27.
Stevenson, H. H., M. J. Roberts, et al. (1989). New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur.
Homewood, IL, irwin.
Sykes, H. B. (1986). “The Anatomy of a Corporate Venturing Program: Factors Influencing Success.”
Journal of Business Venturing 1(1): 275-293.
Vesper, K. H. (1985). A new direction, or just a new label? Entrepreneurship: What it is and how to
teach it. J. J. K. a. H. H. Stevenson. Boston, Harvard Business School: 62-76.
von Hippel, E. (1977). “Successful and failing internal corporate ventures - an empirical analysis.”
6(3): 163.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, Wiley.
37
Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York, Random House.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989). “Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.”
Academy of Management Review 14(3): 361-384.
38