DOES SPIRITUALITY HAVE A PLACE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP BEHAVIOR? FACTORS THAT FACILITATE CE
Rutherford and Holt in their research studied the affect of three antecedent variables, process, context and individual variables on CE. Process variable was measured via leadership support and reward alignment. Context variable was understood in light of communication climate, perceived organizational support and perception of co-workers. Individual variables reflected persons expected to be entrepreneurial and their personality traits and abilities. CE was measured via two dimensions: perception of the organization’s innovativeness and perception of the individual’s innovativeness. In addition, it was sought to discover whether CE would have a mediating affect between the three antecedent variables and the work outcomes. Work outcomes in their research focused on non-financial measures such as job satisfaction, affective commitment and turnover intention.
The respondents of their study comprised 264 employees of a mid-sized public organization. Findings of the study were as follows: The three antecedent variables were significant predictors of organizational CE behavior; the same variables except for context variable were significant predictors of individual CE behavior; CE played a mediating affect between the three variables and work outcomes. The authors were skeptical as to their finding that failed to prove that context variable was a significant predictor of individual CE, contrary to past research, and doubted the measures used to capture context variable. In this author’s opinion the finding is not surprising as ES requires the tenacity of persistence and determination in the face of challenge or lack of immediate reward, whereby this tenacity can persist despite unfavorable context, provided support from leadership is prevalent. Thus is in line with the certainty of the influence of the process variable, that Rutherford and Holt put forth the suggestion that supportive leadership in favor of innovativeness is a precursor to individual CE.
Echols and Neck in their conceptual paper stressed that two variables were necessary for successful CE: entrepreneurial behaviors by organizational members and organizational structures that support such behaviors. The authors had defined successful CE to mean the breadth and depth of commercialized innovations. Their suggestion emphasized the need to hire and reward employees who demonstrate entrepreneurial behaviors (detect opportunity, facilitate opportunity, pursue opportunity) and simultaneously ensuring the adoption of structures that facilitate these behaviors. Thus the context and individual variables have been postulated as significant predictors of CE. Such a conceptualization fails to be appreciative of the fact that some employees may be able to detect opportunity or facilitate opportunity but unable to implement or pursue the said opportunity. It also seems to build upon the belief that intrapreneurship cannot be taught or that it is an investment that the organization should not consider. In addition, their definition of successful CE fails to consider the others facets of innovation that can add value to the company, stakeholders and society.
Chen, Zhu & Anquan in their study developed a hypothetical system model for the cultivation of CE. Their study surveyed 75 large-middle size enterprises in China via interviews and questionnaires. The respondents were CEOs, division managers and part of senior executives responsible for innovation and venture. Their findings proved that four factors contributed to CE: reasonable adjustment of the system of the board of directors and the management, development of senior executives’ entrepreneurial personality characteristics, development of senior executives’ entrepreneurial ability and improving strategic management and corporate circumstances. These variables when compared with past research are captured by the process, context and individual variables.