You are on page 1of 18


Elif Türkan ARSLAN,


Süleyman Demirel University, TURKEY


Today in the environment that globalization has even rise to the competence, it is very important for the firms to be pioneer for their survival. The main features of the pioneer organizations can be explained with importance they attribute to innovation and promotion in intrapreneurship. Because of their prior importance with their effects in the development of the companies, innovation and intrapreneurship are discussed in this study.

Key Words: innovation, intrapreneurship, intrapreneur


“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils: for time is the greatest innovator”

Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

1.1. Introduction: On The Need For Innovation

Innovation involves finding a new and better way of doing something. Much of our modern society is based on innovations that have occurred in the past that provide us with the standard of living we enjoy today. And Innovation has always been at the centerpiece of competitiveness.The new techonologies competition and time speed are used to explain that the dynamics of competition. Thus there is a large focus on the concept of innovation in organisations.

Innovation takes several forms: in products, services, production processes and management systems. Innovation in products and services is related with “Research& Development” and meeting consumers’ needs. Innovation with respect to processes relates to changes in machinery and other elements not directly associated with employees and have the aim of increasing productivity and efficiency. Innovation in management systems is usually in response to new environmental conditions, and improving the way in which people are managed and work is organized. This form of innovation becomes necessary by changes in the process. “Business innovation deals with


innovation in management thinking and its primary purpose are to create new value and wealth for all stakeholders and thereby increase economic prospects. It is motivated by changes in external and internal environmental conditions, customers, competitors, suppliers and employees.” (Lorente, Dewhurst, Dale; 1999: 12, 13)

1.2. Defining Innovation

Many authors have provided definitions for the word “innovation”, and each has its own nuance. In 1990 Udwadia (Udwadia, 1990) defined innovation as “the successful creation, development and introduction of new products, processes or services”. “Innovation consists of the generation of a new idea and its implementation into a new product, process, or service, leading to the dynamic growth of the national economy and the increase of employment as well as the creation of pure profit for the innovative business enterprise” (Cumming, 1998: 22).

The definition of innovation is: “The intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organisation of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organisation or wider society” (Cardellino, Finch; 2006: 151). The definition explains the intentional approach that organisations have adopted when creating and evolving new ideas. The concept suggests that an approach to innovation does not exist, but innovations are planned in such a way that they can anticipate the benefits arising from the change. Such benefits are not restricted to economic and productivity benefits but may also include personal growth, increased satisfaction, efficiency, productivity or better personal communication.

Peter Drucker is a leading authority on entrepreneurship and innovation. Below Drucker outlines seven sources or places to look for innovative opportunities. Then he outlines five steps to follow to take advantage of an innovative opportunity. He describes innovation :

“It is the means by which organizations create value-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating value” and “The effort to create purposeful, focused change in an enterprises economic or social potential” (Drucker,


Drucker outlines seven sources for innovative opportunities that should be monitored by those interested in starting an entrepreneurial venture. The first four are sources of innovation that lie within the industry. The last three arise in the societal environment. These opportunities are : The unexpected, the incongruity, innovation based on process need, changes in industry or market structure, demographics, changes in perception, mood and meaning, new knowledge (Drucker, 1985).


1.3. Innovation Strategy in Organisations

Innovation is a crucial process for the wellbeing of an organization. In the pursuit of it, organizations face strategic choices on the focus of resources. In this context, the basis on which an innovation would compete long-term can be selected from three generic strategies: cost leadership, differentiation and focus. Cost leadership, in which it aims to be the lowest cost supplier in the market. Differentiation, in which a unique dimension is determined. Focus, in which the service is aimed at a particular buyer group or geographical area to the exclusion of others. Furthermore, in order to create new competitive advantages, top management needs to: create a sense of urgency; develop a customer focus at every level; provide employees with the skills they need to work effectively; allow the organization to absorb one challenge at a time; and establish clear milestones and review alternatives. There are four ways to achieve an effective innovation strategy (Roffe, 1999: 227):

1. Focus on the critical success factors;

2. Build superiority by employing technology not currently exploited by rivals;

3. Pursue aggressive initiatives that challenge normal rules;

4. Use strategic degrees of freedom to focus on areas where competitors are not involved.

Innovation can be competitive advantage and the key to sustained innovation. Informal structures, speed of response and free sharing of information form part of these foundations. “Managers should be able to protect, exploit and appropriate innovation and create time for individuals and groups to consider change and fund the staff resources, familiarization and training needed to turn ideas into implementation” (Roffe, 1999: 228).

1.4. How To Create Innovation ?

There is the issue of how new an innovation should be. Innovation is not just an outcome but a process. Managerial activities that together attempt to control the process of innovation. Four activities define innovation: (Drejer, 2002: 6, 7)

1. Technological Integration: This refers to the integration between technologies and the product market of the organization and emphasizes the importance of satisfying the customer with the innovations of any organization. In other words, technology development needs to be integrated with product development also at the strategic level.

2. The Process of Innovation: By this is meant the cross business process of activities that creative innovations across the departments of the organizations. Obviously no one department is responsible for innovation and it is, thus, necessary to see how departments together creative innovations



Strategic Technology Planning: This refers to the planning of technology and competence projects with the aim of maintaining a balanced portfolio of technologies and competencies.

4. Organizational Change: Innovation is closely related to organizational change. No matter how small or large the innovation, it will affect the organizations with needs for new knowledge, new markets, new employees and so on. Thus, it is difficult to sperak innovation without considering organizational change.

5. Business Development: Innovation should be seen as a means for creating new and improved business for the company. Innovation can both drive and be driven by business development as the second very critical contextual element of innovation.

1.5. Identifying Innovation Components

Discussions with senior management highlighted the following as important components in fostering innovation within: Service innovation often leads to product innovation, quality improvement is often an identifier of a service innovation. Product innovation can often fail, or be less successful, if it is not linked to the appropriate service innovation. Problem solving within a creative and supportive team environment is an acquired skill that can be improved and enhanced if correctly supported, not an existing skills set as often assumed. For creativity and innovation to grow rapidly the ability to work within teams is essential. However, this skill is often more readily developed in an environment where the problem/project provides quick results that are significant to the organization and the outcomes are achievable. These are characteristics more commonly identified with quality improvement issues rather than service or product innovations, which are often longer-term issues, the significance and outcomes of which are not always readily definable. (Gapp and Fisher, 2007: 341)

1.6. Innovation for Intrapreneurship

Intrapreneurship has been conceptualized as the actions of individuals within organizations leading to innovation of product, services or processes. Failing to consider linkages between the phases of team development, service innovation and product innovation has prevented organizations from optimizing the benefits accruing from intrapreneurial activities. Innovation also involves the introduction of new products, services, systems or processes, or the adaptation of existing ones.

Innovation requires allocation of resources, long-term planning in the future. This provides insight into what is related in terms of new products, procedures and services. In addition to faith in the future, innovation needs management committed to quality, productivity and effectiveness and the policies, programmes and procedures that make middle management and those they lead, skeptical of the efforts to create greater effectiveness and productivity. At the centre of this approach is the appropriate application of education within an environment that communicates and promotes


innovative, thought-aligned actions. Success through a planned and structured approach to innovation can contribute to corporate growth and competitive advantage. A review of three approaches adopted by successful companies suggested that multi-disciplinary teams have an important role to play particularly in screening proposals and developing strategy. “The innovation process operates as a continuous spiral at the team development, service innovation and product innovation phases. Achieving appropriate levels of knowledge and outcomes indicate the point of departure for the next phase of the process” (Gapp and Fisher, 2007: 330,331)

1.7. Economic Improve Role Of Innovation

The fast-changing economy and technology influence society, organizations, and managers according to Drucker. In his view the knowledge society will require all members to have basic computer or other skills as well as conventional literacy skills; political, social and historical knowledge as well as the skills of learning-to-learn. Big business, Drucker believes, will be information-based and in general comprise flatter organizations comprising knowledge specialists future's organization will have knowledge located primarily at the bottom of enterprise, in the minds of specialists who do different work and direct themselves. In such an information-based organization, traditional departments will serve several roles: as guardians of standards, as centres for training and the assignment of specialists.

“When a large business organizes around information, it leads to a reduced number of management levels. In his view there are three reasons why large organizations will have to become information based. First, because knowledge workers, who form a growing part of the workforce, are not responsive to common control methods. Secondly, the organization must decide what information it needs to operate otherwise it will be submerged in data. Thirdly is to ``systematise innovation and entrepreneurship which is quintessential knowledge work''.” (Roffe, 1999: 225)

2. An Overview To Intrapreneurship

Intrapreneurship is not a choice; it is the only survival attitude

2.1. Who is an Intrapreneur?

The term intrapreneur was first used by Gifford Pinchot in the late 1980’s and refers to individuals who take hands-on responsibility for shaping innovation inside the organization (Saetre; 2001: 10; Manion; 2001: 6). He described intrapreneur as “person who focuses on innovation and creativity and who transforms a dream or an idea into a profitable venture, by operating within the organizational environment.” (Carland and Carland; 2007:84).


The term ‘intrapreneur’ had been added to The American Heritage Dictionary in 1992. Intrapreneur defines in it as: “A person within a large corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable finished product through assertive risk-taking and innovation” (Hill; 2003: 19).

The intrapreneur: “is not a blue-sky dreamer or an intellectual giant. He or she may even be a product-service idea thief or may be impatient and egotistical. But most of all, such people get the job done. And when they do, they are fêted in style with lights flashing and big rewards.” (Burch; 1986:40).

Intrapreneurs can be determined as entrepreneurs within established firms, and they almost resemble independent entrepreneurs (Menzel, Aaltio and Ulijn; 2007:734). An intrapreneur changes his/her own environment (Sayeed and Gazdar; 2003: 79). Intrapreneurs turn ideas into realities within an organization (Shetty; 2004:54). The intrapreneur challenges the status quo and struggle to improve the system from within (Shetty; 2004: 54). Intrapreneurs come up with new estimations, take full advantage of opportunities and turn them to beneficial new realities, support change and develop creative reactions in the organization (Menzel Aaltio and Ulijn; 2007:734). An intrapreneur is act in organization as an entrepreneur.

2.2. The Concept of Intrapreneurship

The intrapreneurship phenomenon has been explained in various terms such as intrapreneuring; corporate entrepreneurship; internal corporate entrepreneurship; corporate venturing; internal corporate entrepreneurship; strategic renewal; internal entrepreneurship and venturing (Antoncic; 2007; Sharma and Chrisman; 1999: 14). In this study the term intrapreneurship will be used.

Drucker stated some decade ago that “today’s businesses, especially the large ones, simply will not survive in this period of rapid change and innovation unless they acquire entrepreneurial competence”. Today -especially- large-size companies are turning to intrapreneurship because of they are not getting the continual innovation, development, and value creation that they previously had (Menzel et al.; 2006: 3).

Intrapreneurship is a sub-field of entrepreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003: 7) and intrapreneurship’s broadest definition is entrepreneurship in an existing firm (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003: 9). In other words intrapreneurship is entrepreneurship practiced by individuals inside founded organizations (Shetty; 2004: 21).

Intrapreneurship has been defined in distinct ways; as a process; as doing new things; as spirit of entrepreneurship inside the existing firm; and as creation of new organizations by an organization (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003: 9).


Intrapreneurship is basically an individual action (Gapp and Fisher; 2007; 331). Intrapreneurship is the practice of composing new business products and opportunities in an organization by proactive empowerment (Essley and Longenecker; 2006: 19).

The term intrapreneurship refers to a process that goes on within a founded firm, regardless of its size, and leads not only to new business ventures but also to other innovative activities and orientations such as development of new products, services, technologies, managerial techniques, strategies, and competitive postures (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2001: 498).

Intrapreneurship is “the process of uncovering and developing an opportunity to create value through innovation and seizing that opportunity without regard to either resources or the location of the entrepreneur” (Menzel, Aaltio and Ulijn; 2007:734)

Intrapreneurship has conceived as the actions of employees within organizations leading to innovation of product, services or processes (Gapp and Fisher; 2007: 330).

Some researchers used the term intrapreneurship only for big-size organizations. They are excluding smaller organizations when they defined the term (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003:

9). However we can say that intrapreneurship realizable in small and medium size organizations too. Therefore in this paper, intrapreneurship is described as entrepreneurial activities within an established organization, regardless its size.

2.3 Intrapreneurship as a Process

Intrapreneurship can be considered as a process. Sharma and Chrisman describe

intrapreneurship as

association with an existing organization, create a new organization, or instigate renewal

or innovation within that organization” (Sharma and Chrisman; 1999:18)

the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in

“Intrapreneurship is a process by which individuals-either on their own or inside organizations-pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control.” (Stevenson and Jarillo; 1990: 25). Another description of intrapreneurship as a process is “the process of uncovering and developing an opportunity to create value through innovation and seizing that opportunity without regard to either resources or the location of the entrepreneur” (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2001:497). Figure1 has shown intrapreneurship process.


Management (Organizational L l Opportu Opportu New nity nity Means-end Intrapreneurship Environment
Management (Organizational

Figure1: The Process of Intrapreneurship; Adopted From Menzel et el. 2007

Intrapreneurs used three main modes or process to describe their scheme. Intrapreneurship process can be categorized in three distinctive modes: analytical, intuitive and political.

Intrapreneurs in analytical mode focused on implement solutions and characterized analytical thinking. They operating in this mode wanted to focus on a particular problem that they could command, having the functional proficiency and the authority to apply to it. These intrapreneurs focused their concentration on objective results and on the use of administrative formulas. In addition, they used authority, whether hierarchical or technological, to impact decisions (Janczak and Boiteux; 2007).

Intrapreneurs focused their energies on producing new ideas for developing inventive initiatives in the intuitive mode. In this mode they undertake initiatives that not only added value to their organizations, but also gave distinction to them and/or their employees. In generally these intrapreneurs describe their estimations while the process to complete their venture initiatives. Also they use of emotions to affect decisions (Janczak and Boiteux; 2007).

In the third mode, intrapreneurs focused their efforts on the political process of haggling strategies to develop results. In this process, intrapreneurs described a complex network of links that caused them to transform their early goals (Janczak and Boiteux; 2007).


We can say that in all of the three modes three stages emerge. These three phases are (i) Opportunity Discovery; (ii) Opportunity Exploitation and (iii) New Means-end Relationship.

2.4. Intrapreneurship Dimensions

Previous studies of intrapreneurship can be conceived as constituting four diverse dimensions (Dhaliwal; 2001:426):

Ø New business venturing,

Ø Innovativeness,

Ø Self-renewal,

Ø Proactiveness.

Antoncic and Hisrich (2003) describe eight intrapreneurship dimensions: (1)new ventures; (2) new businesses; (3) product/service innovativeness; (4) process innovativeness; (5) self-renewal; (6) risk taking; (7) proactiveness; and (8) competitive aggressiveness.

2.4.1. New Ventures and New Businesses

New business venturing is the most important dimension of intrapreneurship as it can results in the creation of a new business within an established organization by redefining the firm’s products/services and/or by entering new markets ( Antoncic and Hisrich; 2001: 498). The new ventures dimension refers to creation of new parts or firms, whereas the new business by the founded organization without forming new organizational entities (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003: 16).

2.4.2. Product/Service and Process Innovativeness and Innovation

Intrapreneurship includes new product improvement, and new manufacture methods and procedures (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003: 16). New product and/or service improvement can be estimated a vital factor that differentiates successful from unsuccessful organizations (Auruskeviciene et al.; 2006:341).

Schumpeter stressed the role of entrepreneur as an innovator. From a Schumpeterian view an entrepreneur carries out new combinations of resources to create products that didn’t exist before (Hall and Sobel; 2006:4). Innovation is an important dimension of intrapreneurship as a result the intrapreneurship is an entrepreneurial action in an existing organization.

Extent of innovation refers to the measure of newness of a venture in the market. For the ventures that are totally new to the marketplace, and perhaps even create new markets,


the firm in question is the pioneer and faces significantly better challenges as a result (Sharma and Chrisman; 1999: 14).

Intrapreneurship is “innovative products or processes are developed by creating an entrepreneurial culture within an already existing organization” (Fry, 1993: 373; from:

Hill; 2003: 19). So innovativeness is one of the main driving forces of the intrapreneurship.

2.4.3. Self-renewal

The self-renewal dimension imitates the transformation of organizations through the renewal of basic ideas on which they are built. It has strategic and organizational change nuances and includes the redefinition of the business conception, reorganization, and the introduction of system-wide changes for innovation (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2001: 499).

2.4.4. Proactiveness

Proactiveness dimension is concerned to pioneering and it is also associated with marker survival positively. Proactiveness indicates a company’s determination to follow promising opportunities, rather than only responding to competitors’ moves (Zahra and Garvis; 2000: 474). Proactiveness concept is: “…refers to the extent to which organizations attempt to lead rather than follow competitors in such key business areas as the introduction of new products or services, operating technologies, and administrative techniques.” (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003: 18).

2.4.5. Risk-taking

“Risk taking with regard to investment decisions and strategic actions in face of uncertainty” (Covin and Slevin; 1991: 10). Intrapreneurs are risk takers who are willing to commit their time and energy to making a good idea an innovative reality in their organization. Through this process they add a large repertoire of skills and experiences that helps build a career (Manion; 2001: 10). It is necessary to develop an intrapreneurial environment for risk-taking.

Risk-taking emerges as a regular factor in that employees and management must have a wishful to take a risk and have a tolerance for collapse should it arise (Kuratko et al.;


Intrapreneur is somebody who “A person within a large corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable finished product through assertive risk- taking and innovation” (Toftoy and Chatterjee; 2004:2). Risk-taking is one of the important elements of intrapreneurship. So by encouraging risk taking and experimentation, a corporation has more chances of creating a successful product (Toftoy and Chatterjee; 2004:8).


2.4.6. Competitive Aggressiveness

Competitive aggressiveness refers to the company’s tendency to challenge its competitors. Competitive aggressiveness is an administrative tendency expressed in an organizational willingness to take on and dominate competitors. Entrepreneurial condition is fairly reflected in the firm’s tendency to aggressively compete with industry rivals. (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2003:18). Competitive aggressiveness marks the company’s aggressive attack to competitors.

















Opportunities Industry Growth

Demand for New

Products Unfavorability of Change

Demand for New Products Unfavorability of Change Intrapreneurship New Ventures New Business


New Ventures New Business Product/Service Innovativeness Process Innovativeness Self-renewal Risk-taking Proactiveness Competitive Aggressiveness







+ + Performance Growth Profitability + Organization Communication Formal Controls



Formal Controls







Support Values Organizational Competition-related Figure 2: The Intrapreneurship Dimensions and its Effect;

Figure 2: The Intrapreneurship Dimensions and its Effect; Adopted From Antoncic and Hisrich; 2001


2.5. Barriers to Intrapreneurship

In a competitive business environment, it is clear that companies need to search to new business notions and opportunities and they make the essential arrangements to bring them to gainful results. However, many organizations face some difficulties in doing this. Barriers of intrapreneurship prevent entrepreneurship within the organization (Kirby; 2006: 601).

Some operational difficulties to intrapreneurship have been noted inadequate planning, improbable corporate expectations, insufficient corporate support, and misreading the market, as main obstacles to successful new business development (Kuratko et al.; 1990:

50, 51). We can note that organizations need some procedures to direct or redirect resources to establish effective intrapreneurship strategies and survival of intrapreneurship.

Intrapreneurship is stopped and it will be disappear with time when mistakes related to new ideas and innovation (Eesley and Longenecker; 2006: 19).

An organization is needs a number of factors to develop an intrapreneurial environment such as management support, motivations, organizational structure, resources and risk- taking (Kuratko et al.; 1990:51).

Intrapreneurship barriers can be categorized into four main titles.

2.5.1. Resistance to Change

Individuals frequently resist change for the reason that they have already invested a great contract of time and force in mastering certain job, and fear that their asset will be wasted. Change is resisted because of the future is unfamiliar and collapse could potentially cause risk to personal status and respect. It’s meaning that innovation could pressure existing power structures and relations (Hill; 2003:24, 25)

2.5.2. The Inherent Nature of Large Organizations

In large organizations managers are required to structure in order to be able to control it. In large organizations management is forced to establish stable, quantifiable performance standards, resulting in large quantities of paperwork. The traditional corporate culture has a climate and recompense system (Hill; 2003: 25, 26).

Intrapreneurship is prevented when an organization is characterized by poor communication and structural silos by the flow of useful information (Eesley and Longenecker; 2006: 19).


In a traditional corporate culture guide principles are to: “follow the instructions given; do not make any mistakes; do not fail; do not take the initiative but wait for instructions; stay within your turf; and protect your backside. This restrictive environment is of course not conducive to creativity, flexibility, independence, and risk taking - the jargon of intrapreneurs”. (Hill; 2003: 26).

2.5.3. Lack of Entrepreneurial Ability

Entrepreneurship is a concept and it can be defined as a creation of new organization or as create of new economic activity or as the pursuit of innovation (Rocha; 2004:363-367). And an entrepreneur discovers, evaluates, and exploits opportunities to create new goods and services (Hall and Sobel; 2006: 2). When we look at definition of intrapreneurship we see that an intrapreneur acts as an entrepreneur. Therefore to be able to realize the intrapreneurship in a company it is necessary to have entrepreneurial tendency and ability. So lack of entrepreneurial tendency can be accepted as a barrier to intrapreneurship.

2.5.4. Unsuitable Compensation Methods

“Organizations that are replete with unhealthy political activity, infighting, and uncooperative organizational members have a very difficult time bringing out the best in people to create better business performance.” (Eesley and Longenecker; 2006: 19).

Intrapreneurs and managers are different. Traditional methods of rewarding -as increasing remuneration and promotion- are useful for managers to support for effective work while these methods are rarely work for intrapreneurs. Those methods remove them from the area in which innovative, and characteristically they do not make good corporate managers (Hill; 2003: 27).

2.6. Intrapreneurship and Organization Performance

Given that internationalization is a complex, challenging and costly process, the success of intrapreneurship efforts can considerably influence firm performance (Dess et al.;


Intrapreneurship (entrepreneurship within existing organizations) is a significant factor in organizational and economic improve (Antoncic and Hisrich; 2001:496).

Intrapreneurship can be accepted as an important result of corporate performance. Intrapreneurship is the key element of a successful organization. “The relationship between intrapreneurship and growth and profitability has been confirmed in past research on large firms and on existing firms regardless of their size” (Antoncic; 2007).


A company’s performance can be improved by formal and informal intrapreneurship.

This is achieved with creating new knowledge which becomes a foundation for building

new competencies or revitalizing existing ones (Dess et al.; 2003:353).

3. Improving Of Intrapreneurship Through Innovation To Development

Intrapreneurship and innovation are companion terms. Intrapreneurship involves looking for a new innovation and taking advantage of it. And it is an activity of acknowledged importance in companies large and small, old and new. It is an essential means of innovation for competitive advantage, especially in rapidly changing sectors and uncertain economic times. The academic community demonstrates intrapreneurship in many facets of its business and with suitable organizational infrastructures can offer a relatively secure environment in which postgraduate researchers can be sponsored to learn the skills of intrapreneurship through practical experience.

A special combination of both managerial and entrepreneurial skills defines intrapreneurs.

These skills are realized through participation in innovative processes, which can enhance the organization as well as provide direct experience for individuals. “Intrapreneurship supports organizational growth through community rather than individual actions. The following discussion provides information about intrapreneurship exemplifies individual intrapreneurial skills and identifies key aspects of organizational infrastructure required

to support intrapreneurial activity”(Mitchell; 2007).

The term ‘Intrapreneur’ or intracorporate entrepreneur in the ‘80s to describe employees

within established organizations, whose actions led to ‘rapid and cost effective innovation

as the primary source of competitive advantage’ especially but not exclusively with

regard to technological dominance. Intrapreneurial behavior is found to be a significant factor in organizational effectiveness especially when higher levels of economic uncertainty require more innovative, flexible and entrepreneurial management practices (Davis, 1999: 295-298).

Intrapreneurs engage proactively in innovation processes leading to successful implementation and exploitation, involving more than just having the initial ‘good idea’. Teamwork, cross functional groups and several intrapreneurs working together can be required during the innovation process. New ideas and creative thought are required but delivery requires the successful individual or team to proceed with persistence and determination throughout the process no matter what obstacles or difficulties are in the path. Having confidence and experience in organizational politics and dynamics, managing people and overcoming technical or practical challenges are crucial. Intrapreneurs may be self selected; each bringing different strengths to the innovation process but their success requires organizational support and recognition especially from senior management (Davis, 1999: 322-325).

4. Conclusions


In this paper, we tried to find a better key to relating theory to the practice of actually innovation and intrapreneurship. The conceptual relationship between intrapreneurship and innovation has been discussed. We summarized the basic theories of the economics of innovation and identified competing paradigms in the current theoretical discussion of intrapreneurship.

We maintained that innovation contributes to the growth of the economy because intrapreneurs produce innovations. The concept of the intrapreneur as innovator underpins the intrapreneur paradigm in which the role of the intrapreneur is highlighted in the innovation process. Intrapreneurship is viewed as a creative act and an innovation. And it is about creating something that did not previously exist. The creation adds value to the individual and the community, and is based upon perceiving and capturing an opportunity

Intrapreneurs seek opportunities, and innovations provide the instrument by which they might succeed. In summary, corporate intrapreneurship often refers to the introduction of a new idea, new products, a new organizational structure, a new production process, or the establishment of a new organization within an existing organization. Intrapreneurship and innovation concepts are closely related to each other. It is necessary to discuss these concepts together and to encourage within the organization for effective organizational performance.


1. Antoncic, B. and R. D Hisrich (2003), “Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept”,

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development; 10 (1), 7-24

2. Antoncic, B. and R. D Hisrich (2001), “Intrapreneurship: Construct Refinement And

cross-Cultural Validation”, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 495-527

3. Antoncic, B., “Intrapreneurship: a Comparative Structural Equation Modeling Study”,

Industrial EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0291070301.html#b70%20b71: 08.03.2008





4. Auruskeviciene, V., L. Salciuviene, R. Kazlauskaite and A. Trifanovas (Winter 2006),

“A Comparison between Recent and Prospective Critical Success Factors in Lithuanian

Printing Industry”, Managing Global Transitions 4 (4), 327-346

5. Burch, J. G. (1986),”Entrepreneurship”, New York: John Wiley and Sons

6. Cardellino P. and E. Finch (2006); “Evidence of Systematic Approaches to Innovation

in Facilities Management”, Journal of Facilities Management, 4(3), 150-166



Carland, J. C. And J. W. Carland (2007), “Intrapreneurship: A Requisite for Success”;

the Entrepreneurial Executive, Volume 12, 83-94

8. Covin, J.G. and D.P. Slevin (1991), “A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm

Behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25

9. Davis, S.K., (1999), “Decision Criteria in the Evaluation of Potential Intrapreneurs”,

Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 16, 295-327.

10. Dhaliwal, J. S. (2001), "An Empirical Study of Electronic Commerce

Intrapreneurship within the it Units of Large Organization”, Twenty-Second International

Conference on Information Systems

11. Drejer A. (2002), “Situations for Innovations Managements towards a Contingency

Model”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 4-17

12. Drucker,







Principles. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.



13. Eesley, D. T. and C. O. Longenecker (January/February 2006), “Gateways to

Intrapreneurship”, Industrial Management, 18-23





Publishing Company







15. Gapp R. and R. Fisher (2007), “Developing an Intrapreneur –led Three Phase Model

of Innovation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 13(6),


16. Hall, J. C. and R.S. Sobel (July 2006), “Public Policy and Entrepreneurship”, the

University of Kansas, Technical Report 06-0717

17. Hill, M. E. (January 2003), “the Development of an Instrument to Measure

Intrapreneurship: Entrepreneurship within the Corporate Setting”, Unpublished Thesis

Department of Psychology Rhodes University

18. Janczak, S. and S. Boiteux (Mar 2007), “Understanding Intrapreneurship: a Process

Model for the Logic of Action Used by Intrapreneurs “, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 08.03.2008

19. Kirby, D. A. (2006), “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying

Entrepreneurship Theory to Practice”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 599-603


20. Kuratko, D. F., R. V. Montagno and J. S. Hornsby, (1990), “Developing an

Entrepreneurial Assessment Instrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 49-58

21. Lorente A.R., F. Dewhurst and B. Dale (1999), “TQM and Business Innovation”,

European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(1), 12-19

22. Manion Jo (2001), “Enhancing Career Marketability through Intrapreneurship” Nurs

Admin Q., 25(2), 5-10

23. Menzel H.C., R. Krauss, J.M. Ulijn, M. Weggeman (June 2006), “Developing

Characteristics of an Intrapreneurship- Supportive Culture”, Eindhoven Centre for

Innovation Studies, the Netherlands, Working Paper 06.10

24. Menzel H.C., I. Aaltio and J. M. Ulijn (2007), “On the Way to Creativity: Engineers

as Intrapreneurs in Organizations”, Technovation 27, 732-743

25. Rocha, H. O. (2004), Entrepreneurship and Development: the Role of Clusters”, Small Business Economics 23, 363-400

26. Roffe I. (1999), “Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A Review of the

Implications for Training and Development,Journal Of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 224-237

27. Sayeed Omer Bin and M.K. Gazdar (2003), “Intrapreneurship: Assessing and

Defining Attributes of Intrapreneurs”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 75-86

28. Sharma, P. and S. 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

29. Shetty P. (2004), “Attitude towards Entrepreneurship in Organizations”, Journal of

Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 53-68

30. Stevenson, H. H. And C. J. Jarillo (1990), “A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship:

Entrepreneurial Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27

31. Toftoy, Charles and J. Chatterjee, “the Intrapreneurial Revolution: Now is the Time

32. Udwadia, F.E. (1990), “Creativity and Innovation in Organizations”, Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 38(1)


33. Zahra, S. A. and D. M. Garvis (2000), “International Corporate Entrepreneurship and

Firm Performance: the Moderating Effect of International Environmental Hostility”, Journal of Business Venturing; 15, 469-492

34. Dess, G., R. D. Ireland, S.A. Zahra, S.W. Floyd, J.J. Janney and P.J. Lane (2003),

“Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management 29(3), 351-