File 150224

BENEFITS OF INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR
The relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance,

and the influence of self-efficacy and psychological well-being on this
relationship
Master thesis Human Resource Studies
The academic year 2019-2020
Student Tessa Drijfhout (S2030145)

ANR 404349
Theme Intrapreneurship
Supervisor Dr. Wieby Altink
Second reader Dr. Brigitte Kroon
Tilburg University
School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
January 2019
BENEFITS OF INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR 2
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance,
and the influence of psychological well-being and self-efficacy on this relationship.
Organizations have been looking for ways to create competitive advantage. Consequently,
employees need to adapt to an intrapreneurial way of working, which makes intrapreneurship
an important subject for both research and practice. It is hypothesized that there is a positive
direct and indirect relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance.
Furthermore, it is hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between intrapreneurial
behavior and self-efficacy, between self-efficacy and psychological well-being, and between
psychological well-being and job performance. The predictions were tested with a mediation
analysis conducted with the PROCESS tool of Hayes. In total, 163 respondents participated in
this study. The results showed no direct relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance. However, the results showed an indirect positive relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, via self-efficacy and psychological well-being.
This entails that self-efficacy and psychological well-being fully mediate the relationship
between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. Implications of these findings and
recommendations for future research are discussed in the discussion section.
Keywords: intrapreneurship, self-efficacy, psychological well-being, job performance

Introduction
Intrapreneurship has gained importance in organizational research and practice. Due

to the competitive economic environment, organizations have been looking for ways to manage
innovation and to create a competitive advantage (Blanka, 2018). In the broadest sense,
intrapreneurship entails entrepreneurship within an existing organization (Preenen, Liebregts,
Dhondt, Oeij, & Van der Meulen, 2014). Main differences between intrapreneurs and
entrepreneurs are the following; intrapreneurs operate within organizations in which they are
employed, they are able to use the existing resources of the organization, and the organizations
in which they work already have their own policies and bureaucracy, which is not the case for
entrepreneurs (Blanka, 2018). There are different perspectives on intrapreneurship in the
research field (Preenen et al., 2014). This research focuses on intrapreneurial behavior, which
entails work behavior that is initiated by the individual employee and which every employee
within an organization can display (Preenen et al., 2014). Nowadays, employees gain more
responsibility and are expected to be flexible, proactive and innovative. Respectively, they need
to adapt increasingly to an intrapreneurial way of working (Neessen, Caniëls, Vos, & De Jong,
2018).
Research has focused on how the intrapreneurial behavior of employees relates to
beneficial organizational outcomes, such as innovativeness and firm growth (Gawke,
Gorgievski, & Bakker, 2017). Yet, there is little research on how the intrapreneurial behavior
of employees impacts employee outcomes (e.g. well-being and performance) (Gawke et al.,
2017). Since intrapreneurial behavior is growing in importance (Neessen et al., 2018), the
impact of intrapreneurial behavior on employee outcomes such as well-being and performance
is important to address. The question arises about whether or not intrapreneurial behavior has
benefits for individual employees. Research has shown that well-being (i.e. happiness) is linked
to desirable outcomes, such as a higher level of productivity (Oswald, Proto, & Vitterso, 2015).
This makes psychological well-being an interesting variable for research and organizations.
This study aims to contribute to the current literature by providing insights into if and how
intrapreneurial behavior relates to psychological well-being and job performance. This is a
relevant issue for the field of human resources (HR) because employee attitudes, behaviors and
respectively employee outcomes are an important interest of HR.
In general, there seems to be only one study that focuses on the costs and benefits of
intrapreneurial behavior. Gawke, Gorgievski, and Bakker (2018) found that employee
intrapreneurship positively relates to employee innovativeness, in-role performance, and
decreased work avoidance via work engagement. Furthermore, employee intrapreneurship is

positively related to exhaustion. However, the intrapreneurship-performance relationship still
remains unclear, making the variable job performance important for research (Blanka, 2018).
In addition, this study aims to investigate whether self-efficacy (i.e. people’s beliefs in their
capabilities) influences the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and psychological
well-being and job performance. This is because intrapreneurial behavior could lead to success
experiences, resulting in feeling more efficacious (Gawke et al., 2017). Moreover, self-efficacy
is important for employee well-being, since it affects processes involved in self-regulation,
motivation, and stress (Van Seggelen-Damen & Van Dam, 2016). Self-efficacious individuals
have strong beliefs in their abilities, which results in increased effort in the persuasion of their
goals (Avey, Wernsing, & Mhatre, 2011). Consequently, the probability of success experiences
increases, which is associated with positive outcomes such as well-being (Avey et al., 2011).
In sum, the research question of this study is:
“To what extent does intrapreneurial behavior lead to job performance, and to what extent do
self-efficacy and psychological well-being influence this relationship?”
Theoretical framework
In the next sections, the direct relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance will be discussed. Moreover, the indirect relationship between intrapreneurial
behavior and job performance will be explained, including a mediator path with self-efficacy
and psychological well-being as mediators. To explain this mediator path, first, the relationship
between intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy will be explained. Second, the relationship
between self-efficacy and psychological well-being will be explained. Lastly, the relationship
between psychological well-being and job performance will be explained. The relationships are
displayed in the conceptual model presented below (figure 1).
The direct relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance
In this research, intrapreneurial behavior is defined as intrapreneurial work behavior,

which all employees can show. Intrapreneurial work behavior entails behavior that is initiated
by the individual employee (i.e. bottom-up process) and involves being innovative, proactive
and taking risks within an existing organization (Preenen et al., 2014). The following definitions
are given to the three dimensions of intrapreneurial behavior. Innovative behavior entails
individual behavior focused on the initiation and deliberately introduction of new and useful
ideas, processes, products and procedures within an organization, team or function (Preenen et
al., 2014). Proactive behavior involves taking self-initiated and future-focused actions that are
meant to improve the individual or the situation (Preenen et al., 2014). Taking risks means that
time, effort or money is invested while the outcomes are uncertain. Furthermore, it means
breaking with the status quo, deviate from existing, standard procedures and persisting while
receiving no help from supervisors (Preenen et al., 2014). These three dimensions together
shape the variable intrapreneurial behavior. The dimensions of this variable may independently
vary in strength (Stull & Singh, 2005).
Another important variable in this current study is job performance. Job performance is
defined as “the total population of behaviors and activities that are judged to be important for
accomplishing the goals of an organization” (Campbell et al., 1990, p. 278). The behaviors and
activities that are considered in this current study are the behaviors and activities that are
described in the job description of an employee. More specifically, the behaviors and activities
capture the quality and quantity of work. This current study focuses on overall job performance
instead of focusing on a specific type of performance (e.g. task performance) because the
relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance is still unclear and
intrapreneurial behavior might influence multiple types of job performance. This research
focuses on subjective job performance (i.e. self-ratings). Subjective evaluations are often used
in situations in which objective criteria are difficult to collect and where it is hard to control
situational influences (Heidemeier, 2005). Subjective evaluations have disadvantages, these
will be discussed in the discussion section.
There seems to be little research on the effect of intrapreneurial behavior on the
individual employee. Gawke and colleagues (2018) found that employee intrapreneurship
positively relates to employee innovativeness (i.e. a dimension of intrapreneurial behavior), in-
role performance, and decreased work avoidance via work engagement. The strength of the
indirect relationships between employee intrapreneurship and the different performance
measures are the following; β = .10 for innovativeness, β = .13 for in-role performance, and β
= -.09 for work avoidance (Gawke et al., 2018). Moreover, a direct relationship between
employee intrapreneurship and innovativeness (β = .34) and work avoidance (β = .27) was
found. These results suggest that intrapreneurial behavior has an effect on the individual
employee. The direct relationship between employee intrapreneurship and in-role performance
was not significant (Gawke et al., 2018). In-role performance reflects how an employee
accomplishes core job tasks (Gawke et al., 2018). Gawke and colleagues (2018) measured in-
role performance with colleagues’ ratings. However, the direct relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and subjective job performance remains unclear. Moreover, Gawke
and colleagues (2018) mention that more research on the benefits of employee intrapreneurship
is needed. Therefore, the present study examines the direct relationship between intrapreneurial
behavior and job performance (i.e. subjective). Above mentioned research suggests a positive,
indirect relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. Because of the
expected positive indirect relationships between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance,
it is hypothesized that a potential direct relationship is also positive. Moreover, the
Conservation of resources (COR) theory can be used to explain this relationship. The COR
theory states that individuals strive to access, maintain, protect, and foster their resources
(Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). These resources can be defined as objects, conditions, personal
characteristics, and energy resources (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). An implication of the COR
theory is that individuals can use their resources to gain other resources and that an initial
resource gain can cause further resource gain (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Intrapreneurial
behavior involves being proactive, innovative and taking risks, and might therefore lead to a
higher level of resources. This resource gain might increase an individual’s ability to perform
on the job. To sum up, it is hypothesized that:
H1: There is a positive relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance.
In this study, two mediators (i.e. self-efficacy and psychological well-being) are assessed. Next,
the three links in the two-mediator serial model displayed below will be explained. Namely, (1)
intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy, (2) self-efficacy and psychological well-being, and
(3) psychological well-being and job performance.
Intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy
In this research, self-efficacy is defined as “the belief in one’s competence to cope with
a broad range of stressful or challenging demands” (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005,
p. 439). Self-efficacy is usually defined as being either task or domain-specific (Luszczynska,
Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). However, the generalized definition of self-efficacy fits better
within this research, since intrapreneurial behavior covers a wide array of task areas. The
general definition refers to a broad and stable sense of personal competence to deal effectively
with a variety of stressful situations (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). Additionally,
there is a discussion within the literature about conceptualizing self-efficacy as a state-like
construct or as a trait-like construct. Both indicate beliefs about one’s ability to achieve desired
outcomes, however, the constructs differ in the scope of the performance domain examined
(Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001). The trait-like construct of self-efficacy contains one’s “tendency
to view themselves as capable of meeting task demands in a broad array of contexts” (Chen et
al., 2001, p. 63). Opposed to the state-like construct of self-efficacy, which focuses on the
perception of being capable to meet certain situational demands (Chen et al., 2001). Researchers
suggest that the trait-like dimension might positively influence the state-like construct of self-
efficacy (Chen et al., 2001).
In this research, self-efficacy is seen as a trait-like construct. Trait-like self-efficacy is
more resistant to temporary influences and appears in one’s life span as one accumulates
successes and failures across different task domains (Chen et al., 2001). As intrapreneurial
behavior covers a wide array of task areas and is not limited to certain situations, the trait-like
construct of self-efficacy fits better within this study.
An important element in building self-efficacy is the achievement of action goals that
relate to success experiences (Bandura, 1997). Employees who have succeeded in work-related
tasks are expected to have more confidence to complete identical tasks in the future (i.e. high
self-efficacy) than employees who have been unsuccessful (i.e. low self-efficacy). Moreover,
the level of self-efficacy can influence success experiences (Bandura, 1997). To illustrate, a
chain of successful performances can increase self-efficacy and the growth in self-efficacy can
consequently lead to more successful performances (Shipherd, 2019). Intrapreneurial behavior
could lead to such success experiences. Gawke and colleagues (2017) mention the example that
an employee who engages in intrapreneurial behavior successfully conceptualizes an innovative
idea. As a consequence, the employee feels more efficacious and expects similar positive
experiences when engaging in intrapreneurial behavior in the future (Gawke et al., 2017).
Hence, intrapreneurial behavior could positively influence the level of self-efficacy.
With regard to entrepreneurship, research has already shown that entrepreneurship is
highly associated with self-efficacy (i.e. self-efficacy as a predictor variable) (Frese & Gielnik,
2014; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008). Individuals high in self-efficacy tend to set challenging goals
and persist even under stressful circumstances. Moreover, they recover quickly from failure.
These characteristics are beneficial in the context of entrepreneurship, and might also be
beneficial for intrapreneurship. This is because these characteristics can reduce the negative
effects of an entrepreneurial context, which are identified by information overload, uncertainty,
and time pressure (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008). The research of Gawke and colleagues (2017)
also demonstrate the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy. They
found that employee intrapreneurship predicted a positive change in personal resources
(including self-efficacy) over time, and personal resources predicted higher work engagement
over time. When individuals engage in intrapreneurial behavior they increase their personal
resources (i.e. ego-resilience, optimism and self-efficacy), which results in higher work
engagement. This research (i.e. Gawke et al., 2017) shows that the personal resource self-
efficacy can be increased by intrapreneurial behavior and can act as a mediator between
intrapreneurial behavior and an employee outcome. Thus, self-efficacy (i.e. mediator) can
explain the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and an employee outcome.
Consequently, self-efficacy is seen as a mediator in the present study.
The first link in the two-mediator model (i.e. intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy) is
explained, the next link will focus on the relationship between self-efficacy and psychological
well-being. Regarding the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy, it is
hypothesized that:
H2: There is a positive relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy and psychological well-being
The concept of well-being has been found as complex and controversial. Ryan and Deci
(2001) define well-being as “optimal psychological functioning and experience” (p. 142).
However, theorists debate about what defines optimal psychological functioning and
experience (Ryan & Deci, 2001). One way to give meaning to the concept of well-being is with
the use of positive and negative affect (Jovanovic, 2015). Positive affect (PA) reflects an
individual’s level of pleasurable engagement, a high level of PA is described by terms such as
excited, active and determined. Low PA is defined by indicators of depression and apathy, such
as tiredness and inactive (Kuesten, Chopra, Bi, & Meiselman, 2013). Negative affect (NA) is a
general factor of subjective distress, a high level of NA involves a range of aversive mood
states, such as nervous, afraid and angry. Low NA represents calmness and involves terms such
as relaxed (Kuesten et al., 2013). Only the high ends of PA and NA represent the experience of
affect, low ends reflect the absence of emotional involvement (Kuesten et al., 2013). PA and
NA are seen as two independent dimensions of mood, and the two dimensions are not seen as
opposites. Thus, a large PA value does not mean a small NA value (Kuesten et al., 2013). Since
this research focuses on the benefits of intrapreneurial behavior for employees, the focus will
be on the dimension positive affect.
The findings of Van Seggelen-Damen and Van Dam (2016) supported the
importance of self-efficacy for employee well-being. Self-efficacy affects processes involved
in self-regulation, motivation, and stress. Self-efficacy relates to the idea that individuals can
exercise control over what they do, and thus can engage in problem-focused coping (Van
Seggelen-Damen & Van Dam, 2016). Furthermore, Avey, Wernsing, and Mhatre (2011) found
a positive relationship between psychological capital and well-being (β = .54). Psychological
capital is considered to be a construct that entails the components self-efficacy, hope, optimism,
and resilience. According to Avey et al. (2011), self-efficacious individuals tend to have
stronger beliefs in their abilities and capabilities to perform diverse tasks, which results in
increased effort and persistence in the pursuit of their goals. Consequently, this increases the
probability of success experiences which are associated with positive outcomes (i.e. well-
being). Lastly, Roemer and Harris (2018) also found a positive relationship between
psychological capital (including self-efficacy) and well-being (β = .56). Roemer and Harris
(2018) explain this relationship with the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory and the
conservation of resources (COR) theory. Both theories will be explained below since they can
help to explain the relationship between self-efficacy and psychological well-being. The authors
(Roemer & Harris, 2018) describe that employees high in psychological capital may have the
attitude, energy, and strength that keep them from negative consequences of stress at the
workplace. The employees may, therefore, experience higher levels of well-being (Roemer &
Harris, 2018).
The JD-R theory takes job demands, job resources, and personal resources into
account to make predictions about well-being and performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014).
The JD-R model proposes that personal resources are an important predictor of motivation.
Personal resources have motivational potential and could, therefore, lead to desirable outcomes
such as job satisfaction, engagement, and performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). When an
individual’s personal resources are high, the more positive the person’s self-regard is and the
more goal self-concordance is assumed to be experienced. Individuals with goal self-
concordance are intrinsically motivated to pursue their goals and consequently, they provoke
high performance and satisfaction (Bakker & Dermerouti, 2014). Self -efficacy can be
considered as a personal resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) and thus can have motivational
potential, which might lead to positive outcomes, such as psychological well-being.
The COR theory states that individuals accumulate, maintain, and protect their
resources. These resources can help them in dealing with stress (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). An
inference of the COR theory is that individuals with greater resources are less vulnerable to
resource loss and more capable of resource gain (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). An increase in
resources leads to an improvement in coping mechanisms (i.e. strategies to deal with stress).
Consequently, individuals are better able to withstand (future) stressors, which could positively
influence their psychological well-being (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Hence, self-efficacy might
make individuals better able to deal with stressors, which may positively influence their level
of well-being. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H3: There is a positive relationship between self-efficacy and psychological well-being.
Psychological well-being and job performance
Researchers have consistently demonstrated that psychological well-being is related to

various measures (e.g. subjective and objective) of job performance and different types of job
performance (e.g. task performance, extra-role performance) (Wright & Cropanzano, 2004;
Wright, Cropanzano, Denney, & Moline, 2002; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). The broaden -
and- build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001) can be used to explain the
relationship between psychological well-being and job performance. According to this theory,
positive emotions (including the experience of psychological well-being) have the capacity to
“broaden” an individual’s momentary thought-action repertoires (i.e. thoughts and actions that
come to an individual’s mind). This broaden effect happens through expanding the selection of
possible thoughts and actions that come to mind (Fredrickson, 2001). For example, interest
encourages the urge to explore and to create new experiences. Moreover, positive emotions in
turn “build” an individual’s personal resources (e.g. psychological, intellectual, and social)
(Fredrickson, 2001). The experience of positive emotions (e.g. interest, joy) stimulates
employees’ positive meaning in their work. Consequently, due to the personal fulfillment that
an individual’s job can bring, the employee may be more productive (Wright & Cropanzano,
2004). Furthermore, the experience of positive emotions is important to mentally flourish and
psychologically grow. This flourishing or psychologically growth appears to make
psychologically well (or happy) people more proactive and resilient, which could further
enhance employee development (Wright & Cropanzano, 2004). Individuals who have a higher
score on psychological well-being are more able to “broaden-and-build” themselves and so
increase their personal resources and become more productively effective (Wright &
Cropanzano, 2004). Lastly, research of Lin, Yu, and Yi (2014) also showed a positive effect (β
= .67) of an individual’s sense of well-being on his or her job performance.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H4: There is a positive relationship between psychological well-being and job performance.
To summarize the serial two mediator model, intrapreneurial behavior could lead to
success experiences, resulting in feeling more efficacious. Consequently, self-efficacy
stimulates processes involved in motivation, which might lead to psychological well-being.
Psychological well-being leads to job performance, due to positive emotions stimulating
perceptions of enhanced meaning and increasing personal fulfillment. This psychological
growth makes individuals perform better. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5: There is a positive indirect relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance, via self-efficacy and psychological well-being.
This hypothesis entails partial mediation, as the direct relationship between intrapreneurial
behavior and job performance is still expected to be significant after introducing the mediators.
So, there are expected to be multiple paths between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance. Important to note is that the paths between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance do not have to be causal, causal inferences are outside the scope of this study.
More details about the design of this study will be given in the method section.
Intrapreneurial behavior and psychological well-being
The direct effect of intrapreneurial behavior on psychological well-being seems to

be unknown. Therefore, this study includes explorative research on the direct relationship
between intrapreneurial behavior and psychological well-being, since it might provide insights
into the impact of intrapreneurial behavior on employee outcomes. Based on the positive
indirect relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and psychological well-being, and the
reasoning (i.e. research and literature) behind this indirect relationship, it is hypothesized that a
potential direct relationship is also positive. It is hypothesized that:
H6: There is a positive relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and psychological well-
being.
Figure 1
The conceptual model: The relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance, mediated by self-efficacy and psychological well-being. Notes: + entails a
positive relationship.
Methods
Research design
The hypothesized relationships are examined with a cross-sectional, explanatory, and

quantitative research design. Because data is gathered at one moment in time, this study is a
cross-sectional study (Straits & Singleton Jr., 2017). The advantages of a cross-sectional design
are that it is relatively inexpensive, many outcomes can be assessed, and there is no loss to
follow-ups (Levin, 2006). In addition, since this study focuses on explaining relationships
between multiple variables by seeking answers to hypotheses, it is an explanatory study (Straits
& Singleton Jr., 2017). Lastly, because quantifiable data is gathered and is analyzed with
statistical analysis, it is a quantitative study (Straits & Singleton Jr., 2017). To collect data, a
questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire contains several scales since it was part of a
larger research project. In total five students used this questionnaire for their theses with the
main topic intrapreneurship.
Sample
The population of this study consists of Dutch employees, which are individuals who
execute work in exchange for receiving compensations (Kluijtmans, 2014). The respondents
need to be 18 years and older and employed within an organization (that is not their own) for
at least 12 hours per week. The hours are based on the Dutch labor force, in which an individual
is included when one works for at least 12 hours (CBS, n.d.). To make sure respondents meet
these particular features of the research population, demographic questions are asked at the
beginning of the survey. Based on the G*power tool (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009),
using an F test, the required sample size should be 138. This is based on an effect size of 0.15,
a confidence interval of 95%, a margin error of 5%, and five predictors. Therefore, it can be
argued that the sample size of the present study, which is 163, is large enough to reach a
sufficient power level. Regarding the respondents, 62.5 % are female and 37.5 % are male. The
average age of the respondents is 31.48 years (SD= 12.28) and the average years that
respondents have been working for their current employer is 4.9 years (SD=7.7). Moreover,
4.9% of the respondents have lower secondary education, 6% have a high-level secondary
education, 19.6% have vocational education, 42.4% have higher vocational education, and
27.2% have a university degree.
Procedure
The data gathered for this study has been retrieved through convenience sampling,
which means that all five students approached their own network. The advantages of
convenience sampling are that respondents are easily approachable, and the required sample
size can be achieved in a relatively fast way (Straits & Singleton Jr., 2017). The respondents
are contacted personally, via e-mail or WhatsApp. Moreover, the questionnaire was handed out
online via social media, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. The questionnaire was distributed
digitally, via a link to Qualtrics. After approximately a week, a reminder was sent. Before
respondents could start the questionnaire, they had to give consent for the use of their data for
scientific research. Moreover, a cover letter was included in which the procedure further was
explained and anonymity and confidentiality were ensured. The procedure included the link to
the website, at which results of the studies will be published and the e-mail address for further
questions. Respondents could choose between a Dutch and English questionnaire, because all
original English scales, which did not have a validated Dutch translation, have been translated
to Dutch using the back-translation technique. The questionnaires were collected digitally by
Qualtrics and imported in IBM SPSS Statistics 24.
Measures
The questionnaire consists of 87 items, this study used the scales for intrapreneurial
behavior, self-efficacy, psychological well-being, and job performance (Appendix A). The
scales are developed and tested in previous studies, which entails that the scales are previously
validated. Moreover, using existing scales enables a comparison between the findings of this
current study and with those from other studies. All variables are measured at the individual
level by employees. In order to ensure the expected single dimension for each scale, a factor
analysis was conducted to examine whether the items on a scale are measuring the same variable
of interest. Prior to performing the factor analysis, the suitability of the data was assessed. To
meet the criteria for factor analysis, the KMO measure needed to be above .6 and Bartlett’s test
of sphericity significant (Pallant, 2016). To interpret the factor analysis, the eigenvalue (factors
should have an eigenvalue of one or more) and the rotated component matrix (every item should
correlate with one factor, with a value of .3 or above) are checked (Pallant, 2016). In addition,
Catell’s scree test is used. Factors to the left of the breakpoint in the scree plot should be retained
(Pallant, 2016). To test for the reliability of each scale, the Cronbach’s alpha (needs to be above
.7) is checked (Pallant, 2016). In addition, the column alpha if item deleted is examined, in
which the values are compared with Cronbach’s alpha (i.e. the values needed to be lower than
alpha) (Pallant, 2016). Appendix B provides the output of the factor and reliability analyses.
Intrapreneurial behavior
Intrapreneurial behavior is measured using a 15-item scale developed by Stull and Singh
(2005) and validated in previous studies carried out in The Netherlands (Wakkee, Elfring, &
Monaghan, 2010) and Spain (Moriano, Molero, Topa, & Mangin, 2014). In the original study
(Stull & Singh, 2005) Cronbach’s alpha is 0.76. The scale consists of three dimensions that may
independently vary in strength and effect, namely proactiveness (e.g., “I take the initiative to
start projects”), risk-taking (e.g., “I take calculated risks despite the possibility of failure”), and
innovativeness (e.g., “I develop new processes, services or products”). A 5-point Likert scale
is used, ranging from completely disagree to completely agree. Regarding the factor analysis,
the KMO measure is .84 and Bartlett’s test is significant (p < 0.001), making the data suitable
for factor analysis (i.e. the KMO measure states whether or not enough items are predicted by
each factor). The factor analysis revealed the presence of 4 factors with eigenvalues exceeding
one, however, the first factor has the highest eigenvalue (5.42), explaining 36.14% of the
variance. The other factors showed eigenvalues around 1 and explained only 7 to 10% of the
variance. An inspection of the scree plot revealed a break after the first component, suggesting
a one-factor solution. The rotated component matrix showed that most items load quite strongly
(above .4) on the first factor. Loadings of .4 are typically considered to be strong loadings
(Pallant, 2016). Based on this information and previous studies (i.e. which stated that the three
dimensions measure intrapreneurial behavior), it was decided to retain one factor. In this study,
the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .85, which satisfies the above-mentioned guideline of .7. In
addition, the average inter-item correlation is .29.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is measured using the New General Self-efficacy (NGSE) Scale of Chen,
Gully, and Eden (2001). This scale contains eight items and uses a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The NGSE scale is often used in organizational
research (Chen et al., 2001). The scale focuses on general self-efficacy, which is the trait-like
dimension of self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001). This fits with the definition of self-efficacy used
in this study since that also focuses on the generalized definition of self-efficacy. Chen and
colleagues (2001) reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.87, 0.88, and 0.85 respectively. An
example item of the scale is “When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish
them”. Regarding the factor analysis, the KMO measure was .83 and Bartlett’s test was
significant (p < 0.001), making the data suitable for factor analysis. The factor analysis revealed
the presence of 2 factors with eigenvalues exceeding one. However, the first component has the
highest eigenvalue (3.41), explaining 42.65% of the variance. An inspection of the scree plot
revealed a clear break after the first component, suggesting a one-factor solution. In addition,
the rotated component matrix showed that most items load on the first component quite strongly
(>.5). Loadings of .4 are typically considered to be strong loadings (Pallant, 2016). Moreover,
the loadings on the first component are stronger than the loadings on the second component.
Based on this information and previous studies, it was decided to retain one factor. In this study,
the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .8, which satisfies the above-mentioned guideline of .7. In
addition, the average inter-item correlation is .34.
Job performance
Job performance is measured using the self-rated scale developed by Heilman, Block,
and Lucas (1992), which includes 5 items. The scale is often used in organizational research
(e.g. Lam, Chen, & Schaubroek, 2002; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). A 7-point Likert scale
was used, ranging from very low quality to very high quality and from very low to very high.
An example of an item used in the scale is “How would you judge the overall quality of your
work?” The scale focuses on perceived competence (Heilman et al., 1992), which fits with the
definition of job performance used in this research since this definition focuses on subjective
job performance (i.e. self-ratings). This scale has been used in research before (Sleegers, 2012;
Kolste, 2012). These studies reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and 0.83 respectively. In these
studies (Sleegers, 2012; Kolste, 2012), factor analyses showed that the items loaded on one
factor. Regarding the factor analysis in this current study, the KMO measure was .7 and
Bartlett’s test was significant (p < 0.001), making the data suitable for factor analysis. The
factor analysis revealed the presence of 2 factors with eigenvalues exceeding one, explaining
74.44% of the variance. An inspection of the scree plot revealed a break after the second
component. In addition, the rotated component matrix showed that 3 items load quite strongly
(>.8) on the first component and 2 items load quite strongly (>.8) on the second component.
Although the results suggest a two-factor solution, it was decided to retain one factor, because
of literature and previous studies. In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .73, which
satisfies the above-mentioned guideline of .7. In addition, the average inter-item correlation is
.38.
Psychological well-being
Psychological well-being is measured by the short form of the positive and negative
affect schedule (PANAS) (Thompson, 2007). Thompson (2007) reported a Cronbach’s Alpha
of 0.80 and found a two-component PA and NA factor structure. The PA and NA dimensions
are used in studies in several disciplines, such as psychology, business, and politics (Thompson,
2007). In this research, only the PA items are used. The PANAS is claimed to provide
independent measures of PA and NA, and the two dimensions are not thought to be opposites
(Kuesten, Chopra, Bi, & Meiselman, 2013), which makes it possible to only include the PA
items. Moreover, the PA scale fits better within this research design. The scale contains 5 items
and uses a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from never to always. An example item is “Thinking
about yourself and how you normally feel, to what extent do you generally feel inspired?”
Regarding the factor analysis, the KMO measure was .68 and Bartlett’s test was significant,
making the data suitable for factor analysis. The factor analysis revealed the presence of 2
factors with eigenvalues exceeding one, explaining 61.26% of the variance. An inspection of
the scree plot revealed a break after the first component. The item ‘alert’ showed a low
individual KMO value of .56. Furthermore, the correlation matrix showed that this item has low
correlations with the other items. When this item is deleted, results show a one-factor solution,
with one factor with eigenvalues exceeding one (1.95), explaining 48.7% of the variance.
Moreover, the item correlations and individual KMO’s are higher. Based on this information,
it was decided to delete the item alert, since it does not add considerably to the construct. In this
study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .60, which shows questionable reliability. If the item
‘alert’ would be deleted, alpha would be .64. When the item ‘attentive’ would additionally be
deleted, alpha would be .66. Since it was decided to delete the item alert, Cronbach’s alpha is
.64. The item attentive was not deleted because this item does add considerably to the construct
and deleting this item could affect the meaning of the scale. A Cronbach’s alpha of .64 is still
questionable however, some authors (e.g. Cho & Kim, 2015) are against using strict guidelines
for the evaluation of Cronbach’s alpha.
Control variables
To check the possibility of a spurious association, the control variables age and
educational level are included. Age is related to job performance (Skirbekk, 2003) and
innovation (Camelo-Ordaz, Sousa-Ginel, & Ruiz-Navarro, 2012), which is a dimension of
intrapreneurial behavior. Individual job performance is found to decrease from around 50 years
old (Shirbekk, 2003). Moreover, as age increases, resistance to change rises and security values
become more important. Consequently, the employee will tend to adopt more conservative
strategies, which will translate into lower innovation (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2012). Educational
level is also related to job performance (Ng & Feldman, 2009) and to intrapreneurial behavior
(Urbano & Turro, 2013). Highly educated employees tend to have higher task performance (Ng
& Feldman, 2009). Moreover, education plays a role in the development of intrapreneurial
activities since it reinforces in the accumulation of knowledge (Urbano & Turro, 2013). Since
age and educational level are related to both intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, the
relationship between these variables might be due to age or educational level. To rule this out,
age and educational level are controlled for in this study. Educational level has the following
categories: 1) lower secondary school, 2) high levels secondary education, 3) vocational, 4)
higher vocational, and 5) university. Age is included as a continuous variable.
Analysis
SPSS is used to screen and clean the obtained data. The gathered data were checked for
missing values, outliers, and mistakes in the items or responses. The respondents who did not
belong to the target group or opened the survey but did not fill it in are deleted. A few
respondents did not fill in the survey after the demographic questions. After excluding these
respondents, missing values were coded 99. A valid N of 163 respondents remained. No outliers
or mistakes in the responses were discovered. Subsequently, the average sum scores were
created for each scale. Next, descriptive information such as means, correlations among
variables and standard deviations were computed.
The following assumptions for multiple regression are checked: linearity, normality,
homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity. The results showed that the data were normally
distributed and the relationship between variables is linear. In addition, there were no issues
with homoscedasticity and multicollinearity. The VIF was around 1 and the tolerance was not
below .6. Hence, the assumptions for regression analysis are satisfied.
Lastly, a mediation analysis was conducted using the PROCESS tool of Hayes (2018)
in SPSS. PROCESS has preprogrammed mediation models and these are specified in
command by model number. Since the proposed model is a serial multiple mediator model,
model number 6 was used. To examine whether the direct and total effects in the model are
statistically significant, the p-values in the SPSS output are checked (p <.05). To explore
whether the indirect effects in the model are significant, bootstrap confidence intervals
generated by the PROCESS tool were examined. A 95% bootstrap confidence interval based
on 5000 bootstrap samples was used. An effect is statistically significant when zero is outside
the bootstrap confidence interval. Both mediators are checked separately and the two
mediators linked in serial are checked. In order to rule out spurious association, the control
variables age and educational level are included in the analysis. The interpretation of the
effects stayed the same, only with the inclusion that the control variables are held constant.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 gives an overview of the means, standard deviations, N, and the correlations
between the predictor variables, dependent variable, and the control variables. The mean scores
on psychological well-being, self-efficacy, and intrapreneurial behavior are slightly above the
average scale score. This indicates that the respondents report a considerable amount of these
behaviors. Moreover, the mean score of job performance is also above the average scale score,
indicating that the respondents tend to score themselves high on job performance. Below, the
correlations between the variables will be shortly described. The Pearson correlation coefficient
and the p-value will be given, to clarify the relationships. Psychological well-being is correlated
with self-efficacy (r = .40, p < .05), intrapreneurial behavior (r = .47, p < .05), and job
performance (r = .41, p < .05). In addition, self-efficacy is correlated with intrapreneurial
behavior (r = .33, p < .05) and job performance (r = .49, p < .05). Lastly, the variables
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance show a correlation of .17 (p < .05). These
relationships will be further explained in the next section. The control variable age is correlated
with job performance (r = .25, p < .05) and the control variable education level is correlated
with self-efficacy (r = .17, p < .05) and intrapreneurial behavior (r = .22, p < .05). Although the
control variables are not significantly correlated to all the predictor variables and dependent
variable, they will be included in the regression analyses. By including the control variables in
the analysis, the effects of the researched variables (i.e. intrapreneurial behavior, job
performance, self-efficacy, and psychological well-being) will be corrected for the influence of
the control variables age and educational level.
BENEFITS OF INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR
Table 1
Means, N, standard deviations and correlations
Mean Std. N Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6

deviation
1. Well-being 3.83 .51 163 2.50 5
2. Self-efficacy 3.83 .47 165 2.38 5 .40**
3. IB b 3.46 .52 169 1.93 4.87 .47** .33**
4. Job 5.45 .62 164 3 6.80 .41** .49** .17*
performance
5. Age 31.48 12.28 184 18 66 .08 .03 .04 .25**
6. Educational 3.81 1.06 184 1 5 .07 .17* .22** -.03 -.26**
level a
* P < .05; ** P < .01 (2-tailed)
a
Educational level was coded 1 (Lower secondary school), 2 (High levels secondary education), 3 (Vocational), 4 (Higher vocational
education), 5 (University)
b
Regression analysis
The output from the PROCESS procedure consists of a series of regression models.
First, the mediator self-efficacy (M1) is predicted using intrapreneurial behavior (X) and the
control variables. Then the second mediator (M2: psychological well-being) is predicted by X,
M1, and the control variables. Finally, job performance (Y) is predicted by X, M1, M2, and
control variables. Figure 2 presents the outcome of these regression models in the form of a
path model, including unstandardized effects (B). Hypothesis 1 proposed that intrapreneurial
behavior and job performance are positively related. Figure 2 shows that intrapreneurial
behavior is not significantly related to job performance (B = - .08, p = .3618). This means that
hypothesis 1 is rejected. Hypothesis 2 proposed that intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy
are positively related. Results show that intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy are indeed
significantly positively related (B = .29, p = .0001). This means that, as stated by hypothesis 2,
individuals who score high on intrapreneurial behavior also tend to show a high self-efficacy.
The results further show that self-efficacy and psychological well-being are
positively related (B = .29, p = .0001), which means that hypothesis 3 is supported. This entails
that individuals who score high on self-efficacy also tend to score high on psychological well-
being. Hypothesis 4 proposed a positive relationship between psychological well-being and job
performance. Figure 2 shows a positive relationship between these variables (B = .31, p =
.0010), therefore hypothesis 4 is supported. This suggests that individuals who score high on
psychological well-being also tend to score high on job performance. Figure 2 also shows a
positive relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and psychological well-being (B = .39,
p = .0000), supporting hypothesis 6. This suggests that individuals who score high on
intrapreneurial behavior also tend to have a high score on psychological well-being.
Figure 2
Researched model including unstandardized direct effects, controlling for age and educational
level. Notes: * P < .05, ** P < .01
To assess the mediation effect of self-efficacy and psychological well-being (i.e.

indirect effects), table 2 (displayed below) is used. The results show that self-efficacy mediated
the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance (B = .1597, bootstrap
interval: .0609 to .2705). Moreover, psychological well-being mediated the relationship
between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance (B = .1233, bootstrap interval: .0377 to
.2271). Hypothesis 5 proposed that there is a positive indirect relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, via self-efficacy and psychological well-being.
A 95% bootstrap confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples indicated that the
indirect effect (B = .0271) was entirely above zero (.0044 to .0671). This means that self-
efficacy and respectively psychological well-being act as mediators in the relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. Since the direct relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance is not significant, self-efficacy and psychological
well-being fully mediate the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job
performance. This entails that individuals who score high on intrapreneurial behavior
experience positive emotions, belief in their competence to meet task demands in multiple
contexts and tend to score themselves high on job performance. Individuals with a high score
on intrapreneurial behavior tend to score high on job performance, however, this relationship
is explained by the influence of self-efficacy and psychological well-being. The mediation
effect shows that the experience of positive emotions (i.e. psychological well-being) and the
belief in one’s competence (i.e. self-efficacy) are important in experiencing job performance.
This confirms hypothesis 5.
Table 2
Indirect (unstandardized) effects of X on Y, controlling for age and educational level.
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

TOTAL .3102 .0867 .1557 .4887
Ind1 (M1) .1597 .0543 .0609 .2705
Ind2 (M2) .1233 .0480 .0377 .2271
Ind3 (M1 and .0271 .0162 .0044 .0671
M2)
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between intrapreneurial
behavior and job performance, and the influence of psychological well-being and self-efficacy
on this relationship. The results showed no direct significant relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. However, the results showed an indirect positive
relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, via self-efficacy and
psychological well-being. This entails that self-efficacy and psychological well-being fully
mediate the relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. This means
that individuals who score high on intrapreneurial behavior tend to score high on job
performance, only through self-efficacy and psychological well-being. Thus, individuals who
score high on intrapreneurial behavior tend to score high on job performance, because they
belief in their competence and experience positive emotions. The mediators self-efficacy and
psychological well-being are significantly linked in serial, but also separately act as a mediator
in the researched model. The effects of the separate mediators are stronger than both mediators
in serial (table 2 in results). This means that an individual with a high score on intrapreneurial
behavior tends to experience a high job performance because of either belief in their own
competence or the experience of positive emotions, or both. These findings will be discussed
in the next section.
Theoretical contributions
The first theoretical contribution of this study is that it takes an individual perspective
on intrapreneurship and focuses on the benefits of intrapreneurial behavior for employees. The
current study contributes to this matter by examining the relationship between intrapreneurial
behavior and psychological well-being and job performance. Moreover, it contributes to the
field by explaining how intrapreneurial behavior could lead to job performance (i.e. by
including mediators). Gawke et al. (2018) found that employee intrapreneurship is not directly
related to in-role performance but it is indirectly related, through work engagement.
Furthermore, Gawke and colleagues (2017) found that intrapreneurial behavior increases
personal resources (including self-efficacy) which consequently results in higher work
engagement. Interestingly, this current study confirms a non-significant direct relationship
between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. Moreover, this current study also found
a significant indirect relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, via
self-efficacy and psychological well-being. These findings (i.e. full mediations) suggest that
other variables are crucial in the intrapreneurship – performance link and intrapreneurship does
not automatically result in performance, as many organizations seem to think. This current
study confirms the mediating effect of self-efficacy and contributes to the before-mentioned
research by including a different employee outcome. Self-efficacy does not only seem to
mediate the relationship between intrapreneurship and work engagement (Gawke et al., 2017)
but also mediates the relationship between intrapreneurship and job performance. Hence,
believing in one’s competence seems to be crucial in the relationship between intrapreneurship
and multiple employee outcomes. This current study also contributes to the before-mentioned
studies by including the mediator psychological well-being. Just as work engagement (Gawke
et al., 2018) and self-efficacy (Gawke et al., 2017; current study), psychological well-being
mediates the relationship between intrapreneurship and an employee outcome. Moreover, this
current study found a direct relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and psychological
well-being, which has the appearance of not being researched before. Hence, this current study
contributes by indicating that the experience of positive emotions is important in the
intrapreneurship- performance link.
Lastly, the findings of this current study support some principles of the COR theory. In
line with the assumption of the COR theory that individuals with high resources are more able
to gain resources and that an initial resource gain can cause further resource gain (Hobfoll &
Shirom, 2001), the results of this current study imply that individuals who show intrapreneurial
behavior are able to gain resources (i.e. self-efficacy), and this resource gain seems to be
associated with psychological well-being and consequently job performance (i.e. further
resource gains). Furthermore, drawing upon the JD-R theory, it was argued that self-efficacy
(as a personal resource) has motivational potential, which leads to positive outcomes such as
psychological well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). The findings of this current study
support this assumption, since a positive relationship between self-efficacy and psychological
well-being was found.
Limitations and implications for future research
This study used a cross-sectional research design. Cross-sectional data is gathered at

one moment in time, which makes it impossible to determine the causality between variables
(Straits & Singleton, 2017). However, the cross-sectional results of this study might be an
indication of a potential causal relationship. The presented cross-sectional results would be
expected when there is a causal relationship. For example, individuals with a high score on
intrapreneurial behavior tend to have a high score on self-efficacy, which can be expected when
there is a causal relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy (i.e. increase in
intrapreneurial behavior leads to an increase in self-efficacy). A suggestion for future research

would be to collect longitudinal data to gain insight into the causality between the researched
variables. This could, for example, be done by distributing the survey at three moments in time
to the same respondents with two months between each of the surveys. Due to this longitudinal
design, inferences about the patterns of change in the variables can be observed (Straits &
Singleton, 2017). Longitudinal research could also be used to investigate how to increase the
level of self-efficacy of individuals since this current study suggests that self-efficacy is
important in the intrapreneurship- performance link. Different interventions which are assumed
to increase self-efficacy can be investigated regarding their effect on self-efficacy.
A second limitation of this study is the self-rating of job performance. A risk of self-
ratings is that these might not reflect true performance because of deficiencies in self-ratings,
such as leniency (Heidemeier, 2005). Respondents may not be sincere and over-evaluate or
under-evaluate themselves. A suggestion for future research is to use performance ratings from
multiple sources, for example by including supervisor ratings. However, it should be noted that
supervisor ratings may also be subject to bias. For example, the halo and horns effect, which is
a cognitive bias in which one trait (good or bad) overshadows all other actions or traits (Peeters,
De Jonge, & Taris, 2014). This could lead to a supervisor unfairly underrating or overrating an
employee. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate if and how the supervisor
influences the level of self-efficacy of their employees since this variable seems to be important
in the intrapreneurship-performance relationship. Another suggestion is to include
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the measurement of job performance. Research
in the intrapreneurship field found direct relationships between intrapreneurship and
organizational outcomes. However, as mentioned above, the direct relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and employee outcomes is not significant. One possible explanation
for this insignificant relationship might be that employees interpret intrapreneurial behavior as
something outside their job description. Consequently, they might not include it in their
judgement of their job performance, since they think this only includes tasks presented in their
job description. Since OCB entails employees voluntarily making extra-role contributions to
the organization that is beyond their regular job duties (Jordan, Schrader, Field, & Armenakis,
2007), including OCB in the survey might lead to respondents scoring themselves higher on
job performance. It would be interesting to see whether this changes the (significance of)
relationships in the researched model. Since OCB is seen as a factor impacting the effectiveness
of an organization (Jordan, Schrader, Field, & Armenakis, 2007), this variable is also interesting
from an organizational point of view.
The third limitation of this research is that in this study psychological well-being is
defined and measured with the dimension positive affect. The present study focused on the
potential benefits of intrapreneurial behavior. It would be a suggestion for future research to
include or focus on the dimension negative affect (i.e. subjective distress), thereby investigating
the potential costs of intrapreneurial behavior. Although this research did not show detrimental
effects, previous research of Gawke and colleagues (2018) showed that employee
intrapreneurship positively relates to exhaustion, which shows that intrapreneurial behavior can
have detrimental effects. Therefore, it is important to focus on both positive and negative affect
in future research. A fourth limitation of this research is the reliability of the scale psychological
well-being (i.e. positive affect). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .642, which is lower
than the used guideline of >.7. This suggests that the internal consistency of the scale items is
questionable. The effects of psychological well-being might have been stronger in the current
researched model if the scale complied with the used guidelines.
This study indicated that an individual with a high score on intrapreneurial behavior
tends to have a high score on job performance because of either belief in their own competence,
experience positive emotions or both. The last limitation of this study is that it does not explain
why the mediators self-efficacy and psychological well-being act as mediators both separately
and in serial. The question arises why some individuals (who score high on intrapreneurial
behavior) score high on job performance because of self-efficacy, some because of
psychological well-being and some individuals because of both. It would be a suggestion for
future research to investigate why these multiple pathways prevail and which individuals follow
each pathway. Hence, it would be a suggestion to include moderators in the researched model.
In this study, intrapreneurial behavior consists of the three dimensions proactivity,
innovativeness, and risk-taking. The question arises whether the non-significant direct
relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance could be explained by these
different dimensions. Correlations between the three dimensions and the other variables in the
researched model (i.e. psychological well-being, self-efficacy, and job performance) are
conducted (Appendix C). Proactiveness and innovativeness are both correlated to job
performance (r = .23, p < .01 and, r = .16, p < .05 respectively). The dimension risk-taking is
not correlated with job performance. Therefore, the dimension risk-taking could be responsible
for the non-significant relationship. Future research should consequently further investigate the
underlying dimensions of intrapreneurial behavior and the direct relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance.
Practical implications
Intrapreneurship is increasingly seen as a way to revitalize organizations (Waal, Kolker,

Goedebuure, & Van der Heijde, 2013). This study aims to provide insights into the potential
benefits of intrapreneurial behavior for employees. Firstly, the results show that individuals
with a high score on intrapreneurial behavior tend to have high scores on psychological well-
being. This suggests that intrapreneurial behavior has benefits for employees. Acting in an
intrapreneurial way seems to be associated with the experience of positive emotions. This
suggests organizations should stimulate intrapreneurial behavior. Rigtering and Weitzel (2013)
give suggestions on how to stimulate intrapreneurial behavior in organizations. To stimulate
intrapreneurial behavior, a formal work context is needed that puts little constrains on
employees. This means that the work context allows for horizontal participation (i.e. jobs are
broadly defined) and provides support for the development of innovative projects (i.e.
willingness to allocate sufficient resources to employees that want to develop a new product or
service) (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). In addition, employees have to be able to trust their
manager that they will not sabotage their position when they show intrapreneurial behavior
(Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). Moreover, the authors mention that when an individual deals with
a high number of formal procedures, trust in the relationship with their manager is even more
crucial. When employees show intrapreneurial behavior in these situations (i.e. lot of formal
procedures) they can be motivated to abandon formal procedures and organizational rules. In
these situations, an employee must trust their supervisor that (s) he provides support in case
things go wrong (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). Thus, organizations could stimulate
intrapreneurial behavior, as it is associated with the experience of positive emotions, by
providing a work context in which jobs are broadly defined, where there is a willingness to
allocate resources, and in which the relationship between employee and manager is based on
trust.
Secondly, the results show that employees who show intrapreneurial behavior tend to
score high on job performance, because of the crucial role of self-efficacy and psychological
well-being. Without self-efficacy and psychological well-being, no relationship exists between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. This leads to the following implication for
practice. When organizations want employees to adopt an intrapreneurial way of working to
boost performance, they should be aware that other factors are involved and influence job
performance. Consequently, when organizations implement practices to stimulate
intrapreneurial behavior, they should also focus on stimulating self-efficacy and psychological
well-being. This could, for example, be done by providing positive feedback or training (e.g.
positive psychology intervention). Self-efficacy has been studied in many research fields, such
as psychology (Maddux, 2000). As Maddux (2000, p. 277) stated: “believing that you can
accomplish what you want to accomplish is one of the most important ingredients in the recipe
for success”. This current study seems to demonstrate the importance of self-efficacy for the
field of intrapreneurship for both research and practice.
Conclusion
Most studies in the intrapreneurship field focus on intrapreneurship and organizational

outcomes. However, the relationship between intrapreneurship and employee outcomes are
equally important. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, and the influence of psychological well-being
and self-efficacy on this relationship. The results showed no direct relationship between
intrapreneurial behavior and job performance. However, the results showed an indirect positive
relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance, via self-efficacy and
psychological well-being. This study contributes to the existing literature by increasing the
knowledge on processes and effects of intrapreneurship at the individual level. Suggestions for
future research are to collect longitudinal data, include or focus on the costs of intrapreneurial
behavior (e.g. negative affect) and OCB, and to include moderators in the researched model.
References
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S., & Mhatre, K.H. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of positive
psychological constructs and emotions on stress, anxiety, and well-being. Journal of
leadership and organizational studies, 18 (2), 216-228. doi: 10.1177/1548051810397368
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In C. Cooper & P.
Chen (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (pp. 37–64). Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman
Blanka, C. (2018). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways

forward. Review of managerial science, 1-43. doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0277-0
CBS. (n.d.) Begrippen: beroepsbevolking (12-uurgrens). Retrieved from

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/onze-
diensten/methoden/begrippen?tab=b#id=beroepsbevolking--12-uursgrens--
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernandez-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2012). The
intrapreneur and innovation in creative firms. International Small Business Journal, 30
(5), 513–535. https ://doi.org/10.1177/02662 42610 38539 6
Campbell, C.H., Ford, P., Rumsey, M.G., Pulakos, E.D., Borman, W.C., Felker, D.B., De
Vera, M.V., & Riegelhaupt, B.J. (1990). Development of multiple job performance
measures in a representative sample of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 277-300.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01559.x
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational research methods, 4(1), 62-83.https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
Cho, E., Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: well-known but poorly understood.
Organizational research methods, 18(2), 207-230. doi:10.1177/1094428114555994
Douglas, E.J., & Fitzsimmons, J.R. (2012). Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial
intentions: distinct constructs with different antecedents. Springer, 115-132. doi:
10.1007/s11187-012-9419-y
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 1149-1160.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218-226. doi:
10.1O37//0OO3-O66X.56.3.21
Frese, M., & Gielnik, M.M. (2014). The psychology of entrepreneurship. The annual review
of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 1, 413-438. doi:
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091326
Gawke, J.C., Gorgievski, M.J., & Bakker, A.B. (2017). Employee intrapreneurship and work
engagement: a latent change score approach. Journal of vocational behaviour, 100, 88-
100. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.002
Gawke, J.C., Gorgievski, M.J., & Bakker, A.B. (2018). Personal costs and benefits of
employee intrapreneurship: disentangling the employee intrapreneurship, well-being, and
job performance relationship. Journal of occupational health psychology, 23(4), 508-519.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000105
Grant, A.M., Christianson, M.K., & Price, R.H. (2007). Happiness, health, or relationships?
Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Academy of Management, 51-
63. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.26421238
Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis,
second edition: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Heidemeier, H. (2005). Self and supervisor ratings of job performance: a meta-analysis and a
process model of rater convergence. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., & Lucas, J.A. (1992). Presumed incompetence? Stigmatization
and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536-544. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536
Hmieleski, K.M., & Baron, R. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance
versus reduce firm performance? Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 2, 57-72.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.42
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress
and management in the workplace. In: Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.). Handbook of
organizational behavior. New York, US: Routledge.
Jordan, M.H., Schraeder, M., Feild, H.S., & Armenakis, A.A. (2007). Organizational
citizenship behavior, job attitudes, and the psychological contract. Military Psychology,
19(4), 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600701548122
Jovanovic, V. (2015). Beyond the PANAS: incremental validity of the scale of positive and
negative experience (SPANE) in relation to well-being. Personality and individual
differences, 86, 487-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.015
Kolste, C. (2012). The influence of HR attributions on employee performance: the mediating

role of psychological capital (Master thesis, Tilburg University). Retrieved from
http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=127517.
Kluijtmans, F. (2014) Leerboek HRM. tweede druk. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers
Kuesten, C., Chopra, P., Bi, J., & Meiselman, H.L. (2013). A global study using PANAS (PA
and NA) to measure consumer emotions associated with aromas of phytonutrient
supplements. Food quality and preference, 33, 86-97. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.11.004
Lam, S.K., Chen, X., & Schaubroek, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee
performance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and
efficacy. Academy of management journal, 45 (5), 905-914.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069321
Levin, K. (2006). Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evid Based Dent 7, 24–25.
doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
Lin, Y., Yu, C., & Yi, C. (2014). The effects of positive affect, person-job fit, and well-being
on job performance. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal., 42 (9),
1537-1547. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.9.1537.
Longo, Y., Coyne, I., Joseph, S., & Gustavsson, P. (2016). Support for a general factor of
well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 68–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.082.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The General Self-Efficacy Scale:
Multicultural Validation Studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139 (5), 439-457. doi:
10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457
Maddux, J.E. (2000). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In: Snyder, C.R., &
Lopez, S.J. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology (p. 277-287). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Moriano, J.A., Molero, F., Topa, G., & Mangin, J.L. (2014). The influence of
transformational leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship.
International entrepreneurship management journal, 10, 103-119. doi:10.1007/s11365-
011-0196-x
Neessen, P.C.M., Caniëls, M.C.J., Vos, B., & De Jong, J.P. (2018). The intrapreneurial
employee: toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship. International
entrepreneurship and management journal, 15(2), 545-571. doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-
0552-1
Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job
performance? Personnel Psychology, 62, 89-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2008.01130.x.
Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and productivity. Journal of Labor
Economics, 33(4), 789–822. doi.org/10.1086/681096
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (sixth edition). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education
Peeters, M., De Jonge, J., & Taris, T. (2014). An introduction to contemporary work
psychology. Cichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Preenen, P.T.Y., Liebregts, W.J., Dhondt, S., Oeij, P.R.A., & Van der Meulen, F.A. (2014).
The intrapreneurial behaviour measure (IBM). Een meetinstrument om intrapreneurial
gedrag van werknemers en factoren die dit beïnvloeden te meten binnen organisaties.
TNO rapportage.
Roemer, A., & Harris, C. (2018). Perceived organisational support and well-being: the role of
psychological capital as a mediator. SA Journal of industrial psychology, 44(0). doi:
https://doi.org/ 10.4102/sajip.v44i0.1539.
Rigtering, J.P.C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behavior as antecedents
for intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 337-
360. doi: 10.1007/s11365-013-0258-3.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Shipherd, A.M. (2019). This doesn’t look too hard: a mixed methods exploration of self-
efficacy and sources of self-efficacy information in a novel puzzle task. Journal of
applied social psychology, 49, 226-238. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12579
Skirbekk, V. (2003). Age and individual productivity: a literature survey. Max Planck
Institute for Demographic Research: MPIDR WORKING PAPER WP 2003-028.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vegard_Skirbekk/publication/4862787_Age_and_In
dividual_Productivity_A_Literature_Survey/links/0deec52c52ffb267fa000000.pdf
Sleegers, W. (2012). High-performance work systems and employee performance: examining

the contribution of psychological capital (Master thesis, Tilburg University). Retrieved
from http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=127768.
Straits, B.C., & Singleton Jr, R.A. (2017). Social research: approaches and fundamentals.
US: Oxford University Press.
Stull, M., & Singh, J. (2005). Intrapreneurship in nonprofit organizations examining the
factors that facilitate entrepreneurial behavior among employees (Case Western Reserve
University). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike_Stull/publication/228383477_Intrapreneurshi
p_in_nonprofit_organizations_Examining_the_factors_that_facilitate_entrepreneurial_be
havior_among_employees/links/00b4952d465f9dc171000000.pdf
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form

of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of cross-cultural
psychology, 38(2), 227-242. doi: 10.1177/0022022106297301
Urbano, D., Turro, A. (2013) Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: an internal
and external approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 (3),
379–396. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1136 5-013-0261-8
Van Seggelen - Damen, I., & Van Dam, K. (2016). Self-reflection as a mediator between self-
efficacy and well-being, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31 (1), 18-33. doi:
10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0022
Waal, A., Kolker, L., Goedebuure, R., & Van der Heijde, B. (2013). Intrapreneurschap als
aanjager van ‘high performance’. Holland Management Review, 150, 43-48.
Wakkee, I., Elfring, T., & Monaghan, S. (2010). Creating entrepreneurial employees in
traditional service sectors. International entrepreneurship journal, 6, 1-21. doi:
10.1007/s11365-008-0078-z
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of management journal,
40(1), 82-111.
Wright, T.A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job
performance: a fresh look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 338-351,
doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.002
Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R., Denney, P.J., & Moline, G.L. (2002). When a happy worker is
a productive worker: a preliminary examination of three models. Canadian Journal of
behavioural science, 34(3), 146-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087165
Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as

predictors of job performance. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 84-94.
doi: 10.1037//1076-8998.5.1.84
Appendix A: scales
Strongly disagree – Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly agree
In the course of my work, I…
Approach new projects or activities in a cautious manner

Do things that have a chance of not working out
Avoid taking calculated risks
Engage in activities that have a chance of not working out
Will take calculated risks despite the possibility of failure
Keep ahead of changes instead of responding to them
Actively fix or improve things I don’t like
Act in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes
Take the initiative to start projects
Tend to implement changes before they are needed
Generate useful new ideas
Develop new processes, services, or products
Approach business tasks in innovative ways
Find new ways to do things
Often do things in unique ways
Job performance
Not at all competent – Less competently – Moderate competently – Average competently – Fair
competently – Good – Very competently
All in all, how competently do you perform your job?

In your estimation, how effectively do you get your work done?
Very low – Low – Moderate – Average – Good – High – Very high
How would you judge your overall perceived competence?

How would you judge the overall quality of your work?
How would you judge the overall quantity of your work?
Self-efficacy
Strongly disagree – Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly agree
I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself
When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them
In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me
I believe I can succeed at most and endeavour to which I set my mind
I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges
I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks
Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well
Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well
Psychological well-being
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
Thinking about yourself and how you normally feel, to what extent do you generally feel:
Attentive
Alert
Inspired
Determined
Active
Appendix B: factor and reliability analyses
Output intrapreneurial behaviour

Output self-efficacy
Output Job performance

Output psychological well-being (without item ‘alert’)

Appendix C: correlations three dimensions intrapreneurial behavior

File 150224

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

File 150224

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENEFITS OF INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR

The relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance,

Master thesis Human Resource Studies

The academic year 2019-2020

Student Tessa Drijfhout (S2030145)

Keywords: intrapreneurship, self-efficacy, psychological well-being, job performance

Intrapreneurship has gained importance in organizational research and practice. Due

decreased work avoidance via work engagement. Furthermore, employee intrapreneurship is

The direct relationship between intrapreneurial behavior and job performance

In this research, intrapreneurial behavior is defined as intrapreneurial work behavior,

Intrapreneurial behavior and self-efficacy

Self-efficacy and psychological well-being

Psychological well-being and job performance

Researchers have consistently demonstrated that psychological well-being is related to

Intrapreneurial behavior and psychological well-being

The direct effect of intrapreneurial behavior on psychological well-being seems to

The hypothesized relationships are examined with a cross-sectional, explanatory, and

Mean Std. N Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6

To assess the mediation effect of self-efficacy and psychological well-being (i.e.

Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Limitations and implications for future research

This study used a cross-sectional research design. Cross-sectional data is gathered at

intrapreneurial behavior leads to an increase in self-efficacy). A suggestion for future research

Intrapreneurship is increasingly seen as a way to revitalize organizations (Waal, Kolker,

Most studies in the intrapreneurship field focus on intrapreneurship and organizational

Blanka, C. (2018). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways

CBS. (n.d.) Begrippen: beroepsbevolking (12-uurgrens). Retrieved from

Kolste, C. (2012). The influence of HR attributions on employee performance: the mediating

Kluijtmans, F. (2014) Leerboek HRM. tweede druk. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers

Sleegers, W. (2012). High-performance work systems and employee performance: examining

Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form

Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as

Strongly disagree – Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly agree

In the course of my work, I…

Approach new projects or activities in a cautious manner

All in all, how competently do you perform your job?

How would you judge your overall perceived competence?

Strongly disagree – Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly agree

Appendix B: factor and reliability analyses

Output intrapreneurial behaviour

Output Job performance

Output psychological well-being (without item ‘alert’)

Appendix C: correlations three dimensions intrapreneurial behavior

You might also like