Validation Of An Instrument For Measuring Intrapreneurial Intentions In University Students

Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of the Knowledge Economy https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-025-02720-x Validation Of AnInstrument ForMeasuring Intrapreneurial Intentions In University Students PedroBaena‑Luna1 · FranciscoJ.Maza‑Ávila2· IsadoraSánchez‑Torné1· MacarenaPérez‑Suárez3 Received: 22 September 2024 / Accepted: 18 March 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract This study aims to design and validate an instrument to evaluate the Intrapreneurial Intentions of university students. For this purpose, the direct and positive influence that Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation exerts on the Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship and, in turn, on the Intrapreneurial Intentions of these students is analyzed. The instrument’s validity and the proposed conceptual model have been studied through the multivariate method of partial least squares structural equations (PLS-SEM) in 469 university students. The results demonstrate the validity of the structural model, thus, confirming the validity of the proposed instrument because of the causal effect found between the Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (RiskTaking, Innovativeness, and Proactiveness) on the Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship variable and the latter’s direct and positive impact on the Intrapreneurial Intentions. The most relevant implications of this study are that the higher the level of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation in university students, the greater the possibility they will develop an Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship and, hence, the intentions to carry out intrapreneurial actions. Keywords Intrapreneurial Intentions· Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation· Attitude Towards Intrapreneurship· University Students· Intrapreneurial Intentions Scale Introduction The current business context is distinguished by considerable dynamism and a perception of uncertainty (Thurik etal., 2023). This forces companies to make strategic repositioning decisions to generate and maintain new competitive Note: Following Clark etal. (2024b), this paper uses the acronym IndEO for Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation instead of IEO to avoid confusion with International EO. Extended author information available on the last page of the article Journal of the Knowledge Economy advantages (Klofsten etal., 2021). Therefore, firms promote recognizing employees’ entrepreneurial potential through intrapreneurial behaviors as a sustainable repositioning (Ilonen & Hytönen, 2023). Intrapreneurship promotes the development of actions and organizational cultures that favor the management of change and uncertainty (Guerrero etal., 2021), which rewards economic growth (Munyo & Veiga, 2024). For this reason, firms increasingly need flexible, creative, and innovative workers who, in addition to performing their tasks, provide talent that allows the company to access new forms of knowledge and work (Coduras etal., 2011; Marchiori etal., 2018). This kind of behavior by the firm´s employees is very relevant to the sustainability of the company’s business activity (Baena-Luna etal., 2022; Marques etal., 2019). Intrapreneurs could detect changes in the environment that stimulate their creativity and capacity to innovate (Liu etal., 2024), thus facilitating their proactivity, identification of opportunities, and risk-taking. These traits are critical for firms facing turbulent contexts such as the current one (González-Serrano etal., 2023). For this reason, universities, as active actors, are concerned that their students not only acquire knowledge but also promote the generation of entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial skills and competencies (Kansikas & Murphy, 2010) to improve the employability of their graduates in the current business context so that they are more competitive and better prepared for their professional future (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015). Usually, intrapreneurship training is considered an extension of entrepreneurial education (Frank etal., 2016). This has led to a gap in research on actions and practices focused on intrapreneurship and, more specifically, on the potential intrapreneurial intentions of university students. In response to this and the ongoing challenges facing organizations today, initiatives to measure intrapreneurial intentions have emerged in different domains, such as the research of Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013); Friedl (2021); Gawke etal. (2019); González-Serrano etal. (2019) and Marques etal. (2019). The main objective of this study is to design and validate an instrument to evaluate the Intrapreneurial Intentions of university students. For this purpose, the following research question was formulated: RQ.1. Could an instrument for assessing the Intrapreneurial Intentions of university students be validated, based on the significant role of Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation in Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship and its influence on Intrapreneurial Intentions? To answer this research question, the following questions derived from this main one must first be answered: RQ.1.1.: Does Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation contribute directly and positively to the Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship of university students? RQ.1.2.: Does Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship contribute directly and positively to the Intrapreneurial Intentions of university students? Journal of the Knowledge Economy The theoretical assumptions proposed in this work are supported by the results obtained. Moreover, derived from the discussion of the results and the most relevant conclusions, important contributions are made that have not yet been addressed in the relevant literature in the field of Intrapreneurial Intentions (IIN) and Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IndEO), taking into account the need to deepen the study highlighted by Aydin etal. (2023) and Kraus etal. (2019) and to go more thoroughly into those studies. It is also essential that this work addresses the convenience of studying IIN for university students, raised by previous works such as those of Baena-Luna etal., (2024a, 2024b); Fashami etal. (2021); and González-Serrano etal., (2023), and, specifically, the variables that influence IIN. This undoubtedly opens promising potential lines of research around this reality. This study also presents other relevant contributions. Firstly, the validation of an instrument for evaluating the IIN of university students based on the significant role of IndEO on Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship (ATT). Secondly, the study shows how high levels of IndEO (based on its dimensions of risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness) among university students will strengthen their ATT toward intrapreneurship. Thirdly, this study proposes and tests a model of IIN for university students that is highly useful and relevant for the present and future of the university institution, not only as a source of knowledge but as a critical element in developing essential skills and competencies for the potential employability of its graduates. It is because university is also a fundamental actor in developing skills and competencies for their potential employability. As Gawrycka etal. (2020) pointed out, these will be key to adopting innovative actions that generate competitive advantages for the organizations in which they work (Marques etal., 2019). The validation of this instrument of Intrapreneurial Intentions in university students also provides the university with relevant information about the elements on which to work to promote their generation and development through the implementation of teaching and learning methodologies that focus on actions that directly and positively influence the performance of students and improve their employability (Baena-Luna etal., 2024a, 2024b). Following this introduction, the remainder of the document is organized as follows: The second section presents the theoretical framework and the hypotheses to be tested. The third section offers the methodology, including the relevant sample and data processing information. The fourth section sets out the results of the hypothesis testing. The fifth section discusses these results and compares them with related studies. This section also addresses practical and theoretical implications and limitations and recommends future research derived from this work. Finally, the sixth section presents the most relevant conclusions. Literature Review andHypotheses Despite the recent increase in the visibility of intrapreneurship, the concept of Intrapreneurial Intentions has historically been regarded as a subset of a broader entrepreneurial phenomenon (Frank etal., 2016). This is one of the reasons why university institutions have not always prioritized this phenomenon, instead directing more Journal of the Knowledge Economy attention toward actions aimed at fostering and improving entrepreneurial intentions (Baena-Luna etal., 2022). In accordance with this gap in the literature, this study posits that IIN is a phenomenon with its own entity and elements, though it shares some characteristics with entrepreneurial intention (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). This latter concept undoubtedly significantly influences the future employability of university students. For this reason, and to validate an instrument for measuring Intrapreneurial Intentions in the case of university students, conceptual relationships addressed in previous research in the case of the IIN (e.g., Baena-Luna etal., 2024a, 2024b; González-Serrano etal., 2023) have been considered: the Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (including the dimensions Risk-Taking, Innovativeness, and Proactiveness) (e.g., Fashami etal., 2021; Marques etal., 2019) and the attitude toward a behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Neessen etal., 2019). Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation andAttitude Toward Intrapreneurship The study of EO is a well-established field of research (Hizarci etal., 2023). This is evidenced by the contributions of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989) in the organizational field, as well as the subsequent elaboration by Lumpkin and Dess (1996). EO is a management approach that relies on specific organizational environments (Haque & Kour, 2023) and has traditionally been considered to describe a firm’s entrepreneurial attitude (Wales etal., 2020). This encompasses the dimensions of risk-taking (RT), innovativeness (INO), and proactiveness (PRO) (Cools & Van den Broeck, 2007; Hayton etal., 2017; Marques etal., 2019). Traditionally, EO has been conceptualized as a unidimensional construct (Bernoster etal., 2020). There needs to be a consensus in literature. Some works conceptualize EO as a multidimensional construct, allowing for the independent behavior of its dimensions (Hernández-Perlines etal., 2020; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), while others consider it a unidimensional construct, assuming a similar behavior of its elements (Walter etal., 2006). Although theoretical arguments exist regarding its unidimensional or multidimensional nature, current meta-analysis allows for the empirical study of the relationships between these dimensions. Specifically, whether they occur similarly or independently concerning another reality (Rauch etal., 2009), in this study we adopt the tridimensional conceptualization of EO proposed by Hernández-Perlines etal. (2020), whereby each dimension can assume a distinct role. Recently, this EO has been proposed in the literature as a construct linked to the individual (Clark etal., 2024a, 2024b; Koe, 2016; Nikitina etal., 2023). However, contrary to the extensive literature on the business context, there is a paucity of research on the individual level (Santos etal., 2020). IndEO is the set of individual personality traits that favor generating entrepreneurial behaviors (Marques etal., 2019). It is a multidimensional construct (Koe, 2016) comprising the same elements as EO (Covin etal., 2020) but adapted to individual personality traits (Bolton & Lane, 2012), specifically RT, INO, and PRO. In other words, university students exhibiting these three personality traits (RT, INO, and PRO) would be more inclined toward entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions (Fashami etal., 2021). Journal of the Knowledge Economy As Ajzen (1991) posited in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), an individual’s attitude toward a given behavior is defined as the degree to which they have a favorable or unfavorable disposition toward that behavior. This is linked to the individual’s traits. This connects with the individual’s traits (Ayanwale etal., 2023; Marques etal., 2019). Lüthje and Franke (2003) highlight the indirect influence of personal characteristics on the intention to behave in a specific manner through their impact on attitude (Neessen etal., 2019). This is because an individual’s capacity to take risks or assume responsibility for decision-making can influence their stance toward a potential behavior (Cools & Van den Broeck, 2007; Levenburg & Schwarz, 2008). Given that IndEO is conceptualized as a set of personal traits (Marques etal., 2019), it is possible to investigate the potential influence of its three dimensions (RT, INO, and PRO) on university students’ attitudes. RT denotes the individual’s proclivity to undertake actions in uncertain environments and with uncertain outcomes (Aydin etal., 2023). The objective is to identify new opportunities (Gugnani, 2022). While it is challenging to identify a universal pattern, students can be regarded as exhibiting a proclivity for risktaking and competitiveness (Bolton & Lane, 2012). Therefore, individuals with a high propensity for risk-taking have a greater intention for intrapreneurial behavior thanks to an improved attitude toward risk (Fashami etal., 2021). Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) observed that an individual’s perception of reality shapes their attitude. INO correlates with individual characteristics such as creativity and risk-taking (Rauch etal., 2009). Covin etal. (2020) posited that INO could be conceptualized as an individual’s predisposition to identify novel solutions to emerging challenges (Zampetakis etal., 2009). It can thus be inferred that the INO perceived by university students reflects their subjective beliefs and values about this and that it affects their ATT (Hwang etal., 2019). PRO is considered an anticipatory measure designed to address prospective requirements and transformations (Chen etal., 2023). It is utilized to identify novel prospects to create value (Kraus etal., 2019). The relevance of PRO as a predictor of a specific ATT is based on the individual’s favorable disposition to anticipate and minimize the potential effects of externalities (Bouhalleb & Tapinos, 2023; Zampetakis etal., 2009). This disposition can also be identified in university students. Evidence shows that proactivity positively influences organizational performance (Fitouri, 2023). This is evident in the motivation and commitment of university parties, the investment of resources, and the improvement of personal relationships (Van Ness etal., 2020). Considering the evidence, we put forth the following hypotheses: H1a. Risk-taking will positively affect an individual’s attitudes toward intrapreneurship among university students. H1b. Innovativeness will positively affect an individual’s attitudes toward intrapreneurship among university students. H1c. Proactiveness will positively affect an individual’s attitudes toward intrapreneurship among university students. Journal of the Knowledge Economy Attitudes Toward Intrapreneurship andIntrapreneurial Intentions The role of an individual’s attitude as a predictor of behavioral intentions has been explored from various perspectives in the academic literature (Anwar etal., 2020). In the case of entrepreneurial intention, significant works such as that of Liñán and Chen (2009) combine entrepreneurial intention with IIN (Aydin etal., 2023; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2013). This relationship has also been addressed in other fields of knowledge, including technology acceptance (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and consumer behavior (Hwang etal., 2019; Tang etal., 2023). In all the cases, the fundamental role of an individual’s attitude in the decision-making process that leads to behavior has been demonstrated (Soomro etal., 2021), as Ajzen (1991) evidenced. Ajzen (1991) highlighted the significance of an individual’s beliefs, as expressed through their attitude, in influencing their behavior. The intention to behave in a specific manner is significantly influenced by an individual’s attitude, which is shaped by expectations and beliefs about the potential consequences for the self (Sampene et al., 2023). This is supported by the findings of Urban and Chantson (2019). Attitude is an intangible construct that connects memory and individual behavior through the cognitive and communication process (Hussain etal., 2021). The study of González-Serrano etal., (2018a, 2018b) provides an illustrative example of the relevance of attitude as a predictor of university students’ behavior. Their study demonstrated a direct and positive relationship between attitude and behavior among Spanish students. Based on the validity of Ajzen’s (1991) TPB postulates, where the relationship of attitude with the individual’s behavioral intentions is evidenced in various fields of study (Anwar etal., 2020), the following hypothesis can be formulated: H2. Attitudes toward intrapreneurship will be positively related to university students’ intrapreneurial intentions. Figure1 illustrates the proposed research model. Derived from the literature review that addresses the realities under study, the variables and indicators have been established to validate the instrument for measuring the Intrapreneurial Intentions of university students (Table1). Methodology Sample The instrument was validated with a sample of undergraduate university students in social and legal sciences, specifically those pursuing degrees in Business Administration and Management, Labor Relations and Human Resources, Marketing, Finance and Accounting, and Economics. The validation of the proposed instrument was tested on a sample of 469 students (Al-Jubari etal., 2019; Liu etal., 2019; Wang & Huang, 2019; Wannamakok etal., Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2020), with a confidence level of 95%, a maximum error of 6.15%, using simple random sampling. The sample size ensures a statistical power of 80%, as determined by the model’s independent variables (Hair etal., 2022; Reinartz etal., 2009). The sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table2. Data Collection andMeasures The online questionnaire was distributed among the students via Quick Response Code (QR code), following the recommendations of Newman etal. (2020) on collecting information through telematic questionnaires. The confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents were always preserved without detriment to the supervision of the process and guaranteeing its validity. The questionnaire was structured in two sections, the first addressing questions related to the constructs under study: IndEO (RT, INO, and PRO), ATT, and IIN, and the second one where sociodemographic data were collected. This information was collected based on the premise that possible differences could improve our knowledge (Shareef etal., 2014) about IIN. A five-point Likert scale measuring agreement or disagreement about a statement was used to assess the respondents’ opinions. A pilot questionnaire was conducted with a subsample of 20 students to ensure the questions were understandable and the responses were valid. Following this pilot questionnaire, and once suggestions for improvement had been collected concerning confusing language or potential misinterpretations of some items, the questionnaire was adapted and prepared for distribution. The results obtained from the responses were analyzed using the mean, median, and standard deviation to identify possible discordant questions. After its study, the measurement model provided satisfactory results. To measure the IIN of university students, an exhaustive review of the literature was carried out, establishing the following variables and indicators with potential influence: The RT is based on the work of González-Serrano et al. Fig. 1 Conceptual Model. Source: Author´s elaboration Journal of the Knowledge Economy Table 1 Variables and indicators to tester Variable Indicator Authors Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation RiskTaking I like to try new things, even if they have a chance of failing to work González-Serrano etal. (2019) I like to participate in activities even though they may not go well I like to take calculated risks despite the possibility of failure Innovativeness I advocate experimenting and applying new approaches to solving problems rather than using the methods others are accustomed to Bolton and Lane (2012) Clark etal., (2024a) I like to generate new ideas that could be useful for something Proactiveness In any situation, I am a constructive element in favor of change Seibert etal. (1999) Trifiletti etal. (2009) I like to identify new ways of doing things I like to implement changes before they are necessary Attitude Toward Intrapreneurship Initiating new projects and tasks within my work group can be… Ajzen (1991) Ajzen (2002) an attractive thing to do valuable a pleasant experience interesting significant Intrapreneurial Intentions In the future, when I work in a company… Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013) Gawke etal. (2019) I will carry out activities that promote change in my organization I will contribute ideas for the strategic renewal of my organization I will develop new ways of working I will carry out activities to promote change in the products/services of my organization I will use the ideas of experts to innovate in my organization I will carry out activities that favor the change in my organization’s structure Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2019), the INO is according to Bolton and Lane (2012) and Clark etal.(2024a), the PRO is based on Seibert etal. (1999) and Trifiletti etal. (2009), and the ATT is according to Ajzen (1991, 2002). The measurement of IIN is based on Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013) and Gawke etal. (2019). Data Analysis The data collected through the questionnaire were processed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. In the absence of a response, or the case of "DK/NR" responses, the data were not included in the analysis. The confidence level was, as previously mentioned, 95%, and an error margin of 5% was applied. The proposed model was tested by the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method for Structural Equation Models (SEM) (Chin, 1998). This is a second-level multivariate statistical technique (Hair etal., 2016) that has several advantages over other options, e.g., effectiveness under predictive and non-confirmatory situations (Hair, 2014), it does not require large sample sizes (Henseler etal., 2015), and its non-parametric nature, allows not guaranteeing the normality of the data (Chin & Newsted, 1999). Two components integrate PLS-SEM models: 1) the structural model, which shows the dependence relationships between exogenous variables and endogenous dependent variables, and 2) the measurement model that highlights the relationships between latent variables and observed variables (Martínez-Ávila & Fierro-Moreno, 2018). The study’s software was SmartPLS 4.0.8.9 (Ringle etal., 2022). For the validation of the instrument and following the PLS-SEM method -measurement and structural analysisthe following steps were considered: 1) Analysis of the multicollinearity potential from the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). 2) Estimation of loadings (Path coefficients). 3) Reliability analysis (AVE, Pc, and CR) and discriminant validity (HTMT and Fornell & Larcker Criterion); 4) Determination coefficients; 5) Effect size and 6) Model predictive power analysis. Table 2 Descriptive statistics of survey respondents Age Frequency Percentage (%) 18–25years old 436 92.96% 26–35years old 21 4.48% 36–50years old 11 2.35% More than 51years old 1 0.21% Gender Frequency Percentage (%) Male 186 39.66% Female 275 58.64% I prefer not to say 8 1.71% Intrapreneurship-Entrepreneurship Training Frequency Percentage (%) Yes 312 66.52% No 157 33.48% Journal of the Knowledge Economy At the methodological level, the IIN behavior measure is not unidimensional, which indicates that the unidimensional approach lacks validity. This places this proposal in the multidimensional approach. Instead, the debate between the approaches supports the relevance hypothesis related to intrapreneurship. Practical Implications The practical implications are to prove that students who have ATT show more IIN. This finding should be applied for training purposes and to encourage intra-entrepreneurial behaviors, such as, for example, taking the practicum as part of the work team of university spin-off companies. This study reveals those individual capabilities that mark overcoming challenges in developing intrapreneurial behaviors. In addition, the continuity of exploration based on the model should be highlighted. Having one’s model applied throughout the university community will allow one to strengthen our knowledge about university IIN and envision new opportunities. Entrepreneurship is currently encouraged within the university, although it must be stimulated for the right reasons, not for routine reasons. The institutional implication emphasizes that managers can do more to support intrapreneurship (Engzell etal., 2024). University managers must lay the groundwork for student intrapreneurs to flourish by setting precise guidelines for perfecting their IndEO. It is recommended that business education programs, in general, and corporate entrepreneurship programs, in particular, include RT, INO, and PRO. With this, it is contemplated that entrepreneurship education should not be reduced to creating businesses but should integrate skills, reasoning, and individual behaviors of professional scope. This work also raises an implication of a political nature for higher education. Not forgetting the long debate on whether or not education influences individuals’ behavior, in other studies, e.g., Lajçi etal. (2024), it is likely that university IIN is influenced by entrepreneurial education (Alsos etal., 2023). According to Guerrero and Menter (2024), innovative educational trends and research support knowledge transfer and technology commercialization by providing more up-to-date knowledge for developing entrepreneurial innovations. This broadens the conversation on theorizing the effect (complementary or substitution) of capabilities in shaping outcomes by proposing a proven conceptual framework and evidence that individual behavior (IndEO, ATT) shapes the purpose of action (IIN). In line with Guerrero etal.’s (2021) findings, we agree that to fully embrace intrapreneurship, the university must promote an educational culture and structures conducive to fostering intrapreneurial behavior through professional development dialogues, performance evaluations, and career guidance. So, our work suggests training intrapreneurial students, professors and university managers to ensure institutional awareness and corporate intrapreneurship, where teaching intrapreneurship and academic intrapreneurship should be added. This research also has implications for developing government entrepreneurial strategies, especially in the younger generation’s intra-entrepreneurial actions and entrepreneurial activities. The results of this study can be a reference for a Journal of the Knowledge Economy government in formulating policies to advance innovative entrepreneurship in the territorial digital economy, the reduction of gender (Baena-Luna etal., 2022), and territorial, socioeconomic, and generational gaps so that economic development is inclusive. Therefore, this model is a good starting point, reflecting the need for relevant results for the practice and understanding of how to link the culture of support for university intrapreneurship with concrete actions for educational and cultural change. Limitations andFuture Lines ofResearch Like all research, this work has several limitations, the first of which lies in the research sample. The sample comprises undergraduate students, which may imply a bias in the work experiences of the undergraduates. Nevertheless, different research studies have highlighted the validity of this group in developing and validating behavioral models; among the most recent is the evidence of Bilal etal. (2024), Sitaridis and Kitsios (2024), Wang, etal. (2024). There is still little local research and little empirical evidence on university intrapreneurship. Therefore, it is recommended that the model be replicated in studies in developed and developing countries and public and private universities (Moraes etal., 2024) to establish whether the results are binding or non-binding. Marques etal. (2022) have already pointed out the existence of few studies on intrapreneurship from contributions with new models in specific sectors and territories. Second, since intrapreneurship often requires constant changes and evolutions, this study may miss the big picture concerning impact measurements and motivations related to the initiatives. The findings only indicate general trends in measurement. Therefore, further exploration might consider employing longitudinal data through random sampling techniques to explore causal relationships between variables and increase the generalizability of the findings. Third, although this study could have contracted the results of different methodologies, we used the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method for Structural Equation Models (SEM). This method is considered optimal for modeling behavioral patterns and has been used in previous literature. This study presents an instrument to evaluate the Intrapreneurial Intentions of university students. It is the first step in measuring the IIN, so our future lines of research include incorporating control variables that could play a relevant role in them. From this point of view, information on students’ previous work experience or intrapreneurial experience, as well as gender, could provide important information when comparing intrapreneurial actions. Bogatyreva et al. (2022) reveal that intrapreneurial experience is an essential mediator in the relationships between action and institutional-entrepreneurial intentions. Another step would be to ascertain that the measures used cover all the dimensions of university intrapreneurship and that organizational attributes are recorded. However, there is debate about the influence of organizational support. For Darmawan and Maisaroh (2023), organizational support does not directly influence intrapreneurship. Journal of the Knowledge Economy However, for Valka etal. (2020), there is an incidence because organizational support ranges from trust in managers to individual factors. There are also intermediate postulations (Otolo et al., 2024)since organizational support partially mediates the relationship between intrapreneurial strategies and university performance. Conclusions This study has validated an instrument for measuring Intrapreneurial Intentions in university students, and three main conclusions can be drawn from the empirical derivations and their discussion. Firstly, the relevance of having a valid model that predicts the IIN determines which variables have an impact and, therefore, offers resources to improve people’s employability and success in the labor market. Secondly, the suitability of constructing a three-dimensional variable composed of RT, INO, and PRO to measure IIN and how this affects ATT and, subsequently, IIN is confirmed. The RT, INO, and PRO levels are configured as predictors of ATT and IIN. Finally, this research provides a practical tool to measure the IIN in the public and private sectors, allowing an initial diagnosis and a comparison after an intervention that enhances RT, INO, and PRO. To develop these variables, the educational system is particularly relevant, especially the University, where future workers develop their specific technical and generic transversal competencies together. Author Contribution Pedro Baena-Luna: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Investigation, Conceptualization. Francisco J. Maza-Ávila: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Software, Resources, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Isadora Sánchez-Torné: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Software, Resources, Methodology, Formal analysis. Macarena Pérez-Suárez: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Funding Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Sevilla/CBUA. The article is the result of the research project "Intenciones intraemprendedoras entre el alumnado universitario de pregrado. Un estudio comparativo entre estudiantes de Colombia y España” financed by the Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia (AC Nº 033–2022) and the University of Seville, Spain. The authors thank the Universidad de Cartagena and the University of Seville for their financial assistance in conducting this research. Data Availability The datasets used and analyzed during the present study are available and adequately anonymized by the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Ethics Approval Ethical approval does not apply to this article. Journal of the Knowledge Economy Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 07495978(91) 90020-T Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. https:// api. seman ticsc holar. org/ Corpu sID: 16126 700 Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes.European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14792 77994 30001 16 Al-Jubari, I., Hassan, A., & Liñán, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: Integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1323–1342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s113650180529-0 Alsos, G., Hägg, G., Lundqvist, M., Politis, D., Stockhaus, M., Williams-Middleton, K., & Djupdal, K. (2023). Graduates of venture creation programs–where do they apply their entrepreneurial competencies? Small Business Economics, 60(1), 133–155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118702200641-6 Anwar, I., Saleem, I., Islam, K. M. B., Thoudam, P., & Khan, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: Examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 12(4), 217–234. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ JIBED. 2020. 110254 Ardi, Z., Yulastri, A., Hidayat, H., Ganefri, G., Yuliana, Y., Susanto, P., Putra, A. H, Elfizon, E., & Eseadi, C. (2024). Enhancing entrepreneurial intention through curriculum, risk awareness, optimism and opportunities: the mediating and moderating roles of entrepreneur inspiration and support. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 1–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s4084702400339-3 Ayanwale, M. A., Molefi, R. R., & Matsie, N. (2023). Modelling secondary school students’ attitudes toward TVET subjects using social cognitive and planned behavior theories. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 8(1), 100478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssaho. 2023. 100478 Aydin, Š, Knezović, E., Bičo, A., & Smajić, H. (2023). Age, entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions: The mediating role of individual entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 18(1), 94–113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JEC0820220107 Bachmann, N., Rose, R., Maul, V., & Hölzle, K. (2024). What makes for future entrepreneurs? The role of digital competencies for entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research, 174, 114481. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2023. 114481 Baena-Luna, P., Sánchez-Torné, I., Pérez-Suárez, M., & García-Río, E. (2022). To what extent are PhD students intrapreneurs? A study from a gender perspective. Strategic Change, 31(2), 211–218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jsc. 2490 Baena-Luna, P., Sánchez-Torné, I., García-Río, E., & Pérez-Suárez, M. (2024a). Influence of the problembased learning methodology on the intrapreneurial intentions of university students. International Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 101024. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijme. 2024. 101024 Baena-Luna, P., Sánchez-Torné, I., Rodríguez-Loáisiga, K., & García-Río, E. (2024b). Intrapreneurial intentions of undergraduate university students: A comparative study between Spanish and Nicaraguan students. International Journal of Education Economics and Development, 15(1/2), 82–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ ijeed. 2023. 10047 866 Bernoster, I., Mukerjee, J., & Thurik, R. (2020). The role of affect in entrepreneurial orientation. Small Business Economics, 54(1), 235–256. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s111870180116-3 Journal of the Knowledge Economy Bilal, A., Ali, S., Shakil, M. H., Mukarram, M., & Haider, S. Z. (2024). Cultivating Entrepreneurial Minds: Unleashing Potential in Pakistan’s Emerging Entrepreneurs Using Structural Equational Modeling. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1313202401898-w Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: A review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13(5), 919–961. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s118460180277-0 Bogatyreva, K., Laskovaia, A., & Osiyevskyy, O. (2022). Entrepreneurial activity, intrapreneurship, and conducive institutions: Is there a connection? Journal of Business Research, 146, 45–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 03. 062 Bolton, D. L., & Lane, M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument. Education and Training, 54(2–3), 219–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00400 91121 12103 14 Bouhalleb, A., & Tapinos, E. (2023). The impact of scenario planning on entrepreneurial orientation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 187, 122191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2022. 122191 Chen, Y. C., Arnold, T., Liu, P. Y., & Huang, C. Y. (2023). Understanding the role of entrepreneurial orientation in creating ambidextrous competitive advantage: A comparative-design, longitudinal study. European Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 89–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJM0820210661 Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Psychology Press. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least square. In Statistics Strategies For Small Sample Research (pp. 307–341). SAGE Publications. Clark, D. R., Covin, J. G., & Pidduck, R. J. (2024a). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Scale development and validation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 10422587241279900. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58724 12799 00 Clark, D. R., Pidduck, R. J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (2024b). Is it okay to study entrepreneurial orientation (EO) at the individual level? Yes! Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 48(1), 349– 391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58723 11788 85 Coduras, A., Guerrero, M., & Peña, I. (2011). Emprendimiento corporativo en España. In Dirección General de Política de la Pyme. (Issue May). GEM España: Fundación Xavier de Salas. Cools, E., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). The hunt for the heffalump continues: Can trait and cognitive characteristics predict entrepreneurial orientation? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(2), 23–41. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 42501 00107 Covin, J. G., Rigtering, J. P. C., Hughes, M., Kraus, S., Cheng, C. F., & Bouncken, R. B. (2020). Individual and team entrepreneurial orientation: Scale development and configurations for success. Journal of Business Research, 112(February), 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2020. 02. 023 Darmawan, A., & Maisaroh, M. (2023). Analisis Anteseden Variabel Intrapreneurship Behavior Pada Dosen Perguruan Tinggi Swasta Di Yogyakarta. EKOMBIS REVIEW: Jurnal Ilmiah Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 11(1), 453–462. https:// doi. org/ 10. 37676/ ekomb is. v11i1. 3480 Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 249008 Douglas, E. J., & Fitzsimmons, J. R. (2013). Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: Distinct constructs with different antecedents. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 115–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s111870129419-y Engzell, J., Karabag, S. F., & Yström, A. (2024). Academic intrapreneurs navigating multiple institutional logics: An integrative framework for understanding and supporting intrapreneurship in universities. Technovation, 129, 102892. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2023. 102892 Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press. Fashami, F. M., Nili, M., Farahani, A. V., Shaikh, N., Dwibedi, N., & Suresh Madhavan, S. (2021). Determining the entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions of student pharmacists in iran. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 85(2), 113–122. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5688/ ajpe8 080 Fitouri, M. (2023). Intrapreneurial behaviours and the innovative performance of technology enterprises: Employee characteristics’ moderating effect. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 4(4), 321–343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJTE. 2023. 10060 106 Journal of the Knowledge Economy Flores, M. C., Grimaldi, R., Poli, S., & Villani, E. (2024). Entrepreneurial universities and intrapreneurship: A process model on the emergence of an intrapreneurial university. Technovation, 129, 102906.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2023. 102906 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 31513 12 Frank, H., Korunka, C., Lueger, M., & Weismeier-Sammer, D. (2016). Intrapreneurship education in the dual education system. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 8(4), 334–354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJEV. 2016. 082218 Friedl, C. (2021). Stimulating intrapreneurial intentions with digital business training in the VET sector: The potential of massive open online courses. International Journal for Business Education, 162(1), 54–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30707/ ijbe1 62.1. 16480 90658. 856063 Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2019). Measuring intrapreneurship at the individual level: Development and validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS). European Management Journal, 37(6), 806–817. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emj. 2019. 03. 001 Gawrycka, M., Kujawska, J., & Tomczak, M. T. (2020). Competencies of graduates as future labour market participants–preliminary study. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 33(1), 1095–1107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13316 77X. 2019. 16312 00 González-Serrano, M. H., González-García, R. J., & Pérez-Campos, C. (2018a). Entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions of sports science students: What are their determinant variables? Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 18(August), 1363–1372. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7752/ jpes. 2018. s3202 González-Serrano, M., Valantine, I., Crespo-Hervás, J., Pérez-Campos, C., & Calabuig-Moreno, F. (2018b). Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between Spain and Lithuania. Education and Training, 60(5), 389–405. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ET1220170205 González-Serrano, M. H., Calabuig-Moreno, F., Valantine, I., & Crespo-Hervás, J. (2019). How to detect potential sport intrapreneurs? Validation of the intrapreneurial intention scale with sport science students. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(1), 40–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JEPP-D1800093 González-Serrano, M. H., Valantine, I., Hammerschmidt, J., & Calabuig-Moreno, F. (2023). How to foster intrapreneurial intentions of sport science students? A cross-cultural symmetric and asymmetric approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 36(1), 2180059. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13316 77X. 2023. 21800 59 Guerrero, M., & Menter, M. (2024). Driving change in higher education: The role of dynamic capabilities in strengthening universities’ third mission. Small Business Economics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118702400869-4 Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2021). Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 47–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118701900304-z Gugnani, R. (2022). Assessing the Moderating Impact of Self-Efficacy on Locus of Control and Individual Entrepreneurship Orientation Relationship. FIIB Business Review, 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 23197 14522 10886 42 Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, G. V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EBR1020130128 Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I – method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EBR0920150094 Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EBR1120180203 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., spsampsps Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-303080519-7 Haque, M. R., & Kour, M. (2023). Exploring the growth and future research direction of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in entrepreneurial intention research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 12392–12421. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1313202301578-1 Journal of the Knowledge Economy Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2017). National Culture and Entrepreneurship: A Review of Behavioral Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58702 02600 403 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s117470140403-8 Hernández-Perlines, F., Ibarra Cisneros, M. A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Mogorrón-Guerrero, H. (2020). Innovativeness as a determinant of entrepreneurial orientation: Analysis of the hotel sector. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 33(1), 2305–2321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13316 77X. 2019. 16966 96 Hizarci, A. K., Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci, N., & İpek, İ. (2023). A meta-analysis on entrepreneurial orientation in the export context. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 38(5), 1163–1175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JBIM1020210485 Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 1082989X.3. 4. 424 Hussain, T., Zia-Ur-Rehman, M., & Abbas, S. (2021). Role of entrepreneurial knowledge and personal attitude in developing entrepreneurial intentions in business graduates: A case of Pakistan. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 11(1), 439–449. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s4049702100283-0 Hwang, J., Lee, J.-S., & Kim, H. (2019). Perceived innovativeness of drone food delivery services and its impacts on attitude and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of gender and age. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 94–103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhm. 2019. 03. 002 Ilonen, S., & Hytönen, K. (2023). Why should I become an intrapreneur? Introducing the concept of intrapreneurial outcome expectations. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 6(2), 251–275. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 25151 27422 10916 92 Kansikas, J., & Murphy, L. (2010). Students’ perceptions on intrapreneurship education – prerequisites for learning organisations. International Journal of Learning and Change, 4(49), 63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ ijlc. 2010. 030171 Ketchen, D. J. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 184–185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2013. 01. 002 Klofsten, M., Urbano, D., & Heaton, S. (2021). Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: An overview. Technovation, 99, 102177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2020. 102177 Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration (Ijec), 11(4), 1–10. Koe, W.-L. (2016). The relationship between Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(13), 1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s404970160057-8 Kraus, S., Breier, M., Jones, P., & Hughes, M. (2019). Individual entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship in the public sector. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1247–1268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136501900593-6 Lajçi, R., Berisha, G., & Krasniqi, B. (2024). Making of intrapreneurial managers: Investigating unethical behavior, risk-taking, and decision-making speed as antecedents. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 20(2), 53–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7341/ 20242 023 Levenburg, N. M., & Schwarz, T. V. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation among the youth of India. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 15–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09713 55707 01700 102 Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice., 33(3), 593–617. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2009. 00318.x Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s113650150356-5 Liu, X., Lin, C., Zhao, G., & Zhao, D. (2019). Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 869. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 00869 Liu, J., Zhu, X., & Xu, Z. (2024). Exploring knowledge dynamics and change management in diverse corporate entrepreneurship ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 0123456789. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1313202401934-9 Journal of the Knowledge Economy Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258632 Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2), 135–147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 14679310. 00288 Marchiori, D. M., Madeira, M. J. A., & do Dinis, A. R. L. (2018). Antecedents of entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions: evidence from Brazil. RACE - Revista de Administração, Contabilidade e Economia, 17(3), 913–926. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18593/ race. v17i3. 18841 Marques, C. S., Marques, C. P., Ferreira, J. J. M., & Ferreira, F. A. F. (2019). Effects of traits, selfmotivation and managerial skills on nursing intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 733–748. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s113650180520-9 Marques, C. S., Lopes, C., Braga, V., Ratten, V., & Santos, G. (2022). Intuition and rationality in intrapreneurship and innovation outputs: The case of health professionals in primary health care. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18(2), 579–602. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136502100761-7 Martínez Ávila, M., & Fierro Moreno, E. (2018). Aplicación de la técnica PLS-SEM en la gestión del conocimiento: un enfoque técnico práctico. RIDE Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 8(16), 130–164. https:// doi. org/ 10. 23913/ ride. v8i16. 336 Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 29.7. 770 Moraes, G. H. S. M. D., Schaeffer, P. R., Alves, A. C., & Heaton, S. (2024). Exploring a link between faculty intrapreneurship, student entrepreneurship and ecosystem dynamism. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, ahead-of-p. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JEEE0920230356 Munyo, I., & Veiga, L. (2024). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 319–336. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1313202201032-8 Naveed, R. T., Alhaidan, H., Al Halbusi, H., & Al-Swidi, A. K. (2022). Do organizations really evolve? The critical link between organizational culture and organizational innovation toward organizational effectiveness: Pivotal role of organizational resistance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(2), 100178. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jik. 2022. 100178 Neessen, P. C. M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, B., & de Jong, J. P. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: Toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 545–571. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s113650180552-1 Newman, A., Bavik, Y. L., Mount, M., & Shao, B. (2020). Data collection via online platforms: Challenges and recommendations for future research. Applied Psychology, 70(3), 1380–1402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apps. 12302 Nikitina, T., Licznerska, M., Ozoliņa-Ozola, I., & Lapina, I. (2023). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Comparison of business and STEM students. Education and Training, 65(4), 565–586. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ET0720210256 Otolo, M. K., Muathe, S. M., & Kimencu, L. (2024). Beyond Survival: How Does Organisational Support Mediate between Intrapreneurial Strategies and Performance of Public Universities in Kenya? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, 7(2), 170–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 52589/ IJEBIGUUNW NNT Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2009. 00308.x Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332– 344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijres mar. 2009. 08. 001 Riggs, R., Roldán, J. L., Real, J. C., & Felipe, C. M. (2023). Opening the black box of big data sustainable value creation: The mediating role of supply chain management capabilities and circular economy practices. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJPDLM0320220098 Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 337–360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s113650130258-3 Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling Journal of the Knowledge Economy Sampene, A. K., Li, C., Khan, A., Agyeman, F. O., & Opoku, R. K. (2023). Yes! I want to be an entrepreneur: A study on university students’ entrepreneurship intentions through the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology, 42(25), 21578–21596. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1214402203161-4 Santos, G., Marques, C. S., & Ferreira, J. J. M. (2020). Passion and perseverance as two new dimensions of an individual entrepreneurial orientation scale. Journal of Business Research, 112, 190–199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2020. 03. 016 Secundo, G., Rippa, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020). Digital academic entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120118. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2020. 120118 Seibert, S. E., Grant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 84.3. 416 Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Dwivedi, Y. (2014). Factors affecting citizen adoption of transactional electronic government. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(4), 385–401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JEIM1220120084 Sharma, P. N., Liengaard, B. D., Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2023). Predictive model assessment and selection in composite-based modeling using PLS-SEM: Extensions and guidelines for using CVPAT. European Journal of Marketing, 57(6), 1662–1677. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJM0820200636 Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. (2011). Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 35, 553–572. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 16066 74 Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J. M., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2016. 03. 049 Sitaridis, I., & Kitsios, F. (2024). Entrepreneurship as a career option for information technology students: Critical barriers and the role of motivation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10(3), 1133–1167. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s131320180519-z Soomro, B. A., Memon, M., & Shah, N. (2021). Attitudes towards entrepreneurship among the students of Thailand: An entrepreneurial attitude orientation approach. Education and Training, 63(2), 239– 255. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ET0120200014 Streukens, S., & Leroi-Werelds, S. (2016). Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European Management Journal, 34(6), 618–632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emj. 2016. 06. 003 Tang, C., Han, Y., & Ng, P. (2023). Green consumption intention and behavior of tourists in urban and rural destinations. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(10), 2126–2150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09640 568. 2022. 20619 27 Thurik, A. R., Audretsch, D. B., Block, J. H., Burke, A., Carree, M. A., Dejardin, M., Rietveld, C. A., Sanders, M., Stephan, U., & Wiklund, J. (2023). The impact of entrepreneurship research on other academic fields. Small Business Economics, 62(2), 727–751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118702300781-3 Trifiletti, E., Capozza, D., Pasin, A., & Falvo, R. (2009). A validation of the proactive personality scale. TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16(2), 77–93. Urban, B., & Chantson, J. (2019). Academic entrepreneurship in South Africa: Testing for entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 948–980. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s109610179639-z Valka, K., Roseira, C., & Campos, P. (2020). Determinants of university employee intrapreneurial behavior: The case of Latvian universities. Industry and Higher Education, 34(3), 190–202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09504 22219 897817 Van Ness, R. K., Seifert, C. F., Marler, J. H., Wales, W. J., & Hughes, M. E. (2020). Proactive entrepreneurs: Who are they and how are they different? The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 29(1), 148–175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09713 55719 893504 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478. Wales, W. J., Covin, J. G., & Monsen, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 639–660. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sej. 1344 Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2005. 02. 005 Journal of the Knowledge Economy Wang, L.-Y., & Huang, J.-H. (2019). Effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the entrepreneurial intentions of students at a university in Hainan province in China: Taking social support as a moderator. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(9), 183–200. https:// doi. org/ 10. 26803/ ijlter. 18.9. 10 Wang, S., Esperança, J. P., Yang, W., & Zhang, J. Z. (2024). Investigating the determinants of new technology entrepreneurial performance: An empirical study with PLS-SEM and MGA. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2), 6617–6642. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1313202301359-w Wannamakok, W., Chang, Y.-Y., & Täks, M. (2020). The relationship between institutional environments and entrepreneurial intention in Estonia: Mediating roles of desirability and feasibility. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(2), 111–126. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15678/ EBER. 2020. 080206 Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32. Zampetakis, L. A., Kafetsios, K., Bouranta, N., Dewett, T., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). On the relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 15(6), 595–618. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 13552 55091 09954 52 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Authors and Affiliations PedroBaena‑Luna1 · FranciscoJ.Maza‑Ávila2· IsadoraSánchez‑Torné1· MacarenaPérez‑Suárez3 * Pedro Baena-Luna [email protected] Francisco J. Maza-Ávila [email protected] Isadora Sánchez-Torné [email protected] Macarena Pérez-Suárez [email protected] 1 Department ofBusiness Administration andMarketing, University ofSeville, Seville, Spain 2 Faculty ofEconomic Sciences, University ofCartagena, Cartagena, Colombia 3 Department ofApplied Economics III, University ofSeville, Seville, Spain