From Intention to Behaviour: How Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Job Fit Influence Employee Intrapreneurship in SMEs

Köhn, Philipp; Wolff, Sven; Ruf, PhilippJ.; Moog, PetraM.; Strina, Giuseppe Article — Published Version From Intention to Behaviour: How Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Job Fit Influence Employee Intrapreneurship in SMEs Creativity and Innovation Management Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Köhn, Philipp; Wolff, Sven; Ruf, PhilippJ.; Moog, PetraM.; Strina, Giuseppe (2025) : From Intention to Behaviour: How Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Job Fit Influence Employee Intrapreneurship in SMEs, Creativity and Innovation Management, ISSN 1467-8691, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 34, Iss. 3, pp. 740-759, https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12665 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329779 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025; 34:740–759 https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12665 740 Creativity and Innovation Management RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS From Intention to Behaviour: How Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Job Fit Influence Employee Intrapreneurship in SMEs PhilippKöhn1 | SvenWolff1 | PhilippJ.Ruf2 | PetraM.Moog3 | GiuseppeStrina1 1Department of Economics, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany | 2Department of Economics, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland | 3Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ZHAW School of Management and Law, Winterthur,Switzerland Correspondence: Philipp Köhn ([email protected]) Received: 17 January 2024 | Revised: 11 March 2025 | Accepted: 24 April 2025 Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Keywords: individual entrepreneurial orientation| intrapreneurship| job fit| SMEs| theory of planned behaviour ABSTRACT This study examines the intention–behaviour dynamics of intrapreneurship at the individual level, an area that remains largely underexplored compared with the widely studied domain of firmlevel intrapreneurship. Based upon the theory of planned behaviour, we investigate the relationships between individual entrepreneurial orientation (intention), job fit (context) and employee intrapreneurship (behaviour) in smalland mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). We, therefore, conducted moderated regression analyses using a sample of 649 employees from SMEs. Our results indicate that individual entrepreneurial orientation has a positive effect on employee intrapreneurship, whereas surprisingly, job fit has no significant effect. However, job fit positively moderates the relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation and employee intrapreneurship, especially its subdimensions person–organization fit and demands–abilities fit. Our findings enhance the theoretical comprehension of intrapreneurship, particularly the connection between intention and behaviour, while also offering valuable practical insights for the contextual employment settings within SMEs. 1 | Introduction In today's rapidly evolving global economy, the prosperity of smalland mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) relies heavily on their innovative capacity (Denicolai etal.2021; HockDoepgen et al. 2021; Kuratko and Audretsch 2013; Saunila 2020). Although SMEs generally have fewer resources than larger organizations, many demonstrate superior innovation capabilities (Classen etal.2014). A key driver of this innovativeness is employee intrapreneurship (EI)—the entrepreneurial behaviours and activities of individual employees (Ahluwalia etal. 2017; Eddleston etal.2012; HernándezPerlines etal.2022; Opland etal.2022). EI fosters firm growth, value creation and competitiveness (Bierwerth etal.2015; Ireland etal.2009; Kearney and Meynhardt2016; Morris etal.2011). Given its significance, understanding the factors that drive EI in SMEs is crucial for both research and practice. Consequently, previous research has shed light on various individual factors influencing EI, such as demographic background (CameloOrdaz et al. 2012; Urbano and Turró 2013), personal characteristics (Rigtering and Weitzel2013; Sinha and Srivastava 2013; Williamson et al. 2013), entrepreneurial behaviour (Kirby2006; Tietz and Parker2012) or human capital (Bjornali and Anne Støren2012; Martiarena2013; Parker2011). Additionally, intraorganizational antecedents of EI such as organizational structure (Bouchard and Basso 2011), managerial support (Menzel et al. 2007) and culture (Hagedorn and This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Creativity and Innovation Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 741 Jamieson2014) have been studied in the past. However, much of this research has focused on firmlevel determinants rather than individuallevel mechanisms of intrapreneurial behaviour (Niemann et al. 2022). This has led to a fragmented understanding of how employees engage in intrapreneurial activities (Blanka2019; Gawke etal.2019). Building on Ajzen's(1991) theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and Oldham and Cummings's(1996) interactionist perspective, individual behaviour is a complex interplay between the intentions and the context of an individual (Woodman etal.1993). Based on this logic, we argue that EI results from the interplay between an individual's entrepreneurial intentions and their jobrelated context. Specifically, we propose that individual entrepreneurial orientation (IEO)—a construct that reflects individuals' entrepreneurial intentions and tendencies (Bolton and Lane2012; Santos etal.2020)—plays a crucial role in driving intrapreneurial behaviour. However, individual entrepreneurial tendencies alone may not be sufficient. The immediate work environment also shapes whether employees can act upon their entrepreneurial intentions. Thus, job fit, which encompasses person–organization fit (POFIT) and demands–abilities fit (DAFIT) context (Kristof 1996; Resick et al. 2007; Saks and Ashforth 1997), is expected to moderate the relationship between IEO and EI. Despite the relevance of these concepts, the relationship between IEO, job fit and EI remains underexplored. This gap raises the following research question: How does individual entrepreneurial orientation influence employee intrapreneurship in SMEs, and to what extent does job fit moderate this relationship? To address this question, we conducted a study using a sample of 649 employees in SMEs. We applied regression analyses with moderation effects and used validated scales to measure IEO (Bolton and Lane2012; Santos etal.2020), EI (Gawke etal.2019) and job fit (Cable and Judge1996; Resick etal.2007; Saks and Ashforth1997). Our findings unveiled a positive impact of IEO on EI, suggesting that entrepreneurial intent sparks intrapreneurial action at the individual level. Intriguingly, no direct relationship was found between job fit and EI, indicating that fitting into an organization, meeting job demands or receiving the supplies needed do not necessarily translate into employees' intrapreneurial activities. However, as our moderation analysis shows, for employees with existing entrepreneurial orientation (EO), a strong job fit in terms of POFIT and DAFIT significantly enhanced their likelihood of engaging in intrapreneurial activities. This suggests that context influences the interplay between intention and behaviour. Our results offer novel insights on how SMEs can cultivate EI by identifying and recruiting employees with strong entrepreneurial intentions, as they tend to be more intrapreneurial. Additionally, aligning organizational values with those of entrepreneurially inclined employees, and ensuring job demands correspond with their abilities, can stimulate intrapreneurship and thus innovation in SMEs. The following section presents the theoretical background and hypotheses development. It defines the key concepts such as EI, IEO and job fit. Section2 also develops our three hypotheses based on theoretical insights. Section 3 describes the methodological approach employed and explains all variables with means, standard deviations and correlations. In Section4, our results are presented. Section 5 discusses our findings, highlighting their theoretical and practical implications, as well as the study's limitations and directions for future research and ends with our conclusion. 2 | Theoretical Background and Development of Hypotheses 2.1 | EI The dynamic and complex business environment, along with the pressure to constantly pursue innovation (Denicolai etal.2021; HockDoepgen et al. 2021; Kuratko and Audretsch 2013; Saunila 2020), has led to increased interest in the concept of EI in both theory and practice (Blanka2019). EI refers to entrepreneurial activities carried out by employees within existing organizations (Gawke et al. 2019) and is considered an important aspect of SMEs' innovativeness (Ahluwalia etal.2017; Eddleston etal.2012) as it leads to growth and value creation (Bierwerth etal.2015; Kearney and Meynhardt2016; Veenker etal.2008). The concept of EI originates in the seminal work of Pinchot(1985) who conceptualized the idea of intrapreneurship as a process of entrepreneurship within established organizations, where employees play a decisive role in fostering firmlevel innovation (Pinchot1985). Although the concept of intrapreneurship has been the subject of extensive research, its definition is still unclear (Edú Valsania etal.2016; HernándezPerlines etal.2022; Turro etal.2016). Blanka(2019) has attributed this ambiguity to the absence of rigid distinctions between intrapreneurship and related concepts such as EO (Covin and Slevin1989; Lumpkin and Dess1996; Miller1983), corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman1983; Guth and Ginsberg1990; Kuratko etal. 1990; Stopford and BadenFuller 1994; Zahra 1991) or corporate venturing (MacMillan etal.1986; Sykes1986). To solve this ‘puzzle of similar terms and synonyms’ (Blanka2019, 930), Blanka distinguished intrapreneurship from its related concepts by arguing that although EO refers to a firm's strategic alignment towards entrepreneurial activities (Covin and Wales 2012; Wales et al. 2015), corporate entrepreneurship refers to a firm's strategic renewal behaviour (Kuratko and Audretsch2013), and corporate venturing refers to a firm's new venture creation behaviour (Antoncic and Hisrich2003), intrapreneurship centres around the individual's role in recognizing opportunities and actively developing innovations (CameloOrdaz etal.2012). Thus, intrapreneurship is an individuallevel concept, whereas the others are firmlevel concepts (Blanka2019). Building upon this reasoning, past research has linked individual independent variables such as demographic factors, personal values (CameloOrdaz etal.2012; Urbano and Turró2013), personality traits (Sinha and Srivastava2013), uncertainty and risk (Martiarena 2013; Matthews et al. 2009), or specific human capital like entrepreneurial skills and education (Bjornali and Anne Støren 2012; Parker 2011) to a dependent, firmlevel measurement of intrapreneurship. One of the reasons for this 742 Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025 misalignment stemmed from the lack of valid tools to assess individual EI (Gawke etal.2019). To address this gap, Gawke etal.(2019) designed the employee intrapreneurship scale (EIS) to gauge the actual entrepreneurial behaviour of employees, such as promoting change, innovation or new products. The conceptualization of the EIS is based on a behaviourbased approach that focuses on the observable behaviours of employees reflecting intrapreneurial characteristics, such as taking initiative, being proactive, being creative and innovative (Hornsby et al. 2013; Matthews et al. 2009; Parker2011; Tietz and Parker2012; Urbano and Turró2013). By emphasizing employee venture behaviour and strategic renewal behaviour, the EIS provides superior conceptual clarity, distinguishing it from related behaviours such as innovative work behaviours (Janssen2000) and championing behaviours (Howell et al. 2005). This behaviourbased approach also allows for a broader theoretical exploration of factors that can either hinder or foster EI, including behaviours beyond official mandates or supervisory control (Globocnik and Salomo2015). Furthermore, adopting a behaviourbased perspective aligns intrapreneurship with the broader category of strategic proactive work behaviours, facilitating integration into established job design theories on employee motivation, wellbeing and performance (Bakker and Demerouti2017; Parker etal.2010). This alignment enhances researchers' understanding of employees' behaviours in pursuing intrapreneurial activities. Table1 presents key works in intrapreneurship research, highlighting the various definitions of intrapreneurship and their contributions to the literature. 2.2 | IEO One concept that may explain employees' intrapreneurial behaviour is IEO (Basso etal.2009; Kollmann etal.2007). The origins of IEO can be traced to the EO framework proposed by Lumpkin and Dess(1996), which encompasses five key dimensions: risktaking, innovativeness, autonomy, competitive aggressiveness and proactiveness. Bolton and Lane(2012) examined these dimensions individually, highlighting that although traits, attitudes and behaviours had been assessed to evaluate entrepreneurial characteristics, the individual aspects of EO had largely been overlooked. To address this gap, Bolton and Lane (2012) emphasized the significance of IEO, particularly in relation to entrepreneurial intention. Their approach defines IEO based on three core dimensions: individual risktaking, innovativeness and proactiveness. This conceptualization was further expanded by Santos etal.(2020) who introduced two additional dimensions—passion and perseverance—both of which are closely associated with entrepreneurial intention and activity (Gerschewski etal.2016). Considering these five dimensions, IEO can be defined ‘as a holistic assessment of individuals' tendency towards entrepreneurship’ (Santos etal.2020, 193). This definition acknowledges that individuals can act entrepreneurially and capitalize on business opportunities when their entrepreneurial aptitude is recognized (Kollmann etal.2007). Moreover, IEO is conceptualized by various researchers as a psychological construct encompassing individuals' beliefs, values and practices influencing their decisionmaking and adaptability to change (Bolton and Lane2012; Taatila and Down2012). As such, IEO can serve as a reliable metric for identifying potential intrapreneurs within a company's workforce, which has been emphasized by experts to be encouraged on all levels of an organization (Gupta etal.2016; Taatila and Down2012). Nevertheless, possessing IEO does not necessarily ensure its translation into intrapreneurial behaviour. Psychological research distinguishes between intention, a conscious decision to perform a certain behaviour, and the actual behaviour. The constructs of intention and behaviour are critical in psychology and are frequently examined in relation to one another. Intention denotes a person's conscious decision to perform a certain behaviour, whereas behaviour signifies the actual execution of that behaviour. Despite a strong correlation between the two, the transition from intention to behaviour is not always linear, and a myriad of factors can influence this conversion. This is demonstrated by the TPB (Ajzen1991). A metaanalysis of 185 studies by Webb and Sheeran(2006) found that barriers or obstacles may impede the alignment of intention and behaviour. Additionally, subjective norms, attitudes and perceived behavioural control can significantly impact the behaviour (Ajzen1991). 2.3 | Job Fit To account for such factors and the working environment, the job fit scale developed by Resick etal.(2007) based upon the work of Kristof(1996) and Saks and Ashforth(1997) can be utilized. Job fit assesses the compatibility between an individual and their job. It determines if the individual's values and personality align with the organizational culture, values and goals (person–organization fit or POFIT); whether the individual's knowledge and skills fulfil the specific job requirements (demands–abilities fit or DAFIT); and if the job satisfies the individual's needs and expectations, such as salary, benefits, autonomy, work–life balance and career development opportunities (needs–supplies fit or NSFIT) (Kristof1996; Resick etal.2007; Saks and Ashforth1997). Originating from various research areas like organizational psychology and human resource management, job fit relies on the correlation between an individual's personality and their work environment. This concept was first introduced by Holland (1959) and later examined by Hackman and Oldham(1976) who linked job design to employee motivation and satisfaction. Schein (1983) emphasized the importance of aligning employees' values with organizational culture for optimal job fit. Kristof(1996) enhanced this understanding by stressing the need to match personal competencies and traits with job requirements for enhanced job satisfaction and performance. Given this knowledge, and although Niemann etal.(2022) investigated how organizational and individual factors corporate entrepreneurship (firmlevel analyses), it is imperative to examine the factors that enhance the successful conversion of individual employees' intention to engage in entrepreneurial activities (IEO) into actual intrapreneurial behaviour within the organization (EI) to promote innovation. However, despite its significance, this aspect has been largely overlooked in previous research. Therefore, we suggest exploring the relationship between employees' IEO and their intrapreneurial behaviour scale while accounting for the moderating influence of job fit, which comprises the dimensions of DAFIT, POFIT and NSFIT. 743 TABLE 1 | Seminal works and definitions of intrapreneurship. Author(s) & year Title Source Definition of intrapreneurship Contribution to research Burgelman(1983)Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights From a Process Study Management Science Corporate entrepreneurship as an internal process of innovation within diversified firms Introduced the concept of corporate entrepreneurship, explaining the process by which firms internally create new businesses Pinchot(1985) Intrapreneuring: Why You Do Not Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur Harper & Row Publishers Entrepreneurial activities undertaken by employees within established firms to foster innovation Introduced the concept of intrapreneurship, emphasizing employees' role in fostering innovation within established firms MacMillan etal.(1986)Corporate Venturing: Alternatives, Obstacles Encountered, and Experience Effects Journal of Business Venturing Corporate venturing as creating new businesses within the firm Provided early insights into corporate venturing, highlighting how firms can nurture innovation internally Sykes(1986) The Anatomy of a Corporate Venturing Program: Factors Influencing Success Journal of Business Venturing New venture creation within the firm as part of internal innovation efforts Investigated new venture creation within firms, linking it to strategic innovation and growth Guth and Ginsberg(1990) Guest Editors' Introduction: Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategic Management Journal Corporate entrepreneurship as firmlevel strategic renewal and innovation Defined corporate entrepreneurship and discussed its impact on strategic renewal and innovation (Continues) 744 Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025 Author(s) & year Title Source Definition of intrapreneurship Contribution to research Kuratko etal.(1990) Developing an Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment Strategic Management Journal Corporate entrepreneurship through intrapreneurial ideas involves the development of new business activities within existing firms. Explored the state of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurial ideas in firms, contributing to theoretical development Zahra(1991)Predictors and Financial Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Study Journal of Business Venturing Corporate entrepreneurship contributes to strategic renewal through innovation Analysed the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance, emphasizing financial outcomes Lumpkin and Dess(1996) Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance The Academy of Management Review Entrepreneurial orientation consists of innovativeness, autonomy, risktaking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness Clarification of the concept of entrepreneurial orientation Antoncic and Hisrich(2003)Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept: A Multidimensional Framework Journal of Business Venturing Intrapreneurship as an individuallevel concept focusing on opportunity recognition and innovation Proposed a multidimensional framework for intrapreneurship, helping differentiate it from corporate entrepreneurship CameloOrdaz etal.(2012)The Intrapreneur and Innovation in Creative Firms International Small Business Journal Intrapreneurship as a behaviour of employees that fosters change, innovation and new product development Examined how individual and organizational factors influence intrapreneurship, contributing to theoretical development (Continues) TABLE 1 | (Continued) 745 Author(s) & year Title Source Definition of intrapreneurship Contribution to research Covin and Wales(2012)The Measurement of Entrepreneurial Orientation Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Intrapreneurship is a multidimensional concept that includes firmlevel and individuallevel innovation Outlined entrepreneurial orientation as a firm's strategic alignment towards entrepreneurial activities, contrasting it with intrapreneurship Kuratko and Audretsch(2013) Clarifying the Domains of Corporate Entrepreneurship International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Intrapreneurship is influenced by individual and organizational factors, shaping employeedriven innovation. Discussed the future directions of entrepreneurship research, incorporating corporate entrepreneurship as a key area of study Blanka(2019) An IndividualLevel Perspective on Intrapreneurship: A Review and Ways Forward Review of Managerial Science Intrapreneurship is defined as an individuallevel concept. Distinguished intrapreneurship from related constructs, clarifying its individuallevel nature and conceptual ambiguity Gawke etal.(2019) Measuring Intrapreneurship at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS) European Management Journal Future directions of entrepreneurship research incorporate intrapreneurship as a key element. Developed and validated the employee intrapreneurship scale (EIS), providing a behaviourbased measurement approach TABLE 1 | (Continued) 746 Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025 2.4 | The Relationship Between IEO and EI In the literature, the IEO dimensions conceptualized by Santos etal.(2020) including the dimension of risktaking, proactiveness, innovativeness, passion and perseverance are considered to be key components of individual entrepreneurial behaviour. For example, studies have already shown that risk tolerance, the pursuit of independence and recognition (Kirby2006; Tietz and Parker2012) and perceptions of uncertainty and risks (Martiarena2013; Matthews et al. 2009) impact individual intrapreneurial behaviour. Moreover, recognizing business opportunities (Martiarena2013; Solymossy and Gross2015; Urbano and Turró2013) and entrepreneurial selfefficacy (Douglas and Fitzsimmons2013; Globocnik and Salomo2015; Johnson and Wu2012), which are closely related to proactiveness, have been identified as critical determinants of intrapreneurship. Lastly, the innovativeness dimension of the IEO scale consists of questions dealing with creativity and exploration. For example, Sarooghi etal.(2015) or Sinha and Srivastava(2013) showed that there is a strong positive relationship between creativity and innovations, especially at the individual level. Furthermore, people with a stronger tendency towards taking the initiative are more likely to be intrapreneurs (Amo2010; Rigtering and Weitzel2013), which is also reflected in the questions about innovativeness. Moreover, in the realm of entrepreneurship, perseverance is recognized as an essential trait for success. Baum and Locke(2004) define perseverance as maintaining goaldirected action and energy, even when confronted with obstacles. They argue that this quality is indispensable for both initiating and running a successful entrepreneurial venture. Markman etal.(2005) further suggest that individual reactions to similar adversities can differ significantly, implying that the ability to persevere could be a key determinant of a new venture's success. Additionally, Gatewood etal.(1995) found that entrepreneurs with stable internal reasons for establishing their businesses tend to persist more in their actions, which can lead to successful venture creation. Lastly, Baron(2000) demonstrated that entrepreneurs are less inclined to engage in counterfactual thinking (‘What might have been?’) and experience significantly less regret over past actions than nonentrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial passion, as outlined in academic literature, is a collective set of intense positive feelings consciously accessible and experienced by individuals engaged in entrepreneurial activities. These feelings are particularly associated with roles that entrepreneurs deem significant (Cardon etal.2009) and are linked with a robust inclination towards activities that individuals find enjoyable, significant and worthy of their time and energy (Vallerand etal.2003). This intense positive emotion serves as a potent motivational force, inspiring entrepreneurs to surmount challenges and remain committed to their business endeavours (Cardon etal.2009). Smilor(1997) even observed that passion is frequently identified as a central phenomenon in the entrepreneurial process. Smith etal.(2001) highlight that passion has an indirect positive relationship with business growth, mediated by factors like vision, goals, selfefficacy, competence, motivation and competitive strategy. Furthermore, passion has been linked to broader recognition and exploitation of opportunities, the generation of new ideas (Baron and Ward 2004; Shane etal.2003), improved performance (Ho and Pollack2014; Iyortsuun etal.2019) and entrepreneurial intention itself (De Clercq etal.2013). Thus, passion is not only a central emotional experience in entrepreneurship but also a driving force behind venture success and growth. In addition to the abovementioned connections of the components of IEO and entrepreneurial behaviour, the TPB (Ajzen1991) and subsequent studies, also within the field of entrepreneurship (Engle etal.2010; Kautonen etal.2015), have shown that a positive connection between intent and behaviour exists. For example, Kautonen etal.(2015) showed that business startup intentions strongly and positively correlate with activities, time and money invested in startup activities. Considering the aforementioned relationships, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1. Individual entrepreneurial orientation positively influences employee intrapreneurship. 2.5 | The Relationship Between Job Fit and EI Moreover, we anticipate that besides an individual's tendency towards EO, the job fit of an employee also influences their intrapreneurial behaviour. This assumption can be based on various findings within the literature. For example, Hackman and Oldham(1976) highlighted that workplace characteristics and job design significantly impact employee motivation and satisfaction. This finding has received consistent support of several subsequent studies (Kristof 1996; Peng and Mao 2015; Wang etal.2020; Warr and Inceoglu2012). Integrated with insights from the intrapreneurship literature, particularly regarding factors that stimulate intrapreneurial behaviour, it is observed that motivated and satisfied employees are more inclined to engage in intrapreneurial actions (Auer Antoncic and Antoncic2011; Baer2012; Bammens etal.2013, 2015; Zhang and Bartol2010). Additionally, the literature reveals numerous studies that scrutinize how specific job characteristics—pertaining to certain job fit subdimensions—directly affect intrapreneurship. For instance, several studies have explored the relationship between personal values, organizational culture and intrapreneurship. Sinha and Srivastava (2013) investigated how the compatibility between organizational and individual values drives intrapreneurship, concluding that aligning organizational values with employee values enhances intrapreneurship. Similarly, Chandler and Krajcsák(2021) examined how the organizational culture affects intrapreneurship and found that specific organizational culture types fertilize intrapreneurial behaviour among employees. These findings suggest that a strong POFIT fosters intrapreneurial behaviour among employees. Furthermore, Urbano etal.(2013) examined the impact of individual capabilities on intrapreneurship. They showed, for example, that entrepreneurial competences such as being able to recognize opportunities or to design the environment so that opportunities occur (Ensley etal.2000) and having the confidence to decide whether to exploit such opportunities or not (Daft and Weick1984) foster intrapreneurship. However, they also argue that such entrepreneurial competences cannot be unfolded when the job requires to plan or to control as main task, but rather if the job provides a certain degree of autonomy (Urbano 747 etal.2013). Therefore, it can be anticipated that a fit between an individual's abilities and the requirements of the job (DAFIT) has a positive effect on EI. In parallel, numerous studies have assessed the effect of various organizational determinants such as managerial support, rewards and resource provision and job satisfaction on intrapreneurship and entrepreneurial intention (Li et al. 2022; Neessen etal. 2019; Opland etal. 2022). These determinants align with the job fit subdimension of NSFIT. For instance, managerial support (Chouchane and StJean2022; DiLiello and Houghton2006; Hornsby etal.2002, 2009; Kuratko etal.1990; Urban and Wood2015) and trust (Rigtering and Weitzel2013) has been identified as a crucial antecedent of intrapreneurial behaviour among employees. Additionally, rewards such as monetary incentives or promotions (Kuratko and Montagno1989; Urban and Nikolov 2014) and resource provision like financial support and availability of time and resources (Alpkan etal.2010; Brinkhurst etal.2011; Marvel etal.2007; Puech and Durand2017) have been found to positively influence intrapreneurship. Considering the findings of the relationship between organizational factors and intrapreneurship, it is reasonable to propose that a strong NSFIT positively influences EI. However, despite indications of a positive relationship between certain job fit subdimensions and intrapreneurship, no study to date has examined the association between job fit construct and EI. This research gap has led us to hypothesize that Hypothesis 2. Job fit positively influences employee intrapreneurship. 2.6 | The Relationship Between Job Fit, IEO and EI We propose two hypotheses suggesting that both an individual's EO and the organizational environment independently influence EI. Yet, considering the interactionist perspective (Oldham and Cummings1996; Woodman etal.1993), the impact of employees' behaviours on the organization is rather a complex interplay between the individual's personality and the organizational context. For instance, creativity, defined as regular generation of ideas (Anderson etal.2014) and closely connected to intrapreneurship, shows that employees with high creative tendencies exhibit enhanced creativity when the organizational context provides motivational and sensemaking factors (Amabile1983; Ford1996). However, routine tasks, lack of support, negative leadership and incompetent colleagues can hinder their creativity (Choi et al. 2009). Chang and Teng (2017) discovered that a preventionfocused organizational environment, which emphasizes safety and responsibility (Higgins1997, 1998; Higgins and Silberman1998), encourages creatively inclined individuals to apply their creativity to their job, thereby increasing their organizational value. Similar patterns can be observed in research on intrinsic motivation. For example, Joo and Lim(2009) found that organizational learning and perceived job complexity enhanced the intrinsic motivation of employees. They reported that intrinsically motivated employees become even more motivated when job complexity is high, which, in turn, increases their proactivity (Joo and Lim2009). From the perspective of intrapreneurship research, Badoiu etal.(2020) examined how top management support, work discretion, rewards, time availability and organizational boundaries affect intrapreneurs and the intrapreneurial behaviour within a new technologybased firm. Their findings reveal that employees already engaged in intrapreneurial actions become more intrapreneurial in innovationfocused and supportive management settings, with autonomy in decisionmaking and a motivating reward system (Badoiu etal.2020). Considering the interactionist perspective (Oldham and Cummings1996; Woodman et al.1993) and findings on creativity (Amabile1983; Chang and Teng2017; Ford1996; Choi etal.2009), intrinsic motivation (Joo and Lim2009) and intrapreneurship (Badoiu etal.2020), it becomes clear that jobrelated contextual factors moderate individual intrinsic tendencies and behaviours. Consequently, we propose that job fit moderates the relationship between IEO and EI, such that higher job fit enhances EI behaviour, whereas lower job fit diminishes it: Hypothesis 3. Job fit positively moderates the relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation and employee intrapreneurship. Our three developed hypotheses and the relationships between the theoretical concepts used in this study are displayed in Figure1. 3 | Methodology and Data 3.1 | Research Design To examine the relationship between IEO, job fit and EI by testing our hypotheses, we employed multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis in a survey conducted among employees of SMEs in Germany in 2021. We selected Germany FIGURE 1 | Hypothesis. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] 754 Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025 Liñán2014). Without such alignment, the motivation to pursue intrapreneurial initiatives may diminish. Finally, a good job fit often grants a higher degree of autonomy and empowerment, allowing employees to take initiative and explore new opportunities within their roles (Kuratko and Montagno1989). This autonomy supports entrepreneurial employees in navigating their job context effectively and implementing innovative ideas (DiLiello and Houghton2006). 5.1 | Theoretical Implications Our manuscript enriches the academic discourse in several ways. Firstly, we enhance the domain of entrepreneurship studies by emphasizing the significance of individual components in driving employees' intrapreneurial conduct. Historically, investigations have primarily concentrated on personal determinants such as demographic profile (CameloOrdaz etal.2012; Urbano and Turró2013), individual attributes (Rigtering and Weitzel2013; Sinha and Srivastava2013; Williamson etal.2013) or certain internal organizational elements such as corporate structure (Bouchard and Basso2011), leadership support (Menzel etal.2007) and company culture (Hagedorn and Jamieson2014). Our work bridges entrepreneurial intention with intrapreneurial behaviour, demonstrating that individual psychological aspects considerably affect employee activities within an organization. We reveal that intention is a more potent predictor of intrapreneurial conduct than job fit, with no significant correlation identified between the context of the job and entrepreneurial behaviour. Consequently, the distinct individuality of employees should not be overlooked in research aimed at promoting intrapreneurial initiatives within corporations. We, therefore, align with Blanka's(2019) suggestion for research to place greater emphasis on the individual level when examining intrapreneurship and its motivators. Secondly, our work adds to the growing literature employing the TPB in an entrepreneurial context. Until now, TPB has primarily been utilized in relation to entrepreneurs initiating or expanding their own enterprises (Lortie and Castogiovanni2015). Our investigation demonstrates that TPB is also instrumental in predicting intrapreneurial activities of employees in existing firms, thus creating new avenues for identifying prospective intrapreneurs within established organizations and driving innovation. Lastly, we assist in the development and validation of multiple scales. As per Santos etal.(2020), their scale carries certain limitations, some of which our study addressed. We have validated the scale in a distinct geographical and cultural environment (Portugal vs. Germany), encompassing all industry sectors, and have expanded its representativeness by incorporating a dataset of 649 cases. We conducted and applied a confirmatory factor analysis and only eliminated a single variable, as opposed to the seven variables omitted by Santos etal.(2020). We also validate the relevance of entrepreneurial perseverance and passion, which are relatively new inclusions in the IEO scale. Consequently, we have approved the robustness of the proposed construct, endorsing its continued application in determining IEO. Furthermore, we also bolster the integrity of the EIS developed by Gawke etal.(2017), by validating it within a different national and cultural context. 5.2 | Practical Implications The practical implications of our research are manifold and of direct relevance to SMEs aiming to tap into the intrapreneurial capacities of their employees. Firstly, SMEs should proactively identify employees who demonstrate a strong inclination towards entrepreneurship by implementing a structured identification process, including regular assessments and feedback sessions to highlight innovative contributions and risktaking behaviours. During recruitment, integrating the IEO scale within job interviews can help pinpoint candidates likely to become valuable intrapreneurs. Secondly, SMEs should design the job context to fit individual personalities, aligning job requirements with competencies and providing necessary resources. Management should ensure that roles and responsibilities align with employees' competencies and personal values, offering flexible job roles and regularly reviewing job descriptions. Specific training programs, such as innovation bootcamps, entrepreneurial mindset training and project management and leadership courses, can enhance intrapreneurial skills. Policy initiatives like intrapreneurship grant programs, a ‘Time for Innovation’ policy allowing employees to dedicate a portion of their work time to personal projects, and recognition and reward systems for innovative ideas can further foster intrapreneurial behaviour. Creating a supportive organizational culture by promoting open communication, encouraging experimentation and rewarding innovation is essential. Establishing ‘innovation days’ and providing resources for intrapreneurial activities can bolster this culture. Furthermore, ensuring alignment between the company's values and those of its employees through periodic surveys and onboarding programs can help foster intrapreneurial behaviour. Matching job demands with the unique capabilities of entrepreneurially inclined employees through skills assessments and tailored job responsibilities is also paramount. Continuous professional development programs, offering access to online courses, industry conferences and internal knowledgesharing sessions, can enhance employees' skills and motivate them to leverage their potential fully. In conclusion, SMEs aiming to augment their intrapreneurial capacity should strategically recruit personnel with entrepreneurial inclinations, ensure value congruence between employees and the organization and match job complexity with individual abilities. By implementing these structured processes, targeted training programs, supportive organizational practices, value alignment initiatives and tailored job roles, SMEs can significantly boost intrapreneurial behaviour and consequently amplify firmlevel innovation outputs. 5.3 | Limitations and Future Research Our study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, despite reaching out to over 30,000 firms, our sample exhibits geographical and cultural limitations as we solely collected data from German SMEs. Extending the scope of our study to an international context could potentially enrich the findings and further propel research in the domain by investigating the influence of 755 IEO and job fit in various regions. Furthermore, because of the focus on German SMEs, the influence of cultural factors was not evaluated. Given the potential variations in EO and job fit across different cultures, future research could investigate crosscultural comparisons. Secondly, our study is inherently biased towards SMEs, often constrained by resource scarcity. The field of intrapreneurship, however, suggests that certain resources such as time, money and facilities play a pivotal role in fostering intrapreneurial activities. As such, an examination of the relationship between IEO, job fit and EI within a broader corporate context may yield intriguing and valuable insights, thereby contributing to strategies aimed at promoting EI. Thirdly, our study was based primarily on quantitative data. Future research could incorporate qualitative methods, such as interviews or case studies, to gain a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the relationship between IEO, job fit and EI. This could provide valuable context and complement the findings of quantitative studies. Lastly, there may be other factors not examined in this study that could influence the relationship between IEO, job fit and EI. Future research could consider potential moderating or mediating variables, such as leadership style, organizational culture or economic climate. We invite researchers seeking to address these limitations in the future, thus broadening our understanding of the topic. 6 | Conclusion This study investigated the relationship between IEO, job fit and EI through a regression analysis with moderation effects using a sample of 649 employees from SMEs. The results underscore a significant positive effect of IEO on EI. This outcome supports the TPB, which asserts that intentions are pivotal in moulding behaviour. Furthermore, it could be shown that job fit has no significant impact on EI, implying that context itself does not affect entrepreneurial behaviour. However, the job fit dimensions of POFIT and DAFIT enhance the positive relationship between IEO and EI. This endorses the interaction perspective that posits employee behaviour as a complex synergy of individual intrinsic tendencies and intentions, and the jobrelated contexts. Beyond its theoretical implications, this study also provides promising implications for managerial practice by shedding light on potential approaches to foster EI, thereby paving the way for innovation in SMEs. Acknowledgements Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. References Ahluwalia, S., R. V. Mahto, and S. T. Walsh. 2017. “Innovation in Small Firms: Does Family vs. NonFamily Matter?” Journal of Small Business Strategy 27, no. 3: 39–49. Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, no. 2: 179–211. Alpkan, L., C. Bulut, G. Gunday, G. Ulusoy, and K. Kilic. 2010. “Organizational Support for Intrapreneurship and Its Interaction With Human Capital to Enhance Innovative Performance.” Management Decision 48, no. 5: 732–755. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00251 74101 1043902. Amabile, T. M. 1983. “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, no. 2: 357–376. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 45.2. 357. Amo, B. W. 2010. “Corporate Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship Related to Innovation Behaviour Among Employees.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 2, no. 2: 144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJEV. 2010. 034819. Anderson, N., K. Potočnik, and J. Zhou. 2014. “Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A StateOfTheScience Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework.” Journal of Management 40, no. 5: 1297–1333. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06314 527128. Antoncic, B., and R. D. Hisrich. 2003. “Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10, no. 1: 7–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14626 00031 0461187. Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing Research 14, no. 3: 396–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 3150783. Auer Antoncic, J., and B. Antoncic. 2011. “Employee Satisfaction, Intrapreneurship and Firm Growth: A Model.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 111, no. 4: 589–607. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02635 57111 1133560. Badoiu, G.- A., M. SegarraCiprés, and A. B. EscrigTena. 2020. “Understanding Employees' Intrapreneurial Behavior: A Case Study.” Personnel Review 49, no. 8: 1677–1694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ PR0420190201. Baer, M. 2012. “Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 5: 1102–1119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2009. 0470. Bakker, A. B., and E. Demerouti. 2017. “Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22, no. 3: 273–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ ocp00 00056 . Bammens, Y., G. Notelaers, and A. Van Gils. 2013. “Employees as a Source of Innovation: The Role of Perceived Organizational Support in Family Firms.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2013, no. 1: 10400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ ambpp. 2013. 29. Bammens, Y., G. Notelaers, and A. Van Gils. 2015. “Implications of Family Business Employment for Employees' Innovative Work Involvement.” Family Business Review 28, no. 2: 123–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08944 86513 520615. Baron, R. A. 2000. “Counterfactual Thinking and Venture Formation.” Journal of Business Venturing 15, no. 1: 79–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0883 - 9026(98) 00024 - X. Baron, R. A., and T. B. Ward. 2004. “Expanding Entrepreneurial Cognition's Toolbox: Potential Contributions From the Field of Cognitive Science.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28, no. 6: 553–573. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2004. 00064. x. Basso, O., A. Fayolle, and V. Bouchard. 2009. “Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Making of a Concept.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 10, no. 4: 313–321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5367/ 00000 00097 90012327. Baum, J. R., and E. A. Locke. 2004. “The Relationship of Entrepreneurial Traits, Skill, and Motivation to Subsequent Venture Growth.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 4: 587–598. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 89.4. 587. Bentler, P. M., and D. G. Bonett. 1980. “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Psychological Bulletin 88, no. 3: 588–606. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00332909. 88.3. 588. 756 Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025 Bierwerth, M., C. Schwens, R. Isidor, and R. Kabst. 2015. “Corporate Entrepreneurship and Performance: A MetaAnalysis.” Small Business Economics 45, no. 2: 255–278. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118 701596291. Bjornali, E. S., and L. Anne Støren. 2012. “Examining Competence Factors That Encourage Innovative Behaviour by European Higher Education Graduate Professionals.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 19, no. 3: 402–423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14626 00121 1250135. Blanka, C. 2019. “An IndividualLevel Perspective on Intrapreneurship: A Review and Ways Forward.” Review of Managerial Science 13, no. 5: 919–961. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1184 601802770. Bolton, D. L., and M. D. Lane. 2012. “Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation: Development of a Measurement Instrument.” Education + Training 54, no. 2/3: 219–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00400 91121 1210314. Bouchard, V., and O. Basso. 2011. “Exploring the Links Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Intrapreneurship in SMEs.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 18, no. 2: 219–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14626 00111 1127043. Brinkhurst, M., P. Rose, G. Maurice, and J. D. Ackerman. 2011. “Achieving Campus Sustainability: TopDown, BottomUp, or Neither?” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12, no. 4: 338–354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14676 37111 1168269. Bureau van Dijk. 2021. “Bureau van Dijk—A Moody's Analytics Company.” www. bvdin fo. com. Burgelman, R. A. 1983. “Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights From a Process Study.” Management Science 29, no. 12: 1349–1364. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 29. 12. 1349. Cable, D. M., and T. A. Judge. 1996. “Person–Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, no. 3: 294–311. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ obhd. 1996. 0081. CameloOrdaz, C., M. FernándezAlles, J. RuizNavarro, and E. SousaGinel. 2012. “The Intrapreneur and Innovation in Creative Firms.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 30, no. 5: 513–535. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42610 385396. Cardon, M. S., J. Wincent, J. Singh, and M. Drnovsek. 2009. “The Nature and Experience of Entrepreneurial Passion.” Academy of Management Review 34, no. 3: 511–532. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2009. 40633190. Carrier, C. 1994. “Intrapreneurship in Large Firms and SMEs: A Comparative Study.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 12, no. 3: 54–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42694 123005. Chandler, N., and Z. Krajcsák. 2021. “Intrapreneurial Fit and Misfit: Enterprising Behavior, Preferred Organizational and Open Innovation Culture.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7, no. 1: 61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ joitm c7010061. Chang, J.- H., and C.- C. Teng. 2017. “Intrinsic or Extrinsic Motivations for Hospitality Employees' Creativity: The Moderating Role of OrganizationLevel Regulatory Focus.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 60: 133–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhm. 2016. 10. 003. Choi, J. N., T. A. Anderson, and A. Veillette. 2009. “Contextual Inhibitors of Employee Creativity in Organizations: The Insulating Role of Creative Ability.” Group & Organization Management 34, no. 3: 330–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01108 329811. Chouchane, R., and É. StJean. 2022. “Job Anxiety as Psychosocial Risk in the Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Intrapreneurship in SMEs.” Innovations 25, no. 4: 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14479 338. 2022. 2029708. Classen, N., M. Carree, A. Van Gils, and B. Peters. 2014. “Innovation in Family and NonFamily SMEs: An Exploratory Analysis.” Small Business Economics 42, no. 3: 595–609. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118 70139490z. Covin, J. G., and D. P. Slevin. 1989. “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments.” Strategic Management Journal 10, no. 1: 75–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 42501 00107 . Covin, J. G., and W. J. Wales. 2012. “The Measurement of Entrepreneurial Orientation.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36, no. 4: 677–702. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2010. 00432. x. Cronbach, L. J. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.” Psychometrika 16: 297–334. Daft, R. L., and K. E. Weick. 1984. “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.” Academy of Management Review 9, no. 2: 284–295. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258441. De Clercq, D., B. Honig, and B. Martin. 2013. “The Roles of Learning Orientation and Passion for Work in the Formation of Entrepreneurial Intention.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 31, no. 6: 652–676. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42611 432360. de Jong, J. P. J., S. K. Parker, S. Wennekers, and C.- H. Wu. 2015. “Entrepreneurial Behavior in Organizations: Does Job Design Matter?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39, no. 4: 981–995. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ etap. 12084 . Denicolai, S., A. Zucchella, and G. Magnani. 2021. “Internationalization, Digitalization, and Sustainability: Are SMEs Ready? A Survey on Synergies and Substituting Effects Among Growth Paths.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 166: 120650. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2021. 120650. DiLiello, T. C., and J. D. Houghton. 2006. “Maximizing Organizational Leadership Capacity for the Future: Toward a Model of SelfLeadership, Innovation and Creativity.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21, no. 4: 319–337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02683 94061 0663114. Douglas, E. J., and J. R. Fitzsimmons. 2013. “Intrapreneurial Intentions Versus Entrepreneurial Intentions: Distinct Constructs With Different Antecedents.” Small Business Economics 41, no. 1: 115–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118 70129419y. Eddleston, K. A., F. W. Kellermanns, and T. M. Zellweger. 2012. “Exploring the Entrepreneurial Behavior of Family Firms: Does the Stewardship Perspective Explain Differences?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36, no. 2: 347–367. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2010. 00402. x. Edmondson, A. 1999. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44, no. 2: 350–383. Edú Valsania, S., J. A. Moriano, and F. Molero. 2016. “Authentic Leadership and Intrapreneurial Behavior: CrossLevel Analysis of the Mediator Effect of Organizational Identification and Empowerment.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12, no. 1: 131– 152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501403334. Engle, R. L., N. Dimitriadi, J. V. Gavidia, etal. 2010. “Entrepreneurial Intent: A TwelveCountry Evaluation of Ajzen's Model of Planned Behavior.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 16, no. 1: 35–57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 13552 55101 1020063. Ensley, M. D., J. W. Carland, and J. C. Carland. 2000. “Investigating the Existence of the Lead Entrepreneur.” Journal of Small Business Management 38, no. 4: 59. European Commission. 2003. “Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 Concerning the Definition of Micro, Small and MediumSized Enterprises (Official Journal of the European Union).” https:// eurlex. eu r opa. eu / Le xUr iServ/ Le xUr iServ. do? uri= O J: L : 2003: 1 24 : 00 3 6 : 0041: en: PDF. Fayolle, A., and F. Liñán. 2014. “The Future of Research on Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Business Research 67, no. 5: 663–666. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2013. 11. 024. 757 Ford, C. M. 1996. “A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains.” Academy of Management Review 21, no. 4: 1112–1142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 259166. Gatewood, E. J., K. G. Shaver, and W. B. Gartner. 1995. “A Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Factors Influencing StartUp Behaviors and Success at Venture Creation.” Journal of Business Venturing 10: 371–391. Gawke, J. C., M. J. Gorgievski, and A. B. Bakker. 2017. “Employee Intrapreneurship and Work Engagement: A Latent Change Score Approach.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 100: 88–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2017. 03. 002. Gawke, J. C., M. J. Gorgievski, and A. B. Bakker. 2019. “Measuring Intrapreneurship at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS).” European Management Journal 37, no. 6: 806–817. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. emj. 2019. 03. 001. Gerschewski, S., V. J. Lindsay, and E. Rose. 2016. “Advancing the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct: The Role of Passion and Perseverance.” Review of International Business and Strategy 26, no. 4: 446–471. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ RIBS0820160042. Globocnik, D., and S. Salomo. 2015. “Do Formal Management Practices Impact the Emergence of Bootlegging Behavior?” Journal of Product Innovation Management 32, no. 4: 505–521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12215 . Gupta, V. K., S. Niranjan, B. A. Goktan, and J. Eriskon. 2016. “Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation Role in Shaping Reactions to New Technologies.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12, no. 4: 935–961. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501503734. Guth, W. D., and A. Ginsberg. 1990. “Guest Editors' Introduction: Corporate Entrepreneurship.” Strategic Management Journal 11: 5–15. Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1976. “Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, no. 2: 250–279. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 00305073(76) 90016 - 7. Hagedorn, R. A., and D. W. Jamieson. 2014. “Intrapreneurial Sensemaking: The Case of a Reenvisioned School of Professional Studies.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 18, no. 5/6: 425–437. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJEIM. 2014. 064715. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis. Eighth ed. Cengage. Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2022. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLSSEM). Third ed. SAGE. HernándezPerlines, F., A. ArizaMontes, and C. BlancoGonzálezTejero. 2022. “Intrapreneurship Research: A Comprehensive Literature Review.” Journal of Business Research 153: 428–444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 08. 015. Higgins, E. T. 1997. “Beyond Pleasure and Pain.” American Psychologist 52, no. 12: 1280–1300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003066X. 52. 12. 1280. Higgins, E. T. 1998. “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 30, 1–46. Elsevier. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0065 - 2601(08) 60381 - 0. Higgins, E. T., and I. Silberman. 1998. “Development of Regulatory Focus: Promotion and Prevention as Ways of Living.” In Motivation and SelfRegulation Across the Life Span, edited by J. Heckhausen and C. S. Dweck, 1st ed., 78–113. Cambridge University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ CBO97 80511 527869. 005. Ho, V. T., and J. M. Pollack. 2014. “Passion Isn't Always a Good Thing: Examining Entrepreneurs' Network Centrality and Financial Performance With a Dualistic Model of Passion: Passion Isn't Always a Good Thing.” Journal of Management Studies 51, no. 3: 433–459. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12062 . HockDoepgen, M., T. Clauss, S. Kraus, and C.- F. Cheng. 2021. “Knowledge Management Capabilities and Organizational RiskTaking for Business Model Innovation in SMEs.” Journal of Business Research 130: 683–697. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2019. 12. 001. Holland, J. L. 1959. “A Theory of Vocational Choice.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 6, no. 1: 35–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0040767. Hornsby, J. S., D. F. Kuratko, D. T. Holt, and W. J. Wales. 2013. “Assessing a Measurement of Organizational Preparedness for Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Measurement for Corporate Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 30, no. 5: 937–955. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12038 . Hornsby, J. S., D. F. Kuratko, D. A. Shepherd, and J. P. Bott. 2009. “Managers' Corporate Entrepreneurial Actions: Examining Perception and Position.” Journal of Business Venturing 24, no. 3: 236–247. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2008. 03. 002. Hornsby, J. S., D. F. Kuratko, and S. A. Zahra. 2002. “Middle Managers' Perception of the Internal Environment for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Assessing a Measurement Scale.” Journal of Business Venturing 17, no. 3: 253–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0883 - 9026(00) 00059 - 8. Howell, J. M., C. M. Shea, and C. A. Higgins. 2005. “Champions of Product Innovations: Defining, Developing, and Validating a Measure of Champion Behavior.” Journal of Business Venturing 20, no. 5: 641– 661. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2004. 06. 001. Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1: 1–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51990 9540118. Ireland, R. D., J. G. Covin, and D. F. Kuratko. 2009. “Conceptualizing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, no. 1: 19–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2008. 00279. x. Iyortsuun, A. S., M. T. Nmadu, R. Dakung, and M. C. Gajere. 2019. “Entrepreneurial Passion and Venture Performance: A Proposed Framework.” Management Research Review 42, no. 10: 1133–1147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MRR1020180382. Janssen, O. 2000. “Job Demands, Perceptions of EffortReward Fairness and Innovative Work Behaviour.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73, no. 3: 287–302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 09631 79001 67038 . Johnson, K. L., and C. Wu. 2012. “Creating Entrepreneurial Opportunities as a Means to Maintain Entrepreneurial Talent in Corporations.” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 25, no. 3: 327–348. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08276 331. 2012. 10593576. Joo, B.- K., and T. Lim. 2009. “The Effects of Organizational Learning Culture, Perceived Job Complexity, and Proactive Personality on Organizational Commitment and Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 16, no. 1: 48–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15480 51809 334195. Kautonen, T., M. Van Gelderen, and M. Fink. 2015. “Robustness of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39, no. 3: 655–674. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ etap. 12056 . Kearney, C., and T. Meynhardt. 2016. “Directing Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy in the Public Sector to Public Value: Antecedents, Components, and Outcomes.” International Public Management Journal 19, no. 4: 543–572. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10967 494. 2016. 1160013. Kirby, D. A. 2006. “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to Practice.” Journal of Technology Transfer 31, no. 5: 599–603. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1096 100690614. Kollmann, T., J. Christofor, and A. Kuckertz. 2007. “Explaining Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptualisation of a 758 Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025 CrossCultural Research Framework.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 4, no. 3: 325–340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJESB. 2007. 013255. Kristof, A. L. 1996. “PersonOrganization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications.” Personnel Psychology 49, no. 1: 1–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17446570. 1996. tb017 90. x. Kuratko, D. F., and D. B. Audretsch. 2013. “Clarifying the Domains of Corporate Entrepreneurship.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9, no. 3: 323–335. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501302574. Kuratko, D. F., and R. V. Montagno. 1989. “The Intrapreneurial Spirit.” Training & Development Journal 43, no. 10: 83–86. Kuratko, D. F., R. V. Montagno, and J. S. Hornsby. 1990. “Developing an Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment.” Strategic Management Journal 11: 49–58. Li, J., F. Yang, J. Qi, R. Sun, and R. Geng. 2022. “The Influence of Job Satisfaction on Entrepreneurial Intention: A CrossLevel Investigation.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 40, no. 3: 385–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42621 1018831. Lortie, J., and G. Castogiovanni. 2015. “The Theory of Planned Behavior in Entrepreneurship Research: What We Know and Future Directions.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11, no. 4: 935– 957. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501503583. Lumpkin, G. T., and G. G. Dess. 1996. “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance.” Academy of Management Review 21, no. 1: 135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258632. MacMillan, I. C., Z. Block, and P. S. Narasimha. 1986. “Corporate Venturing: Alternatives, Obstacles Encountered, and Experience Effects.” Journal of Business Venturing 1, no. 2: 177–191. Markman, G. D., R. A. Baron, and D. B. Balkin. 2005. “Are Perseverance and SelfEfficacy Costless? Assessing Entrepreneurs' Regretful Thinking.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, no. 1: 1–19. Martiarena, A. 2013. “What's So Entrepreneurial About Intrapreneurs?” Small Business Economics 40, no. 1: 27–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118 701193481. Marvel, M. R., A. Griffin, J. Hebda, and B. Vojak. 2007. “Examining the Technical Corporate Entrepreneurs' Motivation: Voices From the Field.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31, no. 5: 753–768. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2007. 00198. x. Matthews, C. H., M. T. Schenkel, M. W. Ford, and S. E. Human. 2009. “Comparing Nascent Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs and Expectations of Firm Growth.” Journal of Small Business Strategy 20, no. 1: 53–80. Menzel, H. C., I. Aaltio, and J. M. Ulijn. 2007. “On the Way to Creativity: Engineers as Intrapreneurs in Organizations.” Technovation 27, no. 12: 732–743. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2007. 05. 004. Miller, D. 1983. “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms.” Management Science 29, no. 7: 770–791. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 29.7. 770. Morris, M. H., J. W. Webb, and R. J. Franklin. 2011. “Understanding the Manifestation of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Nonprofit Context.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35, no. 5: 947–971. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2011. 00453. x. Neessen, P. C. M., M. C. J. Caniëls, B. Vos, and J. P. De Jong. 2019. “The Intrapreneurial Employee: Toward an Integrated Model of Intrapreneurship and Research Agenda.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15, no. 2: 545–571. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501805521. Niemann, C. C., R. Mai, and P. Dickel. 2022. “Nurture or Nature? How Organizational and Individual Factors Drive Corporate Entrepreneurial Projects.” Journal of Business Research 140: 155–169. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2021. 11. 065. Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. McGrawHill. Oldham, G. R., and A. Cummings. 1996. “Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work.” Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 3: 607–634. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 256657. Opland, L. E., I. O. Pappas, J. Engesmo, and L. Jaccheri. 2022. “EmployeeDriven Digital Innovation: A Systematic Review and a Research Agenda.” Journal of Business Research 143: 255–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 01. 038. Parker, S. C. 2011. “Intrapreneurship or Entrepreneurship?” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 1: 19–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2009. 07. 003. Parker, S. K., U. K. Bindl, and K. Strauss. 2010. “Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive Motivation.” Journal of Management 36, no. 4: 827–856. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06310 363732. Peng, Y., and C. Mao. 2015. “The Impact of Person–Job Fit on Job Satisfaction: The Mediator Role of Self Efficacy.” Social Indicators Research 121, no. 3: 805–813. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1120 50140659x. Pinchot, G. 1985. Intrapreneuring. Gabler Verlag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978332294468 - 9. Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.- Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5: 879–903. Puech, L., and T. Durand. 2017. “Classification of Time Spent in the Intrapreneurial Process.” Creativity and Innovation Management 26, no. 2: 142–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ caim. 12214 . R Core Team. 2023. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer Software].” R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https:// www. Rproje ct. org. Rauch, A., and M. Frese. 2007. “Let's Put the Person Back Into Entrepreneurship Research: A MetaAnalysis on the Relationship Between Business Owners' Personality Traits, Business Creation, and Success.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 16, no. 4: 353–385. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32070 1595438. Resick, C. J., B. B. Baltes, and C. W. Shantz. 2007. “Person–Organization Fit and WorkRelated Attitudes and Decisions: Examining Interactive Effects With Job Fit and Conscientiousness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 5: 1446–1455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 92.5. 1446. Rigtering, J. P. C., and U. Weitzel. 2013. “Work Context and Employee Behaviour as Antecedents for Intrapreneurship.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9, no. 3: 337–360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501302583. Saks, A. M., and B. E. Ashforth. 1997. “A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationships Between Job Information Sources, Applicant Perceptions of Fit, and Work Outcomes.” Personnel Psychology 50, no. 2: 395–426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17446570. 1997. tb009 13. x. Santos, G., C. S. Marques, and J. J. M. Ferreira. 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. Sarooghi, H., D. Libaers, and A. Burkemper. 2015. “Examining the Relationship Between Creativity and Innovation: A MetaAnalysis of Organizational, Cultural, and Environmental Factors.” Journal of Business Venturing 30, no. 5: 714–731. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2014. 12. 003. Saunila, M. 2020. “Innovation Capability in SMEs: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 5, no. 4: 260–265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jik. 2019. 11. 002. 759 Schein, E. H. 1983. “The Role of the Founder in Creating Organizational Culture.” Organizational Dynamics 12, no. 1: 13–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 00902616(83) 90023 - 2. Shane, S., E. A. Locke, and C. J. Collings. 2003. “Entrepreneurial Motivation.” Human Resource Management Review 13, no. 2: 257–279. Sinha, N., and K. B. L. Srivastava. 2013. “Association of Personality, Work Values and SocioCultural Factors With Intrapreneurial Orientation.” Journal of Entrepreneurship 22, no. 1: 97–113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09713 55712 469186. Smilor, R. W. 1997. “Entrepreneurship: Reflections on a Subversive Activity.” Journal of Business Venturing 12, no. 5: 341–346. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0883 - 9026(97) 00008 - 6. Smith, K. G., J. R. Baum, and E. A. Locke. 2001. “A Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth.” Academy of Management Journal 44, no. 2: 292–303. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 3069456. Solymossy, E., and A. Gross. 2015. “Taking the Engineering Path to Business Leadership and Entrepreneurial Success in Canada and USA.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11, no. 2: 393– 408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501402983. Stopford, J. M., and C. W. BadenFuller. 1994. “Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship.” Strategic Management Journal 15, no. 7: 521–536. Sykes, H. B. 1986. “The Anatomy of a Corporate Venturing Program: Factors Influencing Success.” Journal of Business Venturing 1, no. 3: 275–293. Taatila, V., and S. Down. 2012. “Measuring Entrepreneurial Orientation of University Students.” Education + Training 54, no. 8/9: 744–760. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00400 91121 1274864. Tietz, M. A., and S. C. Parker. 2012. “How Do Intrapreneurs and Entrepreneurs Differ in Their Motivation to Start a New Venture?” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 32, no. 4: 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMBPP. 2012. 11492 abstract. Turro, A., C. Alvarez, and D. Urbano. 2016. “Intrapreneurship in the Spanish Context: A Regional Analysis.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 28, no. 5–6: 380–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08985 626. 2016. 1162850. Urban, B., and K. Nikolov. 2014. “ Sustainable Cor porate Entrepreneurship Initiatives: A Risk and Reward Analysis.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19, no. Supplement_1: 383–408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3846/ 20294 913. 2013. 879749. Urban, B., and E. Wood. 2015. “The Importance of Opportunity Recognition Behaviour and Motivators of Employees When Engaged in Corporate Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 16, no. 5: 980–994. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3846/ 16111 699. 2013. 799087. Urbano, D., C. Alvarez, and A. Turró. 2013. “Organizational Resources and Intrapreneurial Activities: An International Study.” Management Decision 51, no. 4: 854–870. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00251 74131 1326617. Urbano, D., and A. Turró. 2013. “Conditioning Factors for Corporate Entrepreneurship: An in (Ex)ternal Approach.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9, no. 3: 379–396. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136 501302618. Vallerand, R. J., C. Blanchard, G. A. Mageau, etal. 2003. “Les Passions de l'âme: On Obsessive and Harmonious Passion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, no. 4: 756–767. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 85.4. 756. Veenker, S., P. van der Sijde, W. During, and A. Nijhof. 2008. “Organisational Conditions for Corporate Entrepreneurship in Dutch Organisations.” Journal of Entrepreneurship 17, no. 1: 49–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09713 55707 01700104. Wales, W., J. Wiklund, and A. McKelvie. 2015. “What About New Entry? Examining the Theorized Role of New Entry in the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Performance Relationship.” International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 33, no. 4: 351–373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42613 506023. Wang, W., Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, and J. Ma. 2020. “Spillover of Workplace IT Satisfaction Onto Job Satisfaction: The Roles of Job Fit and Professional Fit.” International Journal of Information Management 50: 341–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2019. 08. 011. Warr, P., and I. Inceoglu. 2012. “Job Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Contrasting Associations With Person–Job Fit.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17, no. 2: 129–138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0026859. Webb, T. L., and P. Sheeran. 2006. “Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A MetaAnalysis of the Experimental Evidence.” Psychological Bulletin 132, no. 2: 249–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00332909. 132.2. 249. Williamson, J. M., J. W. Lounsbury, and L. D. Han. 2013. “Key Personality Traits of Engineers for Innovation and Technology Development.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 30, no. 2: 157–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jengt ecman. 2013. 01. 003. Woodman, R. W., J. E. Sawyer, and R. W. Griffin. 1993. “Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity.” Academy of Management Review 18, no. 2: 293–321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258761. Zahra, S. A. 1991. “Predictors and Financial Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business Venturing 6: 259–285. Zhang, X., and K. M. Bartol. 2010. “Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement.” Academy of Management Journal 53, no. 1: 107–128. Zhao, H., and S. E. Seibert. 2006. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial Status: A MetaAnalytical Review.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 2: 259–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 91.2. 259. Supporting Information Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section.