I want to break free: How a design approach guides nascent intrapreneurs in a global public service organisation

van den Broek, Antonius; Koria, Mikko; Saarelainen, Emilia Article I want to break free: How a design approach guides nascent intrapreneurs in a global public service organisation Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: van den Broek, Antonius; Koria, Mikko; Saarelainen, Emilia (2023) : I want to break free: How a design approach guides nascent intrapreneurs in a global public service organisation, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ISSN 2192-5372, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00328-6 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/290315 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/ I want tobreak free: howadesign approach guides nascent intrapreneurs inaglobal public service organisation Antonius van den Broek1* , Mikko Koria1 and Emilia Saarelainen2 Introduction Public service organisations increasingly recognise the value of innovation as a way to increase productivity and to explore new ways of meeting global challenges (Bason, 2010; Choi & Chandler, 2015) to enhance their public service value (Hartley etal., 2019). Consequently, they need to attend to innovation inhibitors such as ingrained routines and a predictive planning and control mindset (Borins, 2001; Sørensen, 2007). A common practice to overcome these and change behaviour is hiring external innovation capabilities to come up with novel ideas and ways of working (Collm & Schnedler, 2014). Yet in some public service organisations bringing in external innovators is less desirable due to the sensitive nature of the work and associated security risks. In these cases, organisations are reliant on the innovative capabilities of internal Abstract In this paper, we expand our understanding of how a design approach can enable and guide employees to break free from their incumbent mindset and ways of working and become intrapreneurs in public organisations. While previous studies have identified desired behaviour for intrapreneurs, there is a lack of understanding how new intrapreneurs adapt such behaviours, especially in public organisations. This paper shows how the readily available approaches of design practice can guide new intrapreneurs to break free from their routines, adopt entrepreneurial behaviours and provide the practical tools to help them to persuade others to collaborate with them on their innovative ideas. We draw from 19 interviews with nascent intrapreneurs, and documentation collected at the UN Refugee Agency to inductively develop a model for how design supports employees in their journey to become an intrapreneur. Our findings illustrate how adopting a design approach provided aspiring intrapreneurs to become ambidextrous in navigating between the creative and the calculative logics and heuristics in highly structured organisations. Both the design attitude and the tools associated with design practice helped new intrapreneurs to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset, position their new ideas and align them to the needs, priorities and constraints of colleagues and stakeholders. Keywords: Intrapreneurship, Design, Nascent intrapreneurs, Intrapreneurial behaviour Open Access © The Author(s) 2023. 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/. RESEARCH van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00328-6 Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship *Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Loughborough University London, London, UK 2 Innovation Service, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Budapest, Hungary Page 2 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 staff and need to encourage entrepreneurship within the organisation, often termed intrapreneurship (Ireland etal., 2009). Fostering intrapreneurship in public service organisations enables exploring new ways of working whilst leaving existing administrative organisational structures and processes intact (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003). Defined here as “a process whereby individuals within organisations pursue new opportunities and depart from the customary” (Halme etal., 2012: 747), intrapreneurship involves individuals thinking outside of formal processes and across organisational boundaries. The continued interest and recognition of the value of intrapreneurship in public organisations (Kearney etal., 2008; Kraus etal., 2019; Liddle & McElwee, 2019; Sadler, 2000; Tremml, 2021) goes hand in hand with an ongoing scholarly discussion on how to nourish intrapreneurship (Glinyanova etal., 2021; Phan etal., 2009). A central theme in the intrapreneurship literature is how organisational antecedents such as structure (Zahra etal., 2000), managerial support (Kuratko etal., 2005) or culture (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2010) hinder or support intrapreneurship. Alongside this organisationallevel focus, an emerging body of work has started to pay more attention to the individual intrapreneur, which begin with the notion that intrapreneurship is fundamentally a bottom-up approach to innovation placing the individual at the centre of the analysis (Gawke etal., 2019; Park etal., 2014; Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). Despite the recognition of the role of the individual in intrapreneurship, this perspective has received limited attention (Blanka, 2019; Santos etal., 2020) especially in the context of public administration. This is unfortunate as an individual perspective is particularly valuable in the study of large public service organisations, as the rigid structures of these organisations often limit the possibilities for structural changes to facilitate intrapreneurship (Jones & Butler, 1992). Consequently, this places emphasis on the capabilities and behaviour of the individual to find creative ways to work around these fixed structures to initiate innovation (Alt & Craig, 2016; Halme etal., 2012). A systematic review of the intrapreneurship literature (Neessen etal., 2019) finds that innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, opportunity recognition/exploitation and networking are the central behavioural characteristics for intrapreneurs. However, the methods by which internal employees can adapt their behaviour within the boundaries and limitations of their organisation remain still largely unexplored (Hughes & Mustafa, 2017). Some recent studies (e.g. Klofsten etal., 2021) have started to address this need and propose that the “dynamic capabilities” framework is a suitable tool to support intrapreneurship. While we recognise its potential, studies putting this idea forward remain abstract and do not include practical tools and methods that are needed to help internal employees of large public organisations to adopt an innovative attitude, leaving a gap in our understanding of the practical steps that new intrapreneurs can take to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset. An emerging and promising avenue in the entrepreneurship literature turns to the design discipline and suggests that a design mindset and associated methods can help to guide entrepreneurs (Mansoori, 2020; Romme & Reyman, 2018; Telalbasic, 2021), particularly in early-stage learning of entrepreneurial capabilities (Garbuio etal., 2018; Linton & Klinton, 2019; Sarooghi etal., 2019). This literature is based on the premise that the inherent features of the design approach, such as an appreciation of an ambiguous Page 3 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 environment, experimentation and risk-taking are aspects closely associated with those of successful entrepreneurship (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Rauch etal., 2009). Given the convergence of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, where intrapreneurs act entrepreneurially within the boundaries of the organisation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Audretsch, 2021), by extension our study explores how the design approach can also benefit intrapreneurs. Specifically, we focus on the role of design to support nascent intrapreneurs in adapting their own ways of thinking and working and how the tools and design mindset can help them in inspiring others to collaborate on their innovative projects. Based on this premise, we frame our study by asking: How can the design approach guide new intrapreneurs in global public service organisations? We examine the case of the Innovation Fellowship Programme (IFP), a learning programme within the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) that is built around principles and methods of design innovation (Brown, 2008; Cross, 1982). The IFP aims to foster innovation across the organisation and facilitate the development of intrapreneurial practice. Based on interviews held with past participants (Fellows) of the IFP programme, complemented by documentation, we examine how the design approach enables Fellows to adopt an intrapreneurial mindset and support them in getting new ideas adopted in public service organisations. Our study contributes to the literature of intrapreneurship in two ways. Firstly, we address the shortcomings in the literature on individual intrapreneurship by showing how the design approach, including actively adopting an empathic mindset, and design practices, such as visualisation and prototyping, enables incumbents to adopt an exploratory approach. Secondly, our findings illustrate how the design approach guides them in their interaction with direct and indirect colleagues to introduce and operationalise innovative ideas and help to overcome resistance and persuade others to join them in their innovation journey in a highly formal and technocratic context. The paper is structured as follows. In the following section, we review the challenges of intrapreneurship in large public organisations, where new intrapreneurs need to navigate established and novel ways of thinking and working. We then turn to ambidexterity as a conceptualisation to deal with the tension between these opposing mindsets and practices and review the literature that argues that the design approach includes helpful concepts to deal with ambidexterity. Next, we discuss our methodology and subsequently the findings. Finally, in the Discussion section we synthesise our findings and discuss how the design approach guides nascent intrapreneurs. Literature Intrapreneurship inpublic service organisations Innovation in public service organisations (PSO) can be defined as “the development and implementation of a novel idea by a PSO to create or improve public value within an ecosystem” (Chen etal., 2020: 1677). Chen and colleagues point to three essential attributes for innovation: the need for novelty, the need for simultaneous development and implementation, and the recognition that innovation within public service organisations fundamentally operates within an ecosystem. These attributes have much in common with earlier scholarly works in entrepreneurship (e.g. Singh, 2001), which classify the process of intrapreneurship in broadly Page 4 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 two key phases: finding novelty during opportunity recognition and development and implementation during opportunity exploitation (Kraus etal., 2019; Menzel etal., 2007). These phases require a different and contrasting mindset and behaviours (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Whereas exploration requires an intrapreneur to have an exploratory mindset and ways of working that is deviant from the existing ways of working, during exploitation the intrapreneur is required to align to the existing ways of working to operationalise innovative ideas. In public service organisations, such existing way of working is often associated with a predictive, planning mindset and practices, which stands in strong contrast to the explorative, innovative mindset required for entrepreneurial action (Sarasvathy, 2001). The contrasting mindset and behaviour required for these two phases places intrapreneurs in a “conundrum” (Heinze & Weber, 2016: 159), where they are expected to “break free” from existing thinking and work patterns to find new ways of doing things, whilst simultaneously being dependent on those same patterns, as they need to deliver their new ideas within the formalised processes and boundaries of their organisation (Halme etal., 2012). As scholars in public service organisations emphasise, novelty requires to be introduced in the wider ecosystem, meaning various actors need to be engaged to mobilise an innovation (Piening, 2011). In other words, intrapreneurs not only need to adopt an innovative mindset to come up with new ideas, but they also need to finding ways to translate these new ideas into the existing mindset and ways of working to convince incumbent colleagues to collaborate on their innovation projects (Abraham, 1997; Alt & Craig, 2016; Halme etal., 2012). This is particularly challenging in large public service organisations where innovative ideas may face resistance from colleagues or superiors who strongly identify with established ways of working (Freeman & Engel, 2007; Haveman & Rao, 1997), or who may fear personal reputational damage if the innovation fails (Greene etal., 1999). This can lead to a clash of logics (Heinze & Weber, 2016) between risk-taking intrapreneurs and the “risk-averse, non-innovative, and reactive” (Covin & Slevin, 1989: 77) incumbents. Consequently, successful intrapreneurs need to switch between existing and novel logics to negotiate access to resources by building partnerships and commitment (Blanka, 2019), achieving leadership endorsement (Halme etal., 2012), while embedding new processes and ideas into established ways of working (Alt & Craig, 2016). Ambidexterity anddesign To skilfully “perform contradictory activities and switch between different mind-sets and action sets” (Bledow etal., 2009: 353) while simultaneously adhering to and challenging established rules (Holmqvist & Spicer, 2013), requires “ambidexterity”, the skill to balance two mindsets or do two things well (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013). Ample studies (see Mu etal., 2022 for an overview) have identified antecedents for ambidextrous individuals, yet they are scattered and contextually shaped (Laureiro- Martínez etal., 2015; Rogan & Mors, 2014). Consequently, some scholars have called for unified approaches to achieving individual ambidexterity, arguing that the design field is suitable to address such needs (Beverland etal., 2015; Randhawa etal., 2021; Zheng, 2018). Designers’ ability to switch between exploratory and exploitative modes of thinking (Calabretta etal., 2017; Garbuio etal., 2015) enables them to come up with novel Page 5 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 ideas and at the same time operationalise them in a predictive planning context, which is arguably specifically useful in rigid structured contexts, like public service organisations. Recent empirical evidence from Nielsen etal. (2021) shows that both the design attitude and specifically the methods such as persona mapping and journey mapping stimulated managers’ exploratory, entrepreneurial thinking, while simultaneously methods such as visualisation helped managers to “crystallise” their ideas and supported them in exploiting existing knowledge and resources. This is further supported in other contexts, where design approaches have been reported to change the mindset and culture within organisations (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). While individual ambidexterity is important for intrapreneurship, organisational ambidexterity is equally important (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009); the ability to blend exploitative intrapreneurial behaviour with exploratory methods to make new ideas a reality. Intrapreneurs should not only themselves switch between exploration and exploitation but convince others to follow competing logics and practices during different phases of the project. As such, intrapreneurial ambidexterity is not only an individual’s internal challenge, but also an external communicative challenge to bring people together and persuade them to tolerate or adopt an alternative mindset. As Nielsen etal. (2021) found, the design attitude and practices are particularly useful in this regard as they are structured around the inclusion of others (Baldwin & von Hippel, 2011). The use of visual and participatory methods enables the combination of different worlds, such as those of exploration and exploitation, hence enabling organisational-level ambidexterity. Methodology To reveal how design guides nascent intrapreneurs in their innovation journey, we adopt a single-case study approach (Yin, 2017) to analyse intrapreneurial activity in a global public humanitarian organisation. The unique access to the organisation and the special nature of the UNHCR as a complex, global public service humanitarian organisation provided justification to focus on a single case (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007). Our data were collected from interviews with intrapreneurs (past Fellowship participants) and secondary data including teaching materials, planning documentation, slide decks of workshops and year-end reviews. The setting: innovation fellowship The UNHCR is a global public service organisation that was established in 1950 to address the refugee crises of World War II. As of 2021 the UNHCR operated in 132 countries with personnel totalling over 17,878 (UNHCR, 2021). It is the key global organisation mandated to aid and protect refugees, forcibly displaced communities and stateless people. UNHCR generates public value by prioritising the human rights, safety, and welfare of individuals (Geuijen etal., 2017; Moore, 2013). The geographical scope, mandate and number of people that fall within the remit of the UNHCR, results in a unique, extraordinary and complex organisation where structure and rigid processes are crucial. The complexity both within the organisation and the challenges of the nature of the work create a complex operational Page 6 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 environment that requires creative, efficient and innovative solutions on various levels within the organisation. To facilitate creative and innovative thinking, the UNHCR set up its Innovation Service and the Innovation Fellowship Programme (IFP) to address various challenges with the aim to build a “culture of innovation” (Saarelainen etal., 2019). To date, there are close to 200 participants IFP Fellows working in the UNHCR’s field operations worldwide and at headquarters, representing a diversity of nationalities, skill sets and expertise. The programme aimed to develop intrapreneurial practice among UNHCR employees through inducing new ways of problem-solving, diffusing the skills of design thinking, and the adoption of the design attitude and associated practices, including rapid prototyping and other tools. These approaches were seen to be relevant and aligned with the types of problems UNHCR employees faced. Through a competitive procedure, around 25 participants (‘Fellows’) are selected, and, over a period of 12 months, they go through an innovation process in their own duty stations. The overall structure of the IFP includes a series of workshops, an innovation project that allows them to put the learning of design innovation into practice, and a series of webinars and other, different types of support activities. Over the course of the year IFP Fellows learn and use design principles and methods and embed new approaches in real-world innovation projects, whereby the workshops begin by setting out the broad issues of innovation in humanitarian contexts. The “hands-on” workshop activities are carried out in groups, emphasising diversity and collaboration in innovation. Alongside the workshops and webinars, programme participants initiated an innovation project. In this project, Fellows were expected to individually apply their newly acquired intrapreneurial skills and capabilities to a real-life project in the context of their duty station. As the subsequent findings illustrate, most Fellows utilised their skills beyond the project and implemented the design mindset and practices in other projects beyond the Fellowship programme, and as such created lasting positive change in the organisation (Reference Anonymised for peer review 2023). Data collection This study draws from two sources of data: interviews with past programme participants (Fellows) and programme teaching materials (slide decks, reports, compendiums, year-end reports). The interviewees were randomly selected from a population of approximately 100 Fellows from 2013 to 2018. From those 100 participants, 19 semi-structured interviews were held (see Table1 for an overview). Interviewees came from various duty stations over the world, spanning from Lebanon to Chad and from Ecuador to Iran. Altogether interviewees operated in 15 different country operations and headquarters’ locations. Interviewees had various backgrounds, experiences and differing levels of seniority. During these interviews the Fellows were asked to share their perceived change in capabilities and competencies and how the Fellowship had allowed them to utilise the newly acquired design skills in their daily practice to set up innovative projects. Page 7 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 Data analysis We adopted an inductive approach using the Gioia method to analyse the data (Gioia etal., 2013). We started by reviewing the learning materials to get an understanding of the design attitude and methods taught on the programme which helped the interpretation of the interview data. We then transcribed all interviews and engaged in open coding, where we coded instances in the transcripts that related to methods, attitudes and struggles to innovate that the Fellows experienced, resulting in 134 codes. We then clustered these codes in 18 categories (first-order codes) related to design attitudes, methods and intrapreneurial behaviours. In the subsequent stage we utilised axial coding, where we sought for themes that captured groups of codes in the first stage. We reflected these codes to existing concepts in entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and design literature, specifically issues relating to behaviour and mindsets of both intrapreneurship (Hughes & Mustafa, 2017; Menzel etal., 2007) and design (Cross, 1982; Garbuio etal., 2015; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011), overcoming resistance to innovation (e.g. Alt & Craig, 2016) and encouraging collaboration (Di Domenico etal., 2010; Halme etal., 2012). Going back and forth between our codes and the literature resulted in five second-order themes. These themes allowed us to aggregate these further into features of the two-stage process of becoming an intrapreneur (see Fig.1). Findings: howdesign training helps nascent intrapreneurs tobecome innovative andovercome organisational barriers toinnovation We report our findings in four sections following our data structure (Fig.1). We first summarise how the Fellows adopted the design approach. In the following section, we explain how the notion of empathy made them more receptive to the needs and mindset Table 1 Overview of interviewees Interviewee ID Year joining the UNHCR Interview date Years of UNHCR experience at the time of the interview 1 2017 2020 3 2 2008 2020 12 3 2015 2020 5 4 2008 2020 12 5 2013 2020 7 6 2011 2020 9 7 2008 2020 12 8 2015 2020 5 9 2014 2020 6 10 2012 2020 8 11 2014 2020 6 12 2015 2020 5 13 2008 2020 12 14 2016 2020 4 15 2012 2020 8 16 2011 2020 9 17 2014 2020 6 18 2016 2020 4 19 2015 2020 5 Mean 7.2 years tenure Page 8 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 of their colleagues, which helped to overcome resistance and persuaded them to join in their project. Adopting adesign attitude andpractices The IFP programme was set up to transform incumbents into innovators. A central part of the programme was the adoption of a design attitude and to help the Fellows to adopt different approaches to their usual ways of working. In other words, using design to shift from an existing structured, predictive, planning mindset to an innovation mindset. Learning materials included readings with titles such as “Design thinking process guide”, “Human-centred design” and “Design mindsets for personal leadership development”. Design attitude or design mindset was a recurring theme throughout the programme. This attitude consisted of seven key principles: (1) “Nurturing of empathy”, where Fellows were encouraged to engage in active listening; (2) “Encouraging to build”, to stimulate Fellows to test and prototype ideas; (3) “Embrace failure” to advocate a positive attitude to failures as an opportunity to learn; (4) “Optimism” to promote a positive attitude to the problems at hand; (5) “Messiness of innovation” to build trust in the process by acknowledging the complexities and unstructured ways of working; (6) “Radical collaboration” to encourage Fellows to put more emphasis on collaboration; (7) “Encourage Fig. 1 Data structure Page 15 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 References Abraham, R. (1997). The relationship of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism to intrapreneurship and organizational commitment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 179–186. Alt, E., & Craig, J. B. (2016). Selling issues with solutions: igniting social intrapreneurship in for-profit organizations: Selling issues with solutions. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 794–820. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. Anonymised for peer review (2023). Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 18. Audretsch, D. B. (2021). Intrapreneurship and absorptive capacities: The dynamic effect of labor mobility. Technovation, 99, 102129. Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. In Search of Research Excellence, 22(6), 1399–1417. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Policy Press. Beverland, M. B., Wilner, S. J. S., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), 589–609. Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298. Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13, 919–961. Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., et al. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337. Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging innovation in the public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 310–319. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84. Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 365–401. Chen, J., Walker, R. M., & Sawhney, M. (2020). Public service innovation: A typology. Public Management Review, 22(11), 1674–1695. Choi, T., & Chandler, S. M. (2015). Exploration, exploitation, and public sector innovation: An organizational learning perspective for the public sector. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership and Governance, 39(2), 139–151. Collm, A., & Schedler, K. (2014). Strategies for introducing organizational innovation to public service organizations. Public Management Review, 16(1), 140–161. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306 34. Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California Management Review, 50(1), 94–119. Fry, T. (2017). Design for/by “The Global South.” Design Philosophy Papers, 15(1), 3–37. Garbuio, M., Dong, A., Lin, N., et al. (2018). Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 41–61. Garbuio, M., Lovallo, D., Porac, J., et al. (2015). A design cognition perspective on strategic option generation. In G. Gavetti & W. Ocasio (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (pp. 437–465). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 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. Geuijen, K., Moore, M., Cederquist, A., Ronning, R., & Van Twist, M. (2017). Creating public value in global wicked problems. Public Management Review, 19(5), 621–639. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. Glinyanova, M., Bouncken, R., Tiberius, V., et al. (2021). Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: Measuring and mapping the field. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1731–1757. Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., & Hart, M. M. (1999). The corporate venture champion: A resource-based approach to role and process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 103–122. Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743–784. Hartley, J., Parker, S., & Beashel, J. (2019). Leading and recognizing public value. Public Administration, 97(2), 264–278. Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1606–1651. Heinze, K. L., & Weber, K. (2016). Toward organizational pluralism: Institutional intrapreneurship in integrative medicine. Organization Science, 27(1), 157–172. Holmqvist and Spicer. (2013). The ambidextrous employee: Exploiting and exploring people’s potential. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 37, 1–23. Hughes, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in smes: Evidence from an emerging economy: Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in smes. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(S1), 115–140. Page 16 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46. Jones, G. R., & Butler, J. E. (1992). Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory perspective. Journal of Management, 18(4), 733–749. Kearney, C., Hisrich, R., & Roche, F. (2008). A conceptual model of public sector corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 295–313. Klofsten, M., Urbano, D., & Heaton, S. (2021). Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: An overview. Technovation, 99, 102177. Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448. Kraus, S., Breier, M., Jones, P., et al. (2019). Individual entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship in the public sector. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1247–1268. Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., et al. (2015). Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance: Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 319–338. Liddle, J., & McElwee, G. (2019). Theoretical perspectives on public entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 25(6), 1308–1320. Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. Columbia University Press. Linton, G., & Klinton, M. (2019). University entrepreneurship education: A design thinking approach to learning. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 3. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. Mansoori, Y. (2020). Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking. Small Business Economics, 54, 28. Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1107–1132. Menzel, H. C., Aaltio, I., & Ulijn, J. M. (2007). On the way to creativity: Engineers as intrapreneurs in organizations. Technovation, 27(12), 732–743. Moore, M. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Harvard Univ. Press. Mu, T., van Riel, A., & Schouteten, R. (2022). Individual ambidexterity in SMEs: Towards a typology aligning the concept, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(2), 347–378. Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. Neessen, P. C. M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, B., et al. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: Toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15, 545–571. Nielsen, S. L., Christensen, P. R., & Storvang, P. (2021). Does design thinking benefit ambidextrous dynamics between SME managers’ entrepreneurial and administrative mindsets? The Design Journal, 24(5), 683–703. Park, S. H., Kim, J.-N., & Krishna, A. (2014). Bottom-up building of an innovative organization: Motivating employee intrapreneurship and scouting and their strategic value. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(4), 531–560. Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., et al. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197–205. Piening, E. P. (2011). Insights into the process dynamics of innovation implementation: The case of public hospitals in Germany. Public Management Review, 13(1), 127–157. Randhawa, K., Nikolova, N., Ahuja, S., et al. (2021). Design thinking implementation for innovation: An organization’s journey to ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(6), 668–700. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., et al. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9, 337–360. Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860–1877. Romme, A. G. L., & Reyman, I. M. M. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship at the interface of design and science: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, e00094. Saarelainen, E., Zyadeh, D. & Ferrera, I.N. (2019). Creating a culture of innovation in the humanitarian sector. Creating a Culture of Innovation in the Humanitarian Sector. Sadler, R. J. (2000). Corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector: The dance of the chameleon. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(2), 25–43. 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. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. Sarooghi, H., Sunny, S., Hornsby, J., et al. (2019). Design thinking and entrepreneurship education: Where are we, and what are the possibilities? Journal of Small Business Management, 57(sup1), 78–93. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24. Singh, R. P. (2001). A comment on developing the field of entrepreneurship through the study of opportunity recognition and exploitation. Academy of Management. the Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 10–12. Sørensen, J. B. (2007). Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: Workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 387–412. Telalbasic, I. (2021). The value of design-driven entrepreneurship. The Design Journal, 24(5), 675–682. Tremml, T. (2021). Barriers to entrepreneurship in public enterprises: Boards contributing to inertia. Public Management Review, 23(10), 1527–1552. Page 17 of 17 van denBroeketal. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2023) 12:64 Urbano, D. (2013). Organizational resources and intrapreneurial activities: An international study. Management Decision, 51(4), 854–870. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications. SAGE Publications Ltd. Zheng, D.-L. (2018). Design thinking is ambidextrous. Management Decision, 56(4), 736–756. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.