From collectivism to entrepreneurship: Personality traits driving entrepreneurial transformation in kibbutzim

Klein, Galit; Assadi, Djamshid Article From collectivism to entrepreneurship: Personality traits driving entrepreneurial transformation in kibbutzim Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Klein, Galit; Assadi, Djamshid (2025) : From collectivism to entrepreneurship: Personality traits driving entrepreneurial transformation in kibbutzim, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020065 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321209 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/ Received: 18 December 2024 Revised: 2 February 2025 Accepted: 12 February 2025 Published: 15 February 2025 Citation: Klein, G., & Assadi, D. (2025). From Collectivism to Entrepreneurship: Personality Traits Driving Entrepreneurial Transformation in Kibbutzim. Administrative Sciences,15(2), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci 15020065 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article From Collectivism to Entrepreneurship: Personality Traits Driving Entrepreneurial Transformation in Kibbutzim Galit Klein 1,* and Djamchid Assadi 2 1The Department of Economic and Business Administration, Ariel University, Ari’el 4070000, Israel 2Digital Management Department, Burgundy School of Business, 69000 Dijon, France; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Purpose: This study examines the entrepreneurial transformation within kibbutzim (organizations historically rooted in collectivist ideals) as they adapt to economic and cultural shifts. Positioned as unique socioeconomic models, kibbutzim provide a compelling context for understanding social intrapreneurship, defined as entrepreneurial behaviors emerging within structured communal settings. The study explores how tensions between different community values impact the motivation to establish a new business. Methods: A paper-based survey was distributed to 256 entrepreneurs. Motivation is assessed using the push/pull theory. Self-efficacy is proposed as a mediator between the type of kibbutz (collective or privatized) and motivational factors, with proactive personality acting as a moderator of the relationship between kibbutz type and self-efficacy. Findings: The results indicate that although entrepreneurs from both types of kibbutzim exhibit lower pull motivators compared to non-kibbutz members, privatized kibbutz entrepreneurs display a higher level of push motivation than the other groups. Additionally, self-efficacy mediates the relationship between collective kibbutz members and pull motivation and between privatized kibbutz members and push motivation, but only for entrepreneurs with low levels of proactive personality traits. Conclusions: The findings underscore the influence of cultural tensions and values on entrepreneurial behaviors, offering insights into the interplay between community context and individual agency. Keywords: intrapreneurship; kibbutz; personality traits; push/pull motivation; proactive behavior; self-efficacy; social entrepreneurship; social market economy 1. Introduction The “kibbutz” has long been a defining emblem of Israeli society, symbolizing egalitarian collectivism and pioneering communal values (Moskovich & Achouch,2017;Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). Rooted in ideals of Zionism and socialism, kibbutzim (plural form of kibbutz) were designed to establish a new social and economic order based on shared ownership, collective labor, and equality. These communities played a central role in Israel’s nationbuilding, contributing significantly to its agricultural, military, and industrial development. Despite comprising only about 2% of Israel’s total population, the kibbutzim have made a significant impact on the nation’s political and economic landscape since the formal establishment of Israel in 1948. At their zenith, kibbutzim accounted for approximately 40% of Israel’s agricultural output and 9% of its industrial production (Bloch et al.,2023), embodying the ideals of cooperation and self-sufficiency. Over the decades, kibbutzim have undergone profound transformations while adapting to the pressures of economic liberalization, globalization, and changing cultural values. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020065 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 2 of 18 Second-generation members saw kibbutzim as strong, affluent, and stable entities. However, a significant generational shift occurred with the coming of age of the third generation, characterized by a move away from kibbutz life and a growing tendency toward individualism and capitalism driven by a desire for personal autonomy. During the 1980s, many families and young people left the kibbutzim due to the economic crisis (Tobiasz-Lis et al., 2024). This demographic shift can be attributed to the younger individuals’ dissatisfaction with the limited opportunities offered by kibbutz life for engagement in the state’s broader social, cultural, and economic spheres. The younger members’ migration to urban areas resulted in the Israeli kibbutz community—originally designed with a young population in mind—gradually aging since then (Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). In parallel with the demographic trend of an aging population, the financial crisis that Israeli kibbutzim faced in the mid-1980s triggered a shift from a collective to an individualistic perspective and the adoption of private property ownership (excluding land ownership) (Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing into the present, this shift toward privatization resulted in kibbutz members opening personal bank accounts and receiving salaries from external employers. This transition highlights the evolving role of individual agencies in reshaping community structures (Moskovich,2020). The shift from collectivist to entrepreneurial models within kibbutzim reflects a broader socioeconomic phenomenon, where personal motivations, proactive personality traits, and self-efficacy intersect with changing communal norms to drive innovation and economic activity. Today’s kibbutzim, recognized for their inclusive nature, offer a compelling alternative to urban life, particularly for young families searching for a healthy, rural lifestyle. However, as Letzter (2023) noted, the appeal of the modern kibbutz is less rooted in its ideological origins and more in its ability to provide a comfortable environment. Moreover, the expansion of the high-tech sector in the 1990s contributed significantly to Israel’s rapid economic growth (Manos & Gidron,2021). The resulting ideological and industrial shifts may have led aspiring entrepreneurs among younger-generation kibbutz members into a dilemma: leave the kibbutz to launch their own business or become intrapreneurs, which is defined as engaging in entrepreneurial behavior within organizations to foster both individual and collective values (Antoncic & Hisrich,2003; Vettik-Leemet & Mets,2024). Intrapreneurship encompasses proactive behaviors within organizational structures, enabling individuals to innovate, solve problems, and seize opportunities (Antoncic & Hisrich,2003;Itzkovich & Klein,2017;Klein,2023). Despite their unique communal ethos, kibbutzim can be seen as analogous to organizational settings where entrepreneurial behaviors have emerged to address internal and external challenges. Samuel and Heilbrunn (2017) highlighted kibbutzim as fertile grounds for intrapreneurial activity that showcase how organizational change fosters individual entrepreneurship within community structures. This perspective frames the transformation of the kibbutz not merely as an economic shift but also as a paradigm for understanding social intrapreneurship within community-based and organizational contexts. In this paper, we aim to address the following questions: Are the cultural differences between collective and privatized kibbutzim related to the ability to become intrapreneurs? How do organizational and cultural transformations, self-efficacy, and proactive traits interact to foster intrapreneurial activities driven by push–pull motivational factors? By examining the roles of these factors, this study provides insights into how individual agencies interact with communal and organizational dynamics to foster entrepreneurial behaviors. In doing so, it contributes to the discourse on social intrapreneurship, offering a nuanced understanding of the interplay between individual motivations and systemic change. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 3 of 18 The paper is structured as follows: Section 1reviews the literature on collectivism, entrepreneurial transformation, and intrapreneurship, highlighting the theoretical underpinnings of the study. Section 2outlines the conceptual framework, presenting the key constructs and hypotheses driving the research inquiry. Section 3details the research design and methodology, emphasizing the data collection and analytical techniques employed. Section 4presents the findings and discusses their implications in the context of social intrapreneurship. Finally, the conclusion synthesizes the insights gained, offering directions for future research and practical applications in fostering intrapreneurial behavior within organizations. 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Motivational Dynamics, Personality Traits, and Sociocultural Shifts in Kibbutz Transformation This review builds upon the central research inquiry: What drives individual kibbutz members to transition from collective to entrepreneurial behaviors, and what roles do push and pull motivational factors, self-efficacy, and proactive traits play in this process? While acknowledging the influence of macro-level dynamics, the focus here is on microlevel mechanisms to better understand entrepreneurial motivations within the unique socioeconomic context of kibbutzim. Framing this transition through the lens of intrapreneurship, the review situates kibbutzim as community-based organizational settings where entrepreneurial behaviors emerge to address internal and external challenges (Heilbrunn,2005a,2005b;Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). The sections are structured to provide a coherent historical, theoretical, and conceptual foundation for addressing the research inquiry and to prepare the groundwork for the conceptual framework. 2.2. The Kibbutz as a Socioeconomic Model The kibbutz has long been a symbol of Israeli society, embodying ideals of egalitarian collectivism and pioneering communal values (Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024;Samuel & Heilbrunn,2017). Surprisingly, this model does not stem from ancient Jewish traditions but draws inspiration from collective movements such as Russian agricultural communes and European utopian socialist experiments. Influential thinkers like Marx (1887) and Tolstoy (1894) informed the early ethos of the kibbutz, emphasizing communal living and rejecting capitalist individualism. Zionist–socialist leaders, including Gordon (1938) and Borochov (1905), further grounded the kibbutz vision in ideals of labor, community, and national revival. The first kibbutz, Degania, was founded in 1910 near the Sea of Galilee by pioneers from Eastern Europe. This community aimed to create an egalitarian society based on shared ownership of land, labor, and resources. Initially focused on agriculture, kibbutzim later diversified into industrial enterprises while maintaining their collectivist ethos. However, by the mid-1980s, mounting debt, global market integration, and shifting societal values precipitated significant changes. The ‘shock’ economic liberalization policies of 1980s Israel triggered extreme inflation, depletion of foreign currency reserves, and a banking crisis in 1983, culminating in a severe economic downturn by 1985. This crisis significantly impacted the kibbutzim and plunged them into debt (Kahana & Kaminer,2020;Palgi & Getz,2014). They began gradually privatizing. While debt was a key factor, the broader shift toward neoliberal policies, including weakened trade unions, increased global trade, and a switch from collective to individual contracts, also promoted privatization (Palgi & Getz,2014). These economic challenges and organizational difficulties led to the adoption of private ownership strategies and differential salaries, marking a shift away the traditional income- Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 4 of 18 sharing model in what became known as the privatization process (Banai & Nirenberg, 2024;Russell et al.,2015). This transition to capitalism also steered kibbutz members to integrate into the national monetary economy by opening personal bank accounts and adapting to the use of money (Azarnert,2017;Moskovich,2023). Socially and culturally, the collectivist ethos evolved into a business-oriented culture that emphasizes individual economic stakes and home ownership, with many members now working outside the community (Moskovich & Achouch,2017). Since the 1990s, many kibbutzim have transitioned from collective structures to privatized, market-oriented models (Samuel & Heilbrunn,2017). The collective kibbutz kept the ideology of socialism and sharing, while a privatized kibbutz instituted a separation between the members’ financial accounts and the kibbutz’s economic situation. In these communities, each member has an individual bank account through which they manage all their expenses and income, and the kibbutz is not responsible for the members’ loss or gain in revenue. On the other hand, the privatized kibbutz is not obligated to satisfy the members’ needs, and they are required to pay for activities provided by it, including education, health, catering, and other benefits that were once supported by the kibbutz (Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). Therefore, a privatized kibbutz is akin to an urban or communal community. Currently, there are 266 kibbutzim with approximately 200,000 residents; out of these, 36 remain collective (approximately 13%), while the rest are privatized (Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). Most kibbutz factories were built in the 1970s and 1980s, some of them by collective kibbutzim. According to CofaceBDI data (CofaceBDI,2021), 235 factories were operated in kibbutzim in 2021, the majority in the plastic and rubber (28%), machine and industrial equipment (19%), food and agriculture (13%), and technology and electronic (11%) industries. Regarding small and medium enterprises (SMEs), while there are no official numbers, available data show that around 2000 such organizations opened in kibbutzim in the last 15 years; a third of these were initiated by women and attained an annual turnover of ILS 100 million (USD 2.2 million) (Goldstein,2006). The privatization process has also led to spatial reorganization, reflecting broader social and economic shifts (Kahana & Kaminer,2020). While these transformations are substantial, kibbutzim continue to retain elements of their original identity, adapting to both internal and external pressures (Russell et al.,2011). The persistence of communalism amid the widespread shift toward privatization highlights a complex landscape within Israeli kibbutzim, where traditional values continue to coexist with modern economic adaptations (Tobiasz-Lis et al.,2024). In addition, these transformations create opportunities for intrapreneurial activities within kibbutzim, where entrepreneurial behaviors have emerged to address evolving challenges. As Heilbrunn (2005a) noted, kibbutzim exemplify intrapreneurial dynamics as community structures adapt to external economic pressures by balancing traditional values with innovative practices. 2.3. Motivating Entrepreneurs Under Market Economy Theories: Push and Pull Factors Economic transitions from collectivism to a market orientation have been extensively studied, focusing mainly on macro-level dynamics such as systemic inefficiencies, institutional barriers, and reform pathways (Dabrowski,2020;Gidron & Domaradzka,2021; Kornai,1992;Stark,1996;Weichang & Volchik,2022). Kornai (1992) highlighted the inflexibility of centrally planned economies in responding to market demands, while Dabrowski (2020) suggested that different initial conditions influenced transition strategies. Similarly, Weichang and Volchik (2022) demonstrated how collective cultures, such as China and Russia, are learning from each other’s reforms and transformation processes in order to advance their development. Stark (1996) proposed the concept of hybridization, where socialist and capitalist systems coexist during transitional phases, and Sachs (1993) advo- Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 5 of 18 cated for “shock therapy”, rapid systemic changes to overcome entrenched inefficiencies. While former studies shed an important light on the cultural changes that occurred over the years, they often neglect individual-level dynamics, which are crucial to understanding entrepreneurial behavior during such transitions. By examining these dynamics, this paper explores how personality traits shape entrepreneurial transformations within kibbutzim and offers insights into social intrapreneurship as a form of community-driven adaptation to market economies. Motivational factors are central to understanding entrepreneurial behavior (Klein,2016; Martínez-Cañas et al.,2023), particularly in the context of transitioning kibbutzim. Push factors, such as economic necessity and financial insecurity, compel individuals toward entrepreneurship as a means of survival (Dawson & Henley,2012). Conversely, pull factors, such as aspirations for autonomy, achievement, and self-fulfillment, attract individuals to entrepreneurship by aligning with intrinsic motivations (Stephan et al.,2016). Since the collective kibbutz is built on the agenda of collectivism on the one hand and economic support in case of failure on the other, we can assume that the decision of collective kibbutz members to become entrepreneurs is not driven by necessity but by an inner desire to do so. Hence, they lean on a pull-based motivation. Conversely, the motivation that drives privatized kibbutz members is more complicated. They are not obligated to follow the kibbutz’s decisions and may choose their career path (self-employment vs. salaried employment) independently, which points to a pull motivation. However, according to the push hypothesis, people who feel financially insecure may evaluate the expected returns from entrepreneurship as more attractive than the alternative (Dawson & Henley,2012; Martínez-Cañas et al.,2023). Since privatized kibbutz members are no longer supported by their community, they may have a higher chance of being pushed toward becoming self-employed rather than choosing to do so. As such, in privatized kibbutzim, diminished communal support heightens push motivations, whereas collective kibbutzim, with their supportive environments, foster pull-driven entrepreneurship (Heilbrunn,2008). This dual framework of push and pull factors underscores how cultural and economic contexts influence entrepreneurial decisions in transitioning kibbutzim and sheds light on their relevance to intrapreneurial activities. 2.4. Cultural Values Shaping Intrapreneurial Behaviors with Self-Efficacy and Proactivity as an Intervening Mechanism Cultural norms and institutional frameworks play a critical role in shaping entrepreneurial behavior. Institutional theory posits that societal norms and values heavily influence individual choices, including entrepreneurial decisions (Scott,1995;Klein et al., 2024). Traditional kibbutzim, with their emphasis on cooperation and equality, often constrain individual entrepreneurial endeavors. However, the shift toward privatization introduced market-oriented cultural values that encourage innovation, risk-taking, and individual achievement (Heilbrunn,2008). Performance-based cultures further facilitate this transition by prioritizing individual innovation and success (Javidan,2004). These evolving norms also foster intrapreneurial ecosystems within kibbutzim, where cultural values mediate the tension between collectivism and individualism. Furthermore, scholars suggest that individuals who become entrepreneurs exhibit unique traits such as entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactivity (Frese et al.,2016;Gielnik et al.,2020;Kumar & Shukla,2022). Self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura,1983,1997), plays a pivotal role in entrepreneurial decision-making (Aima et al.,2020;Kumar & Shukla,2022). It acts as a mediating mechanism between cultural values and entrepreneurial intentions, shaping how individuals perceive and respond to opportunities and challenges. For example, Aima et al. (2020) found that self-efficacy mediates the connection between global mindset—i.e., the ability to Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 6 of 18 interpret a situation and criteria from a global point of view—and entrepreneurial intention. In addition, Hopp and Stephan (2012) suggested that entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy are essential determinants of whether a person will complete the implementation phase and establish a business successfully, since self-efficacy results from the cultural values and norms embedded in the individual’s society. As such, we propose that in privatized kibbutzim, the focus on performance-based outcomes fosters higher self-efficacy by rewarding individual effort and achievement. Conversely, in collective kibbutzim, self-efficacy is enhanced through a supportive environment that alleviates perceived risks. This mediating role of self-efficacy highlights its importance in intrapreneurial behaviors, where confidence in one’s abilities drives innovation and adaptability within organizational settings. Proactive personality traits, characterized by initiative, adaptability, and resilience, significantly influence entrepreneurial outcomes (Rauch & Frese,2007). Studies have suggested that a proactive personality serves as a facilitator of entrepreneurial intentions (e.g., Hubbart,2024;Neneh,2019;Van Ness et al.,2020). These traits moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior by enhancing individual adaptability in varying socioeconomic contexts. As such, we posit that in collective kibbutzim, proactivity amplifies the effects of self-efficacy by enabling individuals to leverage communal resources for entrepreneurial ventures. Conversely, in privatized kibbutzim, proactivity mitigates the pressures of push factors by channeling individual initiative into productive outcomes. This highlights the parallels between entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial dynamics, where proactivity facilitates the pursuit of innovative solutions within community or organizational constraints. To conclude, the review synthesizes historical, cultural, psychological, and institutional perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial transformations in kibbutzim. Key insights include the tension between collectivist and market-oriented values, the roles of motivational factors, and the mediating effects of self-efficacy and proactivity. These foundations not only underpin the subsequent conceptual framework but also illuminate the dynamics of intrapreneurial behavior in community and organizational contexts. Based on the review, we posit the following hypothesis depicted in Figure 1. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19 intention. In addition, Hopp and Stephan (2012) suggested that entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy are essential determinants of whether a person will complete the implementation phase and establish a business successfully, since self-efficacy results from the cultural values and norms embedded in the individual’s society. As such, we propose that in privatized kibbutzim, the focus on performance-based outcomes fosters higher self-efficacy by rewarding individual effort and achievement. Conversely, in collective kibbutzim, self-efficacy is enhanced through a supportive environment that alleviates perceived risks. This mediating role of self-efficacy highlights its importance in intrapreneurial behaviors, where confidence in one’s abilities drives innovation and adaptability within organizational settings. Proactive personality traits, characterized by initiative, adaptability, and resilience, significantly influence entrepreneurial outcomes (Rauch & Frese, 2007). Studies have suggested that a proactive personality serves as a facilitator of entrepreneurial intentions (e.g., Hubbart, 2024; Neneh, 2019; Van Ness et al., 2020). These traits moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior by enhancing individual adaptability in varying socioeconomic contexts. As such, we posit that in collective kibbutzim, proactivity amplifies the effects of self-efficacy by enabling individuals to leverage communal resources for entrepreneurial ventures. Conversely, in privatized kibbutzim, proactivity mitigates the pressures of push factors by channeling individual initiative into productive outcomes. This highlights the parallels between entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial dynamics, where proactivity facilitates the pursuit of innovative solutions within community or organizational constraints. To conclude, the review synthesizes historical, cultural, psychological, and institutional perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial transformations in kibbutzim. Key insights include the tension between collectivist and marketoriented values, the roles of motivational factors, and the mediating effects of self-efficacy and proactivity. These foundations not only underpin the subsequent conceptual framework but also illuminate the dynamics of intrapreneurial behavior in community and organizational contexts. Based on the review, we posit the following hypothesis depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1. The present study’s model and hypotheses. H1. The transition from collectivist to entrepreneurial behavior is related to the push and pull motivational factors. H2. The transition from collectivist to entrepreneurial behavior is related to the self-efficacy personality trait. Figure 1. The present study’s model and hypotheses. H1. The transition from collectivist to entrepreneurial behavior is related to the push and pull motivational factors. H2. The transition from collectivist to entrepreneurial behavior is related to the self-efficacy personality trait. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 7 of 18 H3. The transition from collectivist to entrepreneurial behavior and motivational factors is mediated by self-efficacy. H4. Proactivity moderates the relationships among motivational factors, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial success. 3. Methodology 3.1. Conceptual Framework The transformation of kibbutzim from collectivist to entrepreneurial models represents a profound socioeconomic evolution, driven by individual motivations, cultural contexts, and systemic pressures. This framework extends the discourse on organizational change by positioning kibbutzim as analogous to organizational settings, where entrepreneurial behaviors reflect intrapreneurial dynamics. Concomitantly with this assumption, the dependent variables in this framework are the motivational factors, which are categorized into push factors, such as financial necessity and diminished communal support, and pull factors, including aspirations for autonomy, creativity, and self-fulfillment. These motivations reflect both external pressures and internal aspirations, propelling individuals toward entrepreneurial endeavors within the communal context. We argue that the transition from collectivism to entrepreneurial behavior captures a shift in practices, values, and economic orientations. This transformation mirrors intrapreneurial activity, where individuals innovate and adapt within structured communal settings to address emerging challenges and opportunities. The independent variables include the following: (1) The type of kibbutz (collective vs. privatized), which reflects the structural and cultural differences within kibbutzim that influence the degree and nature of entrepreneurial activity. (2) Self-efficacy, defined as confidence in one’s ability to succeed in entrepreneurial tasks, which acts as a mediating variable. It links motivational factors with entrepreneurial outcomes, demonstrating how internal beliefs enable individuals to navigate challenges and capitalize on opportunities. Lastly, (3) proactive personality traits, characterized by adaptability, resilience, and initiative, which serve as a moderating variable. Proactive individuals are better equipped to translate self-efficacy into actionable entrepreneurial behaviors by amplifying the impact of motivational factors. 3.2. Sample and Procedures A survey was conducted among entrepreneurs living in collective and privatized kibbutzim. Since the kibbutz is a unique community, questionnaires were also delivered to entrepreneurs who are not kibbutz members. Participants provided informed consent, and data confidentiality was rigorously maintained. Following Caliendo et al. (2014), an entrepreneur was defined as a person who establishes and owns a business. This refers mostly to persons who are already self-employed and who are mostly “the founders, owners and managers of a business under their own liability” (p. 789). The study variables were measured using adaptations of existing scales. The study’s scales were translated into Hebrew and back-translated into English to check the reliability of the translation. Overall, 256 subjects participated in the survey. Out of these, 92 entrepreneurs were privatized kibbutz members (36%), 83 were members of collective kibbutzim (33%), and the remaining 81 subjects were not kibbutz members (31%). Female respondents made up 66% of the sample, while 34% were male. Furthermore, 26% of the respondents were single, 61% were married, and 17% were either divorced or widowed. M age = 41 years ( SD = 12.73 ). M entrepreneurial_years = 10.96 ( SD = 10.89 ). M employees = 40.05 ( SD = 75.11 ); how- Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 8 of 18 ever, the median number of employees was 8, and 25% of businesses had a maximum of one additional employee. 3.3. Measures Pull and Push motivators. The dependent variables, i.e., the type of motivational (push and pull) factors, were measured using 13 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = fully disagree; 5 = fully agree). The factorability of the 13 items was examined using principal component analysis. Initial eigenvalues indicated two factors that explained 26% and 24% of the total variance. The factor loading matrix for this result is presented in Appendix A. A Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was conducted on the variables that were loaded on the first and the second factors. The results indicated good reliability for both the first ( α = 0.818) and second ( α = 0.720) factors. Based on the description of the items, the first variable, termed pull motivators, was composed using questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11. The second variable, named push motivators, was composed of questions 5, 12, and 13. Kibbutz type was measured using a question asking whether the participant is a member of a privatized kibbutz, a collective kibbutz, or resides outside the kibbutz. Self-efficacy was measured based on Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (1995) questionnaire (sample item: “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”; α= 0.93 ). A 4-point Likert scale was used to score responses using a range from 1 = not at all true to 4 = exactly true. Proactivity was measured using Bateman and Crant’s (1993) 17-item scale (sample item: “No matter what the odds, if I believe in something, I will make it happen”; α= 0.94 ). A 7-point scale was used to score responses on a range from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Control variables. The participant’s gender, number of years as an entrepreneur, and the number of employees in their companies were controlled. 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive Analysis and Preliminary Insights Descriptive statistics provided an overview of key variables, including motivational factors and entrepreneurial outcomes. Correlation analyses revealed significant relationships between kibbutz type and entrepreneurial motivations. Entrepreneurs from privatized kibbutzim demonstrated higher reliance on push motivators, such as financial necessity, while those from collective kibbutzim exhibited a negative alignment with pull motivators, including aspirations for autonomy and creativity. These patterns are summarized in Table 1, which presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among the primary variables. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among research variables. M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Collective kibbutz a1.00 2. Privatized kibbutz b−0.52 ** 1.00 3. Pull motivation 3.26 (0.93) −0.13 * −0.10 1.00 4. Push motivation 3.76 (0.82) 0.01 0.14 * 0.30 ** 1.00 5. Proactivity 5.31 (0.80) −0.07 −0.02 −0.11 0.07 1.00 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 15 of 18 members. However, Manos and Gidron (2021) have suggested that the changes in values that affected the kibbutzim paralleled similar processes throughout Israel that transformed the collectivistic and socialist country into a start-up nation that emphasizes the values of individualism and materialism. Therefore, further studies are needed to understand the impact of the national cultural context, especially those national characteristics that contribute to the drive to become an entrepreneur. By situating the kibbutz’s entrepreneurial transformation within the framework of social intrapreneurship, this study contributes to the broader discourse on fostering innovation within structured environments. These findings provide a foundation for the future exploration of the interplay between individual agencies and communal structures, which will be further addressed in the concluding section. 6. Conclusions This study delves into the transformative journey of kibbutzim from collectivist models to entrepreneurial ecosystems, framing the phenomenon as a compelling example of social intrapreneurship. By integrating motivational dynamics, self-efficacy, and proactive personality traits, the research highlights how individual agencies operate within structured communal contexts to drive entrepreneurial transformation. These findings not only validate the conceptual framework but also provide a nuanced understanding of how intrapreneurial activities emerge and thrive in unique sociocultural and organizational settings. Framing the kibbutz transition as a form of intrapreneurship situates this study within broader discussions of organizational innovation and social entrepreneurship. The kibbutz, akin to an organization with its structured norms and shared resources, provides fertile ground to explore how entrepreneurial behaviors can be cultivated within collective frameworks. This perspective bridges the gap between individual motivations and organizational adaptation, offering practical insights into fostering social intrapreneurship. The implications of this research extend beyond the kibbutzim, providing valuable insights for organizations seeking to adopt social entrepreneurial practices while addressing resistance to change. By focusing on individual traits and cultural dynamics, the study underscores strategies for fostering innovation without undermining foundational values. These insights can guide policymakers and organizational leaders in developing interventions that harmonize economic demands with the preservation of communal well-being. In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on social intrapreneurship, providing a comprehensive lens to understand the dynamics of entrepreneurial transformation within structured environments. It not only validates the relevance of personality traits and motivational factors but also emphasizes the adaptability of collective structures in fostering innovation and economic resilience. Author Contributions: The authors made equal contributions to this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the In-stitutional Review Board of Ariel University (protocol code AU-SOC-GK-20220307, 7 March 2022). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data will be made available upon reasonable request. Please contact the first author. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 16 of 18 Appendix A Factor loading of motivational factors to establish a business. Table A1. Factor Loadings of Motivational Factors for Establishing a Business. Item Mean SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Wanted to have more time to spend with my family (11) 3.46 1.36 0.816 Looked for more free time (8) 3.42 1.29 0.793 Free choice to take actions (7) 3.74 1.22 0.682 Desire to be independent and make independent decisions (4) 3.47 1.44 0.672 Desire to earn more (1) 3.64 1.46 0.655 Job security (2) 3.51 1.30 0.612 Self-fulfilment (10) 3.88 1.09 0.433 More interest in my work (3) 4.02 1.03 448 I wanted more challenges (6) a3.84 1.03 0.392 I adapted to the requirements of my spouse (13) 3.21 1.34 0.726 I couldn’t find another job (5) 2.85 1.35 0.623 I wanted to adjust myself to the norms prevalent in my community (12) 3.19 1.39 0.584 Cronbach’s alpha 0.818 0.720 a This item was excluded from the final analysis because its factor loading did not exceed the threshold of 0.40, indicating an insufficient contribution to the construct’s measurement. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications. Aima, M. H., Wijaya, S. A., Carawangsa, L., & Ying, M. (2020). Effect of global mindset and entrepreneurial motivation on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and its implication for entrepreneurial intention. Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management,1(2), 302–314. [CrossRef] Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Privatization, corporate entrepreneurship, and performance: Testing a normative model. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,8(3), 197. Azarnert, L. V. (2017). Privatization of the kibbutz and the demand for money. Israel Affairs,23(5), 848–856. [CrossRef] Banai, M., & Nirenberg, J. (2024). Ownership, freedom, belonging, and God: Kibbutzim’s strategies to extend their “sharing” model. Management Decision.ahead-of-print. [CrossRef] Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45(2), 464–469. [CrossRef] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company. Bateman, S. T., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,14(2), 103–118. [CrossRef] Bloch, L., Jørgensen, V., & Schürch, R. (2023). Kibbutzim: Common work, common wealth, common land for a common purpose. Architecture of Territory Atlas. Available online: https://topalovic.arch.ethz.ch/Courses/Student-Projects/FS23-Kibbutzim -Common-Work-Common-Wealth-Common-Land-For-A-Common-Purpose (accessed on 17 January 2025). Borochov, B. (1905). The national question and the class struggle. Poale Zion Association. Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. S. (2014). Personality characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. Small Business Economics,42(4), 787–814. [CrossRef] Calza, F., Cannavale, C., & Nadali, I. Z. (2020). How do cultural values influence the entrepreneurial behavior of nations? A behavioral reasoning approach. International Business Review,29(5), 101725. [CrossRef] CofaceBDI. (2021). A summary of the industries in kibbutzim. Available online: https://www.bdicoface.co.il/news/%d7%a0%d7%99%d7 %aa%d7%95%d7%97-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%97%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%aa-coface-bdi-%d7%97%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%95%d7 %aa-%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%95%d7%99-%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%90%d7%a8%d7%93%d7%99%d7%9d/ (accessed on 17 January 2025). Dabrowski, M. (2020). Transition to a market economy: A retrospective comparison of China with countries of the former Soviet bloc. Acta Oeconomica,70(S), 15–45. [CrossRef] Dawson, C., & Henley, A. (2012). “Push” versus “pull” entrepreneurship: An ambiguous distinction? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,18(6), 697–719. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,34, 81–100. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 17 of 18 Frese, M., Gielnik, M. M., & Mensmann, M. (2016). Psychological training for entrepreneurs to take action: Contributing to poverty reduction in developing countries. Current Directions in Psychological Science,25(3), 196–202. [CrossRef] Funta, R., & Horváth, M. (2024). Can the platform operator, who acts as a provider on his own platform, favor himself over third-party providers? Juridical Tribune – Review of Comparative and International Law,14(2), 227–242. [CrossRef] Gidron, B., & Domaradzka, A. (2021). The new social and impact economy: An international perspective. Springer. Gielnik, M. M., Bledow, R., & Stark, M. S. (2020). A dynamic account of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 487–505. [CrossRef] Goldstein, T. (2006, October 7). A third of Kibbutz small businesses initiated by women. Available online: https://www.ynetnews.com/ articles/0,7340,L-3273488,00.html (accessed on 20 January 2025). Gordon, A. D. (1938). Our tasks ahead. Zionist Organization. Hayes, F. A. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research,50(1), 1–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Heilbrunn, S. (2005a). The impact of organizational change on entrepreneurship in a kibbutz setting. Human Relations,61(11), 1531–1555. Heilbrunn, S. (2005b). The impact of organizational change on entrepreneurship in community settings. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,12, 422–436. [CrossRef] Heilbrunn, S. (2008). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity in communities. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,2(1), 37–51. [CrossRef] Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy, and start-up success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,24(9–10), 917–945. [CrossRef] Hubbart, J. A. (2024). Understanding and mitigating leadership fear-based behaviors on employee and organizational success. Administrative Sciences,14(9), 225. [CrossRef] Itzkovich, Y., & Klein, G. (2017). Can incivility inhibit intrapreneurship? The Journal of Entrepreneurship,26(1), 27–50. [CrossRef] Javidan, M. (2004). Performance orientation in the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,35(5), 475–506. [CrossRef] Kahana, F., & Kaminer, T. (2020). Privatizing collectivity: The transformation of the social and spatial forms of the Kibbutz. The International Journal of Design in Society,14(2), 4–19. [CrossRef] Klein, G. (2016). Different thinking or similar models: Do entrepreneurs and franchisees apply the same decision-making models prior to establishing a company? Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development,9(3), 342–357. [CrossRef] Klein, G. (2023). Transformational and transactional leadership, organizational support, and environmental competition intensity as antecedents of intrapreneurial behaviors. European Research on Management and Business Economics,29(2), 100215. [CrossRef] Klein, G., Assadi, D., & Zwilling, M. (2024). Fighting fire with fire: Combating criminal abuse of cryptocurrency with a P2P mindset. Information Systems Frontiers,2024, 1–27. [CrossRef] Kornai, J. (1992). The socialist system: The political economy of communism. Princeton University Press. Kumar, R., & Shukla, S. (2022). Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intentions: Examining the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Global Business Review,23(1), 101–118. [CrossRef] Letzter, J. (2023). From vision to realization: The design of culture in the Kibbutzim. Heritage & Society,2023, 1–35. Manos, R., & Gidron, B. (2021). The new social economy in Israel: From the Kibbutz ideal to social-tech entrepreneurship. In The new social and impact economy: An international perspective (pp. 95–118). Springer International Publishing. Martínez-Cañas, R., Ruiz-Palomino, P., Jiménez-Moreno, J. J., & Linuesa-Langreo, J. (2023). Push versus pull motivations in entrepreneurial intention: The mediating effect of perceived risk and opportunity recognition. European Research on Management and Business Economics,29(2), 100214. [CrossRef] Marx, K. (1887). Capital: A critique of political economy, volume I (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.). Available online: https://www.marxists .org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2024). Moskovich, Y. (2020). Business sustainability strategy in a cooperative kibbutz industry. Sustainability,12(21), 9172. [CrossRef] Moskovich, Y. (2022). Hybridization in a kibbutz industry structure: An Israeli case study. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,42(9/10), 777–794. [CrossRef] Moskovich, Y. (2023). Communal organizational culture as a source of business-success sustainability in kibbutz industry: Two case studies. Sustainability,15(13), 10654. [CrossRef] Moskovich, Y., & Achouch, Y. (2017). Family home culture and management-employee relationships: Comparing two kibbutz factories. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management,5(2), 95–107. [CrossRef] Neneh, N. B. (2019). From entrepreneurial intentions to behavior: The role of anticipated regret and proactive personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior,112, 311–324. [CrossRef] Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior,110, 403–419. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 65 18 of 18 Palgi, M., & Getz, S. (2014). Varieties in developing sustainability: The case of the Israeli kibbutz. International Review of Sociology,24(1), 38–47. [CrossRef] Peráˇcek, T., & Kaššaj, M. (2023). A critical analysis of the rights and obligations of the manager of a limited liability company: Managerial legislative basis. Laws,12(3), 56. [CrossRef] Preacher, J. K., & Hayes, F. A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36(4), 717–731. [CrossRef] Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,16(4), 353–385. [CrossRef] Russell, R., Hanneman, R., & Getz, S. (2011). The transformation of the Kibbutzim. Israel Studies,16(2), 109–126. [CrossRef] Russell, R., Hanneman, R., & Getz, S. (2015). The renewal of the Kibbutz: From reform to transformation. Rutgers University Press. Sachs, J. D. (1993). Poland’s jump to the market economy. MIT Press. Samuel, Y., & Heilbrunn, S. (2017). Entrepreneurship in the kibbutz setting: Towards a classification of new business ventures. In Work and organizations in Israel (pp. 217–232). Routledge. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio: Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Nfer-Nelson. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications. Stark, D. (1996). Recombinant property in East European capitalism. American Journal of Sociology,101(4), 993–1027. [CrossRef] Stephan, U. (2022). Cross-cultural innovation and entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,9, 277–308. [CrossRef] Stephan, U., Strauss, K., Wach, D., & Gorgievski, M. (2016). How entrepreneurs influence employees’ job satisfaction: The double-edged sword of proactivity. Academy of Management Proceedings,2016(1), 11882. [CrossRef] Tobiasz-Lis, P., Lis, P., & Perez, A. (2024). From pioneers to pensioners: Addressing aging populations in Israeli kibbutzim. Czasopismo Geograficzne,95(3), 369–387. [CrossRef] Tolstoy, L. (1894). The Kingdom of God is within you. Crowell. Travis, J., & Freeman, E. (2017). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions: Incremental validity of proactive personality and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a moderator. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,20(1), 56–68. Van Ness, R. K., Seifert, C. F., Marler, J. H., Wales, W. J., & Hughes, M. E. (2020). Proactive entrepreneurs: Who are they and how are they different? The Journal of Entrepreneurship,29(1), 148–175. [CrossRef] Vázquez-Parra, J. C., Alonso-Galicia, P. E., Cruz-Sandoval, M., Suárez-Brito, P., & Carlos-Arroyo, M. (2023). Social entrepreneurship, complex thinking, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Correlational study in a sample of Mexican students. Administrative Sciences, 13(4), 104. [CrossRef] Vettik-Leemet, P., & Mets, T. (2024). Entrepreneurship and innovation—Process overlap or the same? Systematic overview and converging process-dynamic model. Administrative Sciences,14(2), 38. [CrossRef] Weichang, C., & Volchik, V. (2022). Comparison of China and Russia’s system changes in the progress of economic transition. In Regional economic integration and global competition in the post-COVID-19 era: European Union, Eurasian Economic Union, and the belt and road initiative (pp. 157–172). IGI Global. Zhao, D., & Smallbone, D. (2019). What affects nascent entrepreneurs’ proactiveness. Asia Pacific Management Review,24(4), 318–326. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.