Strategic leadership in SMEs: The mediating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in organizational performance

Woo, Hyung Rok Article Strategic leadership in SMEs: The mediating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in organizational performance Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Woo, Hyung Rok (2025) : Strategic leadership in SMEs: The mediating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in organizational performance, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040151 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321295 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: 31 January 2025 Revised: 13 April 2025 Accepted: 18 April 2025 Published: 21 April 2025 Citation: Woo, H. R. (2025). Strategic Leadership in SMEs: The Mediating Roles of Corporate Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Organizational Performance. Administrative Sciences,15(4), 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15040151 Copyright: © 2025 by the author. 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 Strategic Leadership in SMEs: The Mediating Roles of Corporate Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Organizational Performance Hyung Rok Woo School of Business Administration, Mokpo National University, Muan-gun 58554, Republic of Korea; [email protected] Abstract: This study explored the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational performance, with a particular emphasis on the mediating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in South Korea. A cross-sectional survey design was employed that targeted SMEs with more than three years of operational experience. Of the 532 questionnaires distributed, 112 valid responses were obtained and analyzed using regression analysis. The findings indicated that strategic leadership positively influenced both corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, each of which, in turn, contributed to improved organizational performance. This study also empirically differentiated entrepreneurial behavior into corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship and confirmed that the latter significantly influenced the former. By clarifying the conceptual boundaries between intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship and providing empirical evidence of their dynamic interplay, this study offers a novel theoretical contribution to entrepreneurship research in SMEs. The results underscored the importance of strategic leadership in activating both individualand organization-level entrepreneurship as critical mechanisms for enhancing organizational performance. These insights have practical implications for establishing sound strategic leadership practices that foster innovative and entrepreneurial behaviors, ultimately leading to organizational performance. Keywords: strategic leadership; corporate entrepreneurship; intrapreneurship; organizational performance 1. Introduction According to “World Economic Outlook”, published by the International Monetary Fund (2024), the global economic growth rate is projected to be 3.2% in 2024 and to remain at that level in 2025. The average global growth rate over the past decade prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was 3.7%, but it is expected to decline to 3.2% over the next decade. This trend suggests that the global economy has entered a phase of low growth. As this lowgrowth trend in the global economy persists, firms are increasingly focusing on identifying new growth drivers. In other words, they seek breakthroughs by implementing more flexible and aggressive organizational changes or exploring new products and business opportunities (Zarkua et al.,2025). This study intends to understand these strategic responses of firms striving to create innovative businesses, with particular emphasis on entrepreneurial behaviors and strategic leadership. First of all, entrepreneurship is the pursuit of profit-oriented opportunity Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040151 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 2 of 17 without regard to resources currently controlled (Gopi & Subramoniam,2023). It encompasses not only offering new products or services but also adopting new technologies and pioneering new markets (Höglund & Mårtensson,2019). The current business trend aimed at building an innovative business under risk and uncertainty is line with these entrepreneurial behaviors. Moreover, established firms are increasingly paying attention to internalizing the entrepreneurial behaviors typically associated with a founding, because the practices are expected to help them overcome environmental threats and achieve sustainable growth (Jahanshahi et al.,2021). Entrepreneurship is no longer confined to the founding of new firms; it is recognized as a resource for organizational vitality that generates competitive advantages through innovation and exploration even in established firms (Hughes et al.,2021;Yun et al.,2022). Despite this growing attention to entrepreneurial behaviors within established firms, several related concepts remain poorly defined, leading to considerable confusion. The terms ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ and ‘intrapreneurship’, which are frequently employed to denote entrepreneurship within established firms, may be the most ambiguous. Based on the unit of analysis, several studies (e.g., Hernández-Perlines et al.,2022;Neessen et al., 2018;Urbano et al.,2022) have recently emphasized the necessity of distinguishing these two concepts. Corporate entrepreneurship is defined as the organizational transformation for developing and implementing innovative ideas, whereas intrapreneurship refers to autonomous behavior characterized by innovation initiatives that originate from employees themselves. However, these assertions remain at the theoretical proposition and empirical research on the distinction is still scarce. Next, strategic leadership refers to the roles undertaken by essential decision-makers such as chief executive officers (CEO), top management team (TMT), and board of directors (BOD). It is defined as the capacity of top management to articulate a vision, formulate strategy, and lead change in response to environmental uncertainty, enabling firms to survive and grow (Kebede et al.,2024). This concept is closely associated with behaviors of upper echelons, which enhance performance by building organizational capabilities (Singh et al.,2023). It is undeniable that strategic leaders exert a significant influence on various organizational outcomes, including risk-taking behavior, strategic changes, flexibility, and innovation (Cortes & Herrmann,2021). However, research concerning the impact of strategic leadership on entrepreneurial behaviors within established firms is still insufficient. Notably, there is no empirical research that distinguishes corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in examining the impacts of strategic leadership. To address these research gaps, this study examined the role of entrepreneurial behaviors—specifically corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship—in the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational performance, focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Entrepreneurial behavior is particularly critical in SMEs, which must innovate and respond rapidly to market dynamics despite limited resources (Mokbel Al Koliby et al.,2022). CEOs in SMEs tend to exert stronger influence, as they must manage a wide range of functions from R&D to sales, make strategic decisions, and interact closely with employees (Quansah et al.,2022). In SMEs with limited slack resources, strategic leadership that encourages entrepreneurial behaviors will play a crucial role in enhancing organizational performance. However, existing research on strategic leadership has predominantly focused on large firms, and empirical studies that examine the CEO’s influence on organizational performance in SMEs—particularly through the lens of entrepreneurial behavior—remain scarce (Samimi et al.,2022). The purpose of this study is to identify the role of entrepreneurial behaviors in SMEs in the transition through which strategic leadership enhances organizational performance. Furthermore, by distinguishing entrepreneurial behaviors into corporate entrepreneurship Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 3 of 17 and intrapreneurship, this study will contribute to clarifying their interrelationship and empirically validating these concepts. The findings are expected to yield meaningful insights into the effectiveness of strategic leadership in facilitating long-term innovation and success through entrepreneurial mechanisms in SMEs. 2. Theoretical Review 2.1. Strategic Leadership While leadership research has often focused on middle managers’ enhancement of subordinate capabilities, the impact of strategic leaders (CEOs, TMTs, BODs) positioned at the top of the organizational hierarchy on growth and innovation is considerably greater (Kebede et al.,2024). As decision-makers with comprehensive responsibility, strategic leaders significantly influence firm performance through their perceptions and behaviors (Ozgen et al.,2024). The concept of strategic leadership was first introduced by Child (1972) through the notion of ‘strategic choice’, which emphasized that executive decisions shape an organization’s future, growth, and structure (Kebede et al.,2024). Hambrick and Mason (1984) further developed this idea using the Upper Echelons Theory, positing that the characteristics and worldviews of strategic leaders are crucial in determining organizational strategies and outcomes (Cortes & Herrmann,2021). Over time, the research theme regarding strategic leadership has evolved from ‘managerial work and organizational structure’ to the ‘role of managers’; ‘upper echelons’; and, more recently, ‘competitive advantage’ (Singh et al.,2023). Thus, the literature presents various definitions and functions of strategic leadership. Research on strategic leadership encompasses not only the generic role of top executives in establishing a vision and strategic direction for the organization and guiding the formulation and execution of strategies, but also incorporates processes and means such as resource allocation, competency development, market orientation, innovation promotion, and workforce engagement (O’Shannassy, 2021). Samimi et al. (2022) identified eight functions of strategic leadership: strategic decision making, stakeholder engagement, human resource management, overseeing operations, motivating and influencing, addressing social and ethical issues, information management, and conflict management. Jaleha and Machuki (2018) argue that strategic leadership enhances performance by driving organizational change and competitiveness, which involves adapting both individual and organizational systems to uncertain environments. Research on the impact of strategic leadership, which has traditionally focused on basic management aspects such as making strategic decisions, managing conflicting demands, and motivating (Samimi et al.,2022), is increasingly exploring organizational-level topics such as organizational innovation (Cortes & Herrmann,2021;Tikas,2023), organizational learning (Asif,2020), ambidexterity (Ambilichu et al.,2023), and competitive advantage (Toseef et al.,2022). In this way, the effectiveness of strategic leadership on organizational performance cannot be denied, and scholars have proposed strategic leadership as a framework for fostering an innovative environment that enhances organizational, social, and human capabilities. This study focused on the relationship between strategic leadership and entrepreneurial behaviors. Specifically, entrepreneurial behavior within established firms, which is demonstrated through developing new products and services and creating innovative systems and technologies, is a key domain and a crucial role for strategic leaders. However, there is a lack of research aimed at consolidating and clarifying how strategic leaders influence entrepreneurial behaviors within their organizations. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 4 of 17 2.2. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship While entrepreneurship has primarily been studied in the context of a founding, it is increasingly recognized as a strategic means of enhancing the vitality of established firms, building competitive advantages, and improving their performance (Bierwerth et al.,2015; Kuratko,2018). Organizational behaviors in exploring and exploiting business opportunities under conditions of risk and uncertainty are important not only for a founding under the entrepreneurial landscape but also for established firms. These innovative behaviors within established firms are consistent with the concept of traditional entrepreneurship but differ in that they pursue restructuring and renewal based on already existing systems and products (Tantau & Fră¸tilă,2021). As interest in entrepreneurial behavior within established firms has grown, recent research has sought to systematize the concept by distinguishing between ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ and ‘intrapreneurship’ based on the nature and level of the activity (Hernández-Perlines et al.,2022;Urbano et al.,2022), as shown in Figure 1. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18 While entrepreneurship has primarily been studied in the context of a founding, it is increasingly recognized as a strategic means of enhancing the vitality of established firms, building competitive advantages, and improving their performance (Bierwerth et al., 2015; Kuratko, 2018). Organizational behaviors in exploring and exploiting business opportunities under conditions of risk and uncertainty are important not only for a founding under the entrepreneurial landscape but also for established firms. These innovative behaviors within established firms are consistent with the concept of traditional entrepreneurship but differ in that they pursue restructuring and renewal based on already existing systems and products (Tantau & Frăţilă, 2021). As interest in entrepreneurial behavior within established firms has grown, recent research has sought to systematize the concept by distinguishing between corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship based on the nature and level of the activity (Hernández-Perlines et al., 2022; Urbano et al., 2022), as shown in Figure 1. First, corporate entrepreneurship focuses on organization-level behaviors encompassing corporate venturing, business innovation, and self-renewal within established firms (Chang et al., 2022; Kreiser et al., 2021). Corporate venturing is proposing new markets, businesses, or products and developing new businesses in-house. Business innovation entails the pursuit of novelty by completely redefining what has become obsolete in the areas of product and technology. Self-renewal refers to activities that reform strategies, resources, cultures, and structures to adapt to changing environments. In a hypercompetitive environment, fostering a culture of corporate entrepreneurship enables firms to remain agile and respond effectively to customer requirements (Hughes & Mustafa, 2017). Given the dynamic market and evolving customer demand, firms need to prioritize corporate entrepreneurship because it is a firm-level capacity that enables top-down transformation of the internal ecosystem. Figure 1. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. Second, intrapreneurship emphasizes entrepreneurial orientation at the individual level within established firms. This concept focuses on individual tendencies, drawing from the traits and behaviors commonly observed in successful entrepreneurs. Intrapreneurship refers to the attitudes and behaviors of employees aimed at implementing creativity and innovation initiated in a bottom-up manner (Blanka, 2018). Earlier studies on intrapreneurship have defined employees entrepreneurial orientation as comprising innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, and competitive aggressiveness (Ferraz et al., 2021). Innovativeness is the propensity to generate new ideas and create novel products. Proactiveness entails initiating actions in anticipation of competitive dynamics and future needs. Risk-taking denotes the willingness to accept calculated risks to achieve objectives. Figure 1. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. First, corporate entrepreneurship focuses on organization-level behaviors encompassing corporate venturing, business innovation, and self-renewal within established firms (Chang et al.,2022;Kreiser et al.,2021). Corporate venturing is proposing new markets, businesses, or products and developing new businesses in-house. Business innovation entails the pursuit of novelty by completely redefining what has become obsolete in the areas of product and technology. Self-renewal refers to activities that reform strategies, resources, cultures, and structures to adapt to changing environments. In a hypercompetitive environment, fostering a culture of corporate entrepreneurship enables firms to remain agile and respond effectively to customer requirements (Hughes & Mustafa,2017). Given the dynamic market and evolving customer demand, firms need to prioritize corporate entrepreneurship because it is a firm-level capacity that enables top-down transformation of the internal ecosystem. Second, intrapreneurship emphasizes entrepreneurial orientation at the individual level within established firms. This concept focuses on individual tendencies, drawing from the traits and behaviors commonly observed in successful entrepreneurs. Intrapreneurship refers to the attitudes and behaviors of employees aimed at implementing creativity and innovation initiated in a bottom-up manner (Blanka,2018). Earlier studies on intrapreneurship have defined employees’ entrepreneurial orientation as comprising innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, and competitive aggressiveness (Ferraz et al.,2021). Innovativeness is the propensity to generate new ideas and create novel products. Proactiveness entails initiating actions in anticipation of competitive dynamics and future needs. Risktaking denotes the willingness to accept calculated risks to achieve objectives. Competitive Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 5 of 17 aggressiveness reflects a proactive strategy to surpass competitors through assertive actions aimed at increasing market share and competitive advantage. For firms to thrive, top executives must cultivate an environment that encourages these intrapreneurial characteristics, because the effectiveness of corporate strategy relies heavily on employees’ engagement (Stam & Elfring,2008). Thus, intrapreneurship is crucial for successfully implementing corporate strategies, which empowers employees to drive innovation and creativity. This study approached entrepreneurial behaviors within established firms by identifying corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, as well as highlighting their interrelationships. While both concepts are expected to play distinct roles in fostering innovation and promoting firm growth, empirical research examining these roles remains limited. Corporate entrepreneurship adopts a top-down approach, utilizing the firm’s resources to drive innovation, whereas intrapreneurship embodies a bottom-up approach, operating within the firm’s framework to promote innovation (Neessen et al.,2018;Rivera, 2017). Our distinction between these two concepts holds significant implications as it goes beyond mere terminology to influence strategic management, organizational culture, and overall effectiveness (Åmo & Kolvereid,2005;Urbano et al.,2022). 3. Research Model and Hypotheses This study aims to identify the role of entrepreneurial behaviors—specifically corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship—within established firms as mediators in the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational performance, as illustrated in Figure 2. First, this study is conducted with a focus on strategic leadership of SMEs. Research on strategic leadership and organizational performance has generally demonstrated a positive relationship but is limited by focusing primarily on the top executives of large firms (Ali & Anwar,2021;Liu et al.,2018). Given that CEOs of SMEs have fewer resources than large firms, they require more strategic choices and must utilize limited resources as efficiently as possible. Since CEOs in SMEs tend to exert relatively greater influence, it is necessary to separately examine whether the findings from studies on large firms are applicable to the SME context (Quansah et al.,2022). Therefore, we aim to validate that the strategic leadership exhibited by CEOs of SMEs serves as a crucial antecedent in driving entrepreneurial behaviors and achieving organizational performance. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 Competitive aggressiveness reflects a proactive strategy to surpass competitors through assertive actions aimed at increasing market share and competitive advantage. For firms to thrive, top executives must cultivate an environment that encourages these intrapreneurial characteristics, because the effectiveness of corporate strategy relies heavily on employees engagement (Stam & Elfring, 2008). Thus, intrapreneurship is crucial for successfully implementing corporate strategies, which empowers employees to drive innovation and creativity. This study approached entrepreneurial behaviors within established firms by identifying corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, as well as highlighting their interrelationships. While both concepts are expected to play distinct roles in fostering innovation and promoting firm growth, empirical research examining these roles remains limited. Corporate entrepreneurship adopts a top-down approach, utilizing the firms resources to drive innovation, whereas intrapreneurship embodies a bottom-up approach, operating within the firms framework to promote innovation (Neessen et al., 2018; Rivera, 2017). Our distinction between these two concepts holds significant implications as it goes beyond mere terminology to influence strategic management, organizational culture, and overall effectiveness (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005; Urbano et al., 2022). 3. Research Model and Hypotheses This study aims to identify the role of entrepreneurial behaviors—specifically corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship—within established firms as mediators in the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational performance, as illustrated in Figure 2. First, this study is conducted with a focus on strategic leadership of SMEs. Research on strategic leadership and organizational performance has generally demonstrated a positive relationship but is limited by focusing primarily on the top executives of large firms (Ali & Anwar, 2021; Liu et al., 2018). Given that CEOs of SMEs have fewer resources than large firms, they require more strategic choices and must utilize limited resources as efficiently as possible. Since CEOs in SMEs tend to exert relatively greater influence, it is necessary to separately examine whether the findings from studies on large firms are applicable to the SME context (Quansah et al., 2022). Therefore, we aim to validate that the strategic leadership exhibited by CEOs of SMEs serves as a crucial antecedent in driving entrepreneurial behaviors and achieving organizational performance. Figure 2. Hypothetical research model. According to Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), the dispositions and decisions of top executives play crucial roles in determining the strategies and performance of their organizations. We expected that the scope of top executives influence, Figure 2. Hypothetical research model. According to Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick & Mason,1984), the dispositions and decisions of top executives play crucial roles in determining the strategies and performance of their organizations. We expected that the scope of top executives’ influence, as posited by Upper Echelons Theory, would extend to entrepreneurial behaviors within their firms. This Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 6 of 17 expectation is based on the notion that strategic leadership closely aligns with the characteristics of entrepreneurial behavior (Maharani et al.,2024). For example, active support and bold investment in critical areas, such as new product development and innovation, which are essential for SME performance, must be supported by the commitment of top executives (Hughes & Mustafa,2017). CEOs with high strategic leadership will set the firm’s vision and strategic goals based on insights and predictions about the rapidly changing business environment and will strive to develop the organization’s core competencies to achieve these goals. Such CEOs encourage the development of products and services that respond more sensitively and rapidly to market demands than those in other organizations, thereby securing a competitive advantage (Singh et al.,2023). To closely examine the processes and impacts of entrepreneurial behavior within SMEs, this study distinguishes between the previously conflated concepts of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. Whereas corporate entrepreneurship focuses on organizational level behaviors aimed at strategic renewal and internal venturing, intrapreneurship emphasizes the voluntary efforts of individual employees who drive innovation (Åmo,2010;Neessen et al.,2018). Furthermore, this study elucidates how corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship coexist and contribute to the overall organizational vitality and competitive advantage. This study posits that intrapreneurship at the individual level is anticipated to positively influence corporate entrepreneurship at the organizational level. This assumption is based on the premise that organizational change and innovation cannot be effectively implemented without the engagement and participation of individual employees (Ferede et al.,2024), for the reason that employees are key strategic resources in SMEs, while also contributing to the achievement of organizational outcomes. (Pettit & Crossan,2020). Strategic leadership is expected to lead organizations to develop products and services that create value propositions for customers by activating corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship within the organization (Verma & Mehta,2022). First, The CEOs of SMEs would play a pivotal role in determining whether to foster corporate entrepreneurship by promoting organizational level initiatives such as corporate venturing, business model reconstruction, and strategic renewal, as they possess a significant degree of discretion in deciding when, how, and what to implement regarding corporate entrepreneurship. Second, the attitudes and behaviors demonstrated by CEOs with higher strategic leadership would serve as signals that inspire entrepreneurial actions among employees. They would encourage, reward, and empower employees to engage in intrapreneurial activities in order to achieve innovative outcomes. Based on the review of the preceding studies and the arguments presented, the following key research hypotheses have been established: Hypothesis 1. Intrapreneurship will have a positive impact on corporate entrepreneurship. Hypothesis 2. Strategic leadership will positively influence organizational performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Hypothesis 3. Strategic leadership will positively influence organizational performance through intrapreneurship. 4. Materials and Method 4.1. Data Collection The target population for this study was deemed appropriate for testing the research model on the condition that they possessed a minimum operational tenure sufficient to ensure reliable disclosure of financial indicators as measures of organizational performance, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 7 of 17 and a firm size suitable for attempts at internal business venturing. Consequently, the research design focused on SMEs in South Korea that have at least 100 employees and have a tenure of three years or more. This approach is expected to exclude firms that have not had the opportunity to experience the dynamics among intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and strategic leadership, or that have not established stable business models in the market. The sampling frame was constructed from a list of companies registered with the Ministry of SMEs and Startups in South Korea. Prior to the formal survey, the purpose of this study was explained to external affairs representatives at each company within the sampling frame via telephone, and their participation in the survey was confirmed. A multilevel data collection method was designed to capture the distinct units associated with each factor in the research model: strategic leadership, corporate entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship, corresponding to the CEO, the organization, and the employees, respectively. Initially, managers from each firm’s HR departments were invited to participate in the survey, and they were asked to assess corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship within their own firms. Next, we requested that they facilitate the participation of their CEOs in the survey to assess strategic leadership. HR managers were chosen as survey respondents for the two factors as they are well-positioned to evaluate organizational-level entrepreneurial behavior and related dynamics. While the focus of intrapreneurship is on individual employees within each firm, we believed that including HR managers in the survey to assess the overall intrapreneurship of employees across the organization would provide a more objective perspective. All procedures complied with the ethical standards set forth by the American Psychological Association. Formal ethical approval was waived because the physical and psychological risks to participants were minimal and the collected data did not contain any personal identifiers. Informed consent was obtained in written form from all participants prior to their involvement in this study. Participants were provided with a comprehensive explanation of the research objectives and methodologies, which facilitated their voluntary engagement in the study. A total of 532 questionnaires were distributed, and 147 responses were collected, ensuring participation from both the CEOs and HR managers of each firm. After excluding incomplete responses, those with missing data, those exhibiting significant central tendency bias, and those from firms for which three years of financial data could not be obtained, 112 responses were used for statistical analysis. Regarding the characteristics of the research sample, 61.6% of the firms are in the manufacturing sector, while 38.4% are in the nonmanufacturing sector. The tenure of the firms was as follows: 4.6% were established for more than three years but less than ten years, 26.5% for ten years or more but less than 20 years, 26.2% for 20 years or more but less than 30 years, 27.9% for 30 years or more but less than 40 years, and 14.8% for 40 years or more. In terms of union presence, 48.3% of firms had unions, while 51.7% did not. Firm size was categorized as follows: 29.9% had between 100 and 200 employees, 22.5% had between 200 and 300, 24.3% had between 300 and 500, and 23.3% had more than 500 employees. 4.2. Measurement Scales This study constructed a survey utilizing validated multi-item scales drawn from prior published research to measure key variables, including strategic leadership, corporate entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship (presented in Appendix A). All items were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Strategic leadership, as an independent variable, is defined as the ability to enhance a firm’s competitive advantage by shaping strategic direction and organizational competence Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 8 of 17 (Ireland & Hitt,2005). To measure this construct, we employed a 9-item scale developed by Belias and Trihas (2022) that assesses aspects such as configuring strategic orientation, translating strategy into action, and adaptive capacity. Corporate entrepreneurship, or the innovative and entrepreneurial activities undertaken by an organization, was measured using a 16-item scale developed by Zahra (1996) and validated by Ling et al. (2008). This scale is considered more robust as it assesses not only the presence of entrepreneurial characteristics within the firm but also the actual entrepreneurial activities undertaken. It broadly measures a firm’s corporate entrepreneurship across three dimensions: innovation (e.g., spending on new product development initiatives), internal venturing (e.g., entering emerging markets), and strategic renewal (e.g., redefining the industries in which we compete). To measure intrapreneurship, the practice of individual employees acting as entrepreneurs, we utilized a 15-item scale developed by Moriano et al. (2014). This scale comprises three dimensions: proactiveness (e.g., acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes), risk-taking (e.g., engaging in activities that have a chance of not working out), and innovativeness (e.g., finding new ways to do things). The dependent variable, organizational performance, can be measured using either qualitative or quantitative indicators. However, to reduce biases related to common methods and to enhance objectivity, this research selected return on invested capital (ROIC) as a proxy metric. To mitigate common method bias, this study diversified data sources by separating survey respondents into CEOs and HR managers, and it employed an objective financial metric (ROIC) instead of the self-reported method. ROIC is the ratio of net operating profit to less adjusted taxes on the firm’s invested capital and was collected from the Financial Supervisory Service of Korea. ROIC is widely regarded as one of the most effective indicators for assessing a firm’s competitive advantage (Tang & Liou,2010). To mitigate the impact of potential environmental uncertainties, the average ROIC over the past three years was used. Additionally, to control for the influence of firm age, firm size, and the industry on organizational performance, these factors were established as control variables based on previous research (Cortes & Herrmann,2021;Kurzhals et al.,2020). 4.3. Reliability and Validity A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments, as shown in Table 1. Reliability was assessed by examining Cronbach’s α for internal consistency and composite reliability (CR), ensuring both exceeded the acceptable thresholds of 0.6 (Nunnally,1978) and 0.7 (Bagozzi & Yi,1988), respectively. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.817 to 0.912, and CR ranged from 0.891 to 0.914, indicating satisfactory overall reliability of the variables. Validity was evaluated in terms of convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was considered excellent when the average variance extracted (AVE) was above 0.5 and the factor loadings of the measurement items were above 0.7 (Hair et al.,2018). The AVE values ranged from 0.774 to 0.803, and the factor loadings varied from 0.696 to 0.921, indicating strong convergent validity for the measurements. Discriminant validity was assessed using the method proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), comparing the square roots of the AVE with the correlation coefficients among the respective factors. As illustrated in Table 2, the results indicated that the square roots of the AVE for all factors exceeded the correlation coefficients among the factors, thereby confirming the presence discriminant validity. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 15 of 17 5. spend on new product development initiatives 6. enter new markets 7. establish or sponsor new ventures 8. find new niches in current markets 9. finance start-up business activities 10. create new semi and autonomous units 11. change its competitive approach (strategy) for each business unit 12. recognize operations, units, and divisions to ensure increased coordination and communication among business units 13. redefine the industries in which it competes 14. introduce innovative human resource programs 15. be first in the industry to introduce new business concepts and practices 16. divest several unprofitable business units Appendix A.3. Intrapreneurship 1. approach new projects or activities in a cautious manner 2. do things that have a chance of not working out 3. avoid taking calculated risks 4. engage in activities that have a chance of not working out 5. will take calculated risks despite the possibility of failure 6. keep ahead of changes instead of responding to them 7. actively fix or improve things they don’t like 8. act in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes 9. take the initiative to start projects 10. tend to implement changes before they are needed 11. generate useful new ideas 12. develop new processes, services or products 13. approach business tasks in innovative ways 14. find new ways to do things 15. often do things in unique ways References Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). Strategic leadership effectiveness and its influence on organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Computers,6(2), 11–24. [CrossRef] Ambilichu, C. A., Omoteso, K., & Yekini, L. S. (2023). Strategic leadership and firm performance: The mediating role of ambidexterity in professional services smalland medium-sized enterprises. European Management Review,20(3), 493–511. [CrossRef] Åmo, B. W. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship related to innovation behaviour among employees. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,2(2), 114–158. [CrossRef] Åmo, B. W., & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture,13, 7–19. [CrossRef] Asif, M. (2020). Strategic leadership and ambidextrous learning: Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities and intellectual capital. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences,12(1), 1–14. [CrossRef] Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94. [CrossRef] Belias, D., & Trihas, N. (2022). The concept and the measurement of strategic leadership. In M. Florinda (Ed.), ECMLG 2022 18th european conference on management, leadership and governance (pp. 16–25). Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited. Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Business Economics,45(2), 255–278. [CrossRef] Blanka, C. (2018). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: A review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science,13, 919–961. [CrossRef] Blomkvist, K., Engzell, J., Kappen, P., & Zander, I. (2024). How organizational conditions affect employees’ intentions to engage in intrapreneurial new venturing. Technovation,135, 103046. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 16 of 17 Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I., Chang, C. Y., & Seih, Y. T. (2022). The antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship: Multilevel, multisource evidence. Review of Managerial Science,16(2), 355–390. [CrossRef] Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology,6(1), 1–22. [CrossRef] Cortes, A. F., & Herrmann, P. (2021). Strategic leadership of innovation: A framework for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews,23(2), 224–243. [CrossRef] Do, T. T. P., & Luu, D. T. (2020). Origins and consequences of intrapreneurship with behaviour-based approach among employees in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,32(12), 3949–3969. [CrossRef] Ferede, W. L., Endawoke, Y., & Tessema, G. (2024). Effects of strategic leadership on change management: Examining the mediating roles of accountability, knowledge management, and organizational culture in public organizations: A study in Central Gondar, Ethiopia. Cogent Business & Management,11(1), 2416613. [CrossRef] Ferraz, P., Marques, C. S., Santos, G., Cunha, A. M., & Vaz, S. (2021). The influence of cognitive styles as promoters of entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship as drivers of innovation: The case of nurses in health services in portugal in times of COVID-19. Administrative Sciences,11(4), 107. [CrossRef] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. [CrossRef] Gopi, J., & Subramoniam, S. (2023). Establishing the relative importance of challenges in early-stage entrepreneurship using analytical hierarchy process. Business Perspectives and Research,12(4), 555–578. [CrossRef] Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review,9(2), 193–206. [CrossRef] Hernández-Perlines, F., Ariza-Montes, A., & Blanco-González-Tejero, C. (2022). Intrapreneurship research: A comprehensive literature review. Journal of Business Research,153, 428–444. [CrossRef] Höglund, L., & Mårtensson, M. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a strategic management tool for renewal—The Case of the swedish public employment service. Administrative Sciences,9(4), 76. [CrossRef] Hughes, M., Chang, Y.-Y., Hodgkinson, I., Hughes, P., & Chang, C.-Y. (2021). The multi-level effects of corporate entrepreneurial orientation on business unit radical innovation and financial performance. Long Range Planning,54(1), 101989. [CrossRef] Hughes, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Small Business Management,55(S1), 115–140. [CrossRef] International Monetary Fund. (2024). World economic outlook (October). Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/ WEO/Issues/2024/10/22/world-economic-outlook-october-2024 (accessed on 2 April 2025). Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive,19(4), 63–77. [CrossRef] Jahanshahi, A. A., Bhattacharjee, A., & Maghsoudi, T. (2021). Internal capabilities as the source of achieving competitive advantage in small-sized businesses. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research,26(2), 141–162. [CrossRef] Jaleha, A. A., & Machuki, V. N. (2018). Strategic leadership and organizational performance: A critical review of literature. European Scientific Journal,14(35), 124–149. [CrossRef] Kebede, D. A., Werke, S. Z., & Kebede, T. A. (2024). Strategic leadership practices in emerging economies: A systematic review and empirical investigation. Cogent Business & Management,11(1), 2418425. [CrossRef] Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby, J. S. (2021). Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending our knowledge boundaries through configuration theory. Small Business Economics,56(2), 739–758. [CrossRef] Kuratko, D. F. (2018). The challenge of corporate entrepreneurial leadership. In R. T. Harrison, & C. M. Leitch (Eds.), Research handbook on entrepreneurship and leadership (pp. 219–236). Edward Elgar Publishing. Kurzhals, C., Graf-Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2020). Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review,28(6), 437–464. [CrossRef] Liden, R. C., Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2025). The evolution of leadership: Past insights, present trends, and future directions. Journal of Business Research,186, 115036. [CrossRef] Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational leadership’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. Academy of Management Journal,51(3), 557–576. [CrossRef] Liu, D., Fisher, G., & Chen, G. (2018). CEO attributes and firm performance: A sequential mediation process model. Academy of Management Annals,12(2), 789–816. [CrossRef] Maharani, I. A. K., Alfina, A., & Indawati, N. (2024). Strategic leadership and organizational innovation: Bibliometric overview (1993–2022). Journal of Scientometric Research,13(3), 849–865. [CrossRef] Milhem, M., Ateeq, A., Alaghbari, M. A., Alzoraiki, M., & Beshr, B. A. H. (2024, January 28–29). Strategic leadership: Driving human resource performance in the modern workplace. 2024 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS 2024), Manama, Bahrain. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 151 17 of 17 Mokbel Al Koliby, I. S., Abdullah, H. H., & Mohd Suki, N. (2022). Linking entrepreneurial competencies, innovation and sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,16(1), 21–40. [CrossRef] Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., Topa, G., & Lévy Mangin, J. P. (2014). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,10(1), 103–119. [CrossRef] Mutabelezi, W. M., & Sethibe, T. (2024). A Model on the relationship between transformational leadership, transactional leadership, entrepreneurial leadership, and the innovation process. International Journal of Innovation Management,27(7/8), 2350043. [CrossRef] Neessen, P. C. M., Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, B., & de Jong, J. P. (2018). The intrapreneurial employee: Toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,15(2), 545–571. [CrossRef] Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometic theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. O’Shannassy, T. (2021). The challenges of strategic leadership in organizations. Journal of Management and Organization,27(2), 235–238. [CrossRef] Ozgen, S., Mooney, A., & Zhou, Y. (2024). CEO power: A review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of Management,51(1), 132–171. [CrossRef] Padi, A., Ansah, W. O., & Mahmoud, M. A. (2022). Corporate entrepreneurship and employees’ competencies: Do employees’ perceived feasibility and desirability matter? Cogent Business and Management,9(1), 2102129. [CrossRef] Pettit, K. L., & Crossan, M. M. (2020). Strategic renewal: Beyond the functional resource role of occupational members. Strategic Management Journal,41(6), 1112–1138. [CrossRef] Puspito, H., & Suhariadi, F. (2024). Optimalization of strategic management to enhancing CEO’s transformational leadership management. Technium Social Sciences Journal,63, 178. [CrossRef] Quansah, E., Moghaddam, K., Solansky, S., & Wang, Y. (2022). Strategic leadership in SMEs: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,43(8), 1308–1320. [CrossRef] Rivera, M. J. (2017). Leveraging innovation & intrapreneurship as a source for organizational growth. International Journal of Innovation Science,9(2), 137–152. [CrossRef] Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H., & Herrmann, P. (2022). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. The Leadership Quarterly,33(3), 101353. [CrossRef] Singh, A., Lim, W. M., Jha, S., Kumar, S., & Ciasullo, M. V. (2023). The state of the art of strategic leadership. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113676. [CrossRef] Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intraand extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal,51(1), 97–111. [CrossRef] Tang, Y.-C., & Liou, F.-M. (2010). Does firm performance reveal its own causes? The role of baysian inference. Strategic Management Journal,31, 39–57. [CrossRef] Tantau, A. D., & Fră¸tilă, L. C. (2021). Entrepreneurship, start up, and corporate entrepreneurship in the renewable energy industry. In Research anthology on small business strategies for success and survival (pp. 132–155). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. Tikas, G. (2023). Towards measuring strategic leadership capabilities for innovation: An empirical validation. Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship,12(3), 704–723. [CrossRef] Toseef, M., Erping, L., Yongming, W., & Ramayah, T. (2022). Sustainable competitive advantage and strategic leadership in manufacturing enterprises: The mediating role of it-business strategic alignment. International Journal of Information and Management Sciences, 33(2), 95–108. [CrossRef] Urbano, D., Turro, A., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. (2022). Corporate entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Small Business Economics,59(4), 1541–1565. [CrossRef] Verma, S., & Mehta, M. (2022). Corporate entrepreneurship and leadership theories: Conceptual review. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,14(5), 902–925. [CrossRef] Yun, L., Yao, X., Zhu, W., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Evaluating the effect of redundant resources on corporate entrepreneurial performance. Sustainability,14(12), 7101. [CrossRef] Zahra, S. A. (1996). Goverance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal,39(6), 1713–1735. [CrossRef] Zarkua, T., Heijman, W., Benešová, I., & Krivko, M. (2025). Entrepreneurship as a driver of economic development. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review,13(1), 61–77. [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.