Impact of passive leadership on intrapreneurial behavior

(1)

Impact of passive leadership on

intrapreneurial behavior

A case study from the employee perspective

Sofie Bergman and Vanessa Williamsson

Stockholm Business School

Bachelor’s degree thesis 15 HE credits Business Administration: Management Spring term 2020

(2)

II

Abstract

Utilizing individuals that are creative, risk taking and innovative could be the key to organizational success in our rapidly changing world. It is argued by many that intrapreneurs are the source of financial growth and profitability, an important source for organizations to stay competitive in a dynamically evolving business landscape. Despite that, the field of intrapreneurship is an overall under researched area where the point of view from the intrapreneurs has been neglected, as well as how leadership affects these individuals. To investigate more on the phenomena of intrapreneurship would contribute both to extent research, as well as give practical advice to management leading intrapreneurs. Therefore, this thesis intends to further extend the knowledge about how a destructive leadership could impact intrapreneurial behavior with the research question: How does passive leadership impact

intrapreneurial behavior? In order to contribute with a discussion regarding this, a qualitative

case study has been conducted where the employee perspective has been central. The objective of study is intrapreneurs from different organizations and positions. The data collected have been analyzed with the guidance of a theoretical ground and then been discussed in relation to the nature of passive leaders. The result from the study implies that intrapreneurial behavior is negatively impacted by passive leadership but it was also evident that the problem is complex and recommendations on further research have been presented. In conclusion, this research has found interesting insights regarding the relation between passive leadership and intrapreneurial behavior and has contributed to overlooked areas in the field of intrapreneurship as well as leadership.

(3)

III

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

“The Macintosh team was what is commonly known now as intrapreneurship—only a few years before the term was coined—a group of people going in essence back to the garage, but in a large company." - Steve Jobs (Newsweek, 1985)

A sub-field of entrepreneurial research called intrapreneurship has been a popular topic within management studies since the beginning of the 1980s. Gifford Pinchot III (1985) defined the intrapreneurs as “the dreamers who do. Those who take hands-on responsibility for creating an

innovation of any kind within an organization” (p. ix). Easier described, an intrapreneur is an

entrepreneur within an existing organization (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003). In contrast entrepreneurs are people who develop new ventures outside an existing organization (Parker, 2011).

Intrapreneurs are nowadays highly sought after in many businesses, since they help organizations to be on the front edge of innovation in their respective field. Successful companies are the ones that have the ability to find, develop and retain intrapreneurs (Buekens, 2014). Zahra and Covin (1995) argue that intrapreneurship is also beneficial financially for the organization and important for growth in the long term. Govindarajan and Desai (2013) argue that:

“Intrapreneurs can transform an organization more quickly and effectively than others because they are self-motivated freethinkers, masters at navigating around bureaucratic and political inertia.”

(5)

2

is just one example of why intrapreneurship has become such an important part of organizations in recent years, especially with the fast paced digital world.

In regard to extant research of intrapreneurship Andersson and Pearson (1999) mention that previous research has focused on the factors that can enhance intrapreneurship but overlooked factors that can inhibit intrapreneurship. Furthermore, Yariv and Galit (2017) suggest that future research should look at the viewpoint of the employee’s perspective when it comes to intrapreneurial behavior, since earlier research has tended to focus on the management’s perspective. As there are factors in the field of intrapreneurship that, up to date, have been overlooked, the intention of this thesis is to further investigate the nature of intrapreneurial behavior in order to extend the extant research.

1.2 Problematization

Intrapreneurial behavior is characterized by creativeness, proactiveness and the ability to create new inventions and recognize opportunities (Neessen, Caniëls, Vos, & de Jong, 2019). In our rapidly changing world with significant pressure on competitiveness with keeping up with new demands and technological trends, intrapreneurship is said to be the answer (Covin & Slevin, 1991).

In order for intrapreneurial behavior to occur Yariv and Galit (2017) argue that organizational support, including tolerance for risk and managerial support, is necessary. From a study they conducted it was proven that the relation between organizational support and intrapreneurial behavior is positively correlated. Marvel, Griffin, Hebda, and Vojak (2007) also address the importance of receiving management support such as promoting and facilitating intrapreneurship in order for employees to behave intrapreneurial. Marvel et al. (2007) conducted a study where the general opinion expressed was that more interaction and involvement from management is always better than less. Characteristics such as exploring new opportunities and being innovative are dependent on the managers and the leadership within the organization (Moriano, Molero, Topa, & Lévy Mangin, 2011).

(6)

3

intrapreneurial behavior. They suggest that by looking at leadership styles in relation to intrapreneurs it could fill unexplored fields in the area. Furthermore, Andersson and Pearson (1999) highlight that current research has focused on what enhances intrapreneurship and factors that may inhibit them are often neglected. Therefore, it comes of relevance to look at what effect a destructive leadership could have, where the intrapreneurs should be the focus of the study. The type of leadership that enhances intrapreneurial behavior is brought up extensively in the field of intrapreneurship research, Moriano et al. (2011) investigated how different types of leadership relates to intrapreneurial behavior. They conducted a quantitative study by sending out questionnaires to find out what type of leader the participants had and then put it in relation to the participant´s level of intrapreneurial behavior. However, the study did not go in depth with how the individuals were affected by the leadership and the overall focus was on the type of leadership that enhances intrapreneurial behavior. The effects and characteristics of passive leadership were not taken into consideration and would thus be of interest to further investigate, and by doing so with a qualitative study it could reveal more in-depth results (Merriam 2010).

Therefore, we have specifically looked at the type of destructive leadership called passive leadership, which is when a leader does not act and acts only when a problem has already emerged (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). The form of destructive leadership we have investigated is passive leadership as it is under researched and stressed to be of importance in order to broaden the research field in leadership (Holtz & Hu, 2017). Passive leadership has also proven to have an effect on incivility and creativity (Harold & Holtz, 2015), which are relevant factors in intrapreneurship.

Our intention is to further extend the current research by investigating how a passive leadership can impact intrapreneurial behavior, with a focus from the intrapreneurs perspective. Therefore, we have conducted a qualitative study in order to get a deeper understanding of the phenomena.

1.2 Research Question

(7)

4

1.3 Intended contribution

The intended contribution with this study is to extend current research on intrapreneurship by looking at the phenomena from an overlooked point of view and extending the knowledge about how destructive leadership affects the intrapreneurial behavior. Our findings could contribute to the work of Moriano et al. (2011) by extending their findings about leadership in relation to intrapreneurial behavior. Our intention is to do that by looking more deeply at how passive leadership acts in relation to intrapreneurial behavior by conducting a qualitative study instead of a quantitative. This is also suggested by Yariv and Galit (2017) as they concluded in their study that the interrelation between the dark and bright sides of interactions and its impact on intrapreneurial behavior has been overlooked. Passive leadership is also suggested by Holtz and Hu (2017) to be an under researched area and they recommend for more empirical studies about the concept of passive leadership. By looking at it in relation to intrapreneurs it also extends their research about passive leadership in relation to trust by investigating how their findings stand in relation to intrapreneurs. In Yariv and Galit´s (2017) study about how incivility could affect intrapreneurs they concluded that organizational support is the mediator between incivility and intrapreneurs. Since leaders facilitate the support in an organization it is of interest to look further into, and we hope to contribute to their findings by looking at destructive leadership in relation to intrapreneurs.

The findings in this study could also serve as an empirical contribution to leaders who manage employees with intrapreneurial behavior and as several researchers state, intrapreneurship is an efficient way to increase financial performance. Engaging in intrapreneurial behavior can lead to better performance, more profitability and firm growth (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Antoncic & Antoncic, 2011) and should hence be considered as a beneficial strategy for management to learn more about. As our study focuses on the employee’s perspective it provides an insight in what is important for the intrapreneurs and how their behavior could be enhanced as well as inhibited.

1.4 Object of Study

(8)

5

(9)

6

2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

In the following literature review the concept of intrapreneurship will be discussed as well as the factors that extant research has found to be of importance to intrapreneurial behavior. A review of the current research on leadership and the effect of passive leadership will be used to assist in the interpretation of the findings from the case study.

2.2 The Concept of Intrapreneurship

Intrapreneurship is defined as a bottom-up approach where employees take advantage of opportunities by being proactive, innovative and taking risks (Neessen et al., 2019). Furthermore, Gifford Pinchot III (1985) defined the intrapreneurs as “The dreamers who do.

Those who take hands-on responsibility for creating an innovation of any kind within an organization” (p. ix). Similarly, Antoncic and Hisrich (2003) argued that intrapreneurs can be

(10)

7

2.3 Benefits of Intrapreneurship

When now having a clear definition of what intrapreneurship is, the question of why an organization should engage in intrapreneurship will be addressed. A lot of extant research has found that engaging in intrapreneurial behavior can lead to better performance, more profitability and firm growth (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Antoncic & Antoncic, 2011). Before the term of intrapreneurship was truly set, some researchers used the word corporate entrepreneurship. Two researchers that did this were Zahra and Covin (1995), they also showed that corporate entrepreneurship had a positive effect on financial performance and that it can keep growing over a longer period of time. By incorporating entrepreneurship into the corporation, it can serve as a long-time strategy for increasing financial performance rather than a quick solution just to find a new idea. The recommendations for managerial actions are to consider the incorporation of entrepreneurship as a tool to enhance financial performance on a more serious level, as their research shows that it has a significant effect on both growth and profitability. They also suggest that managers should adopt a long-term perspective when developing, managing and evaluating the intrapreneurial activities in order to increase the potential the strategy may have. Key for succeeding with incorporating an entrepreneurial strategy and to realize the full benefits, is that the managers support the entrepreneurial initiatives for a longer period of time. The managerial support in this process is very important and managers are suggested to be willing and able to sustain their support for several years. Zahra and Covin (1995) also emphasize on the importance of the environment the entrepreneurial strategy is taking place in and how it can determine how big of an affect the entrepreneurial behaviors can have.

2.4 Prerequisites for Intrapreneurial Behavior

(11)

8

loneliness and failure are burdens that could inhibit the intrapreneurs in their idea process, which is why an internal environment with high support and tolerance is important in order to create innovation. Organizational support could be divided into five factors derived by Alpkan et al. (2010) which are: Management support, Allocation of free time, Work discretion,

Performance-based reward systems and Tolerance for risk taking. In the study conducted by

Alpkan et al. (2010) it was evident that management support, tolerance for risk and

performance-based reward systems have a positive relation to innovative performance where tolerance for risk and management support are especially important in relation to intrapreneurs.

The importance of organizational support is also addressed by Yariv and Galit (2017), their study showed that organizational support is important to inspire employees to behave intrapreneurial. The level of tolerance for taking risk that the management and the culture allows, is a crucial factor in order for intrapreneurial behavior to take place in the organization. In order for the employees to innovate and initiate new projects where the outcome is impossible to predict they need to be assured that regardless of the outcome, they are secured by the management (Antonic & Hisrich, 2001). The management has a significant role of encouraging the employees to intrapreneurial behavior. Marvel et al. (2007) suggest that enabling communication and providing mechanisms that welcome ideas and allow them to be further developed and implemented are positively related to intrapreneurship. Furthermore, Yariv and Galit (2017) also identified that organizational support acts as the mediator between incivility in the workplace and intrapreneurship.

The intrapreneurs need to have autonomy and the freedom to manage their time and way of working as well as a decentralized decision-making process, as it will increase intrapreneurial activities (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Freedom to act on an idea or vision is crucial in order for intrapreneurial behavior to take place in an organization. According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996) intrapreneurs need to take action free of organizational formalities and constraints. In order to increase intrapreneurial behavior, Razavi and Ab Aziz (2017) suggest that it is beneficial for the intrapreneurs to engage in networking, both internal bonding networks and external bridging networks, where they can get influenced by others.

(12)

9

the innovations created into the corporate strategy. Duncan et al. (1988) state that there are two important problems that organizations have to tackle, firstly, if the companies do not focus enough resources on developing creative people, it is a strategic problem. Secondly, if they do not know how to compensate the creative people, it is a tactical problem for the organization. In order to solve the strategy problem, they suggest four strategic moves: 1. High-level managers must frequently make public statements about the importance of innovativeness. 2. When goal-setting systems are used, innovation and creativity must be given high priority. 3. Reward systems must encourage creativity. 4. Management must realize that creative people are driven by creation and not competition. For the tactical problem Duncan et al. (1988) suggest intracapital to motivate intrapreneurs. Intracapital is capital that cannot be used outside the corporation, it is only created when an innovation has created profits, for example a cost reduction in the production that would generate profit. A part of this profit is then put towards the intrapreneurs to come up with more and new innovations. Duncan et al. (1988) also suggest that companies can compensate the intrapreneurs with stocks and dividends, so when the organization succeeds the intrapreneur gains resources used outside the company as well. Despite all of this Duncan et al. (1988) mention that there will always be entrepreneurs that go their own way, often lonely wolves. However, in this modern day of age entrepreneurs need resources which are expensive and therefore they need the corporate resources in order to exercise their creativity.

2.5 Leadership and Intrapreneurs

(13)

10

relate to intrapreneurial behavior. However, the study did not go in depth how the individuals were affected by the leadership and the major focus was on transformational leadership. The effects and characteristics of passive leadership were not taken into consideration or further investigated.

2.

6

Passive Leadership

Passive leadership is a type of destructive leadership (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008) that involves a pattern of inaction on the part of a leader (DeRue et al., 2011). Passive leaders are known for neglecting workplace problems, avoiding decisions and inadequately managing to represent or reinforce appropriate behavior (Harold & Holtz, 2015). Both laissez-faire leadership and passive management by exception (MBEP) are included in passive leadership. MBEP is when the leader does not engage in a problem that does not exist or is not apparent to the leader (DeRue et al., 2011), whereas laissez-faire leadership is described as a non-response leadership (Skogstad et al., 2007). Chênevert, Vandenberghe, Doucet, and Ben Ayed (2013) state that passive leaders are known for not giving feedback to employees and they often lack proactive orientation and tend to not take action until it is too late. Passive leaders only intervene when work problems become chronic and are likely to avoid taking actions about work-related matters. Chênevert et al. (2013) argue that passive leaders could affect the work climate through poor social relationships with their employees. They also stress that the lack of attention from supervisors who are passive in their leadership, could be experienced from the employees’ side as an obstacle to their sense of accomplishment at work.

Passive leadership is often something that is not desirable among workplaces, many scholars argue that it can lead to or has a strong association to sexual harassment, trust issues and decreased job satisfaction which increases illegitimate absenteeism (Lee, 2018; Holtz & Hu, 2017; Frooman, Mendelson, & Kevin Murphy, 2012).

2.7 Incivility

Workplace incivility is defined by Andersson and Pearson (1999) as “low-intensity deviant

behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.” (p. 457). This behavior can include things such as showing little interest in

(14)

11

Workplace incivility can lead to employees engaging in a devious manner however, it may lead others to increased innovative behavior for the same reason, as an attempt to amend the uncivil relations with the offender and organization (Yariv & Galit, 2017). Incivility is targeted at the individual and not the organization as higher-more intensive behavior can be, like counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and violence and aggression, where behaviors such as production sabotage and verbally and physically threatening can happen at the workplace (Harold & Holtz, 2015).

2.8 Incivility as an Effect of Passive Leadership

(15)

12

2.9 Trust Issues as an Effect of Passive Leadership

McAllister (1995) indicates that there are two types of trust, affect-based and cognition-based, where the first concerns the emotional association between the leader and the employee, whereas the latter concerns performance, responsibilities and competencies.

Holtz and Hu (2017) conducted a study where the relation between passive leadership and cognition-based trust was investigated and the results showed that passive leadership is negatively correlated with trust. Supervisors that are passive in their leadership towards employees may do serious harm to the trust from the employees. Employees have a lack of trust towards the competence of their supervisors when their supervisor exhibits passive leadership, with behaviors such as neglecting or missing problems, delaying decisions or not making themselves available to the employees. Holtz and Hu (2017) mean that there is no reason for employees to trust their leader if the leader avoids responsibility, does not show up when needed and is often nowhere to be found. In order to build trust, they should have good and frequent communication with the employees and attempt to proactively, anticipate and solve potential issues and problems in the workplace (Holtz & Hu 2017). Furthermore Adeel, Khan, Zafar, and Rizvi (2018) also showed in their study that passive attitude from management might lead to negative consequences in employees that can harm the trust as well.

2.10 Summary

(16)

13

(17)

14

3. Research Design

3.1 Research Question and Purpose

How does passive leadership impact intrapreneurial behavior?

The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the research of entrepreneurship and more specifically the sub-field of intrapreneurship as well as the research of leadership. Extant research of intrapreneurship suggest that future research should focus on interactions that can inhibit intrapreneurial behavior since this has often been overlooked, such as incivility and destructive leadership (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The findings in this study can extend the work of Moriano et al. (2011) where leadership in relation to intrapreneurial behavior was studied quantitatively and passive leadership was not investigated in detail. Furthermore, Yariv and Galiv (2017) and Neessen et al. (2019) suggest that future research should look at the perspective of the employees when it comes to intrapreneurial behavior since earlier research has focused on the management’s perspective. We have therefore attempted to contribute to the areas that have been overlooked in extant research regarding intrapreneurship and leadership. In particular the work by Moriano et al. (2011) and Holtz and Hu (2017) by looking through a qualitative study at the relation between passive leadership and intrapreneurial behavior, from an employee perspective.

3.2 Research Strategy

(18)

15

In this thesis, the qualitative paradigm is used, according to Slevitch (2011) it is an approach that stems from idealism which is an ontological view suggesting that reality depends on the individual’s mental structure and activity. An idealistic standpoint emphasizes that there is no single reality but multiple realities based on the individual’s construction or interpretation of reality. Realities can be distinguished in the form of multiple social and mental constructions dependent on what perceptions of the reality individuals hold. Slevitch (2011) suggests that as reality depends on the minds of individuals, it is affected by values, point of views, interests and purposes and things can only be described as we perceive or interpret them. Facts cannot be separated from values and hence absolute objectivity is not possible. The aim with a qualitative scientific investigation is to acquire better understanding of the phenomena from the point of view of the individuals participating in the study (Slevitch 2011). A research design commonly used when using qualitative data is a qualitative case study which Merriam (2010) defines as a deep analysis of a single unit that has boundaries, and where the goal should be to understand and find the meaning of the phenomenon of interest. The best method for collecting data in a qualitative case study is to use the researcher as an instrument where interviews, observations and document analysis should be central, that is to ensure a deep understanding of the bounded system (Merriam, 2010).

(19)

16

3.3 Operationalization of the Research Question

In order to examine the research question, we have operationalized it using a thematic analysis and broken it down into four sub-themes. These themes guided us in the creation of the interview guide (Appendix 9.1c). The four sub-themes are:

Intrapreneurial behaviors

In this sub-theme we primarily want to ensure that the attributes of intrapreneurs we found in previous research match the interviewees to ensure that we are in fact interviewing intrapreneurs. We also want to know more about the intrapreneur and their thoughts in order to create an understanding of how they work.

Organizational support: risk tolerance & failure

In this sub-theme we want to examine how much support the intrapreneur needs and wants from their leader, and also how it can affect their performance and creativity. We also want to know if the support from the leader can affect risk tolerance and the failure rate for the intrapreneur.

Incivility affect intrapreneurs & how it is managed by leaders

In this sub-theme we want to look at the working environment and its effect on the intrapreneurial behaviors. More specifically we want to focus on incivility in the working environment and how the engagement of the leader can have an effect on it.

Preferred leadership

In this sub-theme we want the intrapreneur to define what their preference of leadership is, in order to relate it to the characteristics of passive leadership.

3.4 Case Study

Simons (2009) defines case studies as:

(20)

17

institution or system to generate knowledge and/or inform policy development, professional practice and civil or community action” (p. 21).

Agreeing with her definition we chose to do a case study in order to obtain as much information as possible about the intrapreneur and their relationship to their leader. We have chosen an abductive approach where we go back and forth between our theoretical framework and the data collected during the case study, this allows us to develop further interesting finds from the interviews.

3.4.1 Data collection

In order to gain as much knowledge and data as possible regarding intrapreneurs we have conducted interviews with the intrapreneurs themselves and we also did a document analysis. We have conducted semi-structured interviews since it can generate depth, seeing that it gives an opportunity for the interviewer to extend on the interviewee's answers (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). We have collected data during the interviews both through the conversation and also through observations, as it enhances the validity of our findings and increases our confidence that we have captured the participants' understanding and interpretations of the phenomena as closely as possible (Merriam, 2010). During the interview we have followed an interview guide set by our sub-themes, decided under the Operationalization of the research question. To increase validity and broaden our findings we have looked at different individuals from several companies in different industries. Since we choose to examine the individual and not a specific firm we used several methods such as social media and recommendations to find intrapreneurs. We purposely chose to not only elect individuals from recommendations since this might lead us to have too many similar intrapreneurs and a lot of intrapreneurs from the same company.

3.4.2 Sampling and sample size

(21)

18

Figure 1. The four-point approach to qualitative sampling (Robinson, 2014, p. 26).

The four-point approach was adopted and Figure 2 shows the result when applied to our study.

(22)

19

Point 1; Sample universe: Since we want to study the intrapreneur and their behaviors, our

sample universe must be psychologically homogeneous, which means that the individuals within the sample have similar traits or abilities (Robinson, 2014). For our study it is individuals with intrapreneurial traits. Point 2; Sample size: Robinson (2014) recommends that when doing an undergraduate project an idiographic (small) aim is more suitable when it comes to sample size. This is because a smaller sample size will make sure each individual case is voiced and thoroughly analyzed. Therefore, we have chosen to have a sample size of 10 people. Point 3; Sample strategy: We have chosen to do a mixed-gender purposive sampling strategy with an intensity sampling. Firstly, we chose a purposive sampling strategy which is a non-random sampling method (Robinson, 2014), this is because we want to find specific individuals matching our theoretical understanding of what an intrapreneur is. Secondly, we argue that a mixed-gender sample is more beneficial for our study since it is focused on the individual with no specific gender, we also want to diminish any gender biases from our study. Thirdly, we choose to do intensity sampling which is used when the objective is theoretical insight. Intensity sampling aims to find information-rich cases which are chosen specifically to be comprehensive, insightful, articulate and honest (Robinson, 2014). Therefore, we selected intensity sampling because we want in-depth knowledge of the intrapreneurs themselves and their behaviors. Point 4; Source of sample: We have contacted the intrapreneurs individually without any incentives, some individuals have been obtained through recommendations.

3.4.3 Interview process

(23)

20

general information and attached an information sheet regarding the study (Appendix 9.1a) and a consent form (Appendix 9.1b) for the interviewee to sign. This is to make sure that they are fully informed of the study, have information regarding anonymity and the knowledge that the interview is recorded. All of our interviews had a duration between 40 - 70 minutes each.

3.5 Trustworthiness and Authenticity

Guba and Lincoln (1994) argue that the quality of a qualitative study should include two main criterias; trustworthiness and authenticity. Where trustworthiness should contain four topics;

credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. In order to execute credibility, we

used a methodological triangulation, by analysing both the data from our case study and also reports conducted by organizations and institutions, regarding intrapreneurs. To show

transferability we kept the results of our analysis to the context of our study and have not

generazied it towards all intrapreneurs. Guba and Lincoln (1994) state that dependability is enforced by peers auditing the work throughout the research, we instead had our supervisor on several occasions check our work throughout the research, in lack of scholar peers. Furthermore, Guba and Lincoln (1994) state that dependability should be apparent through not allowing personal values or theoretical dispositions to impress or create biases in the research, this has been done to our greatest extent. However, it should be noted that to entirely abolish personal values from qualitative research is impossible.

Guba and Lincoln (1994) describe that authenticity consists of four criterias; fairness,

ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity and tactical authenticity.

However, Bryman (2012) states that these authenticity criterias are thought-provoking but not influential and therefore, we took these criterias into consideration throughout our research, but did not put as much emphasis on them. However, fairness was something we did take to heart and tried to execute throughout our research as much as possible, for example we followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1986) technique and sent a consent form out before the interviews and was always transparent with our information.

3.6 Research Ethics

(24)

21

(25)

22

4. Analysis

4.1 Introduction

In this section we present the methods we have used to analyze the data we have collected and our findings after analyzing the empirical data. The object of this study is the intrapreneurs and their relation to their leader, which have been investigated by a case study where we have conducted interviews with 10 different intrapreneurs from different organizations and positions.

4.2 Method of Analysis

In order to analyze the qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews in our case study, we have used a thematic analysis. A thematic analysis has according to Braun and Clark (2006) a theoretical freedom and could therefore be used with flexibility and provide a rich and detailed account of data. Since we have an abductive data collection approach and hope to find more theory based on our findings in the data analysis, we argue that a flexible method is appropriate. A thematic analysis was used in order to identify, analyze and report themes amongst the data that has been collected (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A theme is a category that has been identified amongst the data, it relates to the focus of the research and it can be built on codes that have been identified in the transcript. Bryman and Bell (2015) state that by identifying themes it will provide us with guidance in order to find a theoretical understanding of the data, which we hope can contribute to the research field of intrapreneurship. As Ryan and Bernad (2003) suggest, we have used the following points to guide what we should look for in the transcripts from the interviews:

➢ Repetitions: Opinions and topics that are shared often and by many of the participants. ➢ Metaphors and analogies: How the participants present their thoughts.

➢ Transitions: If the topics in the transcripts shift and in what way.

➢ Similarities and differences: Look for how the participants discuss things in different or

(26)

23

In order to structure the data and assist in finding themes we followed the six phases Braun and Clark (2006) points out as a useful step by step guide:

1. Familiarizing yourself with your data

After each interview we familiarized ourselves with the data by manually transcribing it. We chose to manually transcribe each interview in order to better reflect and understand the data, since we can hear the interviewees tone of voice and non-linguistic sounds and expressions. After transcribing the interviews, we also checked the transcripts once again against the audio to reassure the accuracy.

2. Generating initial codes

After re-reading the transcripts once more we extracted quotes and paragraphs we found interesting, relevant and meaningful and created initial codes for them. We did this with the guidance of Ryan and Bernard’s (2003) approach mentioned above.

3 & 4. Searching for themes and reviewing themes

When all the data was processed and given an initial code, we started searching for themes within the codes, we did this with the help of mind maps. After finding different recurring themes, we reviewed and changed them several times until we had the final thematic map (Figure 3). We found two main themes, these are; what enhances and what inhibits entrepreneurial behavior, and within each of these, two sub-themes were also found. Further the final themes were then listed with the data extracts in one coherent list (Appendix9.2).

5. Defining and naming themes

When the final thematic map was set we defined and named all themes (Table 1).

6. Producing the report

(27)

(28)

25 Enhances

Things that enhances intrapreneurial behaviors

Leadership: attributes, support and relationship

This theme emerged when the participants started to explain what they want and need from their leader in order to enhance their intrapreneurial behaviors. This sub-theme includes three important parts; the leaders attributes, what kind of support they give and what their relationship looks like.

Environment

This sub-theme includes what the participants also said they needed, but from their environment. This sub-theme includes both the mental and the physical environment, where the mental is concerning their colleagues and the physical is tools, machines, devices and so.

Inhibits

Things that inhibits intrapreneurial behaviors

Leadership: attributes, lack of support, and relationship

This theme emerged when the participants started to explain what things that leaders do that inhibits their intrapreneurial behaviors. This sub-theme includes three important parts; the leaders'

attributes, the lack of support they give and what their relationship looks like.

Incivility

In this sub-theme the participants talk about incivility; observed incivility, experienced incivility, the effects of it and how it can be handled.

(29)

26

4.3 Analysis of the Data

The individuals we have interviewed are creative and innovative with many ideas and solutions in their minds. They have been provoking and initiating discussions in order to spark innovation at their organizations, even though this seems like a perfect employee, it is not always welcomed. Managers also sometimes have a lack of knowledge on what inhibits or enhances the employees´ intrapreneurial behaviors. As the purpose for this research is to broaden the point of view of intrapreneurship and look at factors that may inhibit intrapreneur´s ability to act intrapreneurial, we have conducted interviews with these employees. The purpose of the interviews was to find out what the intrapreneurs value, why they might fail with acting on their ideas and what can inhibit as well as enhance their intrapreneurial behavior. A report from Intraprenörskapskompassen conducted by Blomkvist, Kappen and Zander (2017) and a report from the consultancy firm Deloitte (2015) have also been analyzed in order to broaden the findings and get a more nuanced view on the phenomena. Furthermore, in this section the result from our interviews and document analysis will be presented and put in relation with what current researchers have found on the topic of intrapreneurship. The findings from our case study are discussed in relation to passive leadership in the discussion section. (The data extract

on which the analysis is based on can be found in the appendix 9.2)

4.3.1 Intrapreneurial behavior

(30)

27

contribute to change which is according to Neessen et al. (2019) the definition of intrapreneurial behavior, to take advantage of opportunities by being proactive, innovative and risk-taking.

Taking risk:

“I would say that I rather take a risk that could fail pretty hard, rather than not try at all”

- Participant E

“I like taking risks. But not a foolish risk, that is important to say” - Participant B

Being proactive:

“...that's one of my biggest selling points, when I am trying to sell myself as a worker, to be kind of an innovator, but also in a proactive way take advantage of the ideas that exist and connect well with the organization, to push them forward” - Participant E

Being innovative:

“...currently working more internally with business development, innovation and product development” - Participant C

“I am very prone to take initiative, be creative, I feel that I have the ability to connect many things, see the bigger picture, see things maybe others do not see or grasp, things that fall through the cracks” - Participant J

4.3.2 Enhances intrapreneurial behavior

(31)

28

4.3.2.1 Leadership: attributes, support and relationship

When discussing what enhances factors such as creativity, innovativeness and the intrapreneur's ability to act on their ideas, they often expressed how they want their leader to act in a certain way. They wanted their leader to hold certain attributes and they expressed that the support from the leader determines their ability to contribute to innovation in several aspects. In order for intrapreneurial behavior to occur Yariv and Galit (2017) mean that organizational support, which they describe include tolerance for risk and managerial support, is necessary which is also stressed by Alpkan et al. (2010). When the interviewees addressed what enhances their tendency to take risk it is in line with what Yariv and Galit (2017) and Alpkan et al. (2010) suggest, that leaders show tolerance for risk-taking behavior, which was recurring as being a desired way a leader can ensure tolerance for risk, this was expressed as followed:

“A good example is a group of circus acrobats, who throw themselves into each other's arms on cords and such...who dares to make the coolest tricks? Those who have a safety net or those who do not have a safety net? Of course, it is those who have a safety net [...] people who encourage you instead, "it was still a good job, if you had never tried, we would never have known if it works or not”, if that kind of social safety nets are there you dare more.” -

Participant D

What I think is important is to know that your leader has your back and to know that the person will at least try to stand by me, even if I was wrong. That I'm sure that the person supports me, [...] doing a quality check on everything you do is why you need time with the leader and to be able to have them as a sounding board" - Participant E

(32)

29

“An initial meeting where you go through and set up points that you can measure against later…. Strong commitment early and then releases it completely, and then be able to come back to it later.” - Participant B

“a lot of times it is about the individual dialogue between me and my manager where you feel the trust, but also that you see in practice that the manager actually lives up to what the manager says. And then you notice that if someone in the team did something, like it was a "super fail" [...] That you have a learning culture, a learning mentality where all we do is we learn not doing mistakes. I also think that the risk propensity even for those who may not dare to take as much risk, which is not like me, increases, or that they dare [...] I believe a learning culture, an understanding culture, an understanding manager and being accepting of failure. - Participant H

The relation to their leader was frequently brought up as something that affects their intrapreneurial behavior in several ways. For the interviewees, trust was one of the most important attributes in the relationship to their leader in order for them to be able to be creative, act on their ideas and take initiative for change. The following was expressed:

“I really think that building trust between each other is incredibly important [...] it is because of problems that has roused in the company I work for now and that I realized the importance of the problem with a lack of interpersonal relationship” - Participant B “a tight dialogue [...] as well as an openness and trust in each other” - Participant C

When discussing how they want their leader to show that they trust them, they pointed out that letting them to work more freely was one way for the leader to show that they trust them, and it made the interviewees more creative and innovative to work autonomous. The effect they described, working freely, is also in line with what Lumpkin and Dess (1996) suggest.

“My manager that I have today is very hands off [...] to let the employees manage their own time to a bigger extent, I would say is an incubator for more innovative thoughts and ideas”

- Participant E

(33)

30

way of working, how are we getting there, who do we need on board etc. I need to be able to figure that out on my own, that is when an intrapreneur is at their best” - Participant J

However, the interviewees still pointed out that they need the leader to support them throughout the process of acting on an idea which also is in line with the findings by Zahra and Covin (1995). When starting a project, the interviewees frequently stressed the importance of being able to use their leader as a sounding board, to discuss their ideas and thoughts with. This had the effect of building trust and hence made them more comfortable with acting on their idea. This is in line with what Holtz and Hu (2017) found in their study, that communication is a tool for building trust between leaders and employees. Marvel et al. (2007) also suggest that providing channels for communication is beneficial for intrapreneurship to succeed which is coherent with what the interviewees expressed:

“If I had completely free hands, which is perhaps lucky that I do not have, then it would have derailed here a long time ago [...] the management that we have, they make sure to guide it right, so that we take the right initiative” - Participant F

“If there is something that the manager is not so involved in, then it can also suffice for me to just activate the manager, saying that “now I do this, what do you think?” And that, then it is perfectly okay that he has not thought about it before, but that he do it now, that he is there” - Participant G

All of the interviewees want to be able to work with their ideas freely and when a problem occurs they want support from their leader. Several of the interviewees pointed out that their leader does not necessarily have to approach them but they want the leader to be available to listen and help, when a problem occurs they want to ask for help which they meant was good for them in their creative process:

(34)

31

“I don't expect a manager to solve everything, a manager just tells me which way to go, “go there and then you come to me if there is a problem, if you don't get the help you need there, come to me again”, no more than that” - Participant G

To get help from their leader with pushing their idea forward was highly desired amongst the interviewees and they mean it is necessary so that they can get the organizational support needed. This helped them with fulfilling their idea and to contribute to change which is also in line with the findings in the study conducted by Yariv and Galit (2017), where organizational support showed to be positively correlated with intrapreneurial behavior. Support by having strategies in how to encourage creative people and knowledge about implementing innovation is also suggested by Duncan et al. (1988) to be important for intrapreneurship. Several of our interviewees talked about a leader who set the stage, utilized their position to make things go forward faster and be prioritized higher up in the organization, they wanted the leader to show an interest in what they wanted to pursue.

“I think that if a manager should lack the interest in what we do or insight into what we do also lack, in lack of better words, the balls for being able to stand up for us in situations where we need to push through or kick in doors.” - Participant H

"In that sense he was very good as my manager, to clear the obstacles that put a stop for me and use his contacts. I think it is also important that when you are the manager of a intrapreneur that you do not let the administration work weigh down, because it is not there the intrapreneur should work, that person should create” - Participant J

According to an extensive report about intrapreneurship in Sweden conducted by Blomkvist, Kappen, and Zander (2017, p. 10) it was also evident that the effect of intrapreneurial behavior is dependent on the decisions made by managers in the organization.

(35)

32

internal and often political process in order to implement a new product or service.”

(Blomkvist et al., 2017)

Their empirical finding is in line with our findings from the interviews as the intrapreneurs we talked to pointed out the desire to have a leader to fight for them through areas in the organization.

4.3.2.2 Environment

The interviewees all expressed that the environment has a big impact on their ability to be creative and perform in their work, both the psychological aspects involving the human interactions and also the physical surroundings. In terms of their colleagues and the culture within the team, the majority of the interviewees expressed in different ways that it is highly important to have a positive and supporting attitude within the group in order for them to thrive and be creative. Furthermore, several interviewees expressed their desire for an open-minded atmosphere, to be able to talk about everything without fear in order for ideas to grow.

“You should have the same clear goals and high ceilings, so you are able to discuss things with one and other, then tons of ideas will come up” - Participant F

Likewise, a report from Deloitte “Five Insights into Intrapreneurship - A Guide to Accelerating Innovation within Corporations” (2015, p. 18,19) highlights the importance of an open culture and why it is important for the intrapreneurs:

“It is important to show employees that their entrepreneurial behavior is supported and fostered, which includes an open culture in which they are not afraid of sharing their ideas. Each employee should be encouraged to come up with suggestions for incremental improvements, as well as radical concepts. Later on, managers need to provide implementation support in the form of resources and advice to reduce time-to-market and increase the chances for success” - Deloitte Digital GmbH, (2015)

(36)

33

important, it was highlighted by some that the competence and matching of the colleagues are also crucial factors in order for ideas to occur. Nobody knows everything, meaning they have to trust the team as a group, knowing that their colleagues are competent in their respective field, makes them trust their decisions without having to put energy on doubt or to double check every step. A diversified group was also voiced as important in order to get different angles and perspectives on the task, the interviewees expressed that this should be facilitated by their leader.

“Mostly that you feel that you have ended up with competent people who are in the right place and have the right job [...] you always have to trust your colleagues, I can't question someone who calculated all the numbers or something, then I have to trust it”

- Participant G

“If a manager sees a clear trend that some type of competence always seems to be needed in his employees, then I would definitely say that it takes proactivity, striving to find the kind of gap in the process or structure that can be filled with expertise and competence.”

- Participant E

Furthermore, the physical aspects of the environment were something all interviewees addressed during the interviews; however, they had different preferences on what they wanted and cared about. For some interviewees the tools and materials are very important, such as whiteboards, others expressed that it is more important to have the ability to work outside the office space or have the ability to work from home. Having the space and time for meeting people within the organization was also important to some.

“A big room here where we sit and work, the walls are covered with whiteboards, you can always get things up, you can test things, or draw things, write things, it's more about having the right kind of equipment in place when you need it too, but there is also an environment that needs to be inspiring, which is why we also have a shared office space, right in the middle of the city, and there it is an environment for inspiration” - Participant F

(37)

34

I sit here at home in the same room to come up with something new, I have to get out of here and do something else to get it. I'm not a person who can sit still in the same place to get that creativity started” - Participant B

When discussing the importance to meet people in order for them to get new perspectives on things and new ideas, it was also suggested to create meetings to happen outside the organization, which is in line with what Razavi and Ab Aziz (2017) suggest, that networking has a positive effect on intrapreneurial behaviors. This was desired to be facilitated by the leader through conventions, shared working spaces or even bringing in experts, in order for it to be more structured.

“There is an environment to meet people outside the bank, so you get different perspectives and other ideas, be able to talk to a non-banker at the coffee machine, and say what do you do? Or what is your relationship with banks? And get other insights, then inspiration and creativity will come from it” - Participant F

“attending conventions [...] a need to share other people's thoughts and ideas in a much more structured way than I can facilitate on my own initiative [...] A manager is the one who creates the prerequisites more than being an expert in the area, a good expert does not have to be a good manager. Therefore, I do not think that the manager needs to be an expert but rather just create the conditions, maybe bring in someone who is an expert and help you facilitate meetings with the right person to get the right feedback” - Participant E

(38)

35

an open culture. Talking about the group dynamics it was expressed by the intrapreneurs that a diversified group that held the right competence was important in order to create ideas. Some of the intrapreneurs also stated that meeting people outside the organization was important to get new impressions and that it should be facilitated by their leader.

4.3.3 Inhibits intrapreneurial behavior

The interviewees addressed factors that made it difficult for them to go forward with their ideas, and how a lack of support and some attributes held by leaders made them less innovative, creative and prone to take risks. They also explained how some factors in their social environment such as incivility, inhibited their ability to innovate. What was recurring and shared by many of the interviewees will be presented in this section.

4.3.3.1 Leadership: attributes, lack of support, and relationship

A recurring factor that was expressed by the interviewees that made them hesitate taking risks or acting on an idea, was when they did not get any positive and optimistic response or support from their leader. They explained that when facing negative comments and lack of commitment from their leader it made some of them feel unmotivated and they put their energy towards the situation of not getting support rather than on developing their ideas.

“If you want a lot and work in an environment where you do not really have the support, like, you do not have the leadership, you feel that you do not have someone who believes in you in the way that you do yourself, as you believe in yourself, because I feel that I am valuable and have something to contribute with, absolutely, but .. I think, ... it will be so damn difficult, for both parties really, and then you get frustrated and the energy is directed in the wrong direction” - Participant J

“It was very frustrating for the whole team, and it created a low mood, you could say, then there were other ideas that we got to work on, so it wasn't that we stood completely still, but that idea, many of us agreed that it could have such potential and then we got rejected, and it lead to, well, it destroyed the spirit, the creative spirit.” - Participant D

(39)

36

“If I have the boss on board then I go on but as soon as I notice that the boss starts to become doubtful then I have to pull my own handbrake.” - Participant A

The interviewees expressed that they wanted support from leaders in some way, but they also expressed that they did not want to be micromanaged and have too much interaction with their leader, it was important for them to set their own terms. Leaders that interfered too much made them lose motivation to be creative and innovative. This is in line with the article by Lumpkin and Dees (1996), where they suggest that autonomy as well as letting employees freely manage their time and be free from constraints, is important in order for intrapreneurial behavior to take place.

“There is nothing worse than managers coming down and trying to help. [...] It's a bit like a

chess game, when I play chess and I know exactly what to do next, what move, and then my boss comes and does my move for me, the first time it's okay "ah it might not be exactly as I had imagined..." but when it comes to the third or fourth time I lose motivation” - Participant C

“..there I also had the support and when you have that it leads to results, it is not possible to get that far if you do not get the creative freedom to do anything” - Participant J

It was also evident that not getting help from their leader or having an organizational structure that did not encourage to ask for help, was the reason for failing with ideas or not being able to go all the way with an initiative. Several of the interviewees pointed out a lack of support when discussing what may have been a reason for their failures.

“I would not associate it with not having enough help, but more that I have not sought help. Which, in turn, may be a consequence of not having the structure needed to ask for help or not feeling brave enough to ask for help” - Participant E

“But at other jobs where I have not been in the culture that mistakes can be learning, then it

(40)

37

This is also in line with Yariv and Galit (2011), Alpkan et al. (2010) and Duncan et al. (1988) who all suggest that organizational support is of importance in order for intrapreneurial behavior to exist.

4.3.3.2 Incivility

When discussing the environment with the interviewees, all of them referred to an event where they either had seen or experienced incivility themselves within their workplace, not at every organization but at least once in their career. They explained how it affected their ability to perform and promote creative work. Some were not as bothered, however they said that it takes the focus and energy from their primary work, solving problems and being creative. Just as Porath and Erez (2007) discuss, rude behavior can take energy from the task and it can also have a negative effect on creativity and risk-taking.

“if you are in a defensive position mentally it is very difficult to think from other perspectives, you are then very focused on yourself, what you say and think and then it becomes difficult to see from other perspectives which can be what promotes creativity” - Participant E “I think it is very difficult because eh, partly because I am ashamed of the one who is nasty and then I want to feel sorry for the person who is affected, and then you should come in as a third party even though I do not have anything to do with it, or I just observe it and that is even worse [...] it takes focus, and then I get a bad feeling and without a good feeling I will not be creative.” - Participant G

Even though most of them stated that the uncivil behaviors came from other team members, they verbalized that it is something that can occur from leaders not being present and engaging enough. This is in line with Harold and Holtz (2015) who argue that a higher level of passive leadership leads to higher experienced incivility.

“there were a lot of problems because the manager was not clear and present [...] we were not a team, we shattered in all directions and bullying emerged and so much negativity” -

(41)

38

“the worst is if there is a questionnaire and you come out with a result, so everyone sees that, here we have a result, we know what to do, but they [the manager] does nothing” -

Participant D

Some interviewees who looked back at their earlier career days stated that incivility was harder to handle when they were younger and it had a bigger effect on them back then. It made them feel less confident in taking initiative as they were afraid how others would react. The interviewees that have had less supportive and engaged leaders early on expressed it affected them for a long period, some even still today.

“It's hard when you get lost like that and lose yourself and start to doubt yourself, it's hard, it takes time to come back from it [...] I think managers generally don't really understand how they actually affect people” - Participant J

“Yeah but you don't understand it then and there, because you just think you have performed bad, it can be a few years later when you do the same thing again in another company, and then it works much better, that [support] wasn't even there back then, it's no wonder I couldn't perform better” - Participant G

(42)

39

5. Discussion

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how a passive leadership impacts intrapreneurial

behavior, and could therefore contribute to Moriano et al.´s (2011) work which focuses mainly

(43)

40

It was evident in our analysis that when the intrapreneurs faced a lack of commitment from their leader it derived their focus away from coming up with ideas and they lost their creativity. This would suggest that a passive leadership would have a negative impact on their level of creativity and innovativeness as it would not provide them with encouragement through a tight dialogue. It was also evident in our case study that the intrapreneurs were more likely to be innovative when their leader helped them pursue their ideas, by being interested and fighting for them. This would require the leader to first be involved in order to know what the intrapreneurs are doing and then act in order to give it attention in the organization. Since a passive leader does not take proactive decisions and only act when there is a problem, he would not be able to give this kind of support and as the finding from Blomkvist et al. (2017) points out, a no from any part of the company makes it difficult for the intrapreneur to continue with the idea. This would argue for that a passive leadership inhibits the intrapreneurial behavior as well as the effect from the intrapreneurial behavior, which according to the findings by Antoncic and Hisrich (2003); Zahra and Covin (1995); Antoncic and Antoncic (2011) could decrease the financial growth of the organization as it deteriorates the effect from intrapreneurship.

Passive leadership can according to the study by Harold and Holtz (2015) lead to incivility in the workplace; this was also evident in the study by Lee and Jensen (2014). Incivility in the workplace could lead to negative effects in creativity, work performance and could end up with high costs for the company. In the study by Yariv and Galit (2017) they investigated if incivility has a negative impact on intrapreneurial behavior and could not make the conclusion that it was the case. However, in our case study it was evident that intrapreneurial behavior did get a negative effect from incivility. The interviewees pointed out how a negative work environment, where they did not feel that they could talk freely without getting negative comments or where they did not get support from their peers, they felt less creative and focused more on the uncivil situation rather than creating new ideas. As passive leadership leads to incivility and incivility in turn has a negative effect on intrapreneurial behavior, it would be arguable that a passive leadership could inhibit intrapreneurial behavior.

(44)

41

fair to suggest that avoiding passive leaders should be a greater concern when managing young intrapreneurs.

The culture where they were more creative and prone to take risks was described as open and allowing for mistakes, and it was important to work with people who complement each other with their knowledge and competence. Harold and Holtz (2015) argue that a passive leader is not good at managing the representation or reinforcement of appropriate behavior, which could make it more difficult for a passive leader to create the environment required for intrapreneurial behavior. In combination with them not being proactive and not acting, it would also be reasonable to suggest that passive leaders would not take responsibility for creating thoughtful working groups, as it would require them taking proactive decisions. It was also stressed by the interviewees that it sometimes was necessary to bring in external expertise, in order for creativity and innovation to thrive. This could argue for the need of an active leadership rather than passive, as it needs to be facilitated by someone who has the mandate to make such a decision, which normally is a leader or manager of some kind.

Providing tools and a physical environment that enables creative work which, according to the interviewees seem to be of importance in order for intrapreneurial behavior to take place, would also require the leader to act in advance which is not coherent with a passive leader.

Impact of passive leadership on intrapreneurial behavior