Higher Education Policy, 2018

Ó 2018 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/18

www.palgrave.com/journals

Original Article
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University
Culture Under Unfavorable Conditions:
Findings from a Developing Country
Syed Imad Shaha, Asad Shahjehanb and Bilal Afsarb
a
Institute of Management Studies, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, Pakistan.
E-mail: imad__shah@hotmail.com
b
Department of Management Sciences, Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan.
E-mail: asadshahjehan@hotmail.com

This qualitative research examines entrepreneurial cultures of private and public sector
universities in an apparently hostile economy such as Pakistan, and how it is affected by
a nexus of its internal and external environmental factors. The phenomenon is explored
through viewpoints and understanding of the social actors who experience it firsthand
through 32 interviews with faculty members of 4 public and 4 private sector univer-
sities. A top-down, government-pull model approach driven by visionary leaders was
found more viable and suggested in promoting entrepreneurial culture rather than
bottom-up, university-push model approach. Furthermore, to achieve entrepreneurial
cultures, private universities are restrained by profit motives, whereas public ones are
inhibited by administrative procedures. The proposed framework offers empirical
guidelines for the purposes of contextualizing entrepreneurial university culture and its
underlying factors under unfavorable conditions.
Higher Education Policy (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0083-y

Keywords: entrepreneurial culture; entrepreneurial university; visionary leadership;

higher education; developing country

Introduction
This study intended to examine the pertinent internal and external university factors
that critically affect the institutionalization of the entrepreneurial culture within
Pakistani universities, both public and private. Furthermore, given the acute
contextual differences between the public and private sectors (Murphy et al., 2016),
this study aimed to explore how the context-specific issues of these two sectors may
sculpt the culture of their respective universities to be either less or more
entrepreneurial. To play an active contributing role in the wake of competing
knowledge economies, universities around the world cannot just rely on their
traditional roles of knowledge dissemination and knowledge creation (Masa’deh
et al. 2017). Gradually, universities are now being demanded, by numerous
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

stakeholders, to adopt an additional proactive approach of contributing to the

regional economic development (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008; Etzkowitz and Zhou,
2007), known as the new ‘third task’ of the universities (Laukkanen, 2003). For
universities, diversifying and expanding their funding base is now seen as a
prerequisite for adaptability (Kitagawa, 2015); thus, they now have to be
entrepreneurial in their struggle for survival.
Even though it is evident from the extant literature that the role of culture is
central to shifting the traditional mind set of organizations aspiring to be more
entrepreneurial (Moreno and Casillas, 2008), it is still not clear of what the
situation of such cultures is in Pakistani universities as the extant literature is
largely skewed toward developed countries. Given the uniqueness of Pakistani
socioeconomic, political, and cultural conditions, we postulate that the manifes-
tation of entrepreneurial cultures in Pakistani universities will differ than those of
the developed countries. Toward these broader aims, this research mainly seeks to
answer the following question: what nexus of public- vs. private sector-specific
internal and external university factors enable/inhibit the development of
entrepreneurial culture within universities of these specific sectors and how?
Another aspect that determines the impetus for entrepreneurial culture of
universities is the ‘government-pull model’ versus ‘university-push model’
(Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2007, 2). In the context of a developing economy like
Pakistan, it is still unclear whether a government-pull or a university-push model
stands more viable and effective for policymakers to promote entrepreneurial
cultures within universities. A similar policy issue is investigated, when the
alternatives between adopting an instrumental top-down approach driven by
leadership and adopting the bottom-up approach driven by values of the lower
echelons of the university, are researched. While the latter one is usually lasting, it
was interesting to explore how effective it is in a developing country such as
Pakistan. Therefore, we also investigated whether the government-pull model or
the university-push model is a better predictor of such a culture. Similarly, it was
interesting to see whether the entrepreneurial culture in Pakistani universities
responded better to the top-down or the bottom-up implementation approach.

Background
Entrepreneurial universities
Since the conception of universities in the Middle Ages, the primary task of
universities was the preservation and dissemination of knowledge. During the
nineteenth century, the University of Giessen in Germany instilled the tradition of
research/knowledge production to the core missions of the universities, thereby
adding a second task to the universities’ mandate. Recently, due to the vast advents
in knowledge economies, universities are crucially contributing to the development
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

of these regional economies (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2007). Universities are doing
this, by not only transferring their cutting edge research knowledge to the local
industries, but also through the fact that they are increasingly viewing themselves
as capable business hubs with entrepreneurial capabilities. This is evident from the
increasing number of business incubation centers at universities, increasing R&D
budgeting by the universities, increasing number of diversified students seeking
higher education, increasing particularized demands of specialized labor force
segmentation, and increasing partnerships between universities and public–private
institutions–industries (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). This additional role of income
generation, as institutionalized by the universities, is known as the ‘third task’ or as
the ‘third mission’ of the universities (Laukkanen, 2003). This new imperative,
income-generating, transfer/collaborative role is aptly demonstrated in the
relationship model called the triple helix model (Leydesdorff, 2013). The triple
helix model demonstrates how universities can play a more active role in their
collaboration with the local industry and different government bodies (Table 1).
Experts in the field like O’Shea et al. (2007), Clark (2001), and Philpott et al.
(2011) strongly advocate the pursuance of entrepreneurial activities and establish-
ing an entrepreneurial stance by universities to actively counter these economic,
legal, financial, knowledge advancements, and governmental demands. They
should instill an entrepreneurial mind set in their faculties and establish/implement
policies that will facilitate entrepreneurial thinking within universities, thereby
rendering their cultures to be more entrepreneurially oriented (Moreno and
Casillas, 2008; Clark, 2001).

Entrepreneurial culture of universities

The culture of an organization exerts a powerful impact by influencing the behavior
of its employees and consequently their performance, and it may do more so than
the formal procedures and systems. Entrepreneurially orientated cultures refer to a
modern firm’s ability, in this case universities, to be entrepreneurial in pursuit of
new opportunities (Scott and Venkataraman, 2000). Beugelsdijk (2010) defines
entrepreneurial culture (EC) as a system of shared values, beliefs, and norms of an
organization, including valuing creativity and tolerance of creative people,
believing that innovating and seizing market opportunities are appropriate
behaviors to deal with problems of survival and prosperity, environmental
uncertainty, and competitors’ threats, and expecting organizational members to
behave accordingly. EC of a university is one that encourages and fosters creativity,
proactiveness, and innovativeness of its employees in pursuing opportunities
beyond that of the resources available to it. Such a culture is tolerant of failures and
at the same time rewards successful ideas and risk-taking that pays off. It is
characterized by open communications and autonomy in decision-making.
McGuire et al. (2016) identified EC as a key element of entrepreneurial

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Table 1 Evolution of universities missions

Initial conception of First academic revolution Second academic revolution

universities
Teaching Research Entrepreneurial
Preservation and Two missions: teaching and Third mission: transfer of
dissemination of research/knowledge technology/knowledge/innovation (Etzkowitz
knowledge generation 2003a) increased and diversified avenues of
funding/income generation, institutionalization
of entrepreneurial mind set/aims/objectives,
economic and social development, academic
entrepreneurs partnerships, university
incubation/consultancy services/spinoff activities
(O’Shea et al., 2007), academic entrepreneurship
(Jacob, Lundqvist, and Hellsmark 2003),
increased R&D budget, professional training and
development, transcending traditional
boundaries and providing education to broader
audience through use of
information/communication technologies
(Duderstadt 2000)
Old missions continued

Source: Adopted from Etzkowitz (2003a).

universities. On the other hand, they further posit that if the culture of a university
is underlined by low trust relationships, where risk-taking is not considered a norm,
where failure is not tolerated and is penalized, then such a culture hinders the
process of innovation and will impede in giving rise to an entrepreneurial
university.

Entrepreneurial cultures in public and private sectors

Ownership of private universities and their resulting aims vary around the world.
Some are supported by religious and other nonprofit institutions such as the
Catholic University of Kenya, US Baptist colleges and universities of USA, while
others operate as collaborations with local and foreign bodies such as United States
International University, Business School Netherlands (Varghese, 2006). Another
stream of private universities ownership is privately owned educational institutes
operating purely for profit, such as University of Buckingham (Bienkowski et al.,
2012). The private sector universities researched here are owned by private entities
and operate for profit mainly.
The public and private sector universities in Pakistan have different agendas.
The aim of private universities is to create private value (profit), whereas that of the
public universities is to create public value (affordable education to the masses)

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

(Jacob et al., 2003). Also, the stakeholders of public universities are more and have
diversified agendas compared to private universities. They differ in terms of
accountability, budgeting, ownership, and goals. The issue is further complicated
by the fact that public sectors’ objectives and missions are often conflicting and
vague, and they generally are not provided with enough resources (Bjugstad et al.,
2006). Human resource systems in public organizations tend to be merit based
(Ring and Perry, 1985), and performance incentives tend to be inadequate or absent
as compared to their private sector counterparts. Also, according to research, public
organizations are more open to environmental influences as a result of their
accountability to multiple constituencies, policymakers, and legislative mandates
(Ring and Perry, 1985). Similarly, public managers recognize a higher emphasis on
formalized rules and procedures in their organizations, which undermine their
authority. Ring and Perry (1985) also found that public managers preferred stronger
goal clarity in reaching goals compared to for-profit managers.
But given the differences between the contexts of the public and private sector
organizations, there are also similarities. This is especially true in situations where
both sectors are involved in similar markets, providing the same products and
services. The literature has revealed that lately private sector firms have been
invading the traditional markets of nonprofits. Hence, the competitive nature of the
private sector organizations has put a lot of strain on the public sector
organizations, which has led the latter to adopt competitive leadership perspectives
from the former (Bjugstad et al., 2006). Interestingly, the universities of both these
sectors are governed by the government regulatory body called the Higher
Education Commission of Pakistan, implementing uniform policies across both
sectors.
In addition to differences between stakeholders and goals of public and private
universities, the internal factors that affect universities, i.e., their structure, strategic
orientation, leadership, and culture, are likewise inherently diverse. These internal
and external factors create a nexus of complicated relationships which influence the
impetus of universities to adopt an entrepreneurial stance.

Pakistani context
The case of Pakistani universities, however, is in contrast to Western countries.
Being an Asian developing country, its culture varies significantly from that of
Western developed countries (Hofstede et al., 1991). On the power distance and
uncertainty avoidance index, Pakistan’s scores are considerably high as compared
to Western countries suggesting organizational inequality in power distribution,
and these discriminations are being endorsed by leaders and followers alike. This
suggests that its culture prefers explicit rules and formally structured activities
where employees stay with their organizations longer. On the individualism index,
Pakistan’s score is very low signifying that its culture prefers a collectivist

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

approach and does not encourage individualism. Individualistic societies encourage

people to choose their own affiliation and develop and display individual
personalities, whereas in collective societies the opposite is true.
Its culture is more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant
upward mobility of its citizens. In such situation, leaders have virtually ultimate
power and authority, and the rules, regulations, and laws are developed by those in
power with no consideration for employee’s participation. Such kinds of conditions
are not conducive for EC. However, studies show that culture is not something
static; it is constantly changing, particularly in today’s rapidly changing global
environments, internationalization, and convergence (Hofstede, 2007), buttressed
by media and technology that transcend national and cultural boundaries, thereby
influencing the values and beliefs of people.
Pakistan is further plagued with conditions that hinder entrepreneurship.
According to the Ali (2017), Pakistan’s ranking on the World Economic Forum
Global Competitiveness Index fell from 101 to 122. This has placed Pakistan ahead
of approximately 12% of the countries listed, down from 25% in the previous year.
Critical areas of decline were largely related to macroeconomic policy, human
resources, infrastructure, and institutions.
Also, Pakistan is struggling with deteriorating security conditions. Since the start
of the war on terror from 2003, more than 35,000 Pakistanis have died and
numerous more have been injured in multiple terrorist attacks. As a result, the
economy has suffered greatly. The private sector is taking the heaviest toll of this
war. Exports, foreign investment, and private industries were affected, expenditures
were overrun, and the infrastructure was greatly damaged. Over the past 13 years,
the security situation has cost Pakistan, directly and indirectly, around 68 billion
dollars’ worth of damage (Ali, 2010).

Investigating the issue

The issue is further complicated by the fact that majority of literature on
entrepreneurial universities is skewed toward Western developed countries. The
literature is laden with discussions that exemplify ‘university-push model’ of the
US universities versus the ‘government-pull model’ of other countries (Etzkowitz
and Zhou, 2007) and examples of US universities emerging as a ‘bottom-up’
approach versus the implementation of ‘top-down’ approach by European
universities by politicizing the academic entrepreneurship. As to what the case in
Pakistan is not known. We have not come across any studies that explore the
concept of entrepreneurial universities in Pakistan and to identify which approach
is best to cultivate the phenomenon. With the aim of filling these gaps, this will be
the first qualitative study of its kind aiming to explore the phenomenon of
entrepreneurial culture in Pakistani universities and to contextualize the concept of

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

entrepreneurial universities in the grounded realities of Pakistani cultural,

socioeconomic, and political conditions.

Methodology
In light of the objectives, this study adopted a qualitative case study approach of a
comparative design as its research methodology. The study, being the first of its
kind to be studied in Pakistan, being contextually bound, as well as its inherent
nature being exploratory, warranted such an approach (Yin, 2013). Additionally,
qualitative research design is, by its nature and assumptions, more suited to
context-based studies (Buchanan and Bryman, 2009; Creswell, 2013). Lastly, by
employing a qualitative case study approach, this research follows the method-
ological tradition adopted by scholars of the field. The subject of EC in universities
is still in pre-saturation phase and has not yet maturated nor explored entirely;
therefore, this methodological design is best suited to inform our findings
(Eisenhardt, 1989).

Methodological rigor
A number of steps were taken to ensure the methodological rigor of this work is not
compromised. As compared to the quantitative rigors of validity, reliability, and
generalizability, qualitative experts advocate alternative procedures of credibility,
neutrality, dependability, and applicability/transferability (Thomas and Magilvy,
2011). Nevertheless, Yin (2013), in his decades of extensive expert writing on the
field, still prefers to use the terminologies of construct validity, internal validity,
external validity, and reliability when applied to maintaining the rigor of
comparative case studies. He does, however, advocate alternative procedures for
each of these tests to counter issues of validity, reliability, and generalizability
associated with qualitative methodology in general and case studies in particular.
Consequently, adopting these rigorous systematic procedures should be the
hallmark of all such qualitative studies.
Following these guidelines, we first established a chain of evidence during data
collection to demonstrate the logical flow that leads to the interpretation of the data
gathered. A draft of the case study report was submitted to the key informants to
ensure that the findings are in accordance with the views they expressed in their
interviews. Additionally, pattern matching and explanation building were done to
make sure that the causal relationships and inferences were drawn accurately (Yin,
2013). Since, the aim here was to achieve analytical generalizations, whereby the
findings of the case study are generalized to a theory, rather than statistical
generalization, in which findings are generalized from a sample to a population
(Yin, 2013); therefore by adopting a comparative multiple case study approach, we
ensured that the replication logic, both literal and theoretical, was extensively
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

utilized. Lastly, for reliability we developed an extensive case study database and
followed detailed case study protocols that were specifically developed for this
research. All this was done to limit any errors or biases that could have emerged in
the study and consequently ensuring that the findings and interpretations drawn are
accurate and reliable.
To further augment the methodological rigor and increase the reliability of our
findings, we triangulated the primary data gathered through additional sources.
Archival records such as annual reports, project reports, and other documentation
pertaining to entrepreneurial activities of the university in question were used for
the purposes of triangulating the primary data gathered. For example, scanning for
any revenue generating projects mentioned in the annual reports or for how much
of the university budget was generated through sources other than student fees and
government funding. This was then also coupled with non-participant observation,
for example requesting to meet the teams working on revenue generating projects
and visiting the sites, for gaining insight for the same purposes. All these
procedures were employed to minimize the respondents’ social desirability and
respondents’ bias (Krumpal, 2013) and researchers’ bias (Yin, 2013), thus ensuring
the accuracy of the data gathered, as well as allowing the researchers to
complement the findings to a logical conclusion.

Case Selection and Design

A multiple case study design provides evidence that is considered more
compelling, thus giving way to a more robust study (Herriott and Firestone,
1983). Similarly, Yin (2013) also advocates that a multiple case design is preferable
over a single-case design where possible. Since the goal here was to compare cases
across the public and private sectors, therefore we utilized a multiple case study
design with aim of being thorough. In order to reflect the voices of university cadre
about entrepreneurial culture in Pakistan, eight major universities from the
provincial and national capital were chosen to constitute our sample. Four
universities were selected from the public sector, and four were selected from the
private sector.
The literature suggests that of the universities that adopted an entrepreneurial
stance, a majority of them did so through the innovative capabilities of their science
and technology departments (Laukkanen, 2003; O’Shea et al., 2007; Etzkowitz
2008). This study, therefore, focused on universities that are technical in nature or
universities that have a greater budget for its technological sciences. The
universities themselves were chosen on the basis of their ranking as per the
Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Respondents
In total, 32 interviews were conducted with participants who were mainly key
position holders in academia. The number of interviews is sufficient as it adheres to
the acceptable number in any qualitative study (Creswell, 2013; Yin 2013). Of the
four respondents from each university, one was a head of department, while three
were faculty members. We selected the participants through ‘purposive sampling’
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). According to Singleton Jr et al. (1988), such a non-
probability sampling technique can be aptly utilized when the research is of
exploratory nature, and when it is more important to identify patterns and generate
hypotheses for future studies than to generalize the research to a target population.
Each respondent was first contacted to request a preliminary meeting. In the
meeting, the respondents were briefed on the purpose of the interview and provided
with a document outlining the aims of the study. In the meeting, they were also
assured of the anonymity of their names and consent forms were signed by them. A
time and place was then set for the formal interview. Each interview lasted between
40 and 60 min.

Data collection
Using semistructured interviews allowed us to maintain a basic structure for
gathering data across different sites and cases, while maintaining the flexibility
inherent in a qualitative study and allowing for new themes to emerge from the data
gathered (Creswell, 2013). As discussed previously, four cases were selected from
the public sector and four were selected from the private sector. Choosing multiple
case studies from the same sector served the literal replication logic based on the
assumption that they will predict similar results (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008).
Similarly, choosing multiple case studies from different sectors served the purpose
of theoretical replication logic on the basis that they were predicted to show
contrasting results (Yin, 2013). The majority of interviews were conducted in
English, while some were conducted in local languages. Those conducted in local
languages were translated into English by a linguist using the forward–backward
translation method. Each interview was recorded coupled with comprehensive
notes taken during the interview. Both of these were transcribed into an interview
report immediately following each session. A summary of the conclusions drawn
from the data collected for each case was checked with its case respondents to
make sure that the findings are accurate and in accordance with what they talked
about.
Initially, the interview guide was designed based on constructs that were evident
from the review of the literature. The major themes elicited from the respondents
included themes related to entrepreneurial culture, risk-taking, innovation,
proactivity, leadership, and structural and strategic orientation of universities. As
universities operate inside the broader societal environment, therefore the external
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

socioeconomic and cultural conditions were also discussed to identify their unique
effects on giving rise to conducive/impeding environmental conditions for
fostering/hindering entrepreneurial cultures within universities.

Data analysis
Each interview was first transcribed from its related recording and interview notes.
All of us then independently studied the interview reports intensively to identify
common categories of themes. These categories were discussed, and the differences
were resolved. As per the recommendations of Corbin and Strauss (1990), we
utilized the extant literature as the background material for grounding our search.
All the interviews for the individual cases were then arranged into tables called
tabular summary technique by Creswell (2013) and construct tables by Yin (2013).
These tables, for all the cases, were then ordered according to the themes that
emerged during iterative process of going back and forth between data collection,
transcription, and analysis processes. Repeated ideas and themes were then coded
by employing in vivo, descriptive, and grounded coding techniques. Next we
created meta-matrix display by combining all the responses from all the cases into
one monster chart (also monster dog) as advised by Miles and Huberman (1994).
This allowed us to conduct cross-thematic (variable oriented) and cross-case (case
oriented) analysis and drawing relative conclusions. Then, through the process of
partitioning and clustering, we put similar themes into tables, all the while
summarizing and reducing the related texts. Lastly, we symbolized the data for
easy comparison, all the while employing the relative quotes from the respondents
during the explanation building. We then proceeded to compare the individual
constructs in summarized as well as non-summarized form for drawing
conclusions.

Findings
The themes of this study are based on two major streams of codes: grounded and
descriptive. The themes that emerged from the raw data itself, through scanning for
recurring patterns, known as grounded codes (Thomas, 2003), helped contextualize
the concept of entrepreneurial culture within universities. They also allowed for
localized understanding of the phenomenon to emerge as viewed and interpreted by
the social actors. The second stream of themes, called the descriptive codes,
included those that were derived from the extant literature, and helped frame the
research constructs for this study. These codes are then consolidated into broader
themes of relevance. The following table represents the themes of this study along
with their descriptive and grounded codes. It also classifies if the specific theme
was relevant to public sector cases or private sector cases, both, or neither
(Table 2).
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Table 2 Themes based on grounded and descriptive codes

Themes Descriptive Grounded Theme present in

code code
Private Public
sector sector

Internal university factors

Entrepreneurial culture (E.C.)
Supporting Supporting innovative 4 1/4 1/4
entrepreneurial ideas
orientation Supporting risk-taking
Supporting proactivity
Other factors supporting Culture of trust 4 0/4 1/4
an entrepreneurial culture Tolerance for mistakes and 4 0/4 1/4
failures
Ownership 4 1/4 1/4
Individual level links of the 4 4/4 3/4
faculty with the industry
Structural aspects supporting E.C.
Autonomy 4 0/4 1/4
Resources and time 4 0/4 1/4
Rewards and reinforcements 4 1/4 1/4
Rules and regulations regarding projects and innovative 4 1/4 1/4
ideas
Initiative for change from below 4 0/4 1/4
Call for restructuring of established Universities and new 4 4/4 4/4
structure for new universities
Strategic aspects supporting E.C.
University third task part of vision 4 1/4 1/4
Conflict between third task and research/teaching 4 0/4 3/4
Upper-level management support pursuit of innovative 4 0/4 1/4
ideas and resulting risk-taking
Managerial aspects supporting E.C.
Entrepreneurial/delegated/democratic autonomous 4 0/4 1/4
leadership style of upper-level management
E.O of management Innovative 4 1/4 1/4
Risk-taking
Proactive
Strong visionary leadership at the top 4 0/4 1/4
External/contextual factors
Socioeconomic and political conditions not conducive 4 4/4 4/4
for E.C. in Unis
Cultural conditions not conducive for E.C. in Unis 4 4/4 4/4
Knowledge gap: industry lagging behind compared to 4 4/4 4/4
universities
Public sector-specific issues
Overbearing role of the administration: too much power 4 0/4 3/4
with the clerical staff
Non-technical people with administrative authority 4 0/4 3/4

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Table 2 continued

Themes Descriptive Grounded Theme present in

code code
Private Public
sector sector

Nepotism and favoritism 4 0/4 3/4

Procedural bottlenecks/unnecessary rules 4 0/4 3/4
Private sector-specific issues
Profit motives 4 4/4 0/4
Private universities still in infancy stage 4 2/4 0/4
Large gap between ages and experience of faculty 4 2/4 0/4

Key: 1/4 = issue raised by 1 university in a specific sector; 2/4 = issue raised by 2 universities in a
specific sector; 3/4 = issue raised by 3 universities in a specific sector; 4/4 = issue raised by all
universities in a specific sector; 0/4 = issue not raised by any university in a specific sector (theme not
relevant for that sector).

This research strived to identify the impeding factors, both internal and external,
to a culture that promotes innovative, risk-taking, and proactive behavior in
Pakistani universities, for future examination and research. We present the findings
here in three major streams as outlined in the table above. These are the internal
factors affecting EC of universities, the external factors affecting the EC of
universities, and the public sector- and the private sector-specific issues affecting
EC of their specific universities. We then bring down the discussion to what the
stakeholders, advocacy groups, and policymakers of the relevant influential
institutions can do to help facilitate the transition to a more entrepreneurially
oriented culture.

Internal University Factors

Entrepreneurial culture and its supporting factors
Of the eight case universities, only one university from the public sector was found
to have cultivated a true entrepreneurial culture. Its culture was found to be
entrepreneurially oriented and supported the implementation of innovative ideas,
which was proactive in pursuing market opportunities, and promoted cautious risk-
taking while doing so. Not only this, but it also exhibited its support of such a
culture through additional support mechanisms such as trust, tolerance for failures,
ownership, and lack of individual-level links with the industry. In words of its head
of department:

Yes, the culture is very supportive of innovative and new ideas. We are
provided with a platform to launch our ideas if we are willing to do so. In fact

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

we have been specifically asked to do so! It supports calculated risk-taking

and failure comes along with success. We have very strong norms of trust
here.
Similarly, a faculty member states:

Because of the high-trust and the confidence the university instills in us, we
feel a sense of ownership here. We feel the university as our own: its gain as
our gain and its loss as our loss. Other universities are not able to inspire such
feelings in their faculty.
Interestingly, the faculty members of universities that did not support an EC
pursued individual-level links with the industry to capitalize on their ideas. This
was not the case for the university that did support EC this means that it is not that
the faculty members of other universities are not innovative. It is just that due to
lack of ownership and other support mechanisms they are not motivated in
benefiting their universities.
As one HOD from such a university states:

The owners and upper level management have problem relinquishing control
to the administration and the faculty of the university. They do not entertain
ideas presented to them. This coupled with their authoritative decision ma-
king leads to lack of ownership for the faculty.

Structural support
A culture of an organization does not operate in isolation. An entrepreneurial
culture needs to be reinforced by structural and strategic organizational changes
that are themselves entrepreneurial in nature. Existing hierarchies of universities
are in conflict with the notion of establishing entrepreneurial orientation within
them. The structure of entrepreneurial universities needs to be flexible, relinquish-
ing greater autonomy to its employees to make decisions regarding innovative
ideas. Similarly, employees should be provided with time off from their daily duties
coupled with associated rewards/appreciation if they are to pursue entrepreneurial
ideas. One head of department of a university lacking entrepreneurial culture says
in this regard that:

We have to adhere to the already established rules and regulations and given
minimum of autonomy. There are very limited rewards if any; basically there
is no incentive to motivate the faculty to come up with new-ideas and to take
risks.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Additionally, the bureaucratic structure of the universities coupled with their

autocratic decision-making styles does not allow much of an initiative for change
from below. Ideas, if any, are implemented from above, to be delegated down the
organizational hierarchy. In words of the faculty of the university that managed to
foster EC:

We have given rise to a new structure here, one which supports an EC, a flat-
hierarchy and delegated-autonomy and decision-making to lower levels and
removes the procedural bottlenecks. In other public universities there is no
room for initiatives for change from below.

Similarly, a faculty member of a private university that lacks EC responded:

No, not at all! The decision-making authority resides with the owner only.
Even the V.C. and the registrar are there only for the administrative purposes
and to fulfil the requirements of the HEC. They do not have any decision-
making authority. The owners make all the financial, administrative, and
operational decisions.

Strategic orientation
For a university that strives for entrepreneurial endeavors, it is imperative that its
strategy should be entrepreneurially orientated. This means that such a university
should have, as their core mission statement, the university’s third task of pursuit of
entrepreneurial/innovative endeavors. Furthermore, they should devise appropriate
policies that facilitate such action. When conflict arises between old goals (teaching
and research) and new goals (university–industry linkages), clear procedures and
rules should be at hand to resolve the friction between the traditional structure/daily
routines versus new entrepreneurial activities. One head of department while
discussing the strategic orientation of her university said:

No, the Third Task is not present right now.

While another faculty member answered:

Yes, maybe in vision it is there but practically nothing is done on that front.
We are lacking the industrial support for such activities here.

On the other hand, the university that supports EC intentionally focuses on

entrepreneurship and establishing links with the industry is specifically mentioned
in its vision and mission statements. As its HOD states:

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Yes. We have a very well-documented comprehensive vision and plan. We

have established a research/innovation office specifically in light of these
objectives. We aim to be independent of government-funding and be self-
sustainable. So yes, the third-task is very much a part of the vision of our
university.

Managerial support
Another important aspect that has a direct bearing on the culture of an organization
is its managerial orientation. The philosophy/vision of the managers/leaders
sculptures the organizational culture—instilling the norms and principles they
value while discouraging behaviors adverse to their philosophy (Northouse, 2007;
Yukl et al., 2002). The role of agency, coupled with their strategic orientation, is
crucial in developing the current and future structure and culture of an organization
(Gronn, 2000; Woods, 2004).
It is evident from the table that case exhibiting strong EC also exhibits strong/
visionary leadership at the top, while those lacking such a culture also fall short on
the visionary aspect of their leadership. This suggests that leadership at the top,
which inspires a strong entrepreneurial vision, works as a prerequisite for creating
an EC within universities. For example, an HOD of such a university says:

Our progress is due to the visionary leadership of our director: he is innov-

ative himself and full of ideas. He makes available the resources for such
activities, and is a cautious risk-taker himself. He and the top level leadership
have given rise to a democratic system that is self-sustained. His leadership
cannot be ignored.

Another employee says:

Our top leadership gave rise to a culture here that is always on the lookout for
links with the industry.
Similarly, an HOD of the university lacking EC states:

University culture depends upon its leaders and his/her vision. The culture
here does not support pursuit of entrepreneurial-endeavours or delegated d-
ecision-making because the leaders themselves are not innovative/visionary.
They don’t have an entrepreneurial inclination.

We found that apparently there is no difference between all these universities in

terms of talent of their faculty. Rather, the difference lies more in terms of how the
management envisions a university that is better able to provide an enabling
platform for the faculty to utilize their talents. So fundamentally, it comes down to
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

the EC the universities are able to establish as well as support it with an

entrepreneurial structure and entrepreneurially oriented strategies.

External/Contextual Factors
The external socioeconomic, political, and cultural factors of Pakistan have
significant bearing on the development of EC in its universities. The local
conditions are quite hostile to the entrepreneurial activities in any field of life, both
on the institutional level and on the individual level. The country is currently going
through a hard time in regard to the economic activity due to security reasons, lack
of investment, a warlike situation, natural disasters, as well as political instability
and unrest.
According to our findings, the local industry lacks long-term visionary
orientation and hence does not partake in financing research/development activities
in collaboration with the universities. Due to stringent economic conditions and
unstable political/security situation, it is not certain what the future will bring.
Hence, the industry is looking for short-term gains and is interested in immediate
solutions as compared to long-term R&D investments. A sound industry is needed
to support the universities in its technological transfers. Etzkowitz (2008)
elaborates this in his triple helix model. Unfortunately, the local industry is
lagging behind the universities in their knowledge applications. Majority of the
university’s faculties, educated in economically developed countries, are research-
ing up-to-date topics and issues. They find themselves at a loss as the industry is not
generally interested in such progressive research. Hence, there is a large gap
between the industry and the faculty knowledge which has negatively affected EC
in universities.
A faculty member of a public university quoted:

Furthermore, the economic and war-like situation has made it difficult for the
industry to progress fully, thus making it difficult for universities to establish
links with the industry. The current socioeconomic conditions do not allow
the industry to think in long-term investments, demanding quick solutions
rather than investing in research projects, which takes time.

Similarly, one head of department elaborates the issue as follows:

In third-world countries like ours, centralized policies politically originate

and are communicated down from the government, and the situation is ch-
anging rapidly due to the political uncertainty and also the economic cond-
itions are not favourable for such activities.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Additionally, the culture of Pakistan is high on conformity/power distance index

(Hofstede, 2007). This also acts as a hindrance for establishing EC within
universities. For example, a head of department of a university states that:

Our culture is stagnant, tends towards conformity, less receptive of change

and new ideas, and is reluctant to take risks.

Public and Private Sector-Related Issues

Private sector universities rely on self-generated funds, and hence, their primary
aim is monetary gain. This coupled with lack of local industry’s initiative does not
allow the administration of these universities to facilitate in risk-taking initiatives
and implements strict control over the utilization of resources. This lack of
autonomy works as a major hurdle to an EC. As one of the faculty member states:

The problem of the private-sector universities is that they are 100% depen-
dent upon the student fees. Also the owners have a mind-set, and rightly so,
that they cannot be sure of the future here, so that’s why they are diversifying
their investments rather than reinvesting. Risk-taking is dependent upon so-
cioeconomic setup, and neither that nor our political situation is stable.

On the other hand, public sector universities are over-reliant on government

funding. These universities, in serving their primary role of producing public value,
are characterized by mass intake of students at nominal fees. The faculties of these
universities are government employees who need not worry about extraordinary
performance as their jobs are secured and their progression up the university
echelons are more or less based on their time served. Furthermore, public sector
universities are characterized by the strong negative role of their administration
which prefers nepotism/favoritism as opposed to performance-based reviews/
rewards. Over-reliance on bureaucratic structures, strict rules/procedures, along
with intentional implementation of bottlenecks to unduly influence the faculty, is
the norm of these universities. An HOD of a public sector university says:

The administration role is too strong here: they are ruling us rather than
facilitating us! Too much power is given to clerical staff: you have to keep
them happy to ensure your issues are passed through. Also non-technical
people are making decisions in field such as pursuing projects. Political ties
play a key role here: the university is characterized by nepotism/favoritism.
Ninety percent of the time and energy is wasted in pursuing trivial routine
matters.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Fig. 1. Framework for grounding entrepreneurial culture in internal–external university contexts of

Pakistan.

As we can see the current university systems, both public and private are not
suited toward producing supportive environments for EC. But two points are worth
considering here: One even with such hostile conditions there is ample evidence
that such a phenomenon does exist. The second point is that even though both the
private and public sector universities in their traditional forms are unsuitable for
fostering such a culture, the public sector is more ideal for doing so. Therefore, as a
result, a new model is proposed based on the unique country conditions, suggesting
a comprehensive structural framework for developing EC in Pakistan universities,
and raising restructuring needs for conventional universities.

Discussion
Conclusions and implications
Entrepreneurial culture in the university context is a complex phenomenon. It is
influenced by the interplay of innovative processes of the universities, influenced

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

by their backgrounds and future aims, as well as their structure, strategy, and
strategic orientation. Furthermore, the external contextual factors, such as public–
private divide, socioeconomic–political conditions of the region, as well as the
norms/values of the external dominant culture the universities operate in, play a
prevailing role in determining an EC.
Suggesting an all-encompassing solution to its ailments may not be a
suitable approach, and this research does not claim to do so. But by researching
the impeding factors to cultivating an EC in Pakistani universities, it aimed to
identify their contingent enabling factors, with the intention that by manipulating
these factors a university may be able to plant the seeds of entrepreneurial
orientation at the grass root level. The main contributions of the study revolve
around its intended objectives and findings which provide insights into issues
related to fostering university culture to be more entrepreneurial in a developing
nation. It can then be compared with similar economies, to enhance our
understanding of EC within universities. This research makes some novel
contributions as well as some advancement on the extent literature. For example,
contrary to the extant literature it is the first to suggest that in a hostile environment
the profit motives of private universities act as a hindrance to establishing an EC
within them and inhibit innovative actions rather than acting as a catalyst, as is the
case worldwide (Clark, 2001). Likewise, while the profit motives of private
universities may hinder them to establish an EC, it is the bureaucratic procedures
that resist entrepreneurial efforts in public sector. The administration/bureaucracy
aspect of the public sector is mentioned by many authors to be a constricting factor
to implementation of EC in the public sector (Terry, 1993). This study confirms the
same, but brings in the perspective from Pakistani universities. Even then, as
discussed previously, our research posits that currently the public universities are
best poised for establishing an entrepreneurial culture within them, albeit following
the restructuring needs as suggested by the model in Figure 1.
Also our research is the first to highlight the fact that when a university is
characterized with the conditions of high EC, strategic entrepreneurial orientation,
and supportive organizational structure, its faculties tend to have less or no
individual-level links with the industry. In contrast, universities with low or none of
these conditions, their faculties tend to have more individual-level links with the
industry, which results in the loss of creative ideas. In addition, this study also
makes methodological contribution by adopting comparative case study design
approach for researching an issue in a developing nation while making theoretical,
contextual, and methodological contributions.
Our data analysis put forth the suggestion that the initiative for establishing an
EC should come from the strong, visionary top-level leadership of a university.
Being a culture ranked high on the power distance index, it is unlikely the
instigation of such a change will be realized from the bottom of the university
hierarchy. Therefore, it is left to the leaders and governing bodies of universities for
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

instituting cultural values that will reflect entrepreneurial philosophy. Not only will
they have to encourage such a change but they will need to support it with reflective
amendments in the structure and strategy of the university itself as suggested by
Jacob et al. (2003).
This suggests a ‘top-down’ implementation of an EC in Pakistani universities as
opposed to ‘bottom-up’ initiative of US universities. According to the literature, the
emergence of entrepreneurial universities in the USA was a bottom-up phe-
nomenon, whereas in Europe it is implemented by adopting a top-down approach.
In Pakistan, it is found in this study that the top-down approach is more
implementable than the bottom-up approach. The reason for this is the cultural
rigidity and over-bureaucratized university structures.
A related finding is the preference for instilling entrepreneurial characteristics
within universities through ‘government-pull’ rather than the ‘university-push’
model (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2007). The former model suggests that the
government takes an active part in the industry–government–university triple
helix model by introducing such policies that will provide the impetus for
universities to establish a more entrepreneurial stance. This is true in case of
Pakistani universities where the HEC, in collaboration with other government
institutions such as the Ministry of Science and Technology, is actively trying to
kick-start the university–industry linkages by heavily funding different collabora-
tive research ideas and motivating the university faculties to participate in the
knowledge transfer projects.
This research bears further societal and empirical implications for both public
and private sector divide of an emerging country by bringing forth the pertinent
contextual and conceptual issues and hence builds up a nuanced understanding of
EC. Despite differing factors for private–public sector institutions, a common set
exists in the case of similar emerging economies that affect universities at large.
This includes internal (leadership, structure, strategic orientation) and external
factors (industry, government, HEC). In light of this, our framework depicts a
unique approach for universities to give rise to an EC.

Limitations and future research

This study does have some limitations that offer opportunities for future research.
For one, it relies upon cross-sectional data rather than longitudinal data. Therefore,
future research could set up an agenda to follow up this study with a longitudinal
one to allow an in-depth understanding of the evolution and development of the
phenomenon. As we found a wide range of internal–external constricting factors
that play a role, future research could adopt a quantitative methodology to test,
through descriptive cause-and-effect analytical procedures, which of these do
indeed affect the entrepreneurial culture of the university significantly. Finally,

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

since this study claims limited generalizability due to the nature of the
methodology used, even though it is one of the best ways of exploring new
concepts in unique contexts usually leading to unexpected and useful findings
through analytical generalization, future survey-based studies could extend this
study with a hefty statistical generalizability.

References

Ali, A. (2010) ‘Economic cost of terrorism: A case study of Pakistan’, Strategic Studies Spring/Summer
2010(1–2), Available on http://issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1299569657_66503137.pdf,
Accessed 4 Jan 2018.
Ali, F. (2017) ‘Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018’, Business Recorder, 30 September, Available
on https://fp.brecorder.com/2017/09/20170930222476/, Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
Beugelsdijk, S. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial culture, regional innovativeness and economic growth’ in A.
Freytag and R. Thurik (eds.) Entrepreneurship and Culture, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 129–154.
Bienkowski, W., Brada, J. and Stanley, G. (2012) The university in the age of globalization: rankings,
resources and reforms, Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E.C., Thompson, K.J. and Morris, A. (2006) ‘A fresh look at followership: A model
for matching followership and leadership styles’, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management
7(3):304.
Bramwell, A. and Wolfe D.A. (2008) ‘Universities and regional economic development: The
entrepreneurial University of Waterloo’, Research Policy 37(8):1175-1187.
Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (2009) The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods, London:
Sage Publications.
Clark, B. (2001) ‘The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and
achievement’, Higher Education Management 13(2): 9–24.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990) ‘Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria’,
Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19(6):418–427.
Creswell, J.W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches,
London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review
14(4):532–550.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The triple helix: university–industry–government innovation in action: Routledge.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Cantisano Terra, B.R. (2000) ‘The future of the university
and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’, Research
Policy 29(2): 313–330.
Etzkowitz, H. and Zhou, C. (2007) Regional innovation initiator: the entrepreneurial university in
various triple helix models. Theme Paper; Triple Helix 6th Conference; 16–18 May; National
University of Singapore, Singapore.
Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership’, Educational Management
and Administration 28(3): 317–338.
Herriott, R.E. and Firestone. W. A. (1983) ‘Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description
and generalizability’, Educational Researcher 12(2): 14–19.
Hofstede, G. (2007) ‘Asian management in the 21st century’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24(4):
411–420.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
Vol. 2, London: McGraw-Hill.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Jacob. M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish
University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology’, Research Policy 32(9):1555-
1568.
Kitagawa, F. (2015) ‘Research, Development and Innovation: International, National and Regional
Perspectives’ in J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill and M. Souto-Otero (eds). The Palgrave
International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance, London: Springer,
pp. 243–260.
Krumpal, I. (2013) ‘Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review’,
Quality and Quantity 47(4): 2025–2047.
Laukkanen, M. (2003) ‘Exploring academic entrepreneurship: drivers and tensions of university-based
business’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10(4): 372–382.
Leydesdorff, L. (2013) Triple helix of university–industry–government relations, London: Springer.
Masa’deh, R., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M. and Tarhini, A. (2017) ‘The impact of knowledge
management on job performance in higher education: The case of the University of Jordan’, Journal
of Enterprise Information Management 30(2): 244–262.
McGuire, S., Drost, E. and Zhang, Y. (2016) Convergent and Discriminant Validity of a Model of
Entrepreneurial Culture. Paper presented at the The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference; 19–22
June; Porto, Portugal.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, London:
Sage.
Moreno, A.M. and Casillas, J.C. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal
model’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32(3): 507–528.
Murphy, G.B., Tocher, N. and Ward, B. (2016) ‘An examination of public private academic partnerships:
Does program success enhance university performance outcomes?’, Public Organization Review
16(1): 95–115.
Northouse, P.G. (2007) ‘Transformational leadership’, in Leadership: Theory and Practice 4th ed,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 175–206
O’Shea, R.P., Allen, T.J., Morse, K.P., O’Gorman, C. and Roche, F. (2007) ‘Delineating the anatomy of
an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience’, R&D
Management 37(1): 1–16.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C. and Lupton, G. (2011) ‘The entrepreneurial university: Examining
the underlying academic tensions’, Technovation 31(4): 161–170.
Ring, P.S. and Perry, J.L. (1985) ‘Strategic management in public and private organizations:
Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints’, Academy of Management Review 10(2):
276–286.
Scott, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy
of Management Review 25(1): 217–226.
Singleton Jr, R., Straits, B.C., Straits, M.M. and McAllister, R.J. (1988) Approaches to social research,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Terry, L.D. (1993) ‘Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public
Entrepreneurship with Democracy: A Response to Bellone and Goerl’s’’ Reconciling Public
Entrepreneurship and Democracy’, Public Administration Review 53(4): 393–395.
Thomas, E. and Magilvy, J.K. (2011) ‘Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research’,
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16(2): 151–155.
Thomas, R.M. (2003) Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and
dissertations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Varghese, N.V. (2006) Growth and expansion of private higher education in Africa, Paris: UNESCO
International Institute for Educational Planning.
Woods, P.A. (2004) ‘Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadership’, Inter-
national Journal of Leadership in Education 7(1): 3–26

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Syed Imad Shah et al.
Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture

Yin, R.K. (2013) Case study research: Design and methods, London: Sage.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002) ‘A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating
a half century of behavior research’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9(1): 15–32.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://

doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0083-y) contains supplementary material, which is
available to authorized users.

Higher Education Policy 2018