The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

Employee
Employee satisfaction, satisfaction
intrapreneurship and firm
growth: a model
589
Jasna Auer Antoncic
Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia, and Received 2 November 2010
Bostjan Antoncic Revised 21 January 2011
Accepted 6 February 2011
Faculty of Management, Faculty of Tourism Studies Portorož – Turistica,
University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia and
Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Abstract
Purpose – Organizational performance, growth and development may depend considerably on
entrepreneurship in existing organizations (intrapreneurship) and intrapreneurship employee-related
antecedents. The purpose of this study is to focus on employee satisfaction (composed of four
dimensions: general satisfaction with work; employee relationships; remuneration, benefits and
organizational culture; and employee loyalty), intrapreneurship and firm growth. The model’s
underlying hypotheses were conceptually developed and empirically tested.
Design/methodology/approach – Using data collected via a structured questionnaire sent by e-mail
to 149 firms from Slovenia, the model’s hypotheses were tested by applying structural equation modeling.
Findings – The findings support the hypothesized relationships between employee satisfaction,
intrapreneurship and growth. The influence of the control variables was also assessed in the model
and firm age was found to be influential.
Research limitations/implications – Firm growth can depend strongly on intrapreneurship and
intrapreneurship employee-related antecedents. The study contributes to intrapreneurship research by
empirically examining the relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship and
testing the impact of employee satisfaction on firm growth.
Practical implications – Firms need to take a detailed and systematic approach to employee
satisfaction in order to improve intrapreneurship and growth.
Social implications – Activities related to the stimulation of employee satisfaction and
intrapreneurship can have also social implications, since they can increase creation of the new wealth
in the society.
Originality/value – This study can be differentiated from past studies, since it considers an
ensemble of employee satisfaction elements (general satisfaction with work, employee relationships,
remuneration, benefits and organizational culture and employee loyalty) as a crucial antecedent of
intrapreneurship and builds a model of employee satisfaction-driven intrapreneurship and firm
growth, which has not been examined before.
Keywords Employees, Employee behaviour, Job satisfaction, Entreprenurialism,
Business development, Slovenia
Paper type Research paper

Industrial Management & Data

1. Introduction Systems
Vol. 111 No. 4, 2011
Organizational performance, growth and development may depend considerably on pp. 589-607
entrepreneurship in existing organizations (intrapreneurship) and intrapreneurship q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
employee-related antecedents. The study focuses on employee satisfaction, DOI 10.1108/02635571111133560
IMDS intrapreneurship and firm growth. It deals with the elements of job satisfaction important
111,4 for the survival and growth of firms. Elements of employee satisfaction are intertwined
with elements of organizational factors related to intrapreneurship. Previous research on
the relationship between organizational elements and intrapreneurship has focused on the
characteristics of internal organizational environments and their relationships with
entrepreneurship in existing organizations (Souder, 1981; Schollhammer, 1982; Kanter,
590 1984; Pinchot, 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Hornsby et al., 1993; Antoncic and
Hisrich, 2001; Antoncic, 2007). In addition to some descriptive evidence (Kanter, 1984;
Pinchot, 1985), in one study Kuratko et al. (2005) empirically examined the relationship
between corporate entrepreneurship, internal organizational antecedents and job
satisfaction and found that they are related, but used a narrower measure of employee
satisfaction and focused only on one aspect of intrapreneurship (number of new and
implemented ideas and unofficial improvements). Past research in intrapreneurship has
covered some elements important for employee satisfaction, but has only partially
addressed the relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship. This
study can be differentiated from past studies, since it considers an ensemble of employee
satisfaction elements (general satisfaction with work, employee relationships,
remuneration, benefits and organizational culture and employee loyalty) as a crucial
antecedent of intrapreneurship and builds a model of employee satisfaction-driven
intrapreneurship and firm growth, which has not been examined before. This study fills
the research gap by developing and empirically testing a model. Based on theoretical
starting points, we developed hypotheses and sought to find out whether the hypothesized
relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and growth exist. The key
contribution of our research is the model which sheds light on the linkages between
employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth.

2. Theory and hypotheses

This section describes the elements of employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship along
with the hypotheses on the relationships between employee satisfaction,
intrapreneurship and firm growth.

2.1 Elements of employee satisfaction

Employee satisfaction is the satisfaction of employees with their jobs or the degree to
which employees like their jobs (Spector, 1997). An overall job satisfaction and elements
of employee satisfaction were traditionally emphasized as important elements of
organizational management, behavior and development (Lofquist and Dawis, 1969;
Smith et al., 1969; Locke, 1976; Cranny et al., 1992). Varoius job satisfaction-related
elements exist. For example, on one hand, job satisfaction factors can be classified
accordingly to the well-known Herzberg’s (1964, 1966) two-factor theory into hygienes
(supervision, working conditions, co-workers, pay, policies/procedures and job
security), which lead to dissatisfaction, and motivators (achievement, recognition, the
work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth), which lead to satisfaction.
On the other hand, job satisfaction elements can be considered in relative terms,
as proposed in equity theory (Adams, 1963; Vecchio, 1982), in which employees evaluate
the fairness of exchange and base their satisfaction-related elements on the comparison
of the ratio of personal outcomes (pay, recognition, job satisfaction, opportunity
and advancement) and personal inputs (time, effort, knowledge and skills) with
the ratio of reference group outcomes and inputs. Important elements that affect Employee
employee satisfaction, which are used in this study, are: satisfaction
.
General satisfaction with work, consisting of the work conditions (Mozina, 1991;
Miskell, 1994), working time (Pierce and Newstrom, 1980; Ronan, 1981;
Christensen and Staines, 1990) and reputation of the company (Mulej, 1986).
.
Employee relationships, consisting of relationships between employees (Mayer,
1991; Miskell and Miskell, 1994; Welsby, 2003) and also includes annual personal 591
interviews with employees (Majcen, 2004).
.
Remuneration, benefits and organizational culture, these elements include salary
(Hanneman and Schwab, 1985; Brecko, 2005), remuneration in the form of benefits
and praise (Rosenbloom and Hallman, 1991), promotion (Mozina, 2002), education
(Tsui et al., 1997; Joy-Matthews et al., 2007; Noe, 2008), permanency of the job
(Maslow, 1997; McGregor, 2002) and the organizational climate and culture
(Pinchot, 1985; Fiedler, 1993; Hisrich and Peters, 1995).
.
Employee loyalty (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Tsui et al., 1997; Varona, 2002).
These elements are important for anyone directly or indirectly related to the company’s
operations. Employees value the operation of a company based on their own needs and
interests. If the firm functions internally in accordance with their interests, stemming
from their needs, they are satisfied. The way employees in the company are dealt with
determines whether employees can be considered a true competitive advantage of the
company.

2.2 Intrapreneurship
Entrepreneurship can be defined:
[. . .] as the process of uncovering and developing an opportunity to create value through
innovation and seizing that opportunity without regard to either resources (human and capital)
or the location of the entrepreneur – in a new or existing company (Churchill, 1992, p. 586).
Intrapreneurship can be defined in broad terms as entrepreneurship within an existing
organization. Intrapreneurship includes entrepreneurial behaviors and orientations of
existing organizations. Intrapreneurship exists in a firm, for example, when the firm acts
entrepreneurially in pursuing new opportunities; in contrast, a non-intrapreneurial firm
would be mostly concerned with the management of the existing (Antoncic and Hisrich,
2003) and would make decisions predominantly on the basis of the currently controlled
resources (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Intrapreneurship may be seen as doing new things
and departing from the customary to pursue opportunities (Vesper, 1984); as a process by
which individuals inside organizations pursue opportunities without regard to the
resources they currently control (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990); as a spirit of entrepreneurship
within the existing organization (Hisrich and Peters, 1995); or as emergent behavioral
intentions or behaviors deviating from the customary way of doing business (Antoncic and
Hisrich, 2003, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). Intrapreneurship (corporate entrepreneurship,
intrapreneuring) can also be defined by its content (for a more precise conceptual definition,
see Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003) including dimensions based on the Schumpeterian
innovation concept that can be considered a building block of entrepreneurship.
Previous views of intrapreneurship can for the purpose of this study be classified in four
dimensions which encompass the following entrepreneurial activities in existing firms:
IMDS .
New business venturing (Schollhammer, 1982; Hisrich and Peters, 1984; Vesper,
1984; Rule and Irwin, 1988; Zahra, 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994) – the
111,4 new business venturing dimension refers to the creation of new businesses related
to existing products or markets and the creation of new units without regard to the
level of autonomy or size.
.
Product/service innovativeness (Schollhammer, 1982; Covin and Slevin, 1991;
592 Zahra, 1993; Knight, 1997) – the product/service innovativeness dimension refers
to product and service innovation.
.
Process/technology innovativeness (Schollhammer, 1982; Covin and Slevin, 1991;
Zahra, 1993; Damanpour, 1996; Knight, 1997; Tushman and Anderson, 1997;
Antoncic et al., 2007) – the process/technology innovativeness dimension refers to
innovations in production processes, procedures and techniques, as well as in
technologies.
.
Self-renewal (Vesper, 1984; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1991; Stopford and
Baden-Fuller, 1994; Muzyka et al., 1995) – the self-renewal dimension reflects the
transformation of organizations through a renewal of the key ideas on which they
are built.

2.3 Hypotheses
Hypotheses are developed in terms of relationships between employee satisfaction,
intrapreneurship and firm growth.
2.3.1 Employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship. The elements of employee
satisfaction described above, namely:
.
general satisfaction with work;
.
employee relationships;
.
remuneration, benefits and organizational culture; and
.
employee loyalty are important for the company’s operations.

In their nature, the elements of employee satisfaction are important organizational elements
that can be very influential for the development of entrepreneurial activities and
orientations in the organization. In particular, they tend to be related to organizational and
management support and organizational values – the driving forces of intrapreneurship.
Previous research on the relationship between organizational elements and
intrapreneurship has focused on characteristics of intra-organizational environments that
can facilitate or impede intrapreneurship development (Souder, 1981; Schollhammer, 1982;
Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Hornsby et al., 1993; Antoncic and
Hisrich, 2001; Antoncic, 2007). Organizational characteristics such as communication
openness, control mechanisms, environmental scanning intensity, organizational and
management support, and organizational values can be considered important predictors of
intrapreneurship, with organizational and management support, and organizational values
having a particularly strong association with intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001).
Kuratko et al. (2005) demonstrated positive relationships between corporate
entrepreneurship internal organizational antecedents (management support, work
discretion, rewards/reinforcement, time availability and organizational boundaries)
and job satisfaction. Top management’s style of dealing with employees is crucial for
employee satisfaction and employee involvement in entrepreneurial activities and can play
an important role in innovation performance (Huang and Lin, 2006). Giving employees work Employee
discretion, rewards, time availability, training, trust, loose intra-organizational boundaries, satisfaction
and management support, commitment and involvement may be considered vital
characteristics of organizational support conducive to intrapreneurship (MacMillan, 1986;
Hornsby et al., 1990; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Merrifield, 1993). Investing in employees
can encourage their self-initiative (Hom et al., 2009), which is important for intrapreneurship.
Managers and employees, who are involved in the team for changing the organization, need 593
to be able to implement new business processes (McAdam and Galloway, 2005). Support
from senior management may represent important encouragement for employees to
innovate (Lee and Tsai, 2005). As important elements of organizational culture, values can
be essential for the development of intrapreneurship. Values are an important component of
an innovative organizational culture in which individuals are continuously encouraged to
generate new ideas, solutions and knowledge (Wong, 2005). Employee emotional and value
commitment tends to improve innovativeness in organizations (Kanter, 1984). Employee
satisfaction is also built on values-related drivers of intrapreneurship such as: the attitudes
of individuals within the firm (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), individual-centered
intrapreneurship and organizational values (focusing on ways in which employees are
treated in the organization) and competition-centered organizational values (focusing on
approaches organizational members should follow when attempting to achieve
organizational goals) (Zahra, 1991). It may be concluded from the above research that
elements of organizational factors intertwine with elements of employee satisfaction and
may be important for the development of intrapreneurship. Therefore, the expected
relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship is positive:
H1. Employee satisfaction is positively associated with intrapreneurship.
2.3.2 Employee satisfaction and growth. Employee satisfaction can be related to firm
performance in terms of growth. The practices of managing human resources show that
the possibility of education, adequate pay, benefits, continuity of employment and the
right approach to employees encourage a high level of employee motivation and their
willingness to invest in their own knowledge and skills (Shaw et al., 1998; Tsui et al.,
1997). Improving the satisfaction of workers is a central task of management since
satisfaction creates confidence, loyalty and consequently improved quality in the output
of employees (Tietjen and Myers, 1998). Top management’s commitment to improving
employee satisfaction takes into account factors that affect employee satisfaction and
can encourage employees to improve the performance of their tasks and boost the level
of their work performance, which can in turn contribute to the company’s growth
(Tsui et al., 1997; Shaw et al., 1998; Gerhart and Rynes, 2003). The role of employee
training and the top management leadership of employees can be essential for the
quality and performance of firms (Demirbag et al., 2006). Employee job satisfaction and
performance can be moderately related ( Judge et al., 2001). Practices which increase
employee satisfaction tend to increase the quality of employees and the level of their
performance (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003) and may impact the growth of the firm
(Antoncic, 2008). Investing in employee development is crucial for the organization and
its business results (Tsui et al., 1997; Merkac Skok, 2008). Therefore, the expected
relationship between employee satisfaction and growth of the company is positive.
On the basis of the above research, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Employee satisfaction is positively associated with firm growth.
IMDS 2.3.3 Intrapreneurship and growth. Firm performance can be considered the most
111,4 important consequence of intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001) and usually
denotes performance in terms of growth and profitability (Covin and Slevin, 1991).
Entrepreneurial activities can be important for the growth of firms and economic growth
since entrepreneurship tends to contribute to economic performance through the
introduction, creation and enhancement of innovations, change, rivalry and competition
594 (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Carree and Thurik, 2003). Successful enterprises have been
characterized with intrapreneurship (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot,
1985). Empirical evidence from past research indicates intrapreneurship is related to
small-firm growth (Covin, 1991), performance in hostile environments (Covin and Slevin,
1989), large-firm growth (Covin and Slevin, 1986; Zahra, 1991, 1993; Zahra and Covin,
1995) and the growth of existing firms regardless of their size (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001,
2004; Antoncic, 2007). This research underpins the following hypothesis:
H3. Intrapreneurship is positively associated with firm growth.

3. Research methods
The research methods include the survey questionnaire, the sample and methods of data
analysis.

3.1 Survey questionnaire

An anonymous questionnaire with mainly closed questions was developed and used for
subsequent detailed processing. In the study, we used a questionnaire containing
questions divided into four parts, based on employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship,
growth and control variables. Likert-type scale ratings of responses to the question are
mainly based on the scale, ranging from 1 – very untrue to 5 – very true. Employee
satisfaction was measured with questions taken and adapted from previous research
(Brayfield and Rothe, 1951; Porter et al., 1968; Churchill et al., 1974; Hackman and
Oldham, 1975; Teas, 1979; Oliver and Brief, 1983) and based on the following dimensions
of employee satisfaction:
.
general satisfaction (working hours, conditions of work and reputation);
.
employee relationships (relationships with co-workers);
.
remuneration, benefits and organizational culture (salary, remuneration in the
form of benefits and praise, promotion, education, job stability, organizational
climate and culture); and
.
employee loyalty.
The reliabilities of the four dimensions of employee satisfaction (with retained items after
factor analysis) were very good to moderately good: general satisfaction (12 retained
items, Cronbach’s alpha reliability 0.94), employee relationships (four retained items,
Cronbach’s alpha reliability 0.92), remuneration, benefits and organizational culture
(nine retained items, Cronbach’s alpha reliability 0.88) and employee loyalty (two retained
items, Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.43, significant at the 0.05 level) (Table I).
Intrapreneurship, growth and control variables (industry, company size and age)
were assessed by using questions from previous research (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004;
Antoncic, 2007). The 23 questions of intrapreneurship (Table II) assessed four aspects of
intrapreneurship: new businesses, product/service innovation, process/technology
 Employee
Items Mean SD
satisfaction
General satisfaction
Employees are relatively well-rewarded financially for their work 3.34 0.94
Employees find their work challenging, exciting and giving them a sense of
accomplishment 3.38 0.86
The employees are commited to the organization 3.70 0.87 595
Employees are proud to tell others that they are part of their organization 3.43 0.89
For employees, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work 3.07 0.94
Most people in our organization feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when they do
the job well 3.59 0.80
Most people in our organization are very satisfied with the job 3.46 0.83
Employees are generally satisfied with the kind of work they do in our company 3.56 0.78
Employees think their job is very interesting 3.52 0.85
Employees find real enjoyment in their work 3.36 0.87
Employees feel they have the opportunity for independent thought and action in their
working position 3.34 0.84
Employees feel the prestige of their position inside the company (that is, the regard
received from others in the company) 3.56 0.81
Employee relationships
Employees feel that their fellow workers are the kind they would like to have around 3.44 0.73
Employees get along well with their coworkers 3.65 0.83
Employees are happy with their relationship with their fellow workers 3.66 0.85
Employees feel that their fellow workers are stimulating 3.43 0.83
Remuneration, benefits and organizational culture
Employees are satisfied with the pay they receive for their job 3.05 0.95
The basic values of this organization include learning as key to improvement 3.50 0.96
The sense around here is that employee learning is an investment, not an expense 3.69 1.09
Supervisors in this company are willing to share all relevant information with
subordinates 3.59 0.97
This organization can be described as flexible and continually adapting to change 3.71 0.95
This organization is always moving toward improved ways of doing things 3.90 0.96
The opportunity for personal growth and development exists in our organization 3.72 0.86
Employees feel they receive enough information from their supervisor about their job
performance 3.42 0.83
Employees are satisfied with their working time 3.71 0.90
Employee loyalty Table I.
Employees talk up their organization to their friends as a great organization to work for 3.58 0.89 Employee satisfaction
Employees feel very little loyalty to their organization (r) 3.89 0.99 items

innovation and self-renewal (23 retained items, Cronbach’s alpha reliability 0.90).
Growth was measured by three questions addressing absolute and relative growth
(three retained items, Cronbach’s alpha reliability 0.75).

3.2 Data collection and description of the sample

The data were collected by e-mail sent to firm managers stating the purpose of the survey
and asking them to complete the attached questionnaire. The top manager of a firm was
selected as a key informant, since he or she has the most knowledge about the
organizational-level questions and therefore is being able to provide the most valid data,
relative to other people in a given firm. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a small
number of companies in order to check its usefulness to avoid incomprehensible
IMDS
Items Mean SD
111,4
Stimulating your new demand on your existing
products in your current markets through aggressive
advertising and marketing 2.95 1.34
Broadening your business lines in your current
596 industries 3.36 1.18
Pursuing new businesses in new industries that are
related to your current business 3.35 1.25
Finding new niches for your products in your current
markets 3.62 1.03
Entering new businesses by offering new lines and
products 3.20 1.27
Your company’s emphasis on developing new
products 3.48 1.04
Rate of new product introduction into the market 3.15 0.92
Your company’s spending on new product
development activities 3.05 1.09
The number of new products added by your
company 3.07 1.01
The number of new products introduced by your
company 2.81 1.19
Your investment in developing proprietary
technologies 3.07 1.27
Your emphasis on creating proprietary technology 3.09 1.19
Your adoption of technologies developed by other
companies or industries 2.96 1.05
Your company’s emphasis on technological
innovation 3.18 1.12
Your company’s emphasis on pioneering
technological developments in your industry 3.25 1.19
The percent of the company’s revenue generated
from products that did not exist three years earlier 2.82 1.56
Defining your company’s mission 3.61 1.01
Revising your business concept 3.53 0.94
Redefining the industries in which your company
will compete 3.18 1.08
Reorganizing units and divisions to increase
innovation 3.07 1.14
Coordinated activities among units to enhance
company innovation 3.16 1.12
Increasing the autonomy (independence) of different
units to enhance their innovation 2.65 1.05
Table II. Adopting flexible organizational structures to
Intrapreneurship items increase innovation 3.09 1.20

and sensitive items. To improve the understanding of the questionnaire items, some
questions were edited by replacing some words on the basis of reasonable proposals from
businesspeople before the main data collection. The data were collected from firms in
Slovenia. Questionnaires were sent to 2,977 large, medium and small companies;
all companies with e-mail addresses in the complete database of Slovenian firms with 20 or
more employees (full-time equivalent). As part of the data collection via e-mail, a second
reminder was sent out two weeks after the first one in order to achieve a better response rate. Employee
After sending the questionnaire out in the first round, it was found that 31 e-mail records satisfaction
included a false e-mail address (wrong characters), whereas 671 e-mail addresses were
invalid because they no longer existed. The surveys were ultimately sent out to 2,275 e-mail
addresses. In total, 149 of the questionnaires which were returned were usable for analysis
(a 6.5 percent response rate). The response rate to the e-mail survey was relatively low
because generally a lot of junk e-mail (“spam”) is sent to companies and individuals and 597
because we targeted the total population (Slovenian firms with 20 or more employees).
Comparisons of mean values of key model variables and comparisons of control variables
between two sub-samples based on the response time (earlier respondents – responded in
the first two weeks, n ¼ 37; later respondents – responded after the first two weeks,
n ¼ 112) showed no differences, which indicated an absence of non-response bias.
The sample was represented by firms from various industries. Most firms in the
sample were from service industries (56.9 percent) and less from manufacturing
industries (36.1 percent). The key service industries included in the sample are:
transportation and public goods (13.9 percent of firms in the sample); consulting and
business services (11.8 percent); retail and wholesale trade (10.4 percent); tourism
(6.3 percent); construction (5.6 percent); banking, investment and insurance (4.2 percent);
and engineering, research and development (4.2 percent). Manufacturing industries
included in the sample are: production of industrial goods (26.4 percent) and production
of consumer goods (9.7 percent). The average firm in the sample was 11-20 years old,
had total annual sales of e1,600,000-e4,000,000, and was small with 20-50 employees.
These figures are very close to the data in the total database population and hence
indicate the good representativeness of the sample.

3.3 Methods of data analysis

All model constructs were checked for their reliability. The employee satisfaction
construct was checked by using exploratory factor analysis to identify R-type factor
dimensions by employing the SPSS software package. An oblique rotation oblimin was
used where the factors are correlated. The data were suitable for factor analysis because
the variables were adequately correlated, which was reflected in the correlation matrix.
Keiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were
adequate. The initial number of factors was selected according to the theory-based
expectations. When the model was re-specified on the basis of eigenvalues, the decision
was made on how many factors to retain (four factors). The decisions on which variables
to retain were based on communality values (higher than 0.2) of individual variables and
the associations of variables with one or more factors.
To test the hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling with the EQS program
package. The ERLS method was used, noting it is less sensitive to deviations of
variables from the normal distribution than the ML method. The model with structural
equations included three key constructs: employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and
firm growth. The four employee satisfaction dimensions were included as elements
composing the independent variable, whereas intrapreneurship was included as the
intermediate dependent variable and growth as the final dependent variable. The control
variables age and size of the company were included as additional independent
variables, whereas the impact of industry was tested by dividing the sample by the two
key industry groups (services and manufacturing).
IMDS 4. Findings
111,4 The findings after testing the hypotheses by using structural equation modeling are
presented below. The findings are related to the hypothesized relationships between
employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth which are included in the
structural model together with control variables, which refer to firm age and size.
The structural model with standardized coefficients is shown in Figure 1. Model fit
598 indices indicate a moderately good model fit (NFI 0.86, CFI 0.89, RMSEA 0.12); NFI and
CFI are very close to the threshold of 0.9, which indicates a very good model fit, whereas
the value of RMSEA is somewhat too high, although its value may be increased due to
the inclusion of control variables in the model.
H1. predicted a positive association between employee satisfaction and
intrapreneurship. The estimated standardized coefficient was found to be positive
(0.59) and significant (sig. , 0.05). This finding is in support of H1. Employee satisfaction
(composed of four dimensions) was found positively related to intrapreneurship.
H2 predicted a positive association between employee satisfaction and growth.
The standardized coefficient was found to be positive (0.33) and significant (sig. , 0.05).
This finding is in support of H2. Therefore, employee satisfaction showed a positive
relationship with intrapreneurship and firm growth. An indirect effect of employee
satisfaction on firm growth (through intrapreneurship) was also estimated. The
standardized coefficient for the indirect effect was also found to be positive (0.17) and
significant (sig. , 0.05). This indicates that employee satisfaction may importantly affect
firm growth both directly and indirectly (via intrapreneurship). H3 predicted a positive
association between intrapreneurship and firm growth. The estimated standardized
coefficient was found to be positive (0.29) and significant (sig. , 0.05). This finding
supports H3. Intrapreneurship can be predictive of firm growth.

E75* 0.23 GS IN 0.80 E79*

0.97 0.59*

E76* 0.53 ER 0.85* ES

0.88*
E77* 0.47 RE –0.06 0.29*
0.66*
0.10
0.33*
E78* 0.75 EL

Age –0.21* GR 0.81 E80*

–0.02
Size

Notes: *Significance at: 0.05; ES – employee satisfaction; IN – intrapreneurship;

Figure 1.
GR – firm growth; GS – general satisfaction; ER – employee relationships; RE – remuneration,
Structural equation model
benefits and organizational culture; EL – employee loyalty; age – firm age; size – firm size;
(standardized coefficients)
E – error terms
The impacts of control variables (industry, age and size of the firm) were checked in the Employee
model. Only one relationship including a control variable was found substantial and satisfaction
significant: a negative relationship between firm age and growth (standardized
coefficient 2 0.21, sig. , 0.05). Therefore, firm age may negatively affect firm growth;
younger firms tend to grow faster than older firms. The impact of the industry control
variable was checked by estimating the model on two sub-samples based on industry
(manufacturing, n ¼ 52 and services, n ¼ 82). All hypotheses-related estimated 599
standardized coefficients were found to be positive and significant (sig. , 0.05), which
indicated an absence of the industry control variable impact in the model.

5. Discussion
The findings are in support of the proposed model, which includes the hypothesized
positive relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm
growth. In addition, the employee satisfaction construct was confirmed (by factor
analysis and structural equation modeling) as being composed of four factors
(1 – general satisfaction, 2 – employee relationships, 3 – remuneration, benefits and
organizational culture and 4 – employee loyalty). The employee satisfaction construct
includes various dimensions and composite elements which are important for achieving
satisfaction among employees; these range from financial and non-financial incentives
to the conditions and characteristics of work and even further to psychological and value
aspects or employee satisfaction with work. The elements of employee satisfaction as a
construct tend to be predictive of the ensemble of intrapreneurship activities (new
business venturing, product/service innovation, process/technology innovation and
self-renewal). Employee satisfaction tends to positively impact growth of the firm (both
absolute and relative growth). This study confirmed a positive intrapreneurship-growth
relationship, which is in accordance with past intrapreneurship research (Covin, 1991;
Covin and Slevin, 1986; Zahra, 1991, 1993; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Antoncic and Hisrich,
2001, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). Firm growth can also be influenced by employee
satisfaction indirectly through intrapreneurship. Two control variables may not
be important in the model, namely firm size and industry, whereas firm age may be
negatively related to firm growth.

6. Contributions and implications

The study’s key contribution is the development and testing of a model of employee
satisfaction-driven intrapreneurship and firm growth. The study contributes to
intrapreneurship research by empirically examining the relationship between employee
satisfaction and intrapreneurship. In methodological terms, this study has contributed
by developing and partly empirically validating a wide-ranging construct of employee
satisfaction (with 27 explanatory variables), which was found to be composed of four
distinctive dimensions:
(1) general satisfaction (including working hours, conditions of work and reputation);
(2) employee relationships (including relationships with co-workers);
(3) remuneration, benefits and organizational culture (including salary,
remuneration in the form of benefits and praise, promotion, education,
job stability, organizational climate and culture); and
(4) employee loyalty.
IMDS The construct of employee satisfaction as a whole was also found to be predictive of
111,4 intrapreneurship and firm growth, indicating nomological validity. The study
contributes to the term human capital, which refers to the range of valuable skills and
knowledge accumulated over time (Burt, 1992) and is embodied in people (Becker,
1993); the scope of the study included employee satisfaction, which is embodied in
people – employees and may be considered an element of human capital, and the role
600 of employee satisfaction in intrapreneurship and firm growth. The study also indicated
that employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship may contribute to sustainability of a
firm in its business environment by positively affecting firm growth.
The study has important implications for researchers and practitioners.
We recommend that intrapreneurship researchers take employee satisfaction
variables into account when designing models of intrapreneurship-influenced growth,
and that researchers in other areas recognize the importance of employee satisfaction
elements in firm growth. In addition to the “classic” recommendation to practitioners to
support and foster intrapreneurship activities (entering new businesses, innovating
products, services, processes and technologies, and self-renewing the firm in strategic
and organizational terms) in order to achieve the firm’s faster growth, we believe that
firms need to take a detailed and systematic approach to employee satisfaction.
Recomendations are linked to the results of the study, which include the associations
found in hypotheses testing and the structure of the two key constructs in the study
(employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship; see items in Tables I and II), which can be
important for firm growth. First, employee satisfaction-related recommendations are:
.
companies should ensure that their employees are paid fairly for their work;
.
companies should make it possible for employees to work on challenging and
interesting tasks;
.
learning should be considered as a value;
.
education should be considered as an investment;
.
it is important that leaders and managers share relevant information with their
subordinates;
.
leaders and managers should provide sufficient information to employees about
the effectiveness of implementing work tasks;
.
companies should be flexible in response to changes and continuously look for and
make improvements;
. an excessive number of formal procedures in the implementation of tasks should
be avoided;
.
employees should be allowed to make decisions related to their workplace; and
.
companies should provide opportunities for personal growth and development for
their employees.

Second, in terms of intrapreneurship, companies are recommended to:

.
stimulate new demand;
.
enter new businesses in new markets;
.
find new market niches;
.
offer and develop new products;
 .
develop their own technology; Employee
.
introduce technological newness and innovations; satisfaction
.
redefine the mission of the company;
.
re-assess the business concept;
.
redefine industries in which the company will compete in the future;
.
reorganize parts of the organization; 601
. increase the autonomy of their units;
.
improve co-ordination between the units; and
.
create a flexible organizational structure to advance business innovation.

Firms, regardless of their age, size and industry, can increase their chances of achieving all
of these entrepreneurial activities, as well as firm growth, by stimulating employees and
making improvements in employee satisfaction (the ten employee satisfaction-related
recommendations stated above). Older firms in particular need to be very active in
encouraging employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship, since they tend to grow slower
than younger firms. Improvements in employee satisfaction elements (for example,
learning and education potential, information sharing, flexibility, decision-making
possibilities and reduced number of formal procedures) may advance information flows,
employee collaboration and network tie formation and so strengthen an ongoing effort to
better utilize social networks within a company. Activities related to the stimulation of
employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship can have also social implications, since they
can increase creation of the new wealth in the society.

7. Limitations, future research opportunities and conclusion

The key limitations of the study relate to the study design, concepts, sample, and
questionnaire and data collection. The study design was cross sectional; a longitudinal
study may provide even better results. The focus of the study was limited to a few
concepts (employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship) which are important for firm
growth; it did not include other factors that might also be important for growth, although
it did examine the focal concept of employee satisfaction, its structure and its impact on
intrapreneurship and growth. The study did not differentiate between blue and
white-collar (as well as knowledge) workforce and between less and more project-based
firms (e.g. construction, design and R&D). In limiting the sample, we selected companies
from Slovenia and not from other countries and restricted the sample to existing firms
with 20 or more employees; yet, the sample was very representative and findings based
on Slovenian samples tend to be comparable to other countries as shown in past
cross-nationally comparative studies in intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2000,
2001; Antoncic, 2007), business ethics (Bucar et al., 2003), entrepreneurship education
(Antoncic et al., 2005) and technological innovativeness (Antoncic et al., 2007). The data
were obtained by an e-mail survey with a structured questionnaire. The respondents
were able to choose between pre-formulated answers which represents a weakness since
such responses are limited in content and number; however, they provide precise
answers to the focal questions. With each firm the response was given by only one
person – the manager, who should have the most knowledge and information about
organizational-level matters of the firm. The respondents’ answers were based on their
IMDS perceptions and questions about the company’s growth were not based on companies’
111,4 annual financial statements. However, despite the limitations, the collection of data on
the growth and profitability of firms based on perceptions of company representatives
has already been identified as very relevant in previous studies in intrapreneurship
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001, 2004; Antoncic, 2007).
Some future research opportunities can be noted. In order to form a more
602 comprehensive and integrative model, some other variables possibly important to
intrapreneurship and firm growth could also be included, such as the characteristics of
strategic alliances and networks, or the personalities of managers. Since employee
satisfaction and organizational antecedents of intrapreneurship can be related
(Kuratko et al., 2005), it may be interesting to empirically partition the antecedents
into groups (employee satisfaction related and employee satisfaction non-related) to find
out if there are differences between the groups in their impact on intrapreneurship and
growth. Cross-cultural comparisons may further validate the construct of employee
satisfaction and the model generally.
Firm growth can depend strongly on intrapreneurship and intrapreneurship
employee-related antecedents. The study has confirmed the importance of employee
satisfaction for intrapreneurship and firm growth where employee satisfaction was
described using four dimensions (general satisfaction with work; employee relationships;
remuneration, benefits and organizational culture; and employee loyalty). The role of
employees and their satisfaction with work can be considered essential in all companies
regardless of their size, age, or industry. Despite the limitations, the study contributes to
intrapreneurship research by empirically examining the relationships in the model,
which includes employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth.

References
Adams, J.S. (1963), “Toward the understanding of inequality”, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 422-36.
Antoncic, B. (2007), “Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 309-25.
Antoncic, B. (2008), “Notranje podjetnistvo”, in Ruzzier, M., Antončič, B., Bratkovič, T. and
Hisrich, R.D. (Eds), Podjetnistvo, Drustvo za akademske in aplikativne raziskave, Koper,
pp. 93-101.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2000), “Intrapreneurship modeling in transition economies:
a comparison of Slovenia and the United States”, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001), “Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 495-527.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003), “Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2004), “Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and
organizational wealth creation”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 518-50.
Antoncic, B., Scarlat, C. and Hvalic Erzetic, B. (2005), “The quality of entrepreneurship education
and the intention to continue education: Slovenia and Romania”, Managing Global
Transitions, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 197-211.
Antoncic, B., Prodan, I., Hisrich, R.D. and Scarlat, C. (2007), “Technological innovativeness and Employee
firm performance in Slovenia and Romania”, Post-Communist Economies, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 285-302. satisfaction
Becker, G.S. (1993), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Practical Analysis with Special Reference
to Education, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), “An index of job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 35, October, pp. 307-11. 603
Brecko, D. (2005), “Razvitost kadrovske funkcije v Sloveniji”, Human Resource Management
Magazin, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 74-7.
Bucar, B., Glas, M. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003), “Ethics and entrepreneurs – an international
comparative study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 261-81.
Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Carree, M.A. and Thurik, R. (2003), “The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth”,
in Audretsch, D.B. and Acs, Z.J. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer,
Boston, MA, pp. 437-71.
Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. Jr (1974), “Measuring the job satisfaction of
industrial salesperson performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Materials Research,
Vol. 11, August, pp. 254-60.
Churchill, N.C. (1992), “Research issues in entrepreneurship”, in Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D. (Eds),
The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, PWS-KENT, Boston, MA, pp. 579-96.
Christensen, K.E. and Staines, G.L. (1990), “Flextime: a viable solution to work/family conflict”,
Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 455-76.
Covin, J.G. (1991), “Entrepreneurial vs conservative firms: a comparison of strategies and
performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 439-62.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1986), “The development and testing of an organizational-level
entrepreneurship scale”, in Ronstadt, R., Hornaday, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers
of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 628-39.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, January, pp. 75-87.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (1992), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel about Their Jobs
and How It Affects Their Performance, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Damanpour, F. (1996), “Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing
multiple contingency models”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716.
Demirbag, M., Koh, S.C.L., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2006), “TQM and market orientation’s
impact on SMEs’ performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 8,
pp. 1206-28.
Fiedler, F. (1993), The Leadership Situation and the Black Box in Contingency Theories, Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Gerhart, B. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990), “Guest editors’ introduction: corporate entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-15.
IMDS Hackman, R.J. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-70.
111,4
Hanneman, H.G. III and Schwab, D.P. (1985), “Pay satisfaction: its multidimensional nature and
measurement”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 129-41.
Herzberg, F. (1964), “The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower”, Personnel
Administrator, Vol. 27, January-February, pp. 3-7.
604 Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing, Cleveland, OH.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1984), “Internal venturing in large corporations”, in Hornaday,
J.A., Tarpley, F., Timmons, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 321-46.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1995), Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a
New Enterprise, 3rd ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Hom, P.W., Tsui, A.S., Wu, J.B. and Lee, T.W. (2009), “Explaining employment relationships with
social exchange and job embeddedness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2,
pp. 277-97.
Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1990), “Developing an
intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial
environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), “An interactive model of
the corporate entrepreneurship process”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 29-37.
Huang, E.Y. and Lin, S.C. (2006), “How R&D management practice affects innovation
performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 966-96.
Joy-Matthews, J., Megginson, D. and Surtees, M. (2007), Human Resource Development, Kogan
Page, London.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Kanter, R.M. (1984), The Change Masters, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Knight, G.A. (1997), “Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm
entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 213-25.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Bishop, J.W. (2005), “Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial
actions and job satisfaction”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 275-91.
Lee, T.S. and Tsai, H.J. (2005), “The effects of business operation mode on market orientation,
learning orientation and innovativeness”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105
No. 3, pp. 325-48.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job dissatisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-347.
Lofquist, L.H. and Dawis, R.V. (1969), Adjustment to Work: A Psychological View of Man’s
Problems in a Work-oriented Society, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Luchsinger, V. and Bagby, D.R. (1987), “Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship”, SAM
Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 10-13.
McAdam, R. and Galloway, A. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning and organisational Employee
innovation: a management perspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105
No. 3, pp. 280-90. satisfaction
McGregor, D. (2002), “Theory X and Theory Y”, Workforce, Vol. 81 No. 1, p. 32.
MacMillan, I.C. (1986), “Progress in research on corporate venturing”, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor,
R.W. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger Publishing Company,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 241-63. 605
Majcen, M. (2004), Redni letni razgovor, GV Zalozba, Ljubljana.
Maslow, A.H. (1997), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Mayer, J. (1991), Ustvarjalno misljenje in delo, Moderna organizacija, Kranj.
Merrifield, D.B. (1993), “Intrapreneurial corporate renewal”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 383-9.
Merkac Skok, M. (2008), “Zaposleni v organizaciji – Kadri v sportu”, in Gerlovic, D. (Ed.), Sport:
trzenje sporta, podjetnistvo v sportu, sportna infrastruktura, sport v lokalni skupnosti, kadri
v sportu, zavarovanje v sportu, Sokolska zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana, pp. 175-214.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miskell, J.R. and Miskell, V. (1994), Motivation at Work, Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Mozina, S. (1991), Sociopsihologija v podjetju, Ekonomska fakulteta, Ljubljana.
Mozina, S. (2002), Management kadrovskih virov, Fakulteta za druzbene vede, Ljubljana.
Mulej, M. (1986), Inovacijski procesi in izobrazevanje, Organizacija in kadri, Kranj.
Muzyka, D.F., de Koning, A.J. and Churchill, N.C. (1995), “Entrepreneurial transformation:
a descriptive theory”, in Bygrave, W.D., Bird, B.J., Birley, S., Churchill, N.C., Hay, M.G.,
Keeley, R.H. and Wetzel, W.E.J. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson Park, MA, pp. 637-51.
Noe, R. (2008), Employee Training & Development, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. and Brief, A.P. (1983), “Sales managers’ goal commitment correlates”, Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 3, May, pp. 11-17.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pierce, J.L. and Newstrom, J.W. (1980), “Toward a conceptual clarification of employee
response to flexible working hours: a work adjustment approach”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 117-34.
Pinchot, G. III (1985), Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E., Lyman, W. and Lawler, E.E. III (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance,
Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Ronan, S. (1981), Flexible Working Hours: An Innovation in the Quality of Work Life,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Rosenbloom, J.S. and Hallman, G.V. (1991), Employee Benefit Planning, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Rule, E.G. and Irwin, D.W. (1988), “Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive edge”,
The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 44-7.
Schollhammer, H. (1982), “Internal corporate entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and
Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 209-29.
IMDS Shaw, J.D., Delery, J.E., Jenkins, G.D. Jr and Gupta, N. (1998), “An organizational-level analysis of
voluntary and involuntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 5,
111,4 pp. 511-25.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and
Retirement, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Souder, W.E. (1981), “Encouraging entrepreneurship in the large corporations”, Research
606 Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 18-22.
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Summer, pp. 17-27.
Stopford, J.M. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994), “Creating corporate entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 521-36.
Teas, K.R. (1979), “An empirical test of linkages proposed in the Walker, Churchill, and Ford
model of salesforce motivation and performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 8, Winter, pp. 58-72.
Tietjen, M.A. and Myers, R.M. (1998), “Motivation and job satisfaction”, Management Decision,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 226-31.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the
employee-organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1089-121.
Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (Eds) (1997), Managing Strategic Innovation and Change:
A Collection of Readings, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Varona, F. (2002), “Conceptualization and management of communication satisfaction and
organizational commitment in three Guatemalan organizations”, American
Communication Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 114-36.
Vecchio, R.P. (1982), “Predicting worker performance in inequitable settings”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 103-10.
Vesper, K.H. (1984), “Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship”, in Hornaday, J.A., Timmons,
J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College,
Wellesley, MA, pp. 294-320.
Welsby, P. (2003), “Medosebno razumevanje – kljuc do uspesnega dela z ljudmi”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 56-7.
Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999), “Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-55.
Wong, K.Y. (2005), “Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small
and medium enterprises”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3,
pp. 261-79.
Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship:
an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-85.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance:
a taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-40.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.C. (1995), “Contextual influences on the corporate
entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
About the authors Employee
Jasna Auer Antoncic is a Researcher in the field of Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of
Management, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia. She obtained her Master of Science degree satisfaction
from the Faculty of Management. Her area of expertise covers customer satisfaction, psychology
of the entrepreneur, corporate entrepreneurship and company growth. She has authored a
monograph, a scientific paper in the journal Management, various scientific papers in conference
proceedings, as well as technical papers.
Bostjan Antoncic is Full Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Management, 607
the Faculty of Tourism Studies Portorož – Turistica, University of Primorska, and the Faculty of
Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia. His main research interests include corporate entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial networks, entrepreneurial personality and international entrepreneurship. He has
authored or co-authored 14 books (11 of them in the area of entrepreneurship) and various scientific
research articles. His papers were published in academic journals such as the Journal of Business
Venturing, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Managing
Global Transitions, Journal of Management Development, and Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development. Bostjan Antoncic is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
b.antoncic@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints