Corporate Entrepreneurship Upshot On Innovatation Performance: The Mediation of Employee Engagement

Journal of Humanities, Language, Culture and Business (HLCB)
Vol. 1: No. 6 (December 2017) page 54-67 | www.icohlcb.com | eISSN: 01268147
CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP UPSHOT ON

INNOVATATION PERFORMANCE: THE MEDIATION OF
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Abu Shams Mohammad Mahmudul Hoque1, Uzairu Muhammad Gwadabe2,

Md Atiqur Rahman3
1,2,3
Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA),
Terengganu, Malaysia
Abstract
More than three and half decades of studies are available in the corporate entrepreneurship
(CE) domain; however, the relationship of CE with innovation performance (IP) and employee
engagement (EE) is rarely scrutinized though CE is increasingly drawing the attention of
different scholars of organizational innovation. Hence, this manuscript tries to contribute to the
literature through investigating the role of corporate entrepreneurship on innovation
performance of the firms in connection with employee engagement. Based on past studies a
model is drown and a quantitative research design is used to study the relationship between
corporate entrepreneurship, innovation performance and employee engagement constructs of
the firms. To do so, survey was conducted as well as perceptions of 300 employees working in
two major mobile communication service provider (i.e. Grameenphone Limited and Robi Axiata
Limited) were obtained to analyze the relationships. The data is analyzed and hypotheses were
tested by using IBM-SPSS-AMOS package 25.0. The study found the direct upshot of corporate
entrepreneurship on innovation performance of the firms is positive and significant (β=0.369,
P=.000); corporate entrepreneurship has a positive significant upshot on employee engagement
of the firms (β=0.749, P=.000) and employee engagement has a positive significant upshot on
innovation performance of the firms (β=0.311, P=.000). However, employee engagement does
not mediate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance
by the data of this study as indirect effect is smaller than the direct effect (i.e. Indirect Effect =
0.735 x 0.318 = 0.233< the Direct Effect = 0.369). The originality of the manuscript goes back
to studying the concept in an emerging market, i.e. Bangladesh. Also, technology indicators are
rarely discussed in the literature, which are studied in this research. It is advised, based on the
findings, to improve process innovation as well as product innovation, along with technology
indicators through improving corporate entrepreneurial activities.
Keywords: Corporate Entrepreneurship, Employee Engagement, Innovation Performance,

Mediation.
2017 JHLCB
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship is becoming a fundamental part of any innovation exosphere in both individual and
corporate levels (Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). According to Morris et al. (2008) in recent time companies
dynamically motivated to turn out to be more and more entrepreneurial. In the last three decades, they
54
fathomed and a considerable wave is shaped as there are many advantages associated with corporate
entrepreneurship (CE) (Dunlap‐Hinkler et al., 2010). Moreover, as stated in this manuscript, to several
scholars, innovation performance is highly dependent on entrepreneurial activities (Minafam, 2017;
Ayadurai, 2011; Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). On the other hand, according to Otache and Mahmood
(2015) this claim is not reinforced in the extant literature. Corporate entrepreneurship is not just considered
imperative just because it outlines businesses to acquire competitive position in the market but it also adds
significant value towards the economy of the country through enhancing productivity level (Minafam, 2017;
Ayadurai, 2011). According to Pinchot and Pellman (1999) that innovation performance will not take place
unless the organization start making healthy, responsive use of the intrapreneurial energy of its people at
work. The authors have emphasized on the imparity of giving the freedom to act to employees as only then,
the employees will be able to utilize and maximize upon their creative and innovation potential to refine
and revamp business strategies to bring considerable competitive advantage and business growth.
Enterprises that nurture entrepreneurial culture have certain work manners that play an important role in
developing competitive edge. Numerous studies have underscored factors that manifest the entrepreneurial
behavior of the organization which includes innovativeness (Morris, 2008) pro-activeness (Antoncic and
Zorn, 2004; Zahra & Garvis, 2000) risk taking (Morris, 2008; Kuratko et al., 1990; Antoncic and Zorn,
2004). Moreover, empirical studies have also outlined that corporate entrepreneurship culture is closely
linked with business outcomes including organizational growth and expansion (Antoncic and Zorn, 2004);
performance (Zahra & Covin, 1995); profitability (Zahra & Covin, 1995, Zahra, 2000) as well as innovation
performance (Minafam, 2017; Ayadurai, 2011; Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). Hence, this study stands in
the stream, which tries to investigate such relationship in a less studied context, i.e. developing or emerging
countries specially in Bangladesh. In a nutshell, this study tries to contribute to the existing literature through
exploring the role of corporate entrepreneurship on innovation performance of the firms. In this regard, first
the conceptual model and variables are defined based on existing literature. Then, Findings are exhibited
and the manuscript accomplishes with some suggestions for future research.
2. Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE)

According to Zahra and Covin (1995) corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has been widely followed by
scholars and senior managers as an operational resource for increasing their productivity and stimulating
firms. Whereas, Covin and Miles (1999) mentioned that CE refers to cases where firms act in entrepreneurial
ways, rather than strategic business units or individuals. CE is a holistic process whereby people or groups
of people at work, initiate with creativity, renew, and revamp within the organization (Sharma and
Chrisman, 2007). In fact, CE could be of dominant importance for modernizing and surviving the existing
firms and making them more profitable (Kuratko et al., 2014). Review of the popular studies outline that
healthy nurturing is required within an organization to develop corporate entrepreneurial ecosystem.
According to Hornsby et al. (1999) that numerous organizational support factors play a critical role in this
regard which includes management support, resources, risk taking propensity for the development of
intrapreneurial climate, organizational structure, motivation. Accordingly, Antoncic and Zorn (2004) have
outlined that organizational and managerial support is critical to groom entrepreneurial activities. Similarly,
work by Hisrich et al., (2005) outlines organizational support, as an important factor in this regard and also
suggests that it boosts the morals and also the perception of employees about entrepreneurial mindset of the
organization. Moreover, Hornsby et al. (2002) suggested that higher the degree the perceptions of
individuals on the responsive availability of management support, flexible organizational horizons,
resources for innovation and work discretion, higher the individual engagement would be towards
innovative work behaviors. Hence, Sharma and Chrisman (2007) mentioned that CE is a set of strategies
utilized by an established firm for promoting growth and development of its own.
55
3. Employee Engagement (EE)

Studies on employee engagement have expanded over the past two and a half decades since Kahn
(1990) first conceptualized it. Accordingly, Kahn (1990) the term employee engagement has outlined that
there is a very special role of individual characteristics when it comes to their psychological wellbeing.
When people are engaged, they are not just connected with their work; instead, they express a continuous
investment of their physical and psychological energies towards organizational tasks in order to result in
maximum performance outcomes. Definition by Schaufeli et al. (2002) is popularly quoted in the academic
literature which defines employee engagement as positive work-related psychological state, characterized
by absorption, vigor and dedication. Authors in explaining the definition and concept have further written
that employee engagement is a more persistent and appealing cognitive state which is not limited to any
specific object, event or activity. The definition outlines three important components to measure the levels
of employee engagement. vigor denotes to high levels of energy with resilience at work that evokes
eagerness to invest efforts at work with persistence. Subsequently, dedication refers to sincere involvement
in the work with experiencing enthusiasm, inspiration and pride at work. Lastly, absorption refers to full
concentration towards the work whereby, the person does not realize how time fly passed by and the person
feel difficult in detaching oneself from the work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
4. Innovation Performance (IP)

According to Janessen (2000), innovation performance can be defined as generation, promotion and
realization of innovation prospects to benefit individual, group or organization at large. In fact, innovation
performance, the output of a firm's innovation efforts and innovation inputs, has been permanently a crucial
concern for state-of-the-art firms (Wong and Chin, 2007). Moreover, improving IP is vital to a complete
understanding of the concepts of learning, creativity, as well as innovation within firms (Bharadwaj and
Menon, 2000). But, we should remark that IP differs usually around organizations and industry segments
(Lee et al., 2015). There are several measures to gauge IP and the economic consequences of innovative
services or products (Lee et al., 2015). In other words, in the extant literature, numerous managerial factors
have been linked with the innovation performance in innovative firms (Wong and Chin, 2007).
5. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation Performance

In order to, ornate the relationship and according to the extant literature, the following hypotheses are
proposed. As a matter of fact, corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance are a decisive issue
for any firm which attempts to compete in this competitive entrepreneurial world economy. Prominent
literature on corporate entrepreneurship has outlined that the internal organizational components of
corporate entrepreneurship lead towards innovation performance of a firm (Hornsby et al., 2002; Jonassen,
2000; Antoncic and Zorn, 2004; Zahra & Covin, 1995). Hornsby et al. (2002) has outlined that positive
perceptions about the internal factors of corporate entrepreneurship leads to numerous performance
outcomes including innovation performance. Similar studies done by Caloghirou, Kastelli & Tsakanikas
(2004); Janessen (2000) have outlined that employee perceptions about various work factors of a firm can
facilitate them to predict innovation performance. According to Ireland et al. (2009) it is important that the
organization brings in right ingredients within the business to reinforce the exploitation and recognition of
considerable entrepreneurial prospects for the employees. Pitt et al. (1996) have stated in their study that
employees who perceive positive regarding management support, time availability, discretion at work,
resources for entrepreneurial activities, often found showcasing innovation behaviors. Study done by
Goodale et al., (2011) on 177 firms found that the internal factors of corporate entrepreneurship can
considerably enhance innovation performance of firms (Hornsby et al., 1999). Accordingly, Nasution et al.,
(2011) suggests that entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial climate within the organization is important in
motivating employees to enhance productivity and bringing creativity at work. Decisively, these studies
have outlined that employees with appropriate resources or prospects (i.e. management support, discretion
in their work, availability of time, rewards and awareness about organizational boundaries) can proactively
56
work to indulge in innovation prospects thus, fostering innovation performance of a firm. In recent times,
some scholars confirmed the relationship between CE and IP is very crucial in a series of cases (Chen et al.,
2014). However, the issue is not considered in developing or emerging countries (Kuratko et al., 2015).
Henceforth, this study proposed the first hypothesis as follows:
H1: There is a significant relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation
performance of a firm.
6. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Employee Engagement

The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and employee engagement has been realized in
recent times by academicians and practitioners as the concept of engagement has empirically resulted to be
one of the key strategic drivers for performance, growth, and competitive advantage (Ayadurai, 2011;
Lockwood, 2007). Recent study done by Kassa and Raju (2015) has empirically found that employee
perception about internal corporate entrepreneurship factors can significantly enhance employee
engagement as well as notably outlined the direct interaction of corporate entrepreneurship with employee
wellbeing at work engagement and has concluded that engaged employees exhibit more dedication, vigor
and absorption which is necessary for firms to acquire higher levels of innovation performance, growth and
competitiveness. This is supplementary established by Kelley (2011) who states that true corporate
entrepreneurship success depends on the employees’ engagement which reflects an ability held by the
employees to cope with the culture of a firm. Bhardwaj et. al (2010) clearly indicates in their study that the
employee engagement which take in employees at all levels involved in the initiation and execution of CE
initiatives is crucial for the success of CE. This view is supported by Kenney (2007) who states clearly that
employee engagement is crucial for corporate entrepreneurial success within an organization. However, the
study done by Kassa and Raju (2015) has also suggested further investigation is required on the relationship
across different occupational settings for the purpose of generalizability. Moreover, there is very little
evidence available, justifying the empirical significance of employee engagement and its connection with
corporate entrepreneurship and therefore Ayadurai (2011) and Lockwood (2007) mentioned in their works
that there is a major lacuna in the research on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
employee engagement. Henceforth, to close that gap this study proposed the second hypothesis as follows:
H2: There is a significant relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and employee
engagement of a firm.
7. Employee Engagement and Innovation Performance

Several empirical studies can be found examining the impact of employee engagement on different
performance aspects. Employee engagement is significantly related with job performance as numerous
organizational scientists have empirically tested this relationship (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010).
Accordingly, Halbesleben and Wheeler (2008) have also empirically indicated that engagement harvest
psychological capital and enhance work wellbeing due to which, employees result in job performance. Saks
(2006) in his study on the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement resulted engagement to
be positively and significantly resulting in job performance. Kompaso and Sridevi (2010) have outlined that
employee engagement can significantly predict as a key performance predictor. Study by Rich, Lepine and
Crawford (2010) on 245 firefighters found a significant impact of employee engagement on task
performance. The study concluded that engaged employees experience high energy, dedication and mental
resilience which enables them to give their best at work. The authors have highlighted that employee
engagement is beyond conventional wellbeing aspects and organizations need to work on engagement
prospects in order to enhance performance outputs. However, as very limited but, some evidence can be
tracked highlighting the link between employee engagement and innovation performance (Agarwal, Datta,
Blake-Beard & Bhargava, 2012; Vinarski-Peretz & Carmeli, 2011) hence, to ornate the extant literature as
well as to minimize the major lacuna in the context of developing or emerging countries, this study proposed
the third hypothesis as follows:
57
H3: There is a significant relationship between employee engagement and innovation performance
of a firm.
8. Mediation of Employee Engagement

According to Bakker and Bal (2010); Kompaso and Sridevi (2010) several past studies have presented
evidence pertaining to acute link of employee engagement with several performance outcomes. Notably,
Shuck and Reio (2014) as well as Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (2010) have empirically outlined the
mediating potential of employee engagement towards connecting better employee behaviors and outcomes,
emphasizing that intrinsic psychological connectivity of an individual energizes an employee to further
capitalize upon the available CE characteristics to maximize IP outcomes. Accordingly, Saks (2006)
suggests that EE is concerned with factors that provide feelings of control, resourcefulness, organizational
support and recognition. Hence, based on these theoretical and empirical evidences, the present study
proclaimed the fourth hypothesis as follows:
H4: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
innovation performance.
9. Underpinning Theory
The conservation of resources theory (COR) theory asserts that accretion and accumulation of resources
is critical for development of individual behaviors (Hobfoll, 1989). The theory emphasizes that additional
resources can help in fostering the capitalization of available resources for more healthy outcomes (Bakker
et al., 2010; Xanthopoulou, Bakker and Fischback, 2013). These resources may be based at the job, personal
or organizational level (Demerouti et al., 2001). In this regard, the current study used the COR theory which
can be explained with an example that when employees will have management support, work discretion,
time availability, rewards and organizational boundary prospects, they will able to showcase positive
behaviors and result in positive outcomes like innovation performance. Consequently, the mediation of
employee engagement can also be explained through the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989).
10. The Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: Research Framework
58
11. Research Methodology

11.1. Sample and Data Collection
The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship of CE and IP with EE as a mediator.
Therein, survey was conducted as well as perceptions of employees working in two major mobile
communication service provider (i.e. Grameenphone Limited and Robi Axiata Limited) in various positions
in the service branches were obtained to analyze the relationships. The branches of the companies were in
Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, and Sylhate from the Bangladeshi Peninsula were targeted. A self-
administered questionnaire was distributed to the randomly selected employees. Humble reminders through
email were made to ensure maximum response rate. Keeping the complex and tough work structures of
mobile communication sector beforehand, the respondents were given a total of 90 days to fill the
questionnaire. A total of 300 usable questionnaires were received back. Grounded on gender, male
constituted 53% while female represented 47% of the sample population.
11.2. Operationalization and Instrumentation

The survey consisted of measures to obtain data pertaining to innovation performance, corporate
entrepreneurship, and employee engagement. According to Sharma and Chrisman (2007) corporate
entrepreneurship is a set of strategies utilized by an established firm for promoting growth and development
of its own. The measures for corporate entrepreneurship was assessed through an instrument developed by
Hornsby et al. (1992) having 5-items. Based on the explanations of Schaufeli et al. (2002) the current study
operationalized employee engagement as positive work-related psychological state, characterized by
absorption, vigor and dedication. Employee engagement was examined by an instrument is having 6-items
and which is developed by Saks (2006). This scale has been deployed in a variety of different occupational
and geographical settings including Asia, Europe, Africa and North America (Seppala et al., 2009;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Lastly, the present study operationalized innovation performance based on the
explanations of Janessen (2000) as generation, promotion and realization of innovation prospects to benefit
individual, group or organization at large. 4-item scale by Janssen (2000) was used in this study to assess
innovation performance. Respondents were made to respond and rate using 7-point interval scale with 1
denoting strongly disagree and 7 as strongly agree with the items statement.
11.3. Method of Analysis

SEM is a Second Generation method of multivariate analysis technique developed to cater limitations
in the traditional Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and the analysis for latent constructs is no longer appropriate
with traditional OLS (Hoque et. al., 2017a, Hoque et. al., 2017b; Hoque et. al., 2017c; Afthanorhan et al.,
2017; Kashif et al., 2016; Mohamad et al., 2016; Awang, 2015; 2014; Awang et al., 2015a). Thus the
researchers employed SEM so as to keep pace with the advancement in research methodology. Not only
that, using IBM-SPSS-AMOS software, the researchers converted their theoretical framework directly into
the Amos Graphics for analysis. In SEM, the researcher validated the measurement model of a latent
construct using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) procedure. Once validated, the researcher
assembled the constructs into the structural model and execute the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
procedure. Consequently, analyzing and testing the theory using IBM-SPSS-AMOS software is fast,
efficient and robust (Hoque et. al., 2017b; Awang, 2014; 2015). Hence, this study employed IBM-SEM-
AMOS software package for analysis and testing the hypotheses.
59
12. Results
12.1. Measurement Model
Prior to modeling the structural model and executing SEM, the study needs to validate the
measurement model of latent constructs for unidimensionality, validity, and reliability (Hoque et. al., 2017a,
Hoque et. al., 2017b; Hoque et. al., 2017c; Afthanorhan et al., 2017; Awang 2014; 2015; Awang et al.2015a).
Unidimensionality is achieved when the factor loading for all items are positive with a minimum value of
0.6. The Construct Validity is achieved when the fitness indexes for the measurement model meet three
model fit categories namely, Absolute Fit, Incremental Fit, and Parsimonious Fit. The Discriminant Validity
is achieved when all constructs are not highly correlated. The Convergent Validity is achieved when the
value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) meet the minimum value of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2014). The
Construct Reliability is achieved when the values of Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) reach the minimum value of 0.6 and 0.5 respectively (Hoque et. al., 2017a, Hoque et. al.,
2017b; Hoque et. al., 2017c; Awang 2014; 2015; Awang et al. 2015a; Hair et al., 2014). The Internal
Reliability among the items is achieved when the value of Cronbach Alpha reaches the minimum value of
0.7 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). The fitness indexes shown in Figure 2 indicate the
measurement model of the three latent constructs (CE, EE, and IP) have met the requirement for Construct
Validity.
Figure 2: The Pooled CFA Results and the Output Showed All Fitness Indexes Achieved
The values of factor loading for every item together with the Cronbach Alpha, CR and AVE for every
construct as shown in Table 1 indicates all latent constructs (CE, EE, and IP) have achieved Convergent
Validity, Construct Reliability and Internal Reliability.
60
Table 1: The Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted

Composite Average Variance
Factor Cronbach’s
Construct Item Reliability (CR) Extracted (AVE)
Loading Alpha
(above 0.6) (above 0.5)
CE1 0.77
Corporate CE 2 0.81
Entrepreneurship CE 3 0.87 0.922 0.922 0.704
(CE) CE 4 0.90
CE 5 0.84
EE 1 0.73
EE 2 0.81
Employee EE 3 0.87
0.921 0.923 0.668
Engagement (EE) EE 4 0.88
EE 5 0.87
EE 6 0.73
IP 1 0.81
Innovation IP 2 0.86
0.855 0.864 0.616
Performance (IP) IP 3 0.82
IP 4 0.63
The Discriminant Validity is assessed through correlation and also through Discriminant Validity Index
Summary. According to Awang (2014; 2015), and Awang et al. (2015a), one of the criteria for Discriminant
Validity is the correlation between exogenous constructs must not exceed 0.85. Table 2 which indicated the
Discriminant Validity Index Summary as well as the diagonal value in Table 2 is the square-root of AVE
for the respective constructs, while other values are the correlation between constructs. The Discriminant
Validity of the constructs is achieved when the diagonal values (i.e. the square-root of AVE for the
respective constructs) are greater than any values in their rows, and columns respectively (Hoque et. al.,
2017a, Hoque et. al., 2017b; Hoque et. al., 2017c; Awang, 2015a; Hair et al., 2014).
Table 2: Discriminant Validity Index Summary

Corporate Employee Innovation
Construct
Entrepreneurship (CE) Engagement (EE) Performance (IP)
Corporate Entrepreneurship
0.839
(CE)
Employee Engagement
0.735 0.817
(EE)
Innovation Performance
0.604 0.590 0.784
(IP)
The correlation value of latent constructs CE and EE is 0.735, the correlation value of latent constructs
CE and IP is 0.604 and correlation value of EE and IP is 0.590. As the value in diagonal is greater than any
values in its row and column, this study accomplishes that the discriminant validity is achieved for the model
(Hoque et. al., 2017a, Hoque et. al., 2017b; Hoque et. al., 2017c; Mohamad et al., 2016; Kashif et al., 2016;
Awang et al., 2015a; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
12.2. The Structural Model

As shown in Figure 3, three hypotheses (H1, H2, & H3) are supported. In H1, corporate entrepreneurship
has a significant positive direct effect on innovation performance of a firm (β=0.369, P=.000). In H2,
61
corporate entrepreneurship has a significant positive direct effect on employee engagement (β=0.749,
P=.000), in H3, where employee engagement also has a significant positive direct effect on innovation
performance (β=0.311, P=.000). The structural model explains 41% variance in innovation performance.
Figure 3: The Standardized Regression Weights for Every Path in the Model
12.3. Test of Mediation
The Indirect Effect = 0.735 x 0.318 = 0.233 and the Direct Effect = 0.369.
Since Indirect Effect < Direct Effect as well as both Indirect path (CE to EE
and EE to IP) and Direct path (CE to IP) are significant, no mediation occurs.
Figure 4: The Standardized Regression Weights for the Model
As a result, employee engagement does not mediate the relationship between corporate
entrepreneurship and innovation performance since the indirect effect is smaller than the direct effect and
the direct effect is still significant after mediator enters the model.
62
12.4. Confirming the Mediation Result Through Bootstrapping

It is imperative to reconfirm the result of the mediation test using the re-sampling procedure known
as bootstrapping to reconfirm the hypothesis testing result of indirect effect (Hoque et. al., 2017c; Kashif et
al., 2016; Awang, 2015; Awang et al., 2015a; Awang et al., 2015; Hiar et al., 2010). The process allows for
sampling with replacement between 500-5000 samples from the existing dataset. The study could compare
the bootstrapping results with the results using normal modeling procedure. If there is any difference
between the two, then the bootstrapping result will be admitted. The bootstrapping result with n = 5000 and
bias-corrected confidence 0.95 is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of Bootstrapping Result

Indirect Effect Direct Effect
Bootstrapping Results 0.233 0.369
The mediation does not occur since the indirect effect is smaller than the
Does mediation occur?
direct effect
Bootstrapping p-value 0.002 0.003
Results Significant Significant
Type of Mediation No Mediation since the indirect effect is smaller than the direct effect.
Table 3 shows the beta estimate of both the indirect effect and direct effects of corporate
entrepreneurship on innovation performance (β) = 0.233 and 0.369 respectively. Furthermore, it shows the
P-value of indirect and direct effects for the corporate entrepreneurship on innovation performance (P-value
= 0.002 and 0.003 respectively). Based on the bootstrapping results in Table 3, it is evident that employee
engagement does not mediate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship on innovation
performance. Consequently, the H4 of this study which posited that employee engagement mediates the
relationship between Career Growth Opportunities on Work Engagement is not supported by the data of
this study.
13. Conclusion
The ideas proposed in the preceding paragraphs deserve empirical attention. The paper highlights key
ingredients that could notably enhance innovation performance and how employee engagement could
contribute towards it. According to Hewitt (2015) employee engagement harvests vital competitive factors
in an organization which ultimately lead towards competitive advantage and achievement of innovation
performance target. In this paper, we have tried to underscore how employee engagement can interact in the
relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation performance. The paper argues that
management support, flexibility and resource provision for creativity and innovation highlight the corporate
entrepreneurial values of the company and positive perceptions about them can significantly result in
innovation performance. Accordingly, the paper also underscores that the corporate entrepreneurship can
notably enhance employees` work wellbeing hence resulting in employee engagement. However, with some
robust empirical evidence by the data of this study, the manuscript also recommends that employee
engagement does not mediate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation
performance. Hence, future researchers might focus on employee engagement as a moderating variable as
well as industry level innovation performance to see if regions with higher rate of corporate entrepreneurship
enjoy higher innovation performance or not.
63
14. References
Afthanorhan, A., Awang, Z., & Fazella, S. (2017). Developing the patients' loyalty model for medical
tourism industry: the case of Malaysia. International Journal of Society Systems Science, 9(2), 139-
164.
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work
behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career development
international, 17(3), 208-230.
Antoncic, B., & Zorn, O. (2004). The mediating role of corporate entrepreneurship in the organizational
support-performance relationship: An empirical examination. Managing global transitions, 2(1), 5-14.
Awang, Z. (2015). SEM made simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling.
Bandar Baru Bangi: MPWS Rich Resources.
Awang, Z. (2014). A Handbook on SEM for Academicians and Practitioners: the step by step practical
guides for the beginners. Bandar Baru Bangi: MPWS Rich Resources.
Awang, Z.; Afthanorhan, A.; Mohamad, M.; and Asri, M. A. M. (2015). An evaluation of measurement
model for medical tourism research: the confirmatory factor analysis approach, International Journal
of Tourism Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 29-45.
Awang, Z., Ahmed, U., Hoque, A. S. M. M., Siddiqui, B. A., Dahri, A. S., and Muda, H. (2017). The
Mediating Role of Meaningful Work in the Relationship Between Career Growth Opportunities and
Work Engagement, International Academic Confernce on Business and Economics (IACBE 2017),
Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences (FESP), Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA),
October 07-08.
Awang, Z., Hoque, A. S. M. M., Muda, H., and Salleh, F. (2017). The Effects of Crowdfunding on
Entrepreneur’s Self-Belief, International Academic Confernce on Business and Economics (IACBE
2017), Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences (FESP), Universiti Sultan Zainal
Abidin (UniSZA), October 07-08.
Ayadurai, S. (2011). Corporate Entrepreneurship Engagement in Corporate Organization in Malaysia,
Business and Management Review, 1(5), 17-23.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting
teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189-206.
Bhardwaj, B.R., Sushil and Momaya, K. (2010). Drivers and enablers of corporate entrepreneurship,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30 No.2, pp. 187-205
Bharadwaj, S., and Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity
mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of product innovation
management, 17(6): 424-434.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge
sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1), 29-39.
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., & Li, J. 2014. “CEOs’ transformational leadership and product
innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation.” Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1): 2-17.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. 1999. “Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage.”
Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, 23(3): 47-47.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources:
complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1), 29-39.
Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2013). Exploring the impact of trust on research scientists' work
engagement: Evidence from Irish science research centres. Personnel Review, 42(4), 396-421.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model
of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R., Bakker, A., & Leiter, M. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work
engagement and job performance. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research,
147-163.
64
Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. (2010). A story of breakthrough versus incremental
innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 106-127.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F. (1981), Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 328-388.
Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Operations management and corporate
entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate
entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations Management,
29(1), 116-127.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in
predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242-256.
Hewitt, A. (2015). 2015 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Aon Hewitt Corp, Retrieved from:
http://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capital-consulting/2015-Trends-in-Global-Employee-
Engagement-Report.pdf
Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P. & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, 6th ed. NYC; McGraw-Hill.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
Hoque, A. S. M. M. and Awang, Z. (2016). Exploratory Factor Analysis of Entrepreneurial Marketing:
Scale Development and Validation in the SME context of Bangladesh, International Social Sciences
and Tourism Research Conference, Terengganu, UniSZA, pp. 20-22.
Hoque, A. S. M. M.; Awang, Z.; Jusoff, K.; Salleh, F.; and Muda, H. (2017). Social Business Efficiency:
Instrument Development and Validation Procedure using Structural Equation Modelling, International
Business Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 222-231.
Hoque, A. S. M. M., Awang, Z., and Salam, S. (2017). The Effects of Relationship Marketing on Firm
Performance: Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Bangladesh, 1st International Conference on
Business and Management (ICBM-2017), BRAC Business School (BBS), BRAC University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, September 21-22.
Hornsby, J. S., Montagno, R. V., & Kuratko, D. F. (1992). Critical organizational elements in corporate
entrepreneurship: An empirical study. Academy of Management.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1999). Perception of internal factors for corporate
entrepreneurship: A comparison of Canadian and US managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 24(2), 9-24.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers' perception of the internal
environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of business
Venturing, 17(3), 253-273.
Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. 2006. “A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship:
innovation at all levels – part 1.” Journal of Business Strategy, 27(1): 10– 17.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kelley, D. (2011). Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship: Evolving and connecting with the organization,
Business Horizon, 54, 73-83.
Kenny, M. (2007). Understanding Corporate Entrepreneurship and Development: A Practitioner View of
Organizational Intrapreneurship, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 73-81.
Kassa, A. G., & Raju, R. S. (2015). Investigating the relationship between corporate enterpreneurship and
employee engagement. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(2). 148-167.
Kompaso, S. M., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing a firm's internal environment for corporate
entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 57(1): 37-47.
65
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). “Corporate entrepreneurship: the innovative challenge
for a new global economic reality.” Small Business Economics, 45(2): 245-253.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S. (1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment
instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic management journal, 11,
49-58.
Lee, H. H., Zhou, J., & Hsu, P. H. 2015. “The role of innovation in inventory turnover performance.”
Decision Support Systems, 76, 35-44.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage. Society for Human
Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1-12.
Minafam, Z. (2017). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation Performance of Established Ventures:
Case of Iranian Vanguard Companies, Economic analysis, 50(1-2), 62-76.
Morris, M., Kuratko, D., & Covin, J. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation 2nd ed. Mason, OH:
Cengage Learning-Thomson-South Western.
Nasution, H. N., Mavondo, F. T., Matanda, M. J., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Entrepreneurship: Its
relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation and
customer value. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(3), 336-345.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pinchot, G., & Pellman, R. (1999). Intrapreneuring in action: A handbook for business innovation: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Pitt, L. F., Prendegast, G., & Berthon, P. (1996). Does Corporate Entrepreneurship Influence Innovation in
Service Firms? : Henley Management College.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that's the question: Burnout and work
engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(2), 177-196.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness
studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The
construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 459-481.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, S. J. J. (2007). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship* Entrepreneurship (pp. 83-103): Springer.
Shuck, B., & Reio Jr, T. G. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and
implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 43-58.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations.
Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Linking care felt to engagement in innovative behaviors in the
workplace: The mediating role of psychological conditions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts, 5(1), 43-53.
Wong, S. Y., & Chin, K. S. 2007. “Organizational innovation management: An organizationwide
perspective.” Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(9): 1290-1315.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Fischbach, A. (2013). Work engagement among employees facing
emotional demands. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 12(2), 74-84.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and
financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance
relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58.
66
Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The
moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of business Venturing, 15(5), 469-
492.
67

Corporate Entrepreneurship Upshot On Innovatation Performance: The Mediation of Employee Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Entrepreneurship Upshot On Innovatation Performance: The Mediation of Employee Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Humanities, Language, Culture and Business (HLCB)

Vol. 1: No. 6 (December 2017) page 54-67 | www.icohlcb.com | eISSN: 01268147

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP UPSHOT ON

Abu Shams Mohammad Mahmudul Hoque1, Uzairu Muhammad Gwadabe2,

Keywords: Corporate Entrepreneurship, Employee Engagement, Innovation Performance,

2. Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE)

3. Employee Engagement (EE)

4. Innovation Performance (IP)

5. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation Performance

6. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Employee Engagement

7. Employee Engagement and Innovation Performance

8. Mediation of Employee Engagement

10. The Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Research Framework

11. Research Methodology

11.2. Operationalization and Instrumentation

11.3. Method of Analysis

Table 1: The Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted

Table 2: Discriminant Validity Index Summary

12.2. The Structural Model

12.3. Test of Mediation

Figure 4: The Standardized Regression Weights for the Model

12.4. Confirming the Mediation Result Through Bootstrapping

Table 3: Summary of Bootstrapping Result

You might also like