Sage Reference

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website.
A free-to-view version of this content is available by clicking on this link, which
includes an easy-to-navigate-and-search-entry, and may also include videos,
embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio
content, and downloadable tables and resources.

Author: Elliroma Gardiner, Jonas Debrulle

Pub. Date: 2021
Product: Sage Reference
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187
Keywords: organizations, wellbeing
Disciplines: Business & Management, Organization Studies, Organizational Behavior, Organizational
Culture, Stress in Organizations
Access Date: March 3, 2024
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd
City: 55 City Road
Online ISBN: 9781529757187

© 2021 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.

Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Intrapreneurship and Wellbeing in Organizations

Elliroma Gardiner Jonas Debrulle

Introduction

Organizations internationally have recognized the potential that employee contributions to innovation and op-
portunity recognition can have on firm growth (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011) as well as on the community
(Portales, 2019). The dedicated efforts of global companies, such as Apple, Amazon and Google, to stimulate
and support entrepreneurship from within are well known, so much so that even small- to medium-sized en-
terprises see the merits of investing in employees to think like an ‘entrepreneur’ (Hughes and Mustafa, 2017).
Employee efforts to initiate and manage changing requirements in response to shifts in the global economy
are seen as a source of strategic competitive advantage (Kuratko and Audretsch, 2013).

Known by many names, including corporate entrepreneurship (Dess et al., 2003) and corporate venturing
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003), intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985), that is, acting like an entrepreneur in an orga-
nization, seems to have universal application. With employees at every level of the organization recognized
as potential intrapreneurs (Amo, 2010), and with research showing that intrapreneurial employees outperform
other employees (Bosma et al., 2010), intrapreneurship is no longer just the domain of managers (Floyd and
Lane, 2000). A diverse range of workforce, including nursing (Ekiyor and şenel, 2017), engineering (Ronen,
2010), white collar (Di Fabio and Gori, 2016) and the public service (Preenen et al., 2019) – including the
US Department of Defence (Wood et al., 2008) – have been identified as benefiting from intrapreneurship.
Indeed, research on intrapreneurship knows no geographical limit, with work conducted across the globe in
Europe (Valsania et al., 2016), North America (Bolton and Lane, 2012) and Asia (Woo, 2018). Intrapreneur-
ship, therefore, seems to be a phenomenon which can be engaged in by any worker regardless of status,
industry or location.

It is true that having the opportunity to be creative and autonomous, and to demonstrate skill and high perfor-
mance, is likely to be motivating and empowering for employees (Blanka, 2019). The chance to action an idea
and implement changes is one that would be cherished by engaged employees. At the same time, however,
employees are also likely to be concerned about the uncertainty and risk inherent in intrapreneurship. For in-
stance, large organizations which emphasize intrapreneurship may create ambiguity about role expectations

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 2 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

(Floyd and Lane, 2000). Middle managers may be particularly vulnerable to role conflict, finding it difficult to
decide what proportion of their efforts should be spent on intrapreneurial experimentation and what propor-
tion should remain within their traditional operational duties (Wakkee et al., 2010). And, of course, not every
project is going to be successful. Intrapreneurial employees who are committed to a project are likely to ex-
perience the negative emotion of grief as a result of project failure (Shepherd et al., 2009).

We know that poor employee health is expensive for firms and nations. The latest figures from the United
States show that workplace stress costs the US economy upwards of US$500 billion per year (American Psy-
chological Association, 2015). High figures have also been reported in the UK (£15 billion, Health and Safety
Executive, 2019) and Europe (20 billion per year, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2014),
with workers who are passion-driven or in caring professions most at risk (Gardner et al., 2019). Of the lim-
ited research which has been conducted exploring intrapreneurship and wellbeing, a picture is emerging of
intrapreneurship as a two-edged sword, capable of both supporting and suppressing psychological and phys-
ical health (Gawke et al., 2018). Whilst this early research echoes similar paradoxical findings from research
on entrepreneurs (see Wiklund et al. (2019) for a review), the marked differences between the antecedents
of intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship (Douglas and Fitzsimmons, 2013) mean that research on the latter
is only partially informative on the former. The lack of research investigating the positive and negative conse-
quences that intrapreneurship may have on employee health and wellbeing is of concern because the strate-
gic gains enjoyed by companies with intrapreneurial employees are likely to be undermined if the costs of
intrapreneurship on the wellbeing of employees are too great.

The aim of the current chapter is to evaluate and synthesize the extant research which intersects the two
largely unrelated domains of intrapreneurship (and its related facets such as proactivity) and health and well-
being, with the view to exploring the practice and research implications of this research. The chapter is struc-
tured as follows. The next section provides an overview of the key features and definitions of intrapreneurship.
This is followed by a section detailing the theoretical approaches for research on the association between in-
trapreneurship and wellbeing. Then, an examination of the extant literature on intrapreneurship and wellbeing
is presented. Following this, implications for practice and research are drawn, and an outlook is provided on
future research in the field of intrapreneurship and wellbeing.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 3 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Definitions and Key Theories

What is intrapreneurship? Intrapreneurship, a subfield of entrepreneurship, was first coined by Pinchot (1985)
and reflects the idea that even individuals working within organizations can act like entrepreneurs. There is
currently no single accepted definition of intrapreneurship (Blanka, 2019; Neessen et al., 2019), perhaps due
to existing debates as to whether intrapreneurship is distinct from other related concepts such as corporate
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation and employee venturing. Common across this cluster of terms,
however, is the inherent value in the human capital of entrepreneurial employees (Amo, 2010).

Debates withstanding, intrapreneurship can be broadly defined as voluntary proactive behaviour of an em-
ployee towards the recognition of opportunities, generation of new ideas and creation of new products, ser-
vices or business lines to benefit the organization (Edú Valsania et al., 2016). Intrapreneurship is as an extra-
role behaviour, something supported by rather than dictated by firms (Rigtering and Weitzel, 2013). Behav-
iourally, intrapreneurship is seen as generating creative ideas, favouring experimentation in problem solving,
acting in anticipation of future problems or needs, taking bold action, being proactive or competitive and work-
ing autonomously (Wakkee et al., 2010).

Intrapreneurship has been conceptualized as both an organizational- and individual-level construct (Wakkee
et al., 2010), where the pursuit of opportunities is fundamental at both levels (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990).
Where conceptualizations of intrapreneurship are akin to corporate entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial ori-
entation, the research conceives intrapreneurship as an organizational-level variable that is manufactured
and monitored using a ‘top-down’ process by the organization (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). Most of what
we know about intrapreneurship is the result of organizational-level research (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Keys
features of intrapreneurial organizations include creating new ventures and businesses, product/service and
process innovations, self-renewal, risk-taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness (Antoncic and
Antoncic, 2011).

Although there is substantially less research conducted on intrapreneurship at the individual level, the body
of evidence is growing. Studies which focus on the ‘bottom-up’ process, modelling individual intrapreneurial
characteristics and behaviours of employees, adopt the individual level of conceptualization (Rigtering and
Weitzel, 2013). Generally, research focusing on the individual views intrapreneurship as a form of individual
difference, where a combination of specific traits reflects a propensity to engage in intrapreneurship. For in-
stance, Di Fabio's (2014; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2018) ‘Intrapreneurial Self-Capital’ identifies core self-evalua-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 4 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

tion, hardiness, creative self-efficacy, resilience, goal mastery, decisiveness and vigilance as essential char-
acteristics needed to overcome the challenges when engaging in intrapreneurship. Intrapreneurial self-capital
is thought to be improved through training as well as being an inherent trait (Alessio et al., 2019; Di Fabio et
al., 2017). A recent systematic review which analysed 32 papers focusing on individual-level intrapreneurship
from 2015 to 2016 identified that perspectives on this form of intrapreneurship tended to focus on personality
characteristics, human capital, social capital and the characteristics of managers and supervisors.

Key Theories

An influential theory which tries to incorporate both organizational and individual characteristics is Kuratko
and colleagues’ (Hornsby et al., 1993) Intrapreneurship Model. Unlike other views of intrapreneurship as an
individual difference (i.e., Intrapreneurial Self-Capital, Di Fabio and Gori, 2016; Di Fabio and Kenny, 2018),
Kuratko's model views intrapreneurship as a process not dissimilar to entrepreneurship. The intrapreneurship
process starts with considering organizational antecedents (e.g., work discretion, management support, re-
wards, time availability, organizational boundaries) and individual antecedents (e.g., risk-taking personality,
desire for autonomy, goal orientation, internal locus of control, need for achievement). Interaction of these an-
tecedents with a ‘precipitating event', that is, an environmental or organizational change, triggers a decision
in the employee to act intrapreneurially. The next step in the model involves assessing the feasibility of the
idea, followed by actions with respect to consuming available resources and overcoming barriers. The result
of this multi-step and multi-level nexus is the implementation of the intrapreneurial idea.

A more current model, which coincidently incorporates Kuratko's (Hornsby et al., 1993) model, was put for-
ward by Neessen and colleagues (2019). Informed by their systematic analysis of 106 articles on intrapre-
neurship from 1989 to 2017, the authors created a new integrative framework that models how individual and
organizational factors interact to predict intrapreneurial outcomes, which in turn predict the ultimate outcome,
namely, organizational performance. Organizational factors in the model include management support, orga-
nizational structure, rewards/reinforcements, work discretion and resources. The model proposes that orga-
nizational factors moderate the relationship between individual intrapreneurship and organizational intrapre-
neurial outcomes.

Intrapreneurship is undoubtedly a burgeoning area of research. However, the results of the two aforemen-
tioned reviews (i.e., Blanka, 2019; Neessen et al., 2019) indicate that, despite interest and value in the topic,

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 5 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

the lack of a universal definition of intrapreneurship coupled with inconsistencies as to whether intrapreneur-
ship is an individual- and/or an organizational-level variable has resulted in a rather fragmented field. Indeed,
even the results of these two systematic reviews are somewhat in conflict, with one advocating that intrapre-
neurship is a multi-dimensional construct (Neessen et al., 2019) in line with Kuratko and colleagues’ (Horns-
by et al., 1993) model and the other conceptualizing intrapreneurship as an individual-level concept (Blanka,
2019). Despite this promising work, there is a dearth of intrapreneurship-specific theories which explain the
impact of intrapreneurship on employee wellbeing. Neither Kuratko et al. (Hornsby et al., 1993) nor Neessen
et al. (2019) have included individual outcomes other than enactment of intrapreneurial behaviour in their
models. Both models indicate that once an individual makes their ‘input', the only important ‘output’ is orga-
nizational-level performance. Neither model includes a feedback loop to capture employee learning through
the intrapreneurial process. There is also no mechanism which explains how individuals are supposed to sus-
tain their intrapreneurial characteristics throughout the intrapreneurship process. Both models make important
contributions to the field, redefining intrapreneurship as multi-level and setting a more holistic, theoretically
sound research agenda. However, they both fall short of providing insights into how individuals experience
intrapreneurship past the initiation phase.

Theoretical Approaches to Wellbeing

In terms of understanding the association between intrapreneurship and wellbeing, the specialized and well-
validated socio-cognitive models of Job Demands–Resources Theory (JD-R, Bakker and Demerouti, 2014),
Approach–Avoidance Motivation (Eysenck, 1997; Gray and McNaughton, 2000) and Self-Determination The-
ory (Deci et al., 2017) are considerably more informative than the specific intrapreneurship models discussed
in the previous section.

Job Demands–Resources Theory

One theory that has been employed by researchers to explain the relationship between intrapreneurship and
wellbeing is the JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014), which is an evolution of the Job Demands–Re-
sources model (Demerouti et al., 2001). Arguably the most well-known theoretical framework to model oc-
cupational stress, the theory has been shown to predict a range of important individual work outcomes such

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 6 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

as burnout, work engagement and performance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). The first key component of
this model, job demands, refers to ‘physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained
physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs’ (De-
merouti et al., 2001: 501). The second key construct, job resources, include ‘physical, psychological, social,
or organizational aspects of the job that may […] be functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands
and its related costs, or stimulate personal growth and development’ (Demerouti et al., 2001: 501).

JD-R theory explains how job demands and resources have unique and multiplicative effects on employee
stress and motivation (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014). More specifically, JD-R theory proposes that job de-
mands and resources are predictive of two causal (and largely independent) processes, namely a health im-
pairment process and a motivational process. The health impairment process models the detrimental impact
that high job demands can have on employee health, including exhaustion at work, psychosomatic health
complaints and repetitive strain. In contrast, the motivational process demonstrates the positive impact that
employees can experience, in the form of work enjoyment, engagement and motivation, as a result of having
enough job resources to manage demands. Together, these two pathways explain how insufficient job re-
sources can negatively impact health and how job resources can buffer the impact of job demands and poor
health outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017).

Whilst over two decades of research has seen the JD-R model and (more recently) theory applied to a range
of different settings, including entrepreneurship (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016), its application to intrapreneurship is
only quite recent. Gawke and colleagues (2018) published the first study enlisting JD-R theory to predict well-
being and performance outcomes for employee intrapreneurship. Testing and extending both the motivation-
al and health impairment pathways, the authors hypothesized that work engagement and work exhaustion,
respectively, would mediate the relationship between employee intrapreneurship and in-role performance, in-
novativeness and work avoidance. Results with a Dutch sample of 241 employee dyads revealed full support
for the motivational pathway hypothesis and partial support for the health impairment hypothesis. Employee
intrapreneurship was positively related to work engagement, which in turn was related to higher levels of in-
novativeness and in-role performance and lower levels of work avoidance. The authors took this finding to
suggest that employee intrapreneurship can increase work engagement through increasing the employee's
capacity for goal attainment and job crafting. Employee intrapreneurship was also positively associated with
exhaustion, resulting in lower in-role performance and higher levels of work avoidance. Work exhaustion and
innovativeness were found to be unrelated to employee intrapreneurship. These results provide insights in-
to the potential wellbeing and performance costs of employee intrapreneurship and extend JD-R theory by

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 7 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

demonstrating that employee intrapreneurship can be simultaneously motivating and depleting for employ-
ees.

Kattenbach and Fietze's (2018) research with almost 600 German media and IT industry professionals also
demonstrates the utility of using JD-R theory as a lens by which to view the intrapreneurship–wellbeing rela-
tionship. The focus of their work was on employee entrepreneurial orientation, which reflects the tendency of
an individual to engage in entrepreneurial activity (Bolton and Lane, 2012). However, the traits underlying en-
trepreneurial orientation are almost identical to those which underlie individual-level intrapreneurship, namely,
innovation, proactiveness and risk-taking (Bolton and Lane, 2012). Conceptualizing entrepreneurial orienta-
tion as a form of personal resource, Kattenbach and Fietze (2018) tested the health impairment process,
hypothesizing that entrepreneurial orientation would partially mediate the link between job demands and re-
sources as well as job resources and burnout. Results showed that entrepreneurial orientation mediated the
relationship between emotional demands, workload, cognitive workload and exhaustion. Specifically, their
findings revealed that lower workloads and emotional demands and higher levels of cognitive workload posi-
tively predicted entrepreneurial orientation, which then triggered lower levels of burnout. They also found that
high levels of decision latitude (a job resource) were associated with higher levels of entrepreneurial orienta-
tion, which in turn led to lower exhaustion. These results suggest that employees who are entrepreneurially
orientated and who perceive their work environment favourably are less likely to experience exhaustion. In
this way, individual intrapreneurship can have a positive impact on wellbeing.

Approach–Avoidance Motivation

Other concepts that offer insights into the wellbeing of intrapreneurs are the constructs of approach and
avoidance motivation. There are a number of different ways to conceptualize self-regulation via approach and
avoidance, including biosocially (i.e., Eysenck, 1997), as neurobiological motivations (i.e., Gray, 1970; Gray
and McNaughton, 2000) and as neurocortical activity (i.e., Harmon-Jones et al., 2006). Very generally, howev-
er, approach tendencies involve the action of behaviour towards (usually rewarding) stimuli whilst avoidance
involves the action of behaviour away from (usually punishing) stimuli (Patterson and Newman, 1993). The
interaction of these self-regulation tendencies is thought to underlie the manifestation of most human behav-
iour (Collins et al., 2017).

One of the most popular conceptualizations of approach and avoidance motivations is via the revised Rein-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 8 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

forcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST, Gray and McNaughton, 2000), which offers not only a descriptive ac-
count but also a causal basis for personality traits related to approach and avoidance (e.g., Gray, 1970). This
model consists of three interactive systems, namely the Fight/Flight/Freeze system (FFFS), the Behaviour-
al Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) (Gray and McNaughton, 2000). The
FFFS mediates response to both conditioned and unconditioned aversive stimuli and is sensitive to threat
and danger (Gray and McNaughton, 2000). BAS, on the other hand, is the physiological mechanism that is
believed to regulate appetitive motivation and is sensitive to signals of reward, nonpunishment and escape
from punishment. Activation of BAS promotes and motivates an individual towards a goal. In contrast, BIS
is an aversive motivational system which controls the experience of anxiety in response to anxiety-relevant
cues (Gray, 1970). According to the original RST theory, BIS is sensitive to signals of punishment, nonreward
and novelty and works to inhibit behaviour that may lead to negative outcomes.

Although all three components are implicated in human behaviour, purposeful motivated behaviour is thought
to be primarily mediated by the BAS and BIS. Certainly, this was the view taken by Gawke and colleagues
(2018) in their study with Dutch workers. As mentioned previously, interested in understanding the personal
wellbeing costs and benefits of intrapreneurship for employees, the researchers uncovered links between
intrapreneurship and engagement as well as exhaustion. Supplementing JD-R theory, the authors included
BAS and BIS in their model to test whether BAS would moderate the mediated relationship between employ-
ee intrapreneurship and job performance via work engagement, and whether BIS would moderate the medi-
ated relationship between employee intrapreneurship and job performance via exhaustion. Moderated medi-
ated regression analysis revealed that BAS enhanced the indirect relationship between employee intrapre-
neurship and in-role performance and innovativeness via engagement. Similarly, support was found for the
indirect relationship between employee intrapreneurship and work avoidance via exhaustion. These findings
highlight the role which individual differences can play in differentially impacting the wellbeing experiences of
employees who engage in intrapreneurship.

A quantitative diary study conducted by Cangiano et al. (2019) also examined, albeit indirectly, the association
between avoidance and wellbeing outcomes using a sample of 94 Australian employees. Relevant to this cur-
rent chapter, the authors tested the existence of a ‘strain pathway’ whereby the uncertainty and risky nature
of proactive work behaviours (an important facet of intrapreneurship) would engender anxiety (a biosocial op-
erationalization of avoidance motivation) in employees, which would in turn make it difficult for employees to
psychologically detach at the end of a workday. They hypothesized that only the ill effects of proactivity would
be experienced if the employee's supervisor was perceived as punitive. Multi-level analysis supported the hy-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 9 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

pothesis, finding evidence that proactive behaviour, whilst beneficial to the organization, has the potential to
be damaging to the individual.

Self-Determination Theory

One other theorical approach which has been employed to investigate the wellbeing of intrapreneurs is Self-
Determination Theory (SDT, Deci et al., 2017). Being a macro theory of motivation, SDT posits that individuals
thrive, grow and experience wellbeing when their basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy and
relatedness are met. Competence refers to the capability of individuals to achieve and demonstrate their full
abilities. Autonomy refers to the flexibility of an individual to make their own decisions and to work and think
independently. Relatedness is concerned with being able to create and sustain high-quality relationships with
others. Thirty years of research has shown that employee wellbeing is highest when the socio-contextual con-
ditions satisfy these basic needs (Deci et al., 2017).

Enlisting SDT, Cangiano and colleagues (2019) proposed that competence would mediate the relationship
between proactive work behaviour and vitality. The researchers put forward three arguments for why they
thought proactivity would be linked to competence. First, they argued that individuals would experience a
sense of mastery as they tried to overcome the challenges in being proactive. Second, positive outcomes as-
sociated with initial proactivity would likely fuel further self-impressions of competence. Third, the self-initiated
aspect of proactivity would mean any felt benefits would be entirely attributable to the individual's own ability
and competence. Cangiano et al.'s (2019) research with dyads of managers and subordinates found support
for their proposition. Proactivity was positively associated with competence, and competence mediated the
relationship between proactivity and vitality. This study provides evidence that being proactive provides an
opportunity for individuals to meet their fundamental need for competence and achievement, and that fulfil-
ment of this need results in employees who are energized and high in vitality.

Also using SDT as a theoretical lens, Strauss et al. (2017) conducted some interesting research investigating
the effects of proactive behaviours on employee wellbeing. Specifically, it was hypothesized that for employ-
ees experiencing high levels of controlled motivation (characterized by coercion and pressure) and low levels
of autonomous motivation (characterized by low intrinsic interest in the work), engagement in proactive be-
haviour would reduce an employee's resources, ultimately resulting in high levels of job strain. The authors
adopted a time-lagged study with 127 full-time employee–supervisor dyads across a variety of Canadian and

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 10 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

US businesses. The results showed that supervisor-rated proactive behaviour was positively associated with
job strain when controlled motivation was high whilst autonomous motivation was low. Yet under all other con-
ditions such as high controlled and high autonomous motivation, proactivity had no impact on strain. These
findings indicate that autonomous motivation may have a powerful buffering effect, reducing the negative im-
pact of proactivity on worker wellbeing.

The only published study that directly contrasts entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs with respect to wellbeing was
conducted by Shir et al. (2019). The study was based on the 2011 Swedish Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
survey and used interview data from 1,837 workers, of whom 251 were early-stage entrepreneurs. The aim
of the study was to test a two-stage multi-path mediation model. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the
relationship between active engagement in entrepreneurship and wellbeing would be mediated by autonomy
and that relatedness and competence would moderate this mediated relationship. Analysis revealed partial
support for the model, that is, autonomy mediated the association between active engagement in entrepre-
neurship and wellbeing via the positive influence of relatedness and competence. Interestingly, when com-
paring intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs reported higher levels of wellbeing than intrapreneurs
since both direct and indirect effects of active engagement in entrepreneurship emerged for entrepreneurs
whilst only a direct effect was found for intrapreneurs. Specifically, next to higher levels of life satisfaction and
evaluative wellbeing (direct effect), entrepreneurship was also shown to indirectly stimulate feelings of com-
petence and relatedness through increasing levels of psychological autonomy, whilst intrapreneurs’ ability to
self-organize is largely restricted by organizational constraints and procedures. Linking back to SDT, the find-
ings of this study demonstrate that entrepreneurship can lead to wellbeing when these innate psychological
needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence are met. An important implication, as noted by the authors,
is that wellbeing is likely to be differentially affected depending on the type of entrepreneurial work and the
psychological mechanisms underpinning it.

Summary

J-DR, approach–avoidance motivation and SDT are useful theoretical lenses through which to understand
how intrapreneurship influences employee wellbeing. These theories, either individually or in combination, as-
sist in explaining how intrapreneurship can both support and hinder the psychological and physical health of
workers. It is interesting to note, however, that whilst the number of empirical studies enlisting these theoret-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 11 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

ical approaches is very small, the studies are all relatively recent – within the last four years or so. Together,
the contemporary empirical evidence, which is well grounded in established theory, highlights the individual
costs and benefits experienced by intrapreneurial workers.

Intrapreneurship and Wellbeing

Moving on now to studies which investigate intrapreneurship and wellbeing outside of the theoretical lenses
mentioned previously, the work of Ekiyor and şenel (2017) provides evidence from Turkey which corroborates
the findings of Gawke and colleagues (2018). The focus of their research was on understanding whether indi-
viduals experiencing burnout would be less likely to engage in intrapreneurship. After surveying a sample of
nurses, an occupational group with a traditionally high prevalence of burnout (Vargas et al., 2014), the authors
found a positive relationship between the two variables. The cross-sectional nature of the research, unfortu-
nately, makes it difficult to determine whether intrapreneurship leads to burnout or whether burnout renders
employees unable to engage in intrapreneurship. Nevertheless, the significant association between intrapre-
neurship and burnout does highlight that individuals engaging in intrapreneurship may be vulnerable.

Contrasting evidence is provided by Ronen (2010). The aim of this study was to determine the relative impor-
tance of various individual traits in the prediction of intrapreneurial tendencies and to identify what impact (if
any) intrapreneurial tendencies would have on various individual outcomes. Using a study of high-tech Israeli
engineers, the study enlisted a longitudinal design, where self-reported data on personality, intrapreneurial
tendencies and health and work outcomes were collected at Time 1 and again 15 months later (at Time 2).
Supervisor ratings of employee job performance were also collected at Time 2. Intrapreneurial tendencies
were found to be significantly negatively related to burnout, meaning that engineers with high intrapreneur-
ial tendencies tended to report lower levels of burnout. Intrapreneurial engineers seemed to also enjoy high
levels of work engagement and role autonomy. They were more absorbed in and dedicated to their work and
also felt freer to make autonomous decisions. This result is in stark contrast to that of Ekiyor and şenel's study
(2017), which found burnout to be associated with lower levels of intrapreneurship. The longitudinal design
of Ronen (2010) is advantageous, tentatively suggesting that it is more likely that intrapreneurship impacts
wellbeing (for good or bad), rather than wellbeing impacting intrapreneurship.

It is worth mentioning that in addition to these mixed findings with respect to negative and positive associa-
tions between intrapreneurship and wellbeing, there has been some research indicating that there may not be

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 12 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

a relationship between the two variables at all. For example, a Dutch study aimed at understanding the longi-
tudinal effects of task challenge on skill utilization, affective wellbeing (i.e., positive affect) and intrapreneurial
behaviour found that task challenge positively predicted skill utilization and intrapreneurship but not affective
wellbeing (Preenen et al., 2019). In other words, whilst challenging work might be a useful way to enhance
skill utilization and intrapreneurship behaviour, it does not necessarily mean that employees are going to be
happier.

Broadening the evidence base to include studies investigating links between wellbeing and more specific in-
trapreneurial traits such as self-efficacy and proactivity (see de Jong et al., 2015) is likely to yield some useful
insights into how aspects of intrapreneurship differentially impact employee wellness. For example, Di Fabio
and colleagues’ research with Italian samples from various occupations have shown consistently positive
moderate-to-high correlations between intrapreneurial self-efficacy and life satisfaction (Di Fabio and Kenny,
2018) and flourishing (Di Fabio and Gori, 2016). These studies demonstrate that engagement in intrapreneur-
ship can have profound positive benefits on individuals, helping them to feel fulfilled, accomplished and living
the ‘good life'.

Interested in examining the strength and nature of the relationship between self-efficacy and job burnout,
Shoji and colleagues (2016) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of 57 original studies (N = 22,773)
published between 1998 and 2011. Amongst other findings, they reported –0.33 as the average effect-size
estimate for the association between self-efficacy and burnout, indicating a small but significant relationship.
Interestingly, and relevant when thinking about the high potential for intrapreneurship endeavours to fail, the
largest average effect size between self-efficacy and burnout was with the ‘lack of accomplishment’ facet
(–0.49). These associations were quite robust regardless of how self-efficacy or burnout was measured.

Turning now to proactivity, another key facet of intrapreneurship, a study by Cunningham and De La Rosa
(2008) looked at the relationship between proactive personality and wellbeing. Proactive personality is an in-
dividual difference variable which captures the propensity of an individual to be ‘minimally hindered by situa-
tional constraints and maximally empowered to take personal initiative to ensure a positive outcome’ regard-
less of environmental constraints (Cunningham and De La Rosa, 2008: 272). It was hypothesized that proac-
tive personality would moderate the relationship between controllable work and nonwork stressors (such as
work–life interference) and job as well as life satisfaction. The authors reasoned that whilst high levels of per-
ceived control are positively linked with psychological health and positive work attitudes, trying to exercise
control over workplace stressors which are outside of an employees’ control is likely to exacerbate experi-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 13 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

ences of stress. Enlisting a cross-sectional design, the researchers surveyed 133 university academics from a
variety of universities across the United States. However, moderated multiple regression revealed that proac-
tive personality only moderated the relationship between nonwork stressors and life satisfaction, indicating
that whilst proactive personality may ameliorate experiences of work stress, its effects are likely to be contin-
gent on the nature of the stressor. This body of work is both limited (in terms of quantity) and disparate (in
terms of sample and measurement). However, what work has been conducted is relatively recent, highlighting
the evolving interest in intrapreneurship-like traits and worker wellbeing.

Implications for Practice

There are important practical implications for senior executives and human-resources professionals to un-
derstand with respect to how intrapreneurship differentially impacts employee wellbeing. Like any strategic
decision, organizations should at the outset do a thorough analysis of their goals, business processes, in-
frastructure and accumulated human and social capital. Central determinants of successful intrapreneurial
task behaviour appear to be the employees’ intrinsic drive for entrepreneurship together with a well-balanced
supportive organizational climate. Organizations that provide their entrepreneurship-minded workers with the
skills, networks and other resources that workers often lack and require to engage in independent entrepre-
neurial tasks are likely to indirectly stimulate the corporate ability for new product and/or process innovations
(Sörensen and Fassiotto, 2011). Yet to reap such benefits in a sustainable way, organizations not only have
to clarify what they offer intrapreneurial employees in terms of skills acquisition and network building, but they
also need to carefully consider the longer-term human and psychological impact of such organizational de-
mands on their constituents’ wellbeing and health. One implication of the body of evidence thus far is that not
all organizations profit from the entrepreneurship-development process their employees go through as much
as they can, and that whilst there are many benefits, there are also substantial costs.

Like entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship is an emotionally demanding process characterized by high levels of

uncertainty. This study has explored the diverse mix of emotions that can be linked to intrapreneurship, includ-
ing positive states such as increased levels of autonomy, job and life satisfaction (Shir et al., 2019) but also
higher levels of work-related strain (Gawke et al., 2018). Considering the research discussed in this chapter,
organizations would be wise to adapt their organizational climate to ensure that employees are motivated and
capable to undertake intrapreneurial task behaviour sustainably. Applying J-DR theory, reducing organiza-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 14 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

tional demands and increasing available resources are crucial first steps (Gawke et al., 2018). For instance,
reducing the number of formal procedures in the implementation of tasks would be useful (Antoncic and An-
toncic, 2011). The provision of managerial support and encouragement as well as rewards in the form of em-
ployee discretion, job autonomy and work design are all likely to have a positive impact on intrapreneurship
(Neessen et al., 2019) and wellbeing (Huo et al., 2019). Initiatives aimed at improving entrepreneurial self-
efficacy, growth and development as well as the provision of coaching are additional practices which could
be implemented to support intrapreneurship and wellbeing by ensuring that employees receive guidance and
encouragement along the way (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011; Shepherd et al., 2009).

The importance of leadership is a recurring theme in both the intrapreneurship and wellbeing literatures, with
the findings largely complementary. For instance, punitive leadership has been found to moderate the rela-
tionship between proactivity and wellbeing, such that it reduces the wellbeing experienced by proactive em-
ployees (Cangiano et al., 2019). Similarly, authentic leadership, which has been shown to increase employee
wellbeing through positively impacting work climate (Nielsen and Daniels, 2016), has also been identified as a
key antecedent to intrapreneurship (Valsania et al., 2016). Transformational leadership, too, has been found
to positively influence psychological wellbeing (Arnold, 2017) and intrapreneurship (Valsania et al., 2016). In-
terestingly, however, both the intrapreneurship and wellbeing literatures warn that even ‘positive’ leadership
styles such as transformational leadership may negatively impact intrapreneurship and wellbeing in certain
contexts (Djourova et al., 2019). Organizations interested in encouraging intrapreneurship should be cog-
nizant of the impact that leaders and managers may have on intrapreneurship and wellbeing. Those leading
should create environments which reward creativity and involve participation of followers at every step of the
intrapreneurial process.

Future Research

Future research efforts should be directed towards formulating or perhaps even reconciling existing theories
of intrapreneurship with specialized theories of wellbeing and strain. The current chapter demonstrates that
exciting new work aimed at addressing this gap is underway. Yet, despite two recent high-quality systemat-
ic reviews (Blanka, 2019; Neessen et al., 2019) and targeted original empirical research (i.e., Gawke et al.,
2018), the field is disjointed with inconsistencies in how intrapreneurship is defined, conceptualized and mea-
sured. Until these fundamental issues are worked out, ensuing studies on entrepreneurship (including those

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 15 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

investigating wellbeing outcomes) are formulated and conducted on precarious footing. The critical impor-
tance of theory to practice and practice to theory is well known (Ployhart and Bartunek, 2019). Hence, delays
in developing a valid theory of intrapreneurship stunt the growth of empirical research, which in turn limits the
refinement of theory and hinders the growth of knowledge of how the health and wellbeing of intrapreneurs
can best be supported.

Relatedly, an obvious area for future attention by researchers is with respect to disentangling how individual-
and organizational-level intrapreneurship impacts the health of individual employees. Individuals, rather than
organizations, innovate, so it is crucial that further exploration of the wellbeing costs and benefits to workers is
undertaken. Multi-level and longitudinal designs are likely to be particularly revealing, facilitating comprehen-
sive investigation of how various types of intrapreneurship impact wellbeing as well as modelling how well-
being may fluctuate depending on the stage of intrapreneurship. Given the generally wide acceptance that
intrapreneurship is a multi-level construct, it is surprising that so few multi-level studies have been conducted.
Like entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship is not static; there are emotional highs and lows in pitching ideas and
hitting roadblocks (Wiklund et al., 2019). Failure to consider these temporal shifts is likely to yield an artificially
narrow view of the impacts of intrapreneurship on workers.

Another area worthy of future research is investigating whether the impacts of intrapreneurship on wellbeing
are experienced differently by males and females. There are known gender differences in experiences of
wellbeing (Batz and Tay, 2018). We know from a study using a large nationally representative sample of US
workers that females (particularly those who have children) are less likely than males with similar characteris-
tics to engage in intrapreneurship (Adachi and Hisada, 2017). This may be because females typically receive
fewer job resources than males (Magee, 2013). We also know that female workers tend to report lower levels
of job satisfaction and higher levels of job stress than their male colleagues (Wilks and Neto, 2013). Longitudi-
nal research from Canada provides some relevant convergent evidence, showing that female entrepreneurs
appraised high financial needs and low social support as more stressful than male entrepreneurs, which in
turn led to higher psychological distress lasting several months after launching their business (Chadwick and
Raver, 2019). Therefore, given that gender differences exist with respect to becoming an intrapreneur and
experiencing distress, it is important to more fully understand if and how gender differentially impacts the well-
being of male and female intrapreneurs.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 16 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Conclusion

‘The true value of entrepreneurship as a corporate concept lies in the extent to which it helps organisations
create sustainable competitive advantage’ (Kuratko, 2012: 239). Studies from around the globe show that in-
trapreneurship can provide a competitive advantage (e.g., Paek and Lee, 2018). An organizational climate
strongly supportive of entrepreneurship yet neglecting personnel wellbeing may, irrespective of its stimulus to
intrapreneurial task engagement, turn out to be detrimental to the organization's long-term competitiveness.
Therefore, understanding the health and wellbeing implications of intrapreneurship on employees is at the
heart of establishing whether such competitive advantage is sustainable.

References

Adachi T and Hisada T (2017) Gender differences in entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: An empirical
analysis. Small Business Economics 48(3): 447–486.

Alessio F, Finstad GL, Giorgi G, et al. (2019) Intrapreneurial self-capital. An overview of an emergent con-
struct in organizational behaviour. Quality-Access to Success 20(173): 156–162.

American Psychological Association (2015) Stress in America – Paying with our health. Available at:
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2014/stress-report.pdf

Amo BW (2010) Corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship related to innovation behaviour among em-
ployees. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 2(2): 144–158.

Antoncic B and Hisrich RD (2003) Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and En-
terprise Development 10: 7–24.

Antoncic JA and Antoncic B (2011) Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: A model. Indus-
trial Management & Data Systems 111(4): 589–607.

Arnold KA (2017) Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: A review and direc-
tions for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(3): 381.

Bakker AB and Demerouti E (2014) Job demands–resources theory. In C Cooper and P Chen (Eds.), Wellbe-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 17 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

ing: A complete reference guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–28.

Bakker AB and Demerouti E (2017) Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(3): 273.

Batz C and Tay L (2018) Gender differences in subjective well-being. In: Diener E, Oishi S and Tay L (eds)
Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.

Blanka C (2019) An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: A review and ways forward. Review of
Managerial Science 13(5): 919–961.

Bolton DL and Lane MD (2012) Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instru-
ment. Education+Training 54(2/3): 219–233.

Bosma N, Stam FC and Wennekers A (2010) Intrapreneurship: An international study EIM Research Report
H201005. Zoetermeer: EIM.

Cangiano F, Parker SK and Yeo GB (2019) Does daily proactivity affect well-being? The moderating role of
punitive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior 40(1): 59–72.

Chadwick IC and Raver JL (2019) Not for the faint of heart? A gendered perspective on psychological distress
in entrepreneurship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 24(6): 662.

Collins MD, Jackson CJ, Walker BR, et al. (2017) Integrating the context-appropriate balanced attention mod-
el and reinforcement sensitivity theory: Towards a domain-general personality process model. Psychological
Bulletin 143(1): 91.

Covin JG and Slevin DP (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(1): 7–26.

Cunningham CJ and De La Rosa GM (2008) The interactive effects of proactive personality and work-family
interference on well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 13(3): 271.

de Jong JP, Parker SK, Wennekers S, et al. (2015) Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job de-
sign matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(4): 981–95.

Deci EL, Olafsen AH and Ryan RM (2017) Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a
science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4: 19–43.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 18 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, et al. (2001) The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal
of Applied Psychology 86(3): 499–512.

Dess GG, Ireland RD, Zahra SA, et al. (2003) Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of
Management 29(3): 351–378.

Di Fabio A (2014) Intrapreneurial self-capital: A new construct for the 21st century. Journal of Employment
Counseling 51(3): 98–111.

Di Fabio A and Gori A (2016) Neuroticism and flourishing in white collar workers: From self-esteem to in-
trapreneurial self-capital for adaptive outcomes. In A Di Fabio (ed) Neuroticism: Characteristics, Impact on
Job Performance and Health Outcomes. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 129–146.

Di Fabio A and Kenny ME (2018) Intrapreneurial self-capital: A key resource for promoting well-being in a
shifting work landscape. Sustainability 10(9): 3035.

Di Fabio A, Palazzeschi L and Bucci O (2017) In an unpredictable and changing environment: Intrapreneurial
self-capital as a key resource for life satisfaction and flourishing. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1819.

Dijkhuizen J, Gorgievski M, van Veldhoven M, et al. (2016) Feeling successful as an entrepreneur: A job de-
mands–resources approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12(2): 555–573.

Djourova NP, Rodríguez Molina I, Tordera Santamatilde N, et al. (2019) Self-efficacy and resilience: Mediating
mechanisms in the relationship between the transformational leadership dimensions and well-being. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(3): 256-270. 1548051819849002.

Douglas EJ and Fitzsimmons JR (2013) Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: Distinct
constructs with different antecedents. Small Business Economics 41(1): 115–132.

Edú Valsania S, Moriano JA and Molero F (2016) Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial behaviour: cross-
level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification and empowerment. International Entrepre-
neurship Management Journal 12:131–152.

Ekiyor A and Şenel G (2017) Effect of the burnout syndrome on intrapreneurship: A practice in province
Ankara. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting 3(2): 1–11.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2014) Calculating the cost of work-related stress and
psychological risks. Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/calculating-cost-work-related-stress-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 19 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

and-psychosocial-risks (Accessed 23 November 2020)

Eysenck H (1997) Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility
of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(6): 1224–1237.

Floyd SW and Lane PJ (2000) Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic
renewal. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 154–177.

Gardner RL, Cooper E, Haskell J, et al. (2019) Physician stress and burnout: The impact of health information
technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 26(2): 106–114.

Gawke JC, Gorgievski MJ and Bakker AB (2018) Personal costs and benefits of employee intrapreneurship:
Disentangling the employee intrapreneurship, well-being, and job performance relationship. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology 23(4): 508–519.

Gray J (1970) The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy
8(3): 249–266.

Gray J and McNaughton N (2000) The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Sep-
to-Hippocampal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harmon-Jones E, Lueck L, Fearn M, et al. (2006) The effect of personal relevance and approach-related ac-
tion expectation on relative left frontal cortical activity. Psychological Science 17(5): 434–440.

Health and Safety Executive (2019) Health and Safety at Work: Summary Statistics for Great Britain 2019.
Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1819.pdf (accessed 1 July 2020).

Hornsby JS, Naffziger DW, Kuratko DF, et al. (1993) An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17(2): 29–37.

Hughes M and Mustafa M (2017) Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence from an
emerging economy. Journal of Small Business Management 55(sup1): 115–140.

Huo M-L, Boxall P and Cheung GW (2019) Lean production, work intensification and employee wellbeing:
Can line-manager support make a difference? Economic and Industrial Democracy. 0143831X19890678.

Kattenbach R and Fietze S (2018) Entrepreneurial orientation and the job demands-resources model. Per-
sonnel Review 47(3): 745–764.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 20 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Kuratko DF (2012) Corporate entrepreneurship. In D Hjorth (ed) Handbook on organisational entrepreneur-

ship. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, pp. 226–241.

Kuratko DF and Audretsch DB (2013) Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International En-
trepreneurship and Management Journal 9(3): 323–335.

Magee W (2013) Anxiety, demoralization, and the gender difference in job satisfaction. Sex Roles 69(5–6):
308–322.

Nielsen K and Daniels K (2016) The relationship between transformational leadership and follower sickness
absence: The role of presenteeism. Work & Stress, 30(2), 193–208.

Neessen PC, Caniëls MC, Vos B, et al. (2019) The intrapreneurial employee: Toward an integrated model
of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15(2):
545–571.

Paek B and Lee H (2018) Strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage of established firms: Evi-
dence from the digital TV industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14(4): 883–925.

Patterson CM and Newman JP (1993) Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological
mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review 100(4): 716–736.

Pinchot III G (1985) Intrapreneuring: Why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research
Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Ployhart RE and Bartunek JM (2019) Editors’ comments: There is nothing so theoretical as good practice – A
call for phenomenal theory. Academy of Management Review 44(3): 493–497.

Portales L (2019) Social intrapreneurship, the main factor of social innovations within traditional Companies.
In Social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Cham: Palgrave Macmillian, pp. 147–160.

Preenen PT, Dorenbosch L, Plantinga E, et al. (2019) The influence of task challenge on skill utilization, af-
fective wellbeing and intrapreneurial behaviour. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(4): 954–975.

Rigtering J and Weitzel U (2013) Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for intrapreneurship.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9(3): 337–360.

Ronen S (2010) Chapter 13 Determinants of intrapreneurship among high-tech engineers. In A Malach-Pines

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 21 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

and MF Öxzbilgin (eds) Handbook of research on high-technology entrepreneurs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp. 233–251.

Sharma P and Chrisman JJ (1999) Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 11–28.

Shepherd DA, Covin JG and Kuratko DF (2009) Project failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing
the grief process. Journal of Business Venturing 24(6): 588–600.

Shir N, Nikolaev BN and Wincent J (2019) Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role of psychological auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness. Journal of Business Venturing 34(5): 105875.

Shoji K, Cieslak R, Smoktunowicz E, et al. (2016) Associations between job burnout and self-efficacy: A meta-
analysis. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 29(4): 367–386.

Sørensen J and Fassiotto M (2011) Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science 22(5):
1322–1331.

Stevenson H and Jarillo J (1990) A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic

Management Journal 11: 17–27.

Strauss K, Parker SK and O'Shea D (2017) When does proactivity have a cost? Motivation at work moderates
the effects of proactive work behavior on employee job strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior 100: 15–26.

Valsania SE, Moriano J and Molero F (2016) Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial behavior: Cross-level
analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification and empowerment. International Entrepreneur-
ship and Management Journal 12(1): 131–152.

Vargas C, Cañadas GA, Aguayo R, et al. (2014) Which occupational risk factors are associated with burnout
in nursing? A meta-analytic study. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14(1): 28–38.

Wakkee I, Elfring T and Monaghan S (2010) Creating entrepreneurial employees in traditional service sectors.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 6(1): 1–21.

Wiklund J, Nikolaev B, Shir N, et al. (2019) Entrepreneurship and well-being: Past, present, and future. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing 34(4): 579–588.

Wilks D and Neto F (2013) Workplace well-being, gender and age: Examining the ‘double jeopardy’ effect.
Social Indicators Research 114(3): 875–890.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 22 of 23
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Woo HR (2018) Personality traits and intrapreneurship: the mediating effect of career adaptability. Career De-
velopment International 23(2): 145–162.

Wood CC, Holt DT, Reed TS, et al. (2008) Perceptions of corporate entrepreneurship in air force organiza-
tions: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 21(1): 117–131.

• organizations
• wellbeing

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 23 of 23