The effects of Intrapreneurship Tendencies on Social Innovation in Organizations A Practice on Emplo
Yildiz Social Science Review 2023, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 16-26; doi.org/10.51803/yssr.1133006
Abstract
Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Innovation; Social Innovation; Economy.
1. Introduction
All establishments have to survive in the present economy in order to maintain their survival in the world. Developments in the world all together have impacts on this survival process. The establishments that can renew, change or develop themselves are more likely to survive, which is only possible with entrepreneurship and social innovations. Regardless of how those two concepts mentioned before seem to be different and independent from each other, experts in both groups are of creative and innovative character. Entrepreneurs make all necessary innovations where they work whereas social innovation experts attempt to remove off the communal barriers before these innovations (Agca and Buyukaslan, 2016). The first actions in innovation, a function of entrepreneurship, took place in the socio-cultural leg. However, the focus of practices shifted to a point of view toward the economy and community as time passed. Due to failures and communal problems in previous economies, it is inevitable to consider these two events as a whole.
1.1. Entrepreneurship: Definition
In the most general sense, entrepreneurship is starting a business for profit by taking risks, which remains at the forefront of the world and is a dynamic that is blended with technology. Having harsh working conditions and thoughts of earning more money, workers are encouraged to make new attempts. There has been complexity in the definition of entrepreneurship since some individuals are more able to observe or create new opportunities while some are more successful in realizing their ideas and dreams than others (Arikan, 2004). Reviewing the studies on entrepreneurship, it is seen there is a conflict between the concepts of management and entrepreneurship. Upon investigating entrepreneur models, individuals are seen to be going on an independent, short-term, dynamic, and opportunist path. It is normal for them to behave professionally within the establishment they started and run during growth. In this sense, they are
of Professional characteristics rather than any managers (Berber, 2000). Another dynamic that is studied with entrepreneurship is leadership. The general sense is that entrepreneurs must be leaders. The leadership characteristics that entrepreneurs have is seen to be one of the most significant factors for executive success. The responsibility of a manager is defined as directing all people in an establishment toward the same vision, motivating and supporting them for success (Arikan, 2002). Establishments are much trying to be more corporate in the present global world system. As a result of increasing attempts in terms of entrepreneurship in establishments, competition within a market has risen (Cetindamar and Fis, 2007). Establishments have developed two separate theories as “establishment entrepreneurship” and “corporate entrepreneurship” for defining entrepreneur behaviors (Alpkan et al. 2005; Danisman and Erkocaoglan, 2007). The goal of corporate entrepreneurship is to benefit from opportunities in fast-changing markets, create a dynamic competitive atmosphere, maintain an innovative and competitive organizational structure, and be flexible (Covin and Covin, 1990). Having lots of definitions, entrepreneurship is defined as the actions of individuals having entrepreneurial qualities in an establishment by Drucker and as the individuals who take responsibility implement any ideas in an establishment by Pinchot (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; Agca and Yoruk, 2006). Differently, Markoysa (2008: 374) defined intrapreneurship as those who are energetic, creative, risk-taking, flexible, and innovative characteristics. Taking all these into consideration, it would be possible to define intrapreneurship as helping an establishment to compete in the related sector by one who has or must have the qualities of an entrepreneur and his or her behaviors of taking risks to increase profits. Entrepreneurs enable any candidates of entrepreneurial characteristics in an establishment. Those who are discovered by work and organization networks and particularly
previous entrepreneurs are defined as entrepreneurs. When viewed from this aspect, the first entrepreneurs seem to be a catalyzer, who take responsibilities with the new entrepreneurs and then fade themselves to make new ones independent.
1.2. Entrepreneurship: Dimensions
Making Changes/Innovation: The process of creating new products, services, processes, Technologies, and methods (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). Risk Taking: Despite the possibility to lose, deciding on investment and taking strategic actions to evaluate new opportunities in an atmosphere of uncertainty (Lumpkin and Dess 1996-2001). Pro activeness: Top management’s and establishment’s tendency to be a leader and to make new attempts (Lumpkin and Dess 1996-2001). Autonomy: Independence that an individual, group, or establishment shows during expressing an idea or a vision (Lumpking and Dess, 1996). Starting a New Business: Creating new products, works, and new autonomous units or semi-autonomous firms in the present establishment (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001-2003). Self-Renewal/Strategical Renewal: Re-formulating the goals and strategies, re-defining work concepts, and re-organizational and organizational change (Antoncic, 2000). Competitive Initiative: Positioning toward the rivals or challenging them in the market directly and intensely (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Antoncic, 2000).
1.3. Innovation: Definition
Innovation is defined as implementing products, new marketing styles, organizational management or processes, which are considerably developed, in in-establishment practices, establishments or external affairs (Yavuz, 2000). 1.3.1. Social Innovation Social innovation is defined as creating innovative solutions to cultural, economic, communal, and environmental problems and implementing them in real life for people, the community, and the planet themselves. Lots of social entrepreneurs today benefit from social innovations for solutions to present problems that people face. Thanks to social innovation, solutions are possible for such problems as lack of energy and resources, economic crisis, poverty, discrimination, health problems, educational problems, and demographic instabilities (Özdemir and Ar, 2015).
2. Method
The study employed general survey model based on quantitative data. The universe is the individuals living in İstanbul city while the sample consisted of 390 individuals randomly chosen and volunteered in participating in the
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
study. The study is limited to İstanbul city and results are only used for the survey. Presumptively, the participants did not misunderstand the questions and answers them right.
2.1. Data Collection and Analysis
The survey form consisted of 3 sections. The first section is formed for collecting data on their demographic characteristics. “Entrepreneurship Scale” developed by Naktiyok is used in the second section. The scale is developed for evaluating 4 dimensions of innovation, proactive behaviors, new entrepreneurship, and renewal tendency, which included 18 questions. In addition, a comprehensive literature review is conducted, and it is seen that risk-taking, autonomy, and competition are actively used in entrepreneurship. All in all, these 3 dimensions are included in 4 dimensions, and an entrepreneurship scale of 7 dimensions and 33 questions is formed. Factor analysis made by Arat stresses on factor load to be over 0.40 in the entrepreneurship scale. Factor analysis show that there are 7 factors and 29 variables in the Entrepreneurship Scale. It is found that 7 factors revealed 71% of the total variance. Reliability analysis show Cronbach Alpha value is 0.933. In the third section, the “Social Innovation Scale” developed by Eren (2010) is performed. As a result of factor analysis, the 7th question of 9 show the factor load range is 0.559-0.777 and Cronbach Alpha coefficient is 0.858 and revealed 51.382% of the total variance. In the current study, quantitative data collected from the managers in establishments for workers are analyzed using SPSS 23 package software. Reliability analysis of the data is conducted through the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. Skew and kurtosis values are analyzed to determine whether data in sub-dimensions are in the normal distribution. Data transformation is conducted by drawing squares for the “Social Innovation” variance that did not distribute normally. Unpaired T-Test and One-Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) are conducted to determine whether Entrepreneurship Scale and Social Innovation Scale show significance in relation to demographic variables. Simple Linear Regression and Multiple Regression Analyses are performed to find out the predicator effect of entrepreneurship on social innovation. All analyses are performed at 95% reliability.
3. Results
Reviewing demographic characteristics of the participants, 74.87% are male, 36.92% are between 31-37 years and 61.28% are married. 66.15% had bachelor’s degrees and 22.82% has working experience between 6 to 8 years presented in Table 1.
3.1. Reliability Analysis of Scale Dimensions
Reliability criteria in accordance with the Cronbach alpha coefficient are as follows (Ozdamar, 1999).
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
Table 1. Distribution of Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Entrepreneurship Scale Gender Novel entrepreneur Female 98 25.13 Renewal period Male
Education proactive behavior, innovation, risk taking, and intraprePrimary school
0.80. <α <1.00, scale is highly reliable.
Table 2 shows “Renewal period” (0.719), “Autonomy” (0.780), “Competitive entertainment” (0.632), “Proactive behavior” (0.785), “Innovation” (0.787) and “Risk-taking” (0.746) are moderately reliable while “Competitive entrepreneur” (0.825) is highly reliable. The total Reliability calculation of the entrepreneurship Scale is 0.940 (highly reliable). The total Reliability calculation of the Social Innovation Scale is 0.911 (highly reliable).
3.2. Comparison of Sub-dimensions of
Entrepreneurship Scale and Social Innovation Scale and Demographic Variables Research question: Do sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with gender? Table 3 shows “Inter-personal” (=0.512), “Autonomy” (=0.251), “Competitive entrepreneurship” (=0.248), “Proactive behavior” (=0.386), “Innovation” (=0.898), “Risk taking” (= 0.244), and “Intrapreneurship” (=0.544) do not show significance in relation to gender. In other words,
neurship levels of both genders show similarity. Different from this, it is found out that “Renewal period” (=0.001) show significance in accordance with gender. Moreover, it is seen that renewal duration of women (=3.88) is higher than men (=3.62). It is seen that “Social innovation” (=0.0 15) show significance, also. Social innovation level of women (=4.21) is higher than men’s (=3.98). Research question: Do sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with age? Table 4 shows ANOVA results “New Entrepreneurship” (=0.000), “autonomy” (=0.000), competitive entrepreneurship” (=0.000), “innovation” (=0.000), “risk taking” (=0.001), “entrepreneurship” (=0.000), and “social innovation” (=0.000) are significant in accordance with age. Paired comparison results show new entrepreneurship level of the participants between 31-37 years is considerably lower than those between 24-30 (=3.47; =0.000) and over 38 years (=3.30; =0.038). It is found out that autonomy level of the participants between 31-37 years (=3.11) is higher than those between 24-30 (=3.53; =0.000) and over 38 years (=3.71; =0.000). Entrepreneurship level of those over 38 (= 3.86) is higher than those between 24-30 (=3.53; =0.002) and 3137 (=3.36; =0.000). Proactive behavior level of participants 31-37 (=3.21) is lower than those 24-30 (=3.74; =0.005) and over 38 (=4). Innovation level of participants between 3137 years (=3.42) is lower than those between 24-30 (=3.53; =0.025) and over 38 (=3.73; =0.000). Risk taking level of the participants 31-37 (=2.5) is lower than those over 38 (=3.15; =0,003). Entrepreneurship level of those 31-37 (=3.21) is lower than those 24-30 (=3.49; =0.002) and over 38 (=3.66; =0.000). In innovation dimension, social innovation level of those over 38 (=4.30) is significantly higher than those 24-30 (=4.07; =0.005) and between. 31-37 (=3.81) Research Question: Do sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with education history?
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
Table 3. Unpaired T Test Results to determine whether sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with gender?
Table 5 shows that “Competitive entrepreneurship” (0.272), “Proactive behavior” (=0.121), “Innovation” (=0.407), “Entrepreneurship” (0.514) and “social innovation” (0.234) are not significant in relation to education history. On the contrary, “new entrepreneurship” (=0.010), “autonomy” (=0.000), and “risk taking” (=0.000) show significance in accordance with education history. New entrepreneurship level of participants with bachelor’s degree (=3.02) is lower than those with below associate degree (=3.42; =0.049) and master’s degree (=3.31; =0.023). In the autonomy dimension, the autonomy level of those with master’s degrees (=3.92) is significantly higher than those with associate degrees (=3.41; =0.007) and bachelor’s degrees (=3.26) risk-taking level of those with master’s degrees (=3.26) is higher than those with below associate degrees (=2.50; =0.030) and bachelor’s degrees (=2.87). Research Question: Do sub-dimensions of entrepre-
neurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with Professional seniority? Table 6 shows that “new entrepreneurship” (=0.086), “renewal period” (=0.087), “autonomy” (=0.233), “competitive entrepreneurship” (=0.0169), and “entrepreneurship” (=0.248) dimensions are not significant in relation to professional seniority. On the contrary, “proactive behavior” (=0.000), “innovation”, “risk taking” (=0.004), and “social innovation” (=0.014) are significant in relation to professional seniority. Proactive behaviors of the participants with 9-12 years of professional seniority level is lower than those with 6-8 years (=3.72; =0.032) and more than 13 years (=4. 00; =0.000). The Innovation level of those 13 years and more (=3.67) is significantly higher than those with 9-12 years (=3.23; =0.020) of professional seniority. Risk taking level of the participants with less than 5 years of professional seniority (=3.12) is higher than those with 6-8 years of professional seniority (=2.71; =0.003).
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
Table 4. ANOVA results to determine whether sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with age ANOVA Results SD Score f X _
Research Question: Do sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with a working year in the establishment? Table 7 shows that working time had significance in accordance with all dimensions in the study. It is seen that new entrepreneurship level of the participants with 3-5
years of working time (=2.71) is lower than those with 2 years and less (=3.53; =0.000). In terms of “renewal time” (=0.000), the renewal time level of those with 3-5 years of working time (=3.32) is lower than those with 2 years and less (=3.74; =0.002) and 6-12 years. Autonomy level of those with 3-5 years of working time (=2.82) is lower than
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
Table 5. ANOVA results to determine whether sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with education ANOVA Results SD Score f X _
those with 2 years and less (=3.61; =0.000), 6-12 years (=3.63; =0.000) and 13 years and more (=3.65; =0.000). It is found that the level of “competitive entrepreneurship” of those with 3-5 years of working time (=3.23) is lower than those with 2 years (=3.59; =0.010), 6-12 years (=3.63; =0.000) and 13 years and more (=3.82; =0.000). Proactive
behavior level of the participants with 13 years and more of working time (=4.20) is higher than those with 2 years and less (=3.65; =0.000), 3-5 years (=3.41; =0.000) and 6-12 years (=3.80; =0.000). Innovation level of the participants with 13 years and more of working time (=4.06) in the establishment is higher than those with 2 years and less
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
Table 6. ANOVA results to determine whether sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with professional seniority ANOVA Results SD Score f X _
New entrepreneurship 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Renewal period 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Autonomy 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Competitive entrepreneurship 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Proactive behavior 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Innovation 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Risk taking 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Entrepreneurship 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133 Social Innovation 5 years and less 89 6-8 years 89 9-12 years 79 13 years and more 133
0.77 Inter-groups 5.085 3 1.695 2.212 0.98 In-group 295.788 386 0.766 0.85 Total 300.873 389 0.88
0.89 Inter-groups 3.550 3 1.183 2.201 0.69 In-group 207,.33 386 0.538 0.69 Total 211.083 389 0.67
0.84 Inter-groups 3.456 3 1.152 1.434 0.90 In-group 310.188 386 0.804 0.92 Total 313.644 389 0.92
0.84 Inter-groups 2.775 3 0.925 1.688 0.68 In-group 211.540 386 0.548 0.88 Total 214.315 389 0.60
1.02 Inter-groups 18.941 3 6.314 10.015 0.64 In-group 243.352 386 0.630 0.86 Total 262.293 389 0.66
0.95 Inter-groups 10.966 3 3.655 3.756 1.06 In-group 375.611 386 0.973 1.08 Total 386.577 389 0.90
0.72 Inter-groups 9.106 3 3.035 4.434 0.86 In-group 264.213 386 0.684 0.77 Total 273.319 389 0.91
0.80 Inter-groups 2.009 3 0.670 1.383 0.66 In-group 186.938 386 0.484 0.69 Total 188.947 389 0.65
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
Table 7. ANOVA results to determine whether sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship scale and social innovation scale show significance in accordance with working year ANOVA Results SD Score f X _
New entrepreneurship 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Renewal period 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Autonomy 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Competitive entrepreneurship 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Proactive behavior 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Innovation 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Risk taking 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Entrepreneurship 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79 Social Innovation 2 years and less 98 3-5 years 99 6-12 years 114 13 years and more 79
0.84 Inter-groups 41.373 3 13.791 20.514 0.83 In-group 259.500 386 0.672 0.80 Total 300.873 389 0.81
0.94 Inter-groups 20.255 3 6.752 13.657 0.69 In-group 190.827 386 0.494 0.57 Total 211.083 389 0.53
0.90 Inter-groups 48.833 3 16.278 23.727 0.77 In-group 264.810 386 0.686 0.85 Total 313.644 389 0.76
0.81 Inter-groups 16.894 3 5.631 11.011 0.77 In-group 197.420 386 0.511 0.60 Total 214315 389 0.66
1.04 Inter-groups 28.651 3 9.550 15.778 0.80 In-group 233.642 386 0.605 0.60 Total 262.293 389 0.58
1.00 Inter-groups 56.491 3 18.830 22.020 0.95 In-group 330.086 386 0.855 0.99 Total 386.577 389 0.67
0.70 Inter-groups 10.433 3 3.478 5.106 0.89 In-group 262.886 386 0.681 0.84 Total 273.319 389 0.85
0.81 Inter-groups 27.961 3 9.320 22.347 0.66 In-group 160.986 386 0.417 0.53 Total 188.947 389 0.55
Yıldız Social Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 16–26, 2023
(=3.57; =0.001), 3-5 years (=2.94; =0.000) and 6-12 years (=3.42; =0.000). Risk taking level of the participants with 3-5 years of working time (=2.67) is lower than those with 2 years and less (=3.08; =0.002) and 13 years and more of working time (=3.05; =0.021). Entrepreneurship level of those with 3-5 years of working time (=3.00) is lower than those with 2 years and less (=3.55; =0.000) 6-12 years (=3.50; =0.000) and 13 years and more (=3.74; =0.000). Social innovation level of the participants with 13 years and more of working time in the establishment (=3.73) is higher than the participants with 2 years and less (=4.12; =0.016) 3-5 years (=3.99; =0.000) and 6-12 years (=4.39; =0.005).
4. Conclusion
The purpose of the study is to determine the effects of the entrepreneurship tendency of organizational employees on social innovation. The study employed scales the reliability and validity of which are conducted in previous research. Factor analysis is performed to determine their structure validity. As a result, it is seen the factors are effectively explained. The study is conducted with 390 participants working in Demirdöküm Factories. The Innovation Scale includes 29 and the Social Innovation Scale consists of 8 questions. The total reliability analysis calculation of entrepreneurship scale is 0,940 (highly reliable) and of social innovation scale is 0,911 (highly reliable). The results of the study are as follows: • It is seen that the dimensions of renewal and social innovation show significance level in accordance with gender. Renewal and social innovation levels of women are higher than men. • The levels of new entrepreneurship and renewal of the participants between 31-37 years are lower than those between 24-30 and 38. • Competition levels of those over 38 years are lower than those between 24-30 and 31-37. • The levels of proactive behavior and innovation of the participants 31-37 are lower than those 24-30 and 38 and more. • Risk taking level of the participants between 31-37 years is lower than those 38 years and more. • Entrepreneurship level of the participants between 3137 years is lower than those between 24-30 years and 38 years and more. • Innovation level of the participants who are 38 and more years is higher than those between 24-30 and 31-37. • New entrepreneurship level of the participants with master’s degree is lower than those with bachelor’s degree and below. • Innovation level of the participants with associate degree and below is significantly lower than those with bachelor’s degree. • Autonomy and risk-taking levels of those with master’s
degree are significantly higher than those with associate degree and bachelor’s degree. • Proactive behavior level of the participants with 9-12 years of professional seniority is significantly lower than those with 6-8 years and 13 years and more of professional seniority. • Innovation level of the participants with 13 years of professional seniority is higher than those with between 9-12 years. • Risk taking level of the participants with 5 years and less is higher than those with 6-8 years of professional seniority. • New entrepreneurship level of the participants with 3-5 years of working time in the establishment is significantly lower than those with 2 years, 6-12 years and 13 years and more. • Innovation level of those with 13 years and more of professional seniority is higher than those with 2 years and less, 3-5 years and 6-12 years of professional seniority. • Autonomy and competitive entrepreneurship levels of those with 3-5 years of working history in the establishment is lower than those with 2 years and less, 6-12 years and 13 years and more. • Proactive behavior level of the participants with 13 years and more of working time in the establishment is significantly higher than those with 2 years and less. • Innovation level of the participants with 13 years and more of working time in the establishment is significantly higher than those with 2 years and less, 3-5 years and 6-12 years. • Risk taking level of the participants with 3-5 years of working time in the establishment is significantly lower than those with 2 years and less, 3-5 years and 6-12 years and 13 years and more. • Social innovation taking level of the participants with 13 years of working time in the establishment is significantly higher than those with 2 years and less, 3-5 years and 6-12 years • It is found that there is a positive and significant association between social innovation level and entrepreneurship. In other words, as creativity level of employees and workers increase, their entrepreneurship level rises. In general, the study is conducted to determine the effects of entrepreneurship tendencies on social innovation. The dimensions of entrepreneurship affect social innovation dimensions that can develop via social entrepreneurs. In a community, if the individuals are of social innovation qualities, that community will develop in a fast way. The literature review shows that there are only a handful of studies conducted on entrepreneurship and social innovation. Thus, it is thought the current study is of a high significance for future research. Ethics: There are no ethical issues with the publication of this manuscript. Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed. Conflict of Interest: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Authorship Contributions: Concept: A.R.; Design: N.P.; Supervision: N.P.; Resources: M.A.; Data collection and/or processing: A.R.; Analysis and/or interpretation: A.R.; Literature search: M.A.; Writing Manuscript: N.P.; Critical review: A.R. Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.
References
- Ağca, V., & Böyükaslan, H. D. (2016). aile işletmelerinde iç girişimciliğin sosyal girişimciliğe etkisi: Afyonkarahisar’da bir araştırma. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, 55-65.
- Ağca, V. & Yörük, D. (2006). Bağımsız girişimcilik ve iç girişimcilik arasındaki farklar: Kavramsal bir çerçeve. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, (2), 155-173.
- Antoncic, B. (2007). Intrapreneurship: A comparative structural equation modeling study. Industrial Management&Data Systems, 17(3), 309-325.
- Arıkan, S. (2002-2004). Girişimcilik temel kavramlar ve bazı güncel konular. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
- Berber, A. (2000). Girişimci ile yönetici profilinin karşılaştırılması ve girişimcilikten yöneticiliğe geçiş süreci. İ. Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 23-44.
- Covin, J. G. & Covin, T. J. (1990). Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context and small firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 35-50.
- Çetindamar, D., & Fiş, A. M. (2007). Schumpeter’s Twins: Entrepreneur and Intrapreneur. in Ed. E.G. Carayannis ve C. Ziemnowicz, Re-Discovering Schumpeter Four Score Years Later: Creative Destruction Evolving into ‘Mode3’, Macmillan Palgrave Press.
- Danışman, A. & Erkocaoğlan, E. (2007). Kurumsal girişimcilik ve firma performansı: İMKB’de işlem gören firmalar üzerinde bir araştırma. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 22(11), 82-101.
- Eren, H. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyal inovasyon kapasitelerinin teknolojik yenilikçilik eğilimlerine etkisini ölçmeye yönelik bir model önerisi. Ankara Kara Harp Okulu Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü Teknoloji Yönetimi Ana Bilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
- Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarıfying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking ıt to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
- Markovska, M. (2008). Intrepreneurship-way of work in organisations for ımprovement of working quality. 5th International Scientific Conference, Business and Management, 372-377.
- Özdemir F., Ar, M. (2015). Sosyal yenilik üzerine bir alan araştırması. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, (1), 35-45.
- Yavuz, Ç. (2010). İşletmelerde inovasyon-performans ilişkisinin incelenmesine dönük bir çalışma. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 5(2), 141-150.
Share and Cite
PERGEN, N.; RAZA, A.; ALİ, M. The effects of Intrapreneurship Tendencies on Social Innovation in Organizations A Practice on Emplo. Yildiz Social Science Review 2023, Vol. 9, pp. 16-26. https://doi.org/10.51803/yssr.1133006