Introduction

Over the years, employees are playing the significant roles in determining the growth of an organization. Despite of the conventional roles of being a passive recipients of tasks in the workplace, the new culture in the workplace is shifting employees to play the role of innovators and differentiators (Neessen et al., 2019). To contribute to organization’s growth, employees are encouraged to have intrapreneur behaviours to enhance the productivity and innovation capability to boost the organization performance in Malaysia. According to a news report, Malaysia’s workplace has been the one that experienced high percentage of productivity loss (Fong, 2017). The low productivity of the labour has indirect relationship with lower wages given by the employer to reduce the labour cost and gain higher revenues. This serious condition of the labour low productivity has affected the country’s economy to decline from years to years. However, people are not concerned about their productivity, the labours in Malaysia only concerned about their monthly wages. Most of the workers do not have the motivation to implement intrapreneur behaviour as they might not have the rewards or promotion, these attitudes of employees have further reduced the productivity which led to an affect towards Malaysia’s overall workforce performance (Yafi et al., 2021). Therefore, the need of the intrapreneur behaviour among the labours has become a hot topic in order to strengthen Malaysia’s workforce capability to compete with developed countries. Intrapreneur behaviours includes 5 dimensions which are innovativeness, proactiveness, opportunity recognition, risk-taking, and networking. It is an employee behaviour which similar and equates to entrepreneurship’s behaviour. The only difference will be intrapreneur is considered as an entrepreneurship within an organization or existing company (Stefanovici, 2012). With the aid of behaviour, it is believed that the Malaysia’s workforce can be improved in terms of productivity and innovativeness, which in turn help to stimulate the economy in Malaysia and increase the low wages problem in the current workforce.

Intrapreneur behaviours can be encouraged and cultivated among the workforce to enhance the innovativeness and productivity of a company. However, Malaysia’s education system does not involve related training and opportunity for young generation to utilize their intrapreneur’s behaviour and thus lead to a lack of this behaviour of the workforce (Tan, 2019). In order to maintain and further increase the productivity rate, it is claimed that Malaysia’s workforce requires more intrapreneurs in both private and public sector. This can help Malaysia labour to remain competitive and innovative in the global business environment. Besides, the negative behaviour of existing labour in the workforce is affecting the fresh graduates seriously. Usually, fresh graduates with limited working experiences will feel motivated and excited when they joined the workforce. They will try their best to compete with each other in order to get opportunities for promotion and increasing wages. However, limited skills and ill advice by the senior labours will influence the attitudes of these young generation and lead to the cultivation of similar negative behaviour. It will cause the new generation to follow existing employee’s conventional attitudes and make the new employee to ignore the intrapreneurship attitudes learned. Apart from that, companies are facing a more challenging and highly competitive environment nowadays. They need the culture of intrapreneurship to be implemented among human resources in the workplace to overcome the declining survival rates (Ambad & Wahab, 2016). Therefore, organization should not overlook their roles and responsibilities to encourage intrapreneur behaviours among its employees. Yet, there are some people claims that the problem above will arise is due to the organization lack of knowledge about what and how can form the intrapreneur behaviour. Therefore, this study aims to find out the impact of the personal characteristics on intrapreneurial behaviour.

The main objective of this research is to study the impact of personal characteristics on the intrapreneurs’ behaviour. Thus, the objectives are:

1. To investigate the impact of the personal competency on the formation of intrapreneur behaviour.

2. To investigate the impact of innovativeness on the formation of intrapreneur behaviour.

3. To investigate the impact of learning competency on the formation of intrapreneur behaviour

4. To investigate the impact of previous experience on the formation of intrapreneur behaviour

To address the identified problems in the literature, this study will focus on these research questions:

RQ1: What will be the impact of personal competency on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace?

RQ2: What will be the impact of innovativeness on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace?

RQ3: What will be the impact of learning competency on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace?

RQ4: What will be the impact of previous experience on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace?

By conducting this study, the gap of the intrapreneurship demand and supply can be closed. This will boost organization performance and ensure the growth of the organization in Malaysia. This study can also contribute to enhance productivity rate as the intrapreneur will work proactively and innovatively. Many past researches are investigating about how the intrapreneurship will affect the organization performance (Neessen et al., 2019). Although some past research discussed about which organizational factors can motivate intrapreneur behaviour, however, the study was limited to the general workplace instead of Malaysia’s workplace (Badoiu et al., 2020). Through this study, it would be beneficial towards all SMEs from different sectors within Malaysia which allow them to understand employees’ characteristic in the process of intrapreneurship formation. Besides, this study can further encourage and motivate more organizations to implement rewards program for workers who equipped with intrapreneur behaviour and practise the behaviour while working. Moreover, this study helps employees to understand themselves on how their personal characteristics can form the intrapreneur behaviour which encourage more people to implement intrapreneurial working behaviour.

As for the objectives, the scope of this study is to identify the effect of personal characteristics on the intrapreneur behaviour formation in the Malaysia’s workforce. Theory of planned behaviour stated that personal attitudes and characteristics are the antecedents of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, the limitation of this research is it only investigates the formation of behaviour through characteristics instead of covering both antecedents of behaviour formation in the theory.

Literature Review

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is developed by Ajzen (1991) based on the clues from Theory of Reasoned Action. According to Ajzen (1991), this can be used to assumes an individual’s intention toward a behaviour through 3 elements which are attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). It is claimed that intrapreneurial behaviour will be formed when an individual has the intention to do so. Besides, Ajzen (1991) also stated that the central factor in this theory is about the individual’s intention on performing a given behaviour which intention are the indicator to motivate people to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). According to Jokonya (2017), it is constructed based on three kind of considerations, which the more favourable an individual’s belief toward the attitude and subjective norm, the individual will have stronger intention to perform that behaviour (Jokonya, 2017). The attitude of a person to act intrapreneurial will influence the amount of intention to carry out specific behaviours. Apart from attitude, subjective norm in this theory is referred to a person’s perception about the normal perceived social pressures of people around regarding the choice of being an entrepreneur or intrapreneur (Mirjana et al., 2018). While the last element that preceding the intention according to TPB is the perceived behavioural control, which can be related with the characteristics of the intrapreneurial because these characteristics are considered as a person’s perception of their ability (Neessen et al., 2019).

Theory of Planned Behaviour has been applied in other field of study including sociology, psychology and management and it is the most popular theory used to investigate the human intention toward behaviour (Jokonya, 2017). Based on the theory, it is feasible to be used as TPB stated that attitudes and characteristics are considered as antecedents to the behaviour formation (Neessen et al., 2019). For characteristics, according to the literature, it stated that characteristics of a person are related with perceived control behaviour which is one of the considerations used in this theory to create the intention. Besides, a literature also stated that entrepreneurial behaviour could be considered as a type of planned behaviour which can be created from the intention (Bapoo et al., 2022). TPB also propose that intentions of an individual to act intrapreneurial can be predicted by a set of beliefs when they believed that the intrapreneurial behaviour will produce desired outcomes (Mirjana et al., 2018).

Intrapreneur Behaviour

The term “intrapreneurship” is defined as an entrepreneurship within an existing organization which can improve the internal business operations with similar behaviour as entrepreneur (Kovalev, 2015; Stefanovici, 2012). “Intrapreneur” refers to an employee within organization who can come out with new products or projects innovatively using the combination of existing resources and new idea (Badoiu et al., 2020). Besides, intrapreneurial behaviour can also be referred to an employee who invent new things and develop new ideas which is different from the customary to gain opportunities (Taştan & Güçel, 2014). Although intrapreneurship equip with similar behaviour as entrepreneurship, yet, according to past literature, there are some significant differences between both intrapreneur and entrepreneur (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2012). Intrapreneurs tend to make risky decision which use the company resources while entrepreneurs’ decision is based upon own resources. It shown that in terms of risk and resources, intrapreneurs will equip with a behaviour that prefer to take risk in decision making on behalf of the organisation (Sinha & Srivastava, 2013). As even if they fail to achieve the return on investment target, the risk will be at individual level or losing organisation resources which will lead to the formation of intrapreneur behaviour from risk-taking dimensions (Neessen et al., 2019). Apart from this, employees with intrapreneur behaviour will have own peculiar principles such as self-motivated, work in high excitement, creating networks, curiosity for inventions and so on (Kovalev, 2015). According to Pinchot (1985), intrapreneur also equip with a behaviour on constructing team spirit, they tend to address the problem arise in organisation as a team rather than work individually (Gursoy & Guven, 2016). People with intrapreneurship will encompass team actions that behave in a manner of entrepreneur which can serve the benefit and utilize the large firms’ resources to gain maximum profit with innovative ideas (Cadar et al., 2015). As intrapreneurs are activating their behaviour within the border of organization, some obstacles they are required to overcome especially the corporate culture (Kovalev, 2015). According to past literature, researchers found that intrapreneurship’s behaviours are mostly concentrated on some dimensions, namely employees ability to innovate, proactive, risk-taking behaviours and new business venture (Serinkan et al., 2013). This dimensions had been merged into operating firm ranging from large corporate to Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (SME) as it is found that organization success can be achieved with the new techniques and strategies created from intrapreneur within organization (Gursoy & Guven, 2016). It is claimed that corporate that operate in dynamic and rapidly changing environment must provide opportunities for employees to apply their intrapreneurial behaviour in completing their works (Kovalev, 2015). Apart from organization’s culture, the formation of the behaviour is highly dependent on employee’s own personal characteristics (Neessen et al., 2019). One-way motivation from company would not have significant impact and effectiveness on the formation of intrapreneurial behaviour.

The literatures of past research mainly focused on the discussion regarding the impact of intrapreneurship toward organization and how organization formed the culture that motivates the employee?s behaviour. However, only some study how the human capital attributes can aid in the formation of intrapreneurial behaviour in the workforce instead of specifically focus on the personal characteristics. The hypotheses are created to study the cause-and-effect between the personal characteristics and the formation of intrapreneur behaviour. Figure 1 shows the proposed theoretical framework for this study in which there are four independent variables namely personal competency, innovativeness, learning competency, and previous experience. The intrapreneurship behaviour is the dependent variable of this study.

Development of Hypotheses

All the hypotheses have been developed based on existing literature and are explained as below:

H1: Influence of Personal Competency on Intrapreneur Behaviour

To enable the intrapreneurial behaviour from the individual level, personal competency is the fundamental for an employee to have confidence in inventing and implementing some unique ideas (Sundin & Tillmar, 2008). Personal competency refer to the ability of an individual to complete a particular task or job which is measured by their level of performance and usually it includes both technical and behavioural elements of an individual (Patacsil & Tablatin, 2017, Mata et al., 2021). In this case, researchers have found that employers claimed that the training of personal soft skills is not under their responsibilities while it should be done in university level (Osmani, Weerakkody, Hindi & Eldabi, 2019). According to the literature, there are some personal competencies that can distinguish intrapreneurs from the employees within an organization, such as problem-solving and communication skills (Lee & Kelley, 2008). A past research literature also found that a person with persistent and endurance skills will have higher opportunities to form the intrapreneurial behaviour as they are more patient in trying and developing new innovation (Neessen et al., 2019). Besides, from the view of psychological entrepreneurship, networking skill and teamwork skill were expected to underlie intrapreneur’s personal skills (van Dam et al., 2010). These are considered as soft skills for the formation of intrapreneurship as it includes the attitudes and approaches of an employee taken to complete their works (Patacsil & Tablatin, 2017). These skills can be utilized in completing the task, for instance, employee who having tolerance skills will have the ability to sell and produce innovative ideas (Lee & Kelley, 2008). Moreover, it is found that employee must have some basic social skills to convince others, such as the top management with direct authority power to implement their new ideas in the existing business operations (Sundin & Tillmar, 2008). By doing so, intrapreneurial behaviour can be formed when employees have the skills to gain authority power to innovate and make decision. This contrast with a study that suggest organizational support is the antecedents to form intrapreneur behaviour as employees must have the skills to demonstrate their capabilities to gain trust from organization to adapt new ideas (Badoiu et al., 2020). With these literatures, a hypothesis for this research has been deduced as below:

H1: Personal competency will positively impact on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace.

H2: Impact of Innovativeness on Intrapreneur Behaviour.

Innovativeness refers to how a person view and belief themselves on whether they are capable enough to complete a task successfully or not (Hossain et al., 2021). According to a literature review, individual, process and context variables will influence people’s perceptions of their own ability to behave as intrapreneurs (Tehseen & Haider, 2021). Besides, innovativeness referred to self-efficacy or self-confidence characteristics of an employee in addressing problem which has a relationship with the formation of entrepreneurship behaviour (Neessen et al., 2019). An individual with high self-efficacy will reflect from their own attitudes in pursuing potential opportunities (Wang et al., 2013). Mair (2005) also claimed that the increasing consciousness of self-efficacy among employees can be used as an effective top management tool for a firm to enhance entrepreneurship behaviour in a firm. The argument above also supported and agreed by another researcher who think that innovativeness is an important variable to explain the formation of entrepreneurship behaviour among employees (Wakkee et al., 2010). Moreover, innovativeness related to individual’s confidence on whether they can successfully complete a task with a new innovative way while this variable has been found that it can be a significant driver of entrepreneur formation (Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2013). If individuals have positive perception on their own capabilities, they will have creative self-efficacy which help them to improve their performance, generate creative idea and thus construct their entrepreneurship behaviour (Di Fabio, 2014). It is also found that self-efficacy has played a significant role in determining entrepreneurial intentions and behaviour (Kevill et al., 2017). Besides, it is also found that when employee has higher self-efficacy, they will tend to have higher entrepreneurial behaviour and superior confidence to exploit new opportunities (Urbano et al., 2013). Based on the literature, a hypothesis for this research has been deduced as below:

H2: Innovativeness will positively impact on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace.

H3: Impact of Learning Competency on Intrapreneur Behaviour.

Learning competency known as a conclusion deduced from data and information learned through experience, education or training (Cheong & Tsui, 2010). An individual with domain knowledge that can be applied in the workforce will have higher possibility to form intrapreneurial behaviour (Neessen et al., 2019). Some of the researchers has similar point of view that prior knowledge is one of the major factors that lead to opportunity recognition process (Wang et al., 2013). According to past literature, it claimed that individuals who received higher quality in education may assist in the accumulation of explicit knowledge that drive and form intrapreneur behaviour among themselves (Urbano et al., 2013). Besides, if the employees had limited knowledge about the new ideas or technologies, their behaviour were shifted toward understand and implement it instead of taking action to influence and utilize the new things (Kevill et al., 2017). Learning competency can further be accumulated through education and training in human resource development activity after the individual has employed (Urbano et al., 2013). It was claimed that specific sets of knowledge (e.g. knowledge of job market and business operation’s domain knowledge) are needed to form intrapreneur behaviours (Van Dam et al., 2010). In order to ensure the success of intrapreneur initiatives, employees and managers must equip with domain knowledge and related skills. It can be done through training and in-house development activities to improve the understanding of the employees regarding latest domain (Neessen et al., 2019). This is because the opportunity recognition has highlighted that entrepreneurs will utilize what knowledge they learned to evaluate and identify any opportunities (Urban & Wood, 2017). Apart from that, to form intrapreneurial behaviour, it is proven that coaching can empower an individual to accomplish certain tasks and goals with the knowledge transferred (Wakkee et al., 2010). In the process of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, it is found that an individual with specific knowledge and insights is able to recognize opportunities successfully while others will only see it as a risk of failure (Wang et al., 2013). Contrarily, individuals with high level of knowledge regarding some domain might restrict themselves in taking the risk as innovation requires an implementation that across the border of existing knowledge base (Lee & Kelley, 2008). Therefore, a hypothesis for this research has been deduced as below:

H3: Learning competency will positively impact on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace.

H4: Impact of Previous Experience on Intrapreneur Behaviour

Along with personal skills, knowledge and perception, previous experience is also one of the determinants that lead to intrapreneurial activities such as new inventions and recognizing opportunities from a risk (Neessen et al., 2019). Furthermore, previous experience includes entrepreneurial experience, job experience, failure experience, social experience and intrapreneurial experience (Davis, 1999; Guerrero & Peña-Legazkue, 2013; Martiarena, 2013; Wakkee et al., 2010). Intrapreneurial experience is referred to a human capital attributes that make a person leads the development and implementation under the border of organization innovatively (Guerrero & Peña-Legazkue, 2013). While Martiarena (2013) has claimed that, previous experience are valuable human capital which help individual to have the ability to recognise things as an opportunities instead of risk. According to Davis (1999), he stated that previous experience is different among employees while it is reasonable that individuals with more experience would have specific decision-making approach which is different from individuals with less experience (Davis, 1999). Previous experience is undoubtedly importance as it’s associated with many kinds of assets including network of contact, managerial skills and technical skills that can view problems from different perspectives (Urbano et al., 2013). With a failure or successful experience before, individual will perform tasks differently as they will have some domain knowledge regarding to the similar task (Wakkee et al., 2010). Besides, experience helped experts to find a more effective way to process the information according to their rich knowledge structure learned from their past (Davis, 1999). Comparing to past uncertain tasks which an individual has been involved, individual can understand better for his or her next tasks more quickly and precisely instead of having the needs of learning from scratch (Lee & Kelley, 2008). Indeed, it can illustrate that previous experience is vital in reducing the risk and recognising business opportunities. Furthermore, an individual with more experience would be more innovative and effective in decision making as the information obtained in the past will have a potential to reduce the problems when facing adverse selection difficulties (Urbano et al., 2013). The combination of experience and knowledge could be one factor that lead individual to create a new business for parent firm when the intrapreneur behaviour has formed (Guerrero & Peña-Legazkue, 2013). Therefore, a hypothesis for this research has been deduced as below:

H4: Previous experience will positively impact on the formation of Intrapreneur behaviour in workplace.

Methodology

The research method selected is quantitative method as it is aligned with the research design which is aimed to collect information as much as possible to deduct the conclusion from the hypotheses. Quantitative methods involve collecting numerical data using structured and standardized instruments. In this case, closed-ended questionnaire is used in this study in order to combine and fit the different respondents’ experience into expected outcome (Yilmaz, 2013). As this research is collecting primary data, the first step of data collection in this study is preparing a structure closed-ended questionnaire regarding each variable. After the questionnaire has been developed, it is blasted to respondents which are the labours in the workforce through online. The procedure is then followed by the respondents were asked to further blast among colleagues in order to create snowball sample and reaching out more respondents (Goodman, 1961). The ethics for data collection is that respondents were asked to consent to ensure that they were participate voluntarily in the questionnaire. Besides, they were asked to read through the instruction and start answering the questionnaire as well as keeping the respondents’ identity private and confidential.

As mentioned earlier, the target population in this study were the employees in the Malaysia’s workforce either in public or private sector. While for the sampling method, the method adopted for this study is non-probability sampling. Non-probability sampling is the sampling approach which the opportunity of each unit to be selected is unknown (Rahi, 2017). According to Roscoe (1975) rule of thumb, most types of research must be conducted with a sample size in between 30 and 500. To reach out more respondents, a convenience sampling is used and initially the questionnaire was distributed to 10-20 workers in the workforce and then request them to blast to colleagues around them as a referral (Goodman, 1961).In this study, G* power analysis has been proposed for the determination of appropriate sample size. Based on 4 predictors, a minimum sample size should be 85 to provide a power of 0.80 while for the maximum sample size would be 129 in order to obtain the power of 0.95.

In this research study, the survey questionnaire is divided into two categories which are demographics part and research question part for each variable. The 5-point Likert scale method was used where 1 represents “strongly disagree” while 5 represents “strongly agree”. The section A of the survey questionnaire is to collect the demographics information of the respondents including their age, working experience, salary range and position. For section B, it is divided into 5 sub-sections where each section represents one variable in the framework for this study. The measures of all variables were adopted from the existing studies. For instance, 3 items of personal competency were adopted from Tehseen & Anderson (2020) and 5 items of innovativeness from Ali (2019) were included in measuring the studies. Another 4 items of learning competency from Tehseen & Anderson (2020) and 4 items for previous experience from Urbano (et al., 2013) are used in this survey. Finally, 4 items for intrapreneurial behaviour were adopted from Neessen, et al., (2019).

Data Analysis

Common Method Variance Bias

Bagozzi & Yi (1991, p. 426) define CMV as the “variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the construct of interest”. The empirical research within organizational studies has devoted much attention to the issue of CMV and how it may bias the findings of empirical analyses that use the same respondents as a source for obtaining data (Jakobsen & Jensen, 2015). Therefore, it is a necessary for the researchers to conduct CMV after collecting the data. Lindell & Whitney (2001) stated they suggested that there is a strong relationship between the dependent and independent variable. When the r>0.3, this is where the bias and may implement the common bias method. Bagozzi & Yi (1991) have described the method of assessing the impact of CMV through latent variables’ correlations. The CMV problems can be detected using the technique of Correlation Matrix Approach and the Lindell & Whitney (2001). CMV was not an issue in any study because the correlation among constructs was found less than 0.9 (Tehseen et al., 2017). Likewise, based on Lindell & Whitney (2011) approach, no common method bias was found because the correlation of marker variable was less than 0.3 with other variables. Since the data has been found without CMV issue, thus, its remaining analysis was done using SPSS and Smart PLS software’s.

Descriptive Data Analysis

A total of 146 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents who meet the requirements. In order to analyze the data accurately, the researcher has to ensure that the data collected is all completed with no missing value among all the answers. SPSS software was used to analyze the respondents’ demographic information. The majority of the respondents’ age is between 20 to 29 years old (68.5%) and 30 to 39 years old (22.6%), followed by 40 to 60 years old (5.5%) and 16 to 19 years old (3.4%) indicating that more elder people has retired and younger generations are still in the progress of studying. The questionnaire was mostly distributed to the Malaysian and the amount of male and female respondents are 37% for male and 63% for female. Besides that, most of the respondents’ highest qualification for degree and diploma is nearly equal which is degree (34.2%) and diploma (33.6%). The highest salary range is RM2001 to RM3000 which is 38.4% among all the respondents.

Measurement Model Analysis

The estimation of the measurement model relates the constructs to their measures (Jarvis et al., 2003). The measurement model consists the assessment of reliability and validity of variables and items. Reliability is measured to show internal consistency and is evaluated by Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, and rho_A values that should be above 0.6 (Hair et al., 2017). The convergent validity is the assessment to measure the level of correlation of multiple indicators of the same construct that are in agreement. To establish convergent validity, the factor loading of the indicators, Composite Reliability (CR) and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) have to be considered (Hamid et al., 2017). The value of AVE should exceed 0.50. Table 1 indicates the satisfactory values of reliabilities and AVE.

Table 1 Reliabilities And Convergent Validity
	Cronbach’s Alpha	rho_A	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Innovativeness	0.826	0.835	0.886	0.661
Intrapreneurial Behaviour	0.834	0.840	0.889	0.668
Learning Competency	0.881	0.890	0.918	0.737
Personal Competency	0.773	0.823	0.866	0.684
Previous Experience	0.841	0.842	0.904	0.759

After assessing the reliabilities and AVE, discriminant validity was then assessed which refers to the degree to which the constructs are actually different from each other empirically. In order to measure the discriminant validity of the data, Fornell-Larcker criterion method was used that compares the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) with the correlation of underlying constructions (Hair et al., 2014). The square root of each AVE ought to have a greater value than the connections with other variables (Hamid et al., 2017) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179–211. Crossref, Google scholar, Ali, I. (2019). Personality traits, individual innovativeness and satisfaction with life. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(1), 38-46. Crossref, Google scholar, Ambad, S.N.A., & Wahab, K.A. (2016). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: evidence from Malaysian large companies. International Journal of Business and Society, 17(2), 259-280. Google scholar, Badoiu, G.A., Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Escrig-Tena, A.B. (2020). Understanding employees’ Intrapreneurial behavior: A case study. Personnel Review. Crossref, Google scholar, Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research.Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 426-439. Crossref, Google scholar, Bapoo, M.A., Tehseen, S., Haider, S.A., Yusof, M., & Motaghi, H. (2022). Sustainability orientation and sustainable entrepreneurship intention: The mediating role of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition.Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 28(S2), 1-23. Google scholar, Cadar, Otilita, Badulescu, & Daniel. (2015). Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. A literature review. Google scholar, Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2012). The intrapreneur and innovation in creative firms. International Small Business Journal, 30(5), 513-535. Crossref, Google scholar, Cheong, R.K.F., & Tsui, E. (2010). The roles and values of personal knowledge management: An exploratory study. VINE. Crossref, Google scholar, Cohen, J. E. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Crossref, Google scholar, Daoud, J. (2017). Multicollinearity and Regression Analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 949, 012009. Crossref, Google scholar, Davis, K.S. (1999). Decision criteria in the evaluation of potential intrapreneurs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16(3-4), 295-327. Crossref, Google scholar, Di Fabio, A. (2014). Intrapreneurial self-capital: A new construct for the 21st century. Journal of Employment Counseling, 51(3), 98-111. Crossref,Google scholar, Douglas, E.J., & Fitzsimmons, J.R. (2013). Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: distinct constructs with different antecedents. Small business economics, 41(1), 115-132. Crossref, Google scholar, Fong, C.M. (2017, November 17). Survey: Malaysians work most hours but are least productive. The Star. Goodman, L.A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, 148-170. Crossref, Google scholar, Guerrero, M., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapreneurial experience on corporate venturing: Evidence from developed economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 397-416. Crossref, Google scholar, Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) (1st edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google scholar, Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. Crossref, Google scholar, Hamid, M., Sami, W., & Sidek M. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT Criterion.Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 890(2017), 012163. Crossref, Google scholar, Hossain, S.M., Akbar, A., Tehseen, S., Poulova, P., Haider, S.A., Sheraz, F., & Yasmin, F. (2021). Evaluation of entrepreneurs success: A special reference to women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 27(5), 1-13. Google scholar, Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015). Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3-30. Crossref, Google scholar, Jarvis, C., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, P. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators. Crossref, Google scholar, Jokonya, O. (2017). Critical literature review of theory of planned behavior in the information systems research.DEStech Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering. Crossref, Google scholar, Kevill, A., Trehan, K., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2017). Perceiving ‘capability’ within dynamic capabilities: The role of owner-manager self-efficacy. International Small Business Journal, 35(8), 883-902. Crossref, Google scholar, Kovalev, V. (2015). Intrapreneurshp: International experience: A qualitative study of companies in Russia, Sweden and Latvia. Crossref, Google scholar, Lee, H., & Kelley, D. (2008). Building dynamic capabilities for innovation: An exploratory study of key management practices. R&D Management, 38(2), 155-168. Crossref, Google scholar, Lindell, M.K. & Whitney, D.J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121. Crossref, Google scholar, Mair, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial behavior in a large traditional firm: Exploring key drivers. In corporate entrepreneurship and venturing, 49-72. Springer, Boston, MA. Crossref, Google scholar, Martiarena, A. (2013). What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs? Small Business Economics, 40(1), 27-39. Crossref, Google scholar, Mata, M.N., Sohail, M., Haider, S.A., Sheraz, F., Rita, J.X., … & Correia A.B. (2021). Impact the relationship between time management, work stress and work performance-a quantitative study in Portugal.Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), 1-11. Google scholar, Mirjana, P.B., Ana, A., & Marjana, M.S. (2018). Examining determinants of entrepreneurial intentions in Slovenia: applying the theory of planned behaviour and an innovative cognitive style.Economic Research, 31(1), 1453-1471. Crossref, Google scholar, Neessen, P.C., Caniëls, M.C., Vos, B., & De Jong, J.P. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 545-571. Crossref, Google scholar, Osmani, M., Weerakkody, V., Hindi, N., & Eldabi, T. (2019). Graduates employability skills: A review of literature against market demand. Journal of Education for Business, 94(7), 423-432. Crossref, Google scholar, Patacsil, F.F., & Tablatin, C.L.S. (2017). Exploring the importance of soft and hard skills as perceived by it internship students and industry: A gap analysis.Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(3), 347–368. Crossref, Google scholar 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. Google scholar, Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1-5. Google scholar Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M.A., (2018). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) using SMARTPLS 3.0: An updated and practical guide to statistical analysis (2nd edition). Pearson: Malaysia. Roscoe, J.T. (1975). Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, (2nd edition). New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Crossref, Google scholar, Rutherford, M.W., & Holt, D.T. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical look at the innovativeness dimension and its antecedents.Journal of Organizational Change Management. Crossref, Google scholar, Serinkan, C., Kaymakçi, K., Arat, G., & Avcik, C. (2013). An empirical study on intrapreneurship: In a service sector in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 715-719. Crossref, Google scholar Sinha, N., & Srivastava, K.B. (2013). Association of personality, work values and socio-cultural factors with intrapreneurial orientation. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 97-113. Crossref, Google scholar, Stefanovici, S. (2012). Intrapreneurship – a review of recent literature. National Productivity Review. Indexed at Sundin, E., & Tillmar, M. (2008). A nurse and a civil servant changing institutions: Entrepreneurial processes in different public sector organizations. Scandinavian journal of management, 24(2), 113-124. Crossref, Google scholar, Tan. K. (2019, April 1). Graft, inefficiency keep wages low. New Straits Time. Tastan, S.B., & Güçel, C. (2014). Explaining intrapreneurial behaviors of employees with perceived organizational climate and testing the mediating role of organizational identification: A research study among employees of Turkish innovative firms. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 150, 862-871. Crossref, Google scholar Tehseen, S., & Anderson, A.R. (2020). Cultures and entrepreneurial competencies; ethnic propensities and performance in Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. Crossref, Google scholar, Tehseen, S., & Haider, S.A. (2021). Impact of universities’ partnerships on students’ sustainable entrepreneurship intentions: A comparative study.Sustainability, 13(9), 5025. Crossref, Google scholar, Urban, B., & Wood, E. (2017). The innovating firm as corporate entrepreneurship.European Journal of Innovation Management. Crossref, Google scholar, Urbano, D., Alvarez, C., & Turró, A. (2013). Organizational resources and intrapreneurial activities: An international study.Management Decision. Crossref, Google scholar, van Dam, K., Schipper, M., & Runhaar, P. (2010). Developing a competency-based framework for teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 965-971. Crossref, Google scholar, Wakkee, I., Elfring, T., & Monaghan, S. (2010). Creating entrepreneurial employees in traditional service sectors. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 1-21. Crossref, Google scholar, Wang, Y.L., Ellinger, A.D., & Wu, Y.C.J. (2013). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: An empirical study of R&D personnel. Management Decision. Crossref, Google scholar, Winship, C., & Zhuo, X. (2018). Interpreting t-Statistics under publication bias: Rough rules. Crossref, Google scholar, Yafi, E., Tehseen, S., & Haider, S.A. (2021). Impact of green training on environmental performance through mediating role of competencies and motivation.Sustainability, 13(10), 5624. Crossref, Google scholar, Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European journal of education, 48(2), 311-325. Crossref, Google scholar, Received: 28-Dec-2021, Manuscript No. IJE-21-10224; Editor assigned: 30-Dec-2021, PreQC No. IJE-21-10224(PQ); Reviewed: 07-Jan-2022, QC No. IJE-21-10224; Revised: 19-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. IJE-21-10224(R); Published: 28-Jan-2022 Get the App