Keywords

Dyadic Social Intrapreneurship, Competitive Advantage, Human Resource Management, Organizational Transformation, Professional Culture

Introduction

The agricultural sector includes the subsectors of food crops and horticulture, plantation crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries. Indonesia has enormous potential in each of its agricultural subsectors, one of which is the plantation sector (Allam et al., 2011). Plantation has an important meaning, especially in developing countries that always strive to utilize natural resources in a sustainable way. In addition, the plantation subsector has an important role in national development, especially in improving the prosperity and welfare of the people, receiving foreign exchange, providing employment, obtaining added value and competitiveness, meeting domestic consumption needs, domestic industrial raw materials and optimization of sustainable management of natural resources. To encourage the real sector of plantations, the Directorate General of Plantations develops plantations through the Plantation Revitalization Program. Commodities prioritized in this program are oil palm, rubber and cocoa. The reason for prioritizing these three commodities is because these three commodities have a strategic role as a source of community income and absorb new labor. These three commodities have market prospects, both domestically and exportation.

The existence of development for an area has a big opportunity (McGranahan, 2007). The plantation sector tends to be consistent in its growth, both in terms of area and production. This agricultural subsector can survive despite the current economic crisis. Based on this opportunity, the government develops the potential of plantations. It can be seen that most of Indonesia has plantations, both government and private. Plantations are endeavored to increase people’s income. For this reason, coordination between the government, the private sector and the community itself is needed.

The development of plantations cultivated by the people in Central Java in the form of community plantations and large plantations has produced very valuable experiences and provides an understanding that the plantation business is directly related to economic, social and ecological aspects. In the economic aspect, the plantation business has given an important role, among others, in the revenue of the country’s foreign exchange, regional economic resources in the form of local own-source revenue and sources of community income. In the social aspect, the plantation business has been able to absorb a large enough workforce, both as the owning farmer and as a workforce. Whereas in ecological aspect, with the nature of plants in the form of trees, plantation business supports the preservation of natural resources and the environment, such as the preservation of water resources, the supply of oxygen as a source of human life and reducing degradation. The people’s core plantations (PIR) pattern is a relatively new pattern. In this pattern, archipelago plantation limited company (PTPN) and / or large private plantations (PBS) whose abilities are considered sufficient are given the task to develop a plantation, including its processing plant. The plantations are then divided into two parts, some of which are handed over to f plantation farmers (PIR participants) and some of them and their processing facilities belong to development companies. The portion given to farmers is called “plasma”, while what belongs to the company is called “core”.

Based on the background of the business phenomenon above, the researcher felt the need to examine the implementation of cooperation between oil palm plantation companies and local community-owned plasma plantation cooperatives in a partnership pattern. Literature review is very important to support the development of theoretical conceptual model and empirical model. Conceptually, two propositions are proposed, where the first proposition discusses the relationship between the organizational culture transformation, professional culture and social entrepreneurship, while the second proposition discusses the competitive advantage related to social entrepreneurship relations. From the review of the two propositions, the concept of The Proposed Grand Theoretical Model is produced.

The journal entitled “Organization Transformation Culture as Driver of Competitive Advantage” by Boniface C. at Grand Canyon University discussed that one of the leaders’ many responsibilities is the creation and maintenance of organizational characteristics that are valued and encourage cultural transformation. The organizational culture transformation stands as one of the important components to maintain performance, competitive advantage and good reasons to become a large company (Bingöl et al., 2013). The reason for failure in many organizations is the fact that leaders recognize culture as a tool that can create and maintain performance. Only a few leaders give proper attention to gaining a competitive advantage.

Empirical research that has been conducted previously related to testing the organizational culture transformation owned by companies in increasing entrepreneurship shows mixed research results. This research was conducted by Solomon George (2010), conducted at Ogun State, Nigeria. When organizational culture is well managed, effective communication can improve, and when effective communication is applied, the goals and objectives of the organization can be achieved. On this premise, this research focused on organizational culture (which is induced from both internal and external) which can produce the uniqueness of each organization. Culture, in the end, defines operations in organizations. In addition, organizational goals and objectives act as pillars of cultural transformation that moves throughout the organization in a certain direction. This research also discussed the role of managers as cosmopolitan in organizations that often interact with the external environment. They come in introducing new ideas to enrich organizational culture or cut down on productive values and beliefs. Therefore, this research also deals with how to manage organizational culture for effective organizational communication. Shin (2001) produced several e-business strategies through four marketing mix that can produce competitive advantage without ignoring

Organizational culture can be defined in many ways. However, many definitions include systems of meanings, assumptions, values, attitudes and shared beliefs that show in a series of informal behaviors, processes and structures. The organizational culture itself can be considered as a source of extraordinary competitive advantage. How to manage culture is as one of the internal components that contribute to entrepreneurial and transformation programs in companies at a low level of failure. Based on the description above, there is a contradiction between the concept and the phenomena as well as the findings of empirical research related to: (1) the influence of organizational culture on social entrepreneurship, the research results show that companies that have a good chance of transformation decide to make the transformation correctly and successfully good, but there are organizations that fail to transform; and (2) the variety of proxies used by previous research related to organizational culture.

In general, the objectives to be achieved in this research are to develop new theoretical approaches in an effort to resolve conceptual contradictions regarding the impact of organizational culture on developing culture for change, first through providing a socio-structural framework supporting entrepreneurship, and second through encouraging professional culture behavior with management practices or organizational members acting as agents of change forming a deeper culture of values and behavior. In the search for innovation in the global economy, organizations struggle to become more entrepreneurial. Organizational culture is widely recognized as a source that influences entrepreneurship in organizations, and organizations are often involved in entrepreneurship transformation programs to support the achievement of competitive advantage.

Theoretically, the results of this research are expected to contribute to the development of human resource management studies, especially theories or concepts about organizational culture owned by the company, and can foster entrepreneurship through the organizational culture transformation in order to achieve competitive advantage. The results of this research are expected to contribute to the integration of the development of dyadic social entrepreneurship models in the context of organizational culture transformation based on the professional culture dimension.

The originality of this research is to integrate branches of theory and propose an integrated model of entrepreneurship in a cultural framework. Furthermore, managerial implications at the strategic and operational levels and introducing concepts and frameworks to encourage intrapreneurship in organizations. This research was conducted in the form of studies and analyses, combining branches of organizational culture and cultural transformation with social entrepreneurship and using empirical data to validate findings in future research.

Literature Review

Organizational Culture Transformation

Organizational culture transformation is a process of strategic change from input into competitive output through internal processes. Blumenthal and Haspeslagh (1994) suggested that to be able to adapt to market changes, companies must create competence by conducting organizational culture transformation related to operational transformation, corporate self-renewal transformation and strategic transformation.

Organizational culture transformation starts from the stage of operational transformation with the main goal of achieving significant efficiency improvements through reducing the cost of improving quality, cutting process time and simplifying processes. Operational transformation focuses on internal inputs and processes in organizational systems. Development of organizational culture transformation will occur when organizations can identify different inputs from other companies.

The next transformation process is a social self-renewal transformation that focuses on work processes and internal feedback mechanisms in organizational relationships and organizational cultural processes to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Meanwhile, strategic transformation is a transformation that focuses on the entire system, which determines competitive advantage by means of re-creation of production that matches the organization’s core competencies and market opportunities.

The elements of organizational culture transformation as stated by Parker (2000) include transformations related to mission, strategy, culture and structure. It is argued that for organizational success, it is determined by the elements of organizational culture transformation. The definition of Parker (2000) refers to the model used by Burke and Litwin (1992) that the elements of organizational culture transformation have an impact on increasing corporate entrepreneurship. According to Tushman and O’Reilly (1996), the success of organizational transformation will be achieved after several years. Changes related to strategy, structure, culture and leadership skills take a relatively long time to go through various stages. According to Zahra et al. (2004), merger companies have the potential to influence organizational culture transformation.

Competitive Advantage

Kotler and Armstrong (2010) defined competitive advantage as an advantage over competitors obtained by offering value to consumers, either through lower prices or by providing more benefits that support higher price revenues. David and David (2013) described competitive advantage as a situation where a company can do something and another company cannot or has something that its competitors want. Grant (1991) stated the definition of competitive advantage is when two companies compete (in the same market and customers), one company has a level of profit and the potential to get a higher profit than the other company. The industrial organization (I/O) approach to competitive advantage states that external factors (industry) are more important than internal factors in companies that want to achieve competitive advantage (David & David, 2013).

There are two characteristics which, according to Wheelan and Hunger (2004), can determine sustainable competitive advantage: durability and imitability. Durability is the endurance of a company’s core competencies from obsolescence. Meanwhile, imitability is the endurance of the core competencies of competitors who want to emulate. In line with this, Harrison et al. (2010) explained the capability of a company can have the potential to create competitive advantages that have endurance if it has four criteria: unique, rare, too expensive to imitate and the absence of a substitute product.

According to David et al. (2000), to achieve sustainable competitive advantage is to continuously adapt to external trends and events as well as internal capabilities, competencies and resources, and effectively formulate, implement and evaluate strategies that take advantage of these factors. To reveal the big opportunities and threats faced by an organization so that managers can formulate strategies to take advantage of these opportunities and avoid or minimize the impact of emerging threats, companies can conduct external audits (David et al., 2000). Changes in external forces result in changes in consumer demand for industrial and consumer goods as well as services.

Competitive intelligence (CI), as defined by the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP), is a systematic and ethical process for gathering and analyzing information about competitors’ activities and general business trends to improve company goals (David & David, 2013). Intelligence data about competitors, according to Porter (1998), can come from a variety of sources: disseminated reports, presentations by competitor management before stock analysts, business press, salespeople, customers or MSMEs of companies that know competitors, inspections of competing products, estimates by company engineering staff, knowledge gathered from managers or other personnel who resign from competing companies and others.

Dyadic Social Entrepreneurship Based on Professional Culture (DSIBPC)

Hofstede (1994) suggested a six-dimensional framework for categorizing different professional cultures. These dimensions are as follows: process oriented vs. results oriented, employee oriented vs. work oriented, parochial vs. professional, open systems vs. closed system, loose control vs. tight control as well as normative vs. pragmatic. The first dimension characterizes whether the organization is primarily concerned with the intent or purpose. The second dimension defines how interested the organization is in the welfare of its employees rather than completing work assignments. The third dimension measures the extent to which organizational members determine their identity according to their organization or professional function. The fourth dimension, on the other hand, describes how to open or close the organization to outsiders and newcomers. The fifth dimension refers to the level of structuring and controlling within the organization. The sixth dimension defines how markets or norms are oriented towards organizational values. The ideal composition of these dimensions is bound to the context and culture of the industry, although it is recommended that organizations operating in dynamic and innovative industries usually have a high value of pragmatism and professionalism (Hofstede, 1994).

One of the entrepreneurship theories based on a cultural framework was suggested by (Menzel, 2008). The model is based on existing literature with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to determine the ideal organizational culture that supports entrepreneurship. Dimensions include individualism, masculinity, long-term orientation, open system orientation, power distance and avoidance of uncertainty. This model shows that entrepreneurial culture has the highest value in long-term orientation, and is quite high in open system orientation, masculinity and individualism; in contrast, gets low scores in avoiding uncertainty and power distance (Menzel, 2008).

Dyadic social entrepreneurship based on professional culture (DSIBPC) is a synthesis between dyadic social entrepreneurship and professional culture. Social entrepreneurs are people within the company who take direct initiatives for innovation in addressing profitable social or environmental challenges. Social entrepreneurs can take advantage of existing organizational infrastructure and capabilities to provide social value on a large scale. Medium or large companies that have partnership relationships with small companies have strong resource power in terms of creating an entrepreneurship climate, so that it will have an impact on increasing a company’s competitive advantage. Companies that apply a professional culture-based dyadic social entrepreneurship have characteristics, including: support for new ideas that are flexible, have a clearer future orientation and are individualized. Thus, companies that have organizational culture transformation supported by DSIBPC will be able to increase the company’s competitive advantage. Thus, the relationship between organizational culture transformation, social entrepreneurship, professional culture and entrepreneurship can be described in the form of a pictographic model in Figure 1.

DSIBPC is expected to mediate the relationship between organizational culture transformation and competitive advantage. Dyadic social entrepreneurs are measured using 3 indicators, namely: support for new ideas, flexibility and future orientation. A company that is able to work with business partners (foster subsidiaries), then the company will be able to increase its competitive advantage. That is because the company has more resource strength when compared to companies without any cooperation with business partners. With the company having new ideas, being more flexible and having a clear future orientation, the company will be able to increase its competitive advantage. According to Sprecher et al. (2002), personality approach and social network can complement each other and provide a useful framework for studying relationships, because traditional individualistic views are combined with the company’s contextual approach. According to Sirmon & Lane (2004), professional cultures exist when a group of people who work in the same job functionally share norms, values and beliefs associated with the job. Professional cultures develop through socialization received by individuals during their education and training work. Thus, companies that can implement DSIBPC will be able to increase their competitive advantage.

Hypothesis Development

Organizational culture transformation which includes changes in values, culture, systems and organizational strategy enables supporting the increase in entrepreneurial activities, which is reflected by risk taking and innovation. According to Sathe & Davidson (2000), the integration of attitudes in corporate culture is a prerequisite for organizations to evolve to a higher and value-oriented stage. This integration enables continuous, continuous change, as well as the transformational metamorphosis of organizational culture. Organizational culture at this stage is driven by values. The higher the stage of evolution, the higher the awareness of applying organizational values in the process towards a zone of cultural change. Research results of Gürlek and Tuna (2018); Kanten et al. (2015); Leonidou et al. (2013); Asiedu (2015) show that with a good organizational culture transformation, companies will be able to increase competitive advantage.

H1: Organizational culture transformation has a positive influence on competitive advantage.

Companies that implement DSIBPC have characteristics including: supporting new ideas, flexible and having a clearer future orientation (Thornberry, 2006). Thus, the company that can implement DSIBPC will be able to increase the company’s competitive advantage. Research results of Dunlap-Hinkler et al. (2010); Luo et al. (2005); & Aring;mo and Kolvereid (2005); Antoncic and Prodan (2008); Romero-Martínez et al. (2010) show that dyadic social entrepreneurship has positive influence on the company’s competitive advantage.

H2: DSIBPC has a positive influence on competitive advantage.

The research results of Alvesson (2012); Tyrrell (2000); Schein (2009) show that organizational culture transformation influences dyadic social entrepreneurship. Research results of &Dunlap-Hinkler et al., (2010); Luo et al. (2005); Åmo and Kolvereid (2005) ; Antoncic and Prodan (2008); Romero-Martínez et al. (2010) found evidence that dyadic social entrepreneurship is positively related to competitive advantage.

H3: DSIBPC can mediate the influence of organizational culture transformation on competitive advantage.

Methods

This research is a causality research, because this research was conducted to test the hypothesis about the effect of causality between one variable or several variables. According to Cooper and Schindler (2006), research based on exploration is included in causality research. In this research, a model that is expected to be able to explain the causality relationship between the variables analysed was developed and at the same time can make research implications that are useful for the development of science and as a method and technique for solving problems in the field.

The sampling technique in this research used purposive sampling, which is sampling based on objectives or based on certain criteria. Data collection techniques in this research used survey techniques by distributing questionnaires directly to managers and section heads who met the sampling requirements.

The data source in this research was primary data that was data obtained directly through surveys from respondents through questionnaire answers. The primary data taken was data about the responses of respondents relating to the variables studied. Data were collected using a list of questions regarding the characteristics of respondents and questions about the variables studied. Questions were presented in the form of statements to express responses accompanied by open questions. Statements in the list of questions related to the organizational culture transformation, DSIBPC and competitive advantage. Data analysis in this research used structural equation modelling (SEM) using the help of the AMOS program.

Results and Discussion

Fit Testing of Structural Equation Model

The fit test of the structural equation model was carried out to ensure the fit between the structural equation model being tested and the sample data used in this research. Model fit testing can be done by referring to several criteria. In this research, the fit of the structural equation model tested includes: chi-square (x2), probability, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative-fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed chi-square (CMIN / DF), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Testing the fit of the structural equation model produced the test index as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Model Fit Testing Index
Goodness-of-fit Index Criteria	Cut-off Values	Analysis Results	Explanation
Chi-square	152.037	26.798	Fit
Probability	= 0.05	0.314	Fit
TLI	= 0.95	0.994	Fit
CFI	= 0.95	0.996	Fit
GFI	= 0.90	0.955	Fit
AGFI	= 0.90	0.916	Fit
CMIN / DF	= 2.00 or = 5.00	1.117	Fit
RMSEA	= 0.08	0.031	Fit
Source: Primary Data Processed (2020)

The results of testing the fit of the structural equation model as explained earlier indicate that the model is fit because it has met the cut-off value, so the model is considered feasible to test the hypothesis. Hypothesis is a temporary conjecture as an answer to a research problem, so it needs to be confirmed empirically. In connection with the proposed hypothesis, it can be seen the results of the structural equation regression analysis in Table 2.

Table 2 Structural Equation Regression Test Results
			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Explanation
Competitive Advantage	<---	Organizational Culture Transformation	0.461	0.118	3.909	0.000	Significant
Competitive Advantage	<---	DSIBPC	0.453	0.124	3.654	0.000	Significant
Source: Primary Data Processed (2020)

The results of testing the fit of the structural equation model as explained earlier indicate that the model is fit because it has met the cut-off value, so the model is considered feasible to test the hypothesis. Hypothesis is a temporary conjecture as an answer to a research problem, so it needs to be confirmed empirically. In connection with the proposed hypothesis, it can be seen the results of the structural equation regression analysis in Table 2.

Testing of Hypothesis 1

Based on Table 2, it can be seen that the results of the first hypothesis test show the estimated parameter value of 0.461, the standard error (SE) value of 0.118 and the critical ratio value of 3.909 with a probability of 0.000. The values obtained prove that hypothesis 1 is empirically acceptable at an alpha (α) level of 0.01 or 1%. It can be concluded that the first hypothesis is proven, which states that the better the organizational culture transformation carried out by the organization, the competitive advantage will increase. Competitive advantage in organizations can be enhanced by increasing the organizational culture transformation through increasing indicators in it, namely: proactive, risk tolerance and innovative.

The results obtained in this research confirm the opinion that believes that to be able to adapt to market changes, companies must create competence by transforming organizational culture related to operational transformation, corporate self-renewal transformation and strategic transformation (Blumenthal & Haspeslagh, 1994). The results of this research prove the influence of the development of organizational culture transformation in PTPN IX and its business units that will occur when the organization can identify different inputs from other companies. The organizational culture transformation that includes changes in values, culture, systems and organizational strategies in PTPN IX and its business units enables support to increase entrepreneurial activities, which are reflected by risk-taking and innovation. The organizational culture in PTPN IX and its business units at this stage is driven by values. The higher the stage of evolution, the higher the awareness of applying organizational values in the process towards a zone of cultural change. Previous research which is also supported and in line with the results of this research is Bingöl et al. (2013) which shows that with the good organizational culture transformation, the company will be able to increase competitive advantage.

Testing of Hypothesis 2

Based on Table 2, it can be seen that the results of the second hypothesis test show the estimated parameter value of 0.453, the standard error (SE) value of 0.124 and the critical ratio value of 3.654 with a probability of 0.000. The values obtained prove that hypothesis 2 is empirically acceptable at the alpha (α) level of 0.01 or 1%. It can be concluded that the second hypothesis is proven which states that the better the DSIBPC carried out by the organization, the competitive advantage will increase. Competitive advantage in organizations can be enhanced by increasing DSIBPC through increasing indicators in it, namely: support for new ideas, flexibility and future orientation.

The results of this research prove that the culture that is very important in an organization is professional culture, that is, culture that is related to one’s work or profession (Hofstede, 1994). In order for the organizational culture of PTPN IX and its business units to have a major impact on increasing competitive advantage, the human resources within the company must have social entrepreneurship, that is, corporate human resources that can take direct initiatives for innovation that address social challenges or favorable environment. With PTPN IX and its business units able to synergize all capabilities possessed, including in establishing good interactions with business partners in terms of support for new ideas, flexibility and future orientation or in other words the company can implement DSIBPC, and then competitive advantage will be achieved. Previous research which is also supported and in line with the results of this research is the results of research from Gürlek and Tuna (2018) which show that dyadic social entrepreneurship influences competitive advantage. The research found evidence that dyadic social entrepreneurship is positively related to competitive advantage.

Testing of Hypothesis 3

To determine the direct effect of organizational culture transformation variable on competitive advantage, testing was done with the results shown in Figure 2; Source: Primary Data Processed (2020). The test results show that the direct effect of organizational culture transformation on competitive advantage is 0.46 with an estimated parameter value of 0.461, a standard error value of 0.118, critical ratio value 3.909 and the probability value of the significance level of 0.000 (at alpha (α) = 0.01). The results of this calculation indicate the significance of the direct influence between the two variables tested, so it can be concluded that the more the transformation of organizational culture, the more competitive advantage will be.

The indirect effect of organizational culture transformation variable on competitive advantage through DSIBPC was tested manually by multiplying the influence of organizational culture transformation on DSIBPC with the influence of DSIBPC on competitive advantage. Based on the calculation results obtained from the research model as shown in Figure 2, a value of 0.32 is obtained which is the result of multiplying the value of the influence of organizational culture transformation on DSIBPC of 0.71 with the value of the influence of DSIBPC on competitive advantage of 0.45. Based on this calculation, it can be seen the significance of the direct or indirect influence of organizational culture transformation variable on the competitive advantage variable, and the DSIBPC variable as a mediating variable plays a partial role.

The findings in this research confirm opinions about the important role of dyadic social entrepreneurship based on dyadic power theory. The results of this research prove the DSIBPC theory which is a synthesis between dyadic social entrepreneurship and professional culture. Medium or large companies that have a partnership with small companies have strong resource strength in terms of creating an entrepreneurship climate, so that it will have an impact on increasing the competitive advantage of the companies. Companies that implement DSIBPC have characteristics including: supporting new ideas, flexible and having a clearer future orientation (Gawke et al., 2018). Thus, PTPN IX and its fostered business units that have implemented DSIBPC will be able to increase the company’s competitive advantage. Previous research that is also supported and consistent with the results of this research is the results of research from Antoncic and Hisrich (2004) which show that DSIBPC has a mediating influence between the organizational culture transformations on competitive advantage.

Empirical Findings Regarding DSIBPC

This research proposed a new concept called DSIBPC, which is seen as able to bridge the controversy or gap in the results of previous research between the transformation of organizational culture and competitive advantage. DSIBPC was proposed as a synthesis between dyadic social entrepreneurship and professional culture, which is characterized by support for new ideas, flexibility and future orientation.

The results of testing the structural equation model built in this research provide empirical evidence about the significant role of the DSIBPC variable in increasing competitive advantage while bridging the gap of previous research. DSIBPC has been empirically proven to be able to mediate the relationship between organizational culture transformation and competitive advantage.

In addition, the test results also show that DSIBPC has a more significant impact on influencing competitive advantage compared to other antecedent of competitive advantage contained in the research model, namely the organizational culture transformation variable. Thus, it can be understood that the empirical findings in this research prove the important role of DSIBPC in increasing competitive advantage. Therefore, organizations need to pay attention to DSIBPC in an effort to increase competitive advantage.

Conclusion

In this research, 3 (three) hypotheses were developed and tested. Hypothesis testing results indicate all hypotheses are supported. Organizational culture transformation and DSIBPC have significant positive influence as antecedents of competitive advantage. Thus, this research proves that the variable of organizational culture transformation and DSIBPC become variables that have significant influence on competitive advantage. This research also shows that DSIBPC is able to act as an important mediator that fills gap in the relationship between organizational culture transformation towards competitive advantage as well as being an alternative strategy for organizations in an effort to increase their competitive advantage.

The results of this research enrich the scope and repertoire of knowledge, especially in the realm of human resource management studies with a focus on efforts to increase competitive advantage. The results of this research can also be used as a material consideration in increasing competitive advantage in general and in particular at PTPN IX and its fostered business units through a new construct namely DSIBPC.

The managerial implications generated in this research are generally beneficial for company leaders and in particular for the directors or leaders of PTPN IX and its fostered business units in an effort to optimize competitive advantage. An important finding in this research is the significant role of DSIBPC in an effort to increase competitive advantage. Referring to the results of this research, organizations need to focus and pay attention to DSIBPC.

In future research, various aspects of organizational culture transformation and DSIBPC need to be included in a more comprehensive and specific way. Several aspects can be considered in future research, including the type of implementation (internal or external), organizational design or other aspects. Researcher fully understands that these aspects are important to note. However, because this research focuses on the organizational level, the inclusion of these aspects comprehensively will make the model in this research complex. Therefore, the inclusion of more comprehensive aspects is a challenge for the next research agenda.

Limitation and Further Study

This research only focuses on competitive advantage; in fact there are many perspectives that can be used to analyses competitive advantage.

Acknowledgments

Allam, A.H., Gamal, S.E.E., & Naggar, V.F. (2011). Bioavailability: a pharmaceutical review. Int. J. Pharm. Biotechnol, 1(1), 7.

Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.

Åmo, B.W., & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(01), 7-19.

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational wealth creation. Journal of Management Development, 23(6), 518-550.

Antoncic, B., & Prodan, I. (2008). Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and firm performance: testing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation, 28(5), 257-265.

Asiedu, E. (2015). Supportive organizational culture and employee job satisfaction: a critical source of competitive advantage: a case study in a selected banking company in Oxford City-UK. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 2(3), 290-300.

Bingöl, D., Sener, I., & Çevik, E. (2013). The effect of organizational culture on organizational image and identity: evidence from a pharmaceutical company. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 222-229.

Blumenthal, B., & Haspeslagh, P. (1994). Toward a definition of corporate transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 35(3), 101.

Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545.

Cooper, D.R., & Schindler, P.S. (2006). Business research methods: empirical investigation. Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 108-28.

David, F.R., & David, F.R. (2013). Strategic management: concepts and cases: a competitive advantage approach. London: Pearson.

Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Tan, H.H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 563-576.

Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. (2010). A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2), 106-127.

Gawke, J.C., Gorgievski, M.J., & Bakker, A.B. (2018). Personal costs and benefits of employee intrapreneurship: disentangling the employee intrapreneurship, well-being, and job performance relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(4), 508.

Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review, 33(3), 114-135.

Gürlek, M., & Tuna, M. (2018). Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 38(7-8), 467-491.

Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A., & Phillips, R.A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 31(1), 58-74

Hofstede, G. (1994). The business of international business is culture. International Business Review, 3(1), 1-14.

Kanten, P., Kanten, S., & Gurlek, M. (2015). The effects of organizational structures and learning organization on job embeddedness and individual adaptive performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23(2015), 1358-1366.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing. London: Pearson.

Leonidou, L.C., Leonidou, C.N., Fotiadis, T.A., & Zeriti, A. (2013). Resources and capabilities as drivers of hotel environmental marketing strategy: implications for competitive advantage and performance. Tourism Management, 35, 94-110.

Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R.J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: the simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67-80.

McGranahan, D. (2007). Development indicators and development models. The Journal of Development Stuides, 8(3), 91-102.

Menzel, H.C. (2007). The design of a simulation game to create awareness of an intrapreneurship-supportive culture in industrial R&D. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.

Parker, M. (2000). Organizational culture and identity: unity and division at work. London: Sage.

Porter, M.E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90.

Romero-Martínez, A.M., Fernández-Rodríguez, Z., & Vázquez-Inchausti, E. (2010). Exploring corporate entrepreneurship in privatized firms. Journal of World Business, 45(1), 2-8.

Shin, N. (2001). Strategies for competitive advantage in electronic commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 2(4), 164-171.

Sathe, V., & Davidson, E.J. (2000). Toward a new conceptualization of culture change. London: Sage.

Schein, E.H. (2009). The corporate culture survival guide (Vol. 158). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Sirmon, D.G., & Lane, P.J. (2004). A model of cultural differences and international alliance performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 306-319.

Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T.L., & Willetts, M.C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. Stability and Change in Relationships, 257-284.

Thornberry, N. (2006). Lead like an entrepreneur. McGraw Hill Professional.

Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Evolution and revolution: mastering the dynamics of innovation and change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.

Tyrrell, M.W. (2000). Hunting and gathering in the early silicon age. London: Sage.

Wheelan, T.L., & Hunger, J.D. (2004). Concepts in strategic management and business policy. London: Pearson.

Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non–family firms: a resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 363-381.