Organizational support and intrapreneurial behavior: on the role of employees' intrapreneurial intention and self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the well-documented contributions of intrapreneurial behavior to organizational performance, the manifestations of the psychosocial factors at play remain poorly understood. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, social exchange theory, and social cognitive theory, we propose that perceptions of organizational support would contribute to employees' intrapreneurial intentions and behaviors, but only insofar as employees feel confident about their intrapreneurial skills. The data were collected from 179 employees of a Canadian small and medium enterprise (SME) specializing in damage insurance. The regression analysis results indicate that the indirect effect of perceived organizational support on intrapreneurial behavior through intrapreneurial intention is moderated by intrapreneurial self-efficacy. These findings reveal that intrapreneurial self-efficacy is a boundary motivational condition for perceived organizational support to act on the intrapreneurial process so that intention can translate into behavior. The paper provides useful avenues for managers seeking to identify contextual and motivational levers to develop, sustain, and improve employee intrapreneurship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".