Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2022 Mar 15;8(3):e09097. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09097

Determining employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth among managers of Pakistan

Nadia A Abdelmegeed Abdelwahed a, Bahadur Ali Soomro b,∗, Naimatullah Shah c
PMCID: PMC8928069  PMID: 35309406

Abstract

Nowadays, organizational performance and Firm Growth (FG) depend significantly on entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and Employee Satisfaction. This study aimed to examine ES, intrapreneurship, and FG among top managers in Pakistan. The study employed a quantitative method based on cross-sectional data which we collected through a survey questionnaire. In conducting this study, the researchers employed a random sampling technique. The final analysis utilized 180 valid samples. The findings of the SEM analysis show that ES has a significant and positive impact on intrapreneurship and FG. Furthermore, intrapreneurship has, also, a positive and significant impact on FG. This study's results have led the researchers to conclude that a thoughtful and systematic approach to ES would lead to greater intrapreneurship and FG. This study's findings contribute, also, to intrapreneurship research by adding to the empirical evidence on the effects of ES and intrapreneurship on FG.

Keywords: Employee satisfaction (ES), Intrapreneurship, Firm growth (FG), Organizational performance, Pakistan

Employee Satisfaction (ES); Intrapreneurship; Firm Growth (FG); Organizational performance; Pakistan.

1. Introduction

In today's world, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are the significant agents that bring about any organization's development and performance through employee experiences (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011). Therefore, the crucial elements, namely ES, intrapreneurship and FG, are the protagonist pillars for the venture and the organization's survival. Due to its association with intrapreneurship, ES is fundamental support for the organization. Likewise, employee intrapreneurship is a strategic work behaviour that enables individuals to build a new venture (Gawkea et al., 2019). In this way, in the firms that formed part of this study, there is a positive and significant aassociation between organizational features and intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Delić et al., 2016). The previous studies used empirical and descriptive approaches to investigate the positive and significant linkages between internal organizational antecedents for cooperative entrepreneurship and Job Satisfaction (JS) from (Pinchot, 1985; Kuratko et al., 2005; Delić et al., 2016). According to Saks (2019), skill diversity is the primary job characteristic that forecasts job engagement. In the intrapreneurship domain, previous studies' findings have revealed some significant components for ES. Nonetheless, these studies addressed only partially the association between intrapreneurship and ES. More specifically, in the context of investigating Pakistani firms, we found no connection between intrapreneurship, JS, and FG (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011; Ahmed et al., 2013; Chan et al., 2017; Saks, 2019).

To fill this gap, we developed a conceptual model of empirical testing. Based on this model's factors, we formulated some hypotheses to determine if there existed the assumed associations between ES, FG and intrapreneurship. This study adds to the previous literature by providing new insights to the relationship between the three aspects: namely, intrapreneurship, JS, and FG. Moreover, this study's findings demonstrate a collaboration of ES components. As fundamental intrapreneurship originators, these components comprised general satisfaction with work, benefits; remuneration; employee loyalty and organizational culture. These findings construct an ES-driven model between intrapreneurship and FG that, to date, has not been experienced by Pakistani firms. This study's core contribution is testing a model that, more especially in relation to Pakistani firms, may shed light on the connections between ES, intrapreneurship and FG.

2. Literature review and conceptual framework

ES is the gratification that employees derive from their jobs and the extent to which they like their work (Lange, 2021). In general, overall employee Job Satisfaction (JS) components are recognized as significant predictors of employee behaviours and organizational management and improvement (Soomro and Shah, 2019; Davidescu et al., 2020). Various scholars have highlighted JS from different angles and in different ways. For instance, firstly, Herzberg (1964, 1966) categorized JS in the two-factor theory that included policies/procedures and job security, co-workers, pay, working conditions, and supervision. On the one hand, the unavailability or the lack of these factors may create employee dissatisfaction with their jobs. On the other hand, employees can be motivated by factors comprising of advancement and growth, recognition, the work itself, achievements and responsibility. Secondly, as suggested in equity theory (Adams, 1963), the components of JS can be reflected in absolute terms. The employees evaluate the impartiality of interchange and base their JS on assessing the ratio of personal consequences (JS, recognition, pay, opportunities and advancement) and individual contributions (knowledge and skills, efforts and time). According to Pang and Lu (2018), remuneration and job performance have significant effects on the dimension of performance (profitability, turnover growth rate, and return on assets). Job autonomy and job environment have substantial effects on the dimensions of non-financial performance (employee productivity, service quality and customer service). In a similar vein, the findings of Kong et al. (2018) systematic review recommend strongly that JS analysts further categorize JS into five sets. These are: namely, psychological factors, organizational factors, social factors, individual factors and family factors. There is a noteworthy difference between JS and the difference in salary packages among the employees. An employee, who receives the highest salary, is more gratified than the lowest-paid employee. JS is affected by job security. It is reported that, when compared to contract-based employees, permanent employees are more satisfied and confident. According to Klofsten et al. (2021), the literature on strategic management and intrapreneurship has proved that entrepreneurs are planners who use entrepreneurial and strategic techniques to create competitive advantages. In South Africa, the magnitude of intrapreneurship is demonstrated in a significant sugar producing company. However, in a low intrapreneurial climate, the firm's focus revolves around leadership style, systems culture and structure and its essential activities (Rambakus et al., 2020). Similarly, Valka et al.’s (2020) findings show that greater trust in managers is responsible for them developing innovative thoughts to utilize the available resources. Besides, while intrapreneurial behaviour relates to an employee's creativity, it is unconnected to risk-taking and personal endeavours. There is a significant association between environmental benevolence and dynamism, innovation and unfavourable changes. These associations engage employees in intrapreneurial actions. Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are engines of economic growth that support entrepreneurial activities and sustainability within organizations and societies (Aparicio et al., 2020). Interestingly, the JS levels of private and public sector employees remained the same (Hussain and Soroya, 2017). Podger's (2017) findings point out that, when compared to country essentials, the public service uniqueness weighs more heavily in defining public employees' JS. These findings ratify the universal feature of the bureaucratic culture superseding country influences. Juana-Espinosa and Rakowska (2018) investigated JS practices' impacts on public sector employees through a cross-national approach. Their findings demonstrate that there is a significant association between JS and motivational factors. Nonetheless, there is no confirmation that the variable of “country” presented any crucial variances. Kalus and Cregan's (2017) findings highlight a significant change in self-esteem outcomes, a change in JS, and a negative connection with variation in burnout. According to Rosete (2012), there is a significant difference between organizational commitment and value-human resource management congruency. The employee benefits system offers meaningful relationships with overall firm performance, and the consequences created by the employees' psychological significance in their attitudes show that influential association— (Lin et al., 2014). In the Jordanian industrial sector, the employees are more careful about their salaries and positions. Consequently, the manufacturing industries do not miss out on talented individuals or lose productive employees (Abuhashesh et al., 2019). In a similar notion, Masa'deh et al.’s (2019) findings demonstrate that Knowledge Management Infrastructure (KMI) has a positive and significant effect on JS. In respect of gender differences, the study's findings show that KMI makes no significant difference to JS among groups in terms of age, experience, and academic rank. Vratskikh et al.’s (2016) SEM analysis findings suggest that KMI has a positive predictive power of emotional intelligence on both JS and job performance. In addition, this study's findings underline, also, JS′ mediating role in developing the relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance.

On the one hand, it occurs distinctively in a firm, for example when the firm performs entrepreneurial activities by tracking fresh opportunities. On the other hand, in a non-intrapreneurial firm it is associated with the administration available to the firm (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003). Intrapreneurship (intrapreneurs and CP) can be described, also, through its satisfaction (for a further specific conceptual definition, i.e. Antoncic and Hisrich (2003), together with the Schumpeterian concept of innovation. This can be regarded as entrepreneurship's building block. Through enormous corporation performance, intrapreneurship helps corporations prosper under multiple and highly challenging conditions (Gawkea et al., 2019). In contrast, CE is driven by a robust strategic emphasis on entrepreneurial undertakings that drive core capabilities to innovative conceptions. It highlights how organizations affect their internal innovations and creativity (Gawkea et al., 2019). It is a thoughtful corporate strategy intended to grow and foster novel thoughts. The earlier factors predict the multidimensional structure of intrapreneurship (Felicio et al., 2012). In the opinion of Gawker and colleagues (2017), a positive change within an organization can bring out the more stable experiences of work engagement and employee intrapreneurship. Intrapreneurship can have a positive effect on FG, wealth, and profitability (Chan et al., 2017). In the Pakistani context, the development of a moderate association between intrapreneurship and JS has exposed the experience (Ahmed et al., 2013). Furthermore, a sound enhancement among employees is only possible through intrapreneurial abilities.

Consequently, entrepreneurship has remained a brilliant concept over many years. However, intrapreneurship is a somewhat new notion and, despite the novelty, has not been investigated as much (Chan et al., 2017). Intrapreneurship is a sub-field of entrepreneurship that has increased in importance. Despite a growing interest in this arena, intrapreneurship still lacks a precise arrangement of the allied thoughts since previous studies have used various theoretical styles (Delić et al., 2016; Blanka, 2019). Therefore, thus far in various contexts other than Pakistan, the researchers have focused their investigations on personality traits, motivational factors, JS, professionalism, leadership, the propensity to risk, positive change, and employees' resources (Stefanovic et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2017). More specifically and particularly in Pakistan, there is limited evidence available in the literature regarding the association between intrapreneurship, JS, and FG (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011; Ahmed et al., 2013; Chan et al., 2017). Henceforth, in order to fill this gap, our study investigates ES, intrapreneurship, and FG in Pakistan. This empirical study would benefit organizations in incorporating the concept of intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship. Based on Antoncic and Antoncic's (2011) model as shown in Figure 1 below, we investigate the role of ES, intrapreneurship and FG among the top managers in Pakistan.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Represents the conceptual framework of the study in which the direction of arrows show the hypothesized path (independent to dependent variables) and 'H' is the hypothesis.

2.1. ES and intrapreneurship

The significant components of ES are “general satisfaction with work; employee relationships; remuneration, benefits and organizational culture; and employee loyalty are important for the company's operations” (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011, p.592). The constructs of ES are essential organizational constructs that have a powerful impact on developing entrepreneurship actions and orientations. Notably, they need to be connected to management, administrative maintenance, and corporate principles that represent the protagonist pillars of intrapreneurship. Existing studies' findings demonstrate a connection between regulatory factors and intrapreneurship on features of intra-business milieus which either can assist or hinder the progress of intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011; Delić et al., 2016). In addition, there is a strong correlation between intrapreneurship and management and organizational support. In Kuratko et al.’s (2005) opinion, there is a positive and significant association between CP and internal organizational antecedents such as rewards/reinforcement, work discretion, organizational boundaries, management support, time convenience and JS. Managers play a positive role in satisfying employees, who are involved in entrepreneurial-related activities, and the firm's top management makes a vital contribution by encouraging innovation and innovative activities (Miranda and Fernando, 2020).

In the construction of favourable intrapreneurship, factors, such as loose intra-organizational boundaries, time availability, management support, involvement and commitment, training, guidance about employee work preference, trust and rewards, may be regarded as essential traits of organizational support (Merrifield, 1993; Anwar and Abdullah, 2021). Developing favourable intrapreneurship in employees can inspire their self-initiative. This is crucial for employees and managers, who participate in the team to transform the organization to be capable of applying new business practices. Inspiring self-initiative and investing in employees along with support from experienced management are essential elements of intrapreneurship (Delić et al., 2016). For employees, these epitomize significant reinforcement to innovate and modernize (Soomro and Shah, 2019). These principles are an energetic factor of organizational culture and are indispensable to intrapreneurship. Such values encourage continuously the generation of new and innovative ideas and solutions, and knowledge among individuals (Massaro et al., 2016). The employees' values, emotions and commitment may bring about creativity in their organizations. The ES is constructed, also, on values-oriented predictors of intrapreneurship. These include individuals' attitudes within the organization, an individual-centred intrapreneurship and executive morals (concentrating on employees' behaviours embedded in the organization), and competition-centred organizational norms (convergence of attitudes that corporate members may track when they attempt to accomplish the organization's goals). The relevant literature mentioned above proves that organizational constructs interweave with ES components and may play a significant role in developing intrapreneurship. The literature confirms such relationships in contexts other than Pakistan. Hence, we propose the following first hypothesis.

H1

ES has a positive and significant effect on intrapreneurship.

2.2. ES and FG

ES has a positive connection between FG and firm performance. Such an exercise of human resource management reveals that, for a firm to capitalize on their employees' skills and knowledge, it needs to provide opportunities for education, fair pay, benefits, employment stability and an appropriate approach to motivate employees to perform at their maximum (Shaw and Shi, 2017). Improvement in the workers' satisfaction is a crucial management task because it builds on their self-confidence and loyalty and brings about progress in employee outputs and productivity (Varma, 2017). The commitment of the firm's top management to ES and sustaining a focus on the elements that influence ES can encourage employees to increase their responsibilities and enhance their work performance. In return, these can promote FG (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011). To maintain the quality of the firm's performance, the top management's leadership of the employees is a prerequisite for the firm (Raza et al., 2019). Judge et al.’s (2001) findings show a reasonable (moderate) correlation between ES and EP. Such a relationship leads to greater ES and enhances the quality and level of EP (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003) and may have a meaningful effect on FG (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011). Capitalizing on employees' progress benefits the firm and its business-related outcomes (Varma, 2017; Raza et al., 2019). Consequently, the literature highlights that there is a positive and significant link between ES and FG. Therefore, we propose the following second hypothesis:

H2

ES has a positive and significant effect on FG.

2.3. Intrapreneurship and FG

A firm's performance serves as the significant outcome of intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011) and frequently designates performance in relation to its profitability and FG (Delić et al., 2016). The actions, related to entrepreneurship, can be fruitful for organizations and economic development. Entrepreneurship is likely to contribute to financial performance through overview and development in modification, the formation and development of innovations, and competition (Bleaney and Nishiyama, 2002). The efficacious ventures are categorized with intrapreneurship. The essential elements of intrapreneurship are investment in the firm's employees and inspiring them to take initiatives by themselves (Delić et al., 2016). The findings of previous studies have emphasized a significant association between small FG and intrapreneurship (Covin, 1991); a significant association between FP and small FG in unfriendly surroundings (Covin and Slevin, 1989); large FG (Zahra and Covin, 1995); and the prevailing growth of firms irrespective of their magnitude (Antoncic, 2007; Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011). Therefore, we propose the following third hypothesis:

H3

Intrapreneurship has a positive and significant effect on FG.

3. Methods

3.1. Development of questionnaire and measures

For this study, we employed a cross-sectional method to obtain the data. We adopted a deductive approach to achieve the study objective. We used a survey questionnaire, based on dependent and independent variables, to collect the data. We developed a questionnaire. The questionnaire includes closed questions for subsequent detailed processing—a Likert-type scale employed to classify the responses as 1 = very untrue to 5 = very true. By including a general satisfaction that consisted of indicators, namely, reputation, work situation and working hours, we assessed ES with four dimensions. Employee interactions comprised contact with co-workers, organizational culture, benefits, and remunerations in the shape of education, promotion, job stability and job climate. The last dimension of ES was employee loyalty. We adapted these from several research studies, for example, Brayfield and Rothe (1951); Porter et al. (1968); Churchill et al. (1974); Hackman and Oldham (1975); Teas (1979); Oliver and Brief (1983)). Based on Antoncic's (2007) and Antoncic and Antoncic's (2011) previous studies, we used 23 items for intrapreneurship from four dimensions, which included product/service, innovation, process/technology and new businesses, and five items of firm's growth (relative and absolute growth).

3.2. Data collection procedure and sampling size

We collected the data from the firms' top managers. They are the leading individuals who make a vital critical contribution to facilitating employee concerns (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). According to Antoncic and Antoncic (2011) top managers possess abundant knowledge about their firms's level of organization and the validity of the data and are highly confident in their abilities to resolve the issues faced by their firms (Li et al., 2016). . In addition, the top managers are the significant individuals who can use their dynamic abilities and skills to achieve better intrapreneurial activities (Klofsten et al., 2021). We decided to run our analysis among the top managers of Pakistani firms because they make extensive contributions to their firms' management and economic activities (Soomro et al., 2019). Despite the significant challenges, they are inclined always to see their organizations as prosperous firms. For this study, we chose manufacturing industries since they were the leading SMEs which resolved the significant issues of Pakistani employees (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012) and because they were responsible for bringing economic recovery (Rahman and Bakar, 2019). The manufacturing industries' sector creates, also, almost 15.30 % of the jobs in Pakistan (Ministry of Finance, 2017). We employed a random technique to target the study participants. We applied both personal and e-mail services to obtain the data. Before sending/handing over the questionnaire to the participants, we obtained the participants' consent.

We sent an e-mail to the firms' managers stating the survey's aim and objectives and asked them to complete the attached questionnaire. At the first stage, we issued over 300 surveys throughout Pakistan. In return, we received 182 completed questionnaires which represented a response rate of 60%. After scrutinizing the responses, we proceeded to further analyze 180 valid responses. We decided not to collect a smaller sample to reduce the chances of more convergence failures (the software cannot provide a reasonable clarification), indecorous solutions (including negative error variance estimates for measurable variables), and to ensure the accuracy of the constructs and forecasts in the specific pattern for standard errors. Structure Equation Modeling (SEM) package standard errors are computed under the postulation of large sample sizes (Benter and Chou, 1987). Our sampling procedure fulfilled, also, the Monte Carlo simulation's suggested criterion for the model with two to four factors whereby the researchers might plan to gather at least 100 cases, with 200 cases providing better results (Meade and Lautenschlager, 2004).

3.3. Instrument verification

Before collecting the massive data, we used a pilot study to confirm the reliability and validity assumptions of the questionnaire. We collected 30 samples to confirm such assumptions. We verified the questionnaire's reliability (internal consistency) through using Cronbach's alpha (α) and the loading scores (Hair et al., 2018). Consequently, the overall reliability of the scale was found to be 0.78 and the consistency of the individual factors had, also, acceptable values (>0.60). In addition, the loading scores were above 0.70 with good scores (Hair et al., 2018). Both assumptions ensured the excellent reliability of the questionnaire. Further, to ensure the questionnaire's physical appearance and content validity, we asked two university professors, who, as experts in the field, were very knowledgeable about the new research trends and statistics, to confirm the questionnaire's validity. Consequently, after including some minor changes as suggested by the experts, we had a reliable and valid survey instrument to collect the large-scale data.

3.4. Statistical analysis

We employed two types of software, including the SPSS and AMOS version 26.0 for Windows. We applied SEM through AMOS due to its advantages with the graphical presentation of the model (Hair et al., 2018). AMOS software is friendly when examining the statistical associations among the items of each construct. We conducted the relevant and appropriate tests to gain valid and reliable results.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlation

To observe the respondents’ demography, we investigated the mean and standard deviations. We noted that the ranges of mean were 3.22–3.07. Similarly, as shown in Table 1 below, the detected scores of standard deviations were 1.0342–1.2891. Besides, concerning correlation among the factors, all scores remained in between the acceptable ranges by showing a good relationship among all constructs (dependents and independents) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlation.

Variables M SD 1 2 3
1. Employee satisfaction 3.22 1.1056 ---
2. Intrapreneurship 3.20 1.0342 0.432∗∗ ---
3. Firm growth 3.07 1.2891 0.387∗∗ 0.387∗∗ ---
Open in a new tab

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; ∗∗. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis

We examine the measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We focused on the leading indicators of the convergent validity, i.e. loading, composite reliability (CR), and average extracted variance (AVE) (Hair et al., 2018). The values of factor loading have appeared in a meaningful way (>0.70) Hair et al. (2018). Besides, AVE for all constructs is also demonstrated a reasonable variance (>0.50) (Hair et al., 2018). Finally, CR values also qualified the suggested values (>0.70) for the rest of the factors and ensured a good identity of the constructs (Hair et al., 2018) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct Items Loading AVE CR
Employee satisfaction gs8 0.898 0.753 0.833
gs3 0.897
gs5 0.889
gs2 0.884
gs1 0.880
gs4 0.876
gs7 0.869
gs6 0.863
er3 0.854
er2 0.840
er4 0.835
er1 0.826
rboc3 0.818
rboc6 0.807
rboc4 0.800
rboc2 0.799
rboc5 0.790
rboc1 0.789
rboc7 0.772
el1 0.769
el2 0.760
Intrapreneurship int13 0.880 0.689 0.765
int15 0.867
int12 0.860
int14 0.851
int10 0.849
int5 0.840
int3 0.832
int7 0.822
int9 0.815
int4 0.809
int6 0.806
int11 0.799
int2 0.789
int1 0.760
int8 0.752
Firm growth afg2 0.872 0.720 0.723
afg1 0.821
rfg3 0.798
rfg2 0.782
rfg1 0.762
Open in a new tab

Notes: AVE = summation of the square of the factor loadings.

CR = square of the summation of the factor loadings.

α = Cronbach's alpha.

4.3. Model fit indices and assessment of hypotheses

Having ensured that the model fit indices fulfilled the statistical requirements (Susetyo and Lestari, 2014), we assessed the hypotheses. In SEM, numerous fitness indices imitate the fitness of the model with data at hand. We followed Holmes-Smith et al.’s (2006) and Hair et al.’s (2018) recommendations by using at least one fitness index from each grouping of model fit. We observed three model fit groups, viz. incremental fit, absolute fit, and parsimonious fit. Initially, we observed the non-significant values of χ2/CMIN (2.890; p > 0.005) (see Table 3) to ensure the fitness of the model with available data (Hair et al., 2018). Later, the interrelated fit indicators (GFI = 0.964; AGFI = 0.932; NFI = 0.959; CFI = 0.912; and RMSEA = 0.037) (Table 3) were shown to fulfil the requirement of acceptance (Hair et al., 2018) with an absolute fit/good fit (Yvette and Felix, 2007).

Table 3.

Model fit indices.

Model fit indicators CMIN/df
 GFI
 AGFI
 NFI
 CFI
 RMSEA
2.890 0.964 0.932 0.959 0.912 0.037
Suggested values <3 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 <0.05
Open in a new tab

Note: CMIN = χ2/Chi-square/df; ​df = degree of freedom; ​GFI = goodness of fit index; ​AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

We employed SEM to measure a direct association between ES, intrapreneurship, and FG. The SEM values highlight that ES has a positive and significant impact on intrapreneurship (SE = 0.027; CR = 5.005∗∗∗; p= <0.01) (see Figure 2 and Table 4). Henceforth, hypothesis H1 is accepted. Similarly, the weights for hypothesis H2 demonstrate that ES has a positive and significant impact on FG (SE = 0.035; CR = 6.082∗∗∗; p= < 0.01). These values proved that hypothesis H2 (see Figure 2 and Table 4) was accepted. Finally, the findings show that intrapreneurship has a positive and significant impact of on FG (SE = 0.031; CR = 3.646∗∗∗; p= < 0.01) (see Figure 2 and Table 4). Consequently, hypothesis H3 is accepted.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Structural Equation Model. ES = employee satisfaction; FG = firm growth; CMIN = χ2/Chi-square/df; df = degree of freedom; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CR = critical ratio; p∗∗∗ = Significance at 0.05.

Table 4.

Confirmation of hypotheses.

H.No. Independent variables Path Dependent variables Estimate Std. estimate SE CR P
1 Employee satisfaction → Intrapreneurship 0.136 0.547 0.027 5.005 ∗∗∗
2 Employee satisfaction → Firm growth 0.211 0.518 0.035 6.082 ∗∗∗
3 Intrapreneurship → Firm growth 0.113 0.269 0.031 3.646 ∗∗∗
Open in a new tab

Note: SE = standard error; CR = critical ratio; p∗∗∗ = Significance at 0.05.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study aimed to explore ES, intrapreneurship and FG among the top managers of Pakistani firms. Based on conceptualization, we developed a model and some hypotheses. We applied the quantitative approach with cross-sectional data to confirm the proposed hypotheses. In respect of H1, the path coefficient findings show that ES has a positive and significant effect of ES on intrapreneurship (Therefore hypothesis H1is accepted). These findings are supported by those of previous studies in several contexts by such as Antoncic and Hisrich (2001), Hom et al. (2009) and Ahmed et al. (2013). In the Pakistani context of this study, the findings reflect that the favourable employee relations and the different benefits in terms of salaries and rewards could develop intrapreneurship among the managers of Pakistani firms. In addition, the findings indicate that their satisfaction could be nurtured through conducive organizational culture (Ahmed et al., 2013) and that this would encourage them to improve their intrapreneurship performance. The positive linkages between ES and intrapreneurship may occur due to a well-rewarded financial setup and other fringe benefits (Antoncic and Antoncic, 2011). Due to such reasons, the top managers are more committed to facing their jobs' challenges and they feel eager to express that with others. Also, during an appointment, they feel a greater sense of personal satisfaction. They have shown a positive and significant attitude towards enhancement through innovation, autonomy (independence), and flexible organizational structures for their firms. They are using advertisement and promotion to introduce thought-provoking demands in the marketplaces. Also, they are broadening manufacturing by pursuing new businesses ventures and discovering new niches for products in the general markets.

Further this study's findings confirm that ES has a positive and significant effect on FG (Hypothesis H2 is accepted). These positive outcomes are consistent with the findings of several earlier studies (Judge et al., 2001; Gerhart and Rynes, 2003; Antoncic, 2008). This study's findings show a favourable scenario because satisfied employees are more inclined to perform well to enhance their firms' productivity and growth. In Pakistan, satisfaction is a significant factor in improving the top managers' performance (Sheikh et al., 2017).

The SEM results confirm, also, that intrapreneurship has a significant and positive effect of on FG (Hypothesis H3 is accepted). These findings are consistent with the findings of previous studies by such as Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) and Felicio et al. (2012). The positive results may occur because the firm's performance and growth are only possible through the significant consequences of the intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). It is recognized that suitable intrapreneurship activities enhance the firm's profits. In Pakistan, entrepreneurial activities have an enormous record of strengthening firms' economic performance and growth (Soomro and Shah, 2020). The successful journey of such a firm is only possible through the upgrading and effectiveness of intrapreneurship.

In conclusion, this study's findings demonstrate that ES has a positive and significant effect on intrapreneurship and FG. Additionally, intrapreneurship among the firm's top managers has a positive and significant impact on FG. These findings show that organizational performance and FG depend significantly on entrepreneurship and on intrapreneurship ES associated antecedents. This study's positive findings validate further Antoncic and Antoncic (2011) model in the context of Pakistani firms.

6. Implications of this Study's findings

6.1. Theoretical implications

This study's findings provide implications for Human Capital (HC) that denotes the series of valued skills and knowledge accrued over time. This study has tested the model among the top managers of Pakistani firms. Its findings reflect HC as an active component and JS′ contribution to intrapreneurship and FG. The findings suggest that ES and intrapreneurship contribute to a firm's sustainability in its business environment and that these have a positive impact on FG. The study's findings are beneficial for researchers and academicians in considering JS constructs when developing models of intrapreneurship-influenced growth and other areas that identify the prominence of JS components in FG. In the light of the present outcomes, this study's findings support the generation of theories in the direction of ES and FG. This study's findings confirm that ES and intrapreneurship have a positive and significant effect on FG. It may be the first study to confirm these associations in a developing country, namely, Pakistan. Previously in the European context, Antoncic and Antoncic (2011) confirmed that intrapreneurship led to the same association between ES and FG by. Finally, this study's findings contribute to the management literature and through another empirical confirmation of these factors in a developing country enrich the depth of the existing literature.

6.2. Managerial implications

This study's findings provide support to practitioners in fostering intrapreneurship activities within the firms. The results help, also, the firm to achieve faster growth through innovative products that inflow to new businesses services, developments, and technologies and, thereby, renew the firm's commitment. Further, this study's findings contribute, also, to the smooth development of employee relations through satisfying the constructive employees. Satisfied employees are more able to improve FG. Therefore, this study's findings demonstrate that the firm's top managers ought to create a conducive and favourable organizational culture whereby the employees enjoy their lives with wellbeing and prosperity. In pursuing this study's findings, the top managers ought to consider further the roles of remunerations, benefits and satisfaction in creating employee loyalty in their firms. In addition, this study's findings provide significant guidance to enable a firm's performance management system to run smoothly by taking care of its employees. Finally, both employees and managers can contribute value-added and visible benefits in JS, performance development, performance planning to ensure that the firm achieves healthy profits.

7. Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations in terms of methods, design, sample, variables, application of the questionnaire, and data collection. We used a cross-sectional design, while a longitudinal study design might have provided even better consequences due to two or more two times series data. This study concentrated only on a few variables (ES and intrapreneurship) that were essential to a firm's growth. However, it did not consider other aspects which might be significant, also, for the firm's development. This study was restricted to a sample of 180 top managers in Pakistani firms. This sample size might have created some issues in terms of generalizing the results to the overall population of managers. We employed the structured questionnaire and an e-mail survey in a random technique to attract respondents to provide the necessary data. The modes of data collection used in this study might create some validity and reliability issues. Lastly, this study is limited to Pakistan as the primary focus area rather than other developing nations.

This study's findings suggest some avenues for future research. This study concentrated only on three main variables, including ES, intrapreneurship, and FG. The personality traits of managers and the features of strategic coalitions and networks might add to developing a more comprehensive and integrative model in the future. In the meantime, the positive relationship between ES and organizational antecedents stimulates the forerunners into groups (connected to ES and not connected to ES) to explore whether there are changes between the assemblages in their influence on intrapreneurship and growth (Kuratko et al., 2005). In this way, cross-cultural comparisons may create more generally further validation of the model's ES components.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Nadia A. Abdelmegeed Abdelwahed: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments.

Bahadur Ali Soomro: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Naimatullah Shah: Conceived and designed the experiments.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Declaration of interests statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

References

  1. Abuhashesh M., Al-Dmour R., Masa'deh R. Factors that affect employees’ job satisfaction and performance to increase customers' satisfactions. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. Res. 2019;2019:1–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams J.S. Toward the understanding of inequality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1963;67(3):422–436. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmed S.N., Rehman A., Amjad M. Job satisfaction and intrapreneurship: the moderating effect of personality trait. J. Int. Stud. 2013;6(1):87–95. [Google Scholar]
  4. Antoncic B. Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007;107(3):309–325. [Google Scholar]
  5. Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D. Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. J. Bus. Ventur. 2001;16(5):495–527. [Google Scholar]
  6. Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 2003;10(1):7–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Antoncic B. In: Ruzzier M., Antoncˇicˇ B., Bratkovicˇ T., Hisrich R.D., editors. Podjetnistvo, Drustvo za akademske in aplikativne raziskave; Koper: 2008. Notranje podjetnistvo; pp. 93–101. [Google Scholar]
  8. Antoncic J.A., Antoncic B. Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011;111(4):589–607. [Google Scholar]
  9. Anwar G., Abdullah N.N. The impact of human resource management practice on organizational performance. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2021;5(1):35–47. [Google Scholar]
  10. Aparicio S., Turro A., Noguera M. Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in social, sustainable, and economic development: opportunities and challenges for future research. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  11. Benter P.M., Chou C.P. Practical issues in structural modelling. Socio. Methods Res. 1987;16(1):78–117. [Google Scholar]
  12. Blanka C. An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019;13:919–961. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bleaney M., Nishiyama A. Explaining growth: a contest between models. J. Econ. Growth. 2002;7:43–56. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brayfield A.H., Rothe H.F. An index of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1951;35:307–311. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chan K.Y., Ho M.H.R., Kennedy J.C., Uy M.A., Kang B.N.Y., Chernyshenko O.S., Yu K.T. Who wants to be an intrapreneur? Relations between employees’ entrepreneurial, professional, and leadership career motivations and intrapreneurial motivation in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017;8:1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Churchill G.A., Ford N.M., Walker O.C., Jr. Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial salesperson performance: a meta-analysis. J. Mater. Res. 1974;11:254–260. [Google Scholar]
  17. Covin J.G. Entrepreneurial vs conservative firms: a comparison of strategies and performance. J. Manag. Stud. 1991;25(5):439–462. [Google Scholar]
  18. Covin J.G., Slevin D.P. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strat. Manag. J. 1989;10:75–87. [Google Scholar]
  19. Davidescu A.A., Apostu S., Paul A., Casuneanu L. Work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance among Romanian employees— implications for sustainable human resource management. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):1–53. [Google Scholar]
  20. Delić A., Đonlagić Alibegović S., Mešanović M. The Role of the process organizational structure in the development of intrapreneurship in large companies. Nase Gospod./Our Econ. 2016;62(4):42–51. [Google Scholar]
  21. Felicio J.A., Rodrigues R., Caldeirinha V.R. The effect of intrapreneurship on corporate performance. Manag. Decis. 2012;50(10):1717–1738. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gawke J.C., Gorgievski M.J., Bakker A.B. Employee intrapreneurship and work engagement: a latent change score approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017;100:88–100. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gawkea J.C., Gorgievskia M.J., Bakkerab A.B. Measuring intrapreneurship at the individual level: development and validation of the employee intrapreneurship scale (EIS) Eur. Manag. J. 2019;37(1):806–817. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gerhart B., Rynes S.L. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2003. Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gimenez C., Tachizawa E.M. Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 2012;17(5):531–543. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hackman R.J., Oldham G.R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psychol. 1975;60(2):159–170. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hair J.F., Ringle C.M., Gudergan S.P. Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: an illustration in modeling retailer choice. Bus. Res. 2018;12:115–142. [Google Scholar]
  28. Herzberg F. The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower. Pers. Adm. 1964;27:3–7. [Google Scholar]
  29. Herzberg F. World Publishing; Cleveland, OH: 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. [Google Scholar]
  30. Holmes-Smith P., Coote L., Cunningham E. Streams; Melbourne: 2006. Structural Equation Modeling: from the Fundamental to Advanced Topics. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hom P.W., Tsui A.S., Wu J.B., Lee T.W. Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009;94(2):277–297. doi: 10.1037/a0013453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hussain S., Soroya S.H. Exploring the factors affecting job satisfaction of paraprofessional staff working in University Libraries of Pakistan. Libr. Rev. 2017;66(3):144–162. [Google Scholar]
  33. Juana-Espinosa S.D., Rakowska A. Public sector motivational practices and their effect on job satisfaction: country differences. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2018;27(2):141–154. [Google Scholar]
  34. Judge T.A., Thoresen C.J., Bono J.E., Patton G.K. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 2001;127(3):376–407. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kalus A.R., Cregan C. Cosmetic facial surgery: the influence of self-esteem on job satisfaction and burnout. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2017;55(3):320–336. [Google Scholar]
  36. Klofsten M., Urbano D., Sohvi Heaton S. Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: an overview. Technovation. 2021;99:102177. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kong H., Jiang X., Chan W., Zhou X. Job satisfaction research in the field of hospitality and tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2018;30(5):2178–2194. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kuratko D.F., Hornsby J.S., Bishop J.W. Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction. Int. Enterpren. Manag. J. 2005;1(3):275–291. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lange T. Job satisfaction and implications for organizational sustainability: a resource efficiency perspective. Sustainability. 2021;13(7):1–17. [Google Scholar]
  40. Li S., Jayaraman V., Paulraj A., Shang K. Proactive environmental strategies and performance: role of green supply chain processes and green product design in the Chinese high-tech industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016;54:2136–2151. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lin Z., Yao X., Zhao Z. The direct and indirect impact of employee benefits on firm performance in China. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2014;52(4):476–495. [Google Scholar]
  42. Masa’deh R., Almajali D.A., Alrowwad A., Obeidat B. The role of knowledge management infrastructure in enhancing job satisfaction: a developing country perspective. Interdiscipl. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 2019;14:1–25. [Google Scholar]
  43. Massaro M., Handley K., Bagnoli C., Dumay J. Knowledge management in small and medium enterprises: a structured literature review. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016;20(2):258–291. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meade A.W., Lautenschlager G.J. A Monte-Carlo study of confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement equivalence/invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 2004;11(1):60–72. [Google Scholar]
  45. Merrifield D.B. Intrapreneurial corporate renewal. J. Bus. Ventur. 1993;8(5):383–389. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ministry of Finance . 2017. Economic Survey of Pakistan from MOF.http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapters_17/pakistan_es_2016_17_pdf.pdf [Google Scholar]
  47. Miranda N., Fernando W.R.P.K. The impact of human resource management practices of the managers on perceived organizational performance—a study on Ceylon Fisheries Corporation in Sri Lanka. Open Access Library J. 2020;7:1–21. [Google Scholar]
  48. Oliver R.L., Brief A.P. Sales managers’ goal commitment correlates. J. Personal Sell. Sales Manag. 1983;3:11–17. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pang K., Lu C. Organizational motivation, employee job satisfaction and organizational performance: an empirical study of container shipping companies in Taiwan. Maritime Bus. Rev. 2018;3(1):36–52. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pinchot G. Harper & Row; New York: 1985. Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. [Google Scholar]
  51. Podger A. Enduring challenges and new developments in public human resource management: Australia as an international experience. Rev. Publ. Person. Adm. 2017;37(1):108–128. [Google Scholar]
  52. Porter M.E., Lyman W., Lawler E.E., III . Irwin; Homewood, IL: 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rahman S.U., Bakar N.A.A. Manufacturing sector in Pakistan: a comprehensive review for the future growth and development. Pak. J. Humanit. Social Sci. 2019;7(1):77–91. [Google Scholar]
  54. Evaluating the extent of intrapreneurship in a sugar producing company in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Rambakus Z., Hoque M., Proches C.N.G., Wanasika I., editors. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020;7(1) Reviewing editor. [Google Scholar]
  55. Raza S., Hassan S., Nawaz M.A. Exploring SMEs performance through market orientation and sensing capability: PLS-SEM modeling approach. Orient Res. J. Social Sci. 2019;4(1):1–13. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosete D. The impact of organisational values and performance management congruency on satisfaction and commitment. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2012;44(1):7–24. [Google Scholar]
  57. Saks A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. J. Organ. Effect.: People Perform. 2019;6(1):19–38. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shaw J.D., Shi S. The neglected state of organizational-level turnover studies in the Chinese context: a call for research. Front. Bus. Res. China. 2017;11(6):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sheikh A.A., Shahzad A., Ishak A.K. The impact of market orientation, top management support, use of e-marketing and technological opportunism on the firm performance: a mediated-moderation and moderated-mediation analysis. Abasyn J. Social Sci. 2017;10(2):212–234. [Google Scholar]
  60. Soomro B.A., Shah N. Determining the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational culture on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee’s performance. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2019;8(3):266–282. [Google Scholar]
  61. Soomro B.A., Shah N. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in a developing country: strategic entrepreneurship as a mediator. Bus. Strategy Develop. 2020;3(4):567–577. [Google Scholar]
  62. Soomro B.A., Shah N., Mangi S. Factors affecting the entrepreneurial leadership in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) of Pakistan: an empirical evidence. World J. Entrepreneur. Manag. Sustain. Develop. 2019;15(1):31–44. [Google Scholar]
  63. Stefanovic I., Prokic S., Rankovic L. Motivational and success factors of entrepreneurs: the evidence from a developing country. Direct. Open Access J. 2010;28(2):251–269. [Google Scholar]
  64. Susetyo D., Lestari P.S. Developing entrepreneurial intention model of university students: an empirical study on university students in Semarang, Indonesia. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2014;5(3):184–196. [Google Scholar]
  65. Teas K.R. An empirical test of linkages proposed in the Walker, Churchill, and Ford model of salesforce motivation and performance. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 1979;8:58–72. [Google Scholar]
  66. Valka K., Roseira C., Campos P. Determinants of university employee intrapreneurial behavior: the case of Latvian universities. Ind. High. Educ. 2020;34(3):190–202. [Google Scholar]
  67. Varma C. Importance of employee motivation & job satisfaction for organizational performance. Int. J. Social Sci. Interdiscipl. Res. 2017;6(2):10–20. [Google Scholar]
  68. Vratskikh I., Masa'deh R., Al-Lozi M., Maqableh M. The impact of emotional intelligence on job performance via the mediating role of job satisfaction. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016;11(2):69–91. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yvette R., Felix M. Structural equation modeling. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 2007;21(4):41–71. [Google Scholar]
  70. Zahra S.A., Covin J.C. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. J. Bus. Ventur. 1995;10(1):43–58. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES