The corporate entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector

by

Brett Andre van der Merwe

Submitted as part of the requirements for the degree

MPHIL: ENTREPRENEURSHIP

in the

Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences

University of Pretoria

November 2007

Study Leader: Dr. Alex J. Antonites

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TO THE LORD GOES THE GLORY, HONOUR AND MY DEEPEST THANKS

I would like to thank the following people, without whom the successful completion of this

dissertation would not have been possible:

Dr. Antonites for his guidance, encouragement and unwavering support during the

entire course of this study.

Dr. Rene van Wyk for her help in editing both the literature and statistics. Her

assistance and motivation, made me realise my true potential and capabilities.

Mrs. Rina Owen for turning a pile of questionnaires in valuable, meaningful

information.

Mondi van Zyl for her quick and efficient language editing.

My family Mom, Dad, El Rad, Kex and Kels, thank you for your love and constant

support. It has enabled me complete this dissertation and look to the future with

great excitement.

Stewart Clegg for walking the road with me, for the many late nights and laughs.

Renee Lombard for her constant encouragement and support, and always helping

me see the positive side to everything.

Malcolm and Nelis for your non-stop support and invaluable advice.

I, Brett Andre van der Merwe, declare that this dissertation, The corporate entrepreneurial

climate within the South African banking sector, is my own original work. Where other sources

have been quoted or used I have given due acknowledgement by means of complete

references made according to departmental requirements.

Brett Andre van der MerweStudent No: 21059293

Date

ABSTRACT

Due to the current competitive nature of the banking sector, South African banks are

continually striving to better competitive postures and competitive advantages (Mboweni,

2007:2). This can be achieved through continual innovation (Ireland, Ireland, Kuratko, &

Morris, 2006a:10). In order to increase levels of competition and innovation, a higher

degree of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has to be achieved (Kellermanns &Eddleston,

2006:809). This can be done by creating a conducive CE climate which supports the

establishment and development of CE within the organisation (Taylor, 2006:15).

The main objective of this study is to investigate the corporate entrepreneurial climate

within the South African banking sector. This will be achieved using the Corporate

Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI), taking into consideration the five factors

of the CEAI: Management support, work discretion, time availability, rewards and

reinforcements and organisational boundaries. A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis One-Way

Analysis of Variance was employed to investigate the differences in the biographic and

demographic variables as independent variables, and the five identified CE factors of as

dependent variables. Both the descriptive and inferential statistics will be reported and

findings discussed. The research conducted contributes to a better understanding of CE,

as well as the CE climate within the sector, and can be used as a basis for the successful

rehabilitation of CE in the banking sector.

KEYWORDS: Entrepreneurship, Corporate Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneur, Innovation,

Corporate Entrepreneurial Climate, CEAI (Corporate Entrepreneurship

Assessment Instrument).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction...……………………………………………………………….1

1.2 Problem formulation……………...……………………………………….4

1.3 Problem statement..……………………………………………………….6

1.4 Aim/Importance of this study….. ……………………………………….7

1.5 Research methodology…. ……………………………………………….7

1.6 Demarcation of chapters... ……………………………………………….8

1.7 Conclusion... ……………………………………………………………….9

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.1 Defining Entrepreneurship …………………………………………….11

2.1.1 Defining the entrepreneur...........……………………………………...13

2.2 Corporate entrepreneurship…….……………………………………..14

2.2.1 Defining the intrapreneur……….………………………………………16

2.3 Corporate venturing…….............................................................…..18

2.3.1 Internal corporate venturing…...………………………………………20

2.3.2 External corporate venturing…..………………………………………20

2.4 Corporate entrepreneurial culture….... ………………………………21

2.5 Corporate entrepreneurial climate…………………………………....23

2.6 Organisational areas of influence……. ………………………………24

2.6.1 Management support...........……………………………………………25

2.6.1.1 Middle Management....... ………………………………………………26

2.6.1.2 Operational Employees..………………………………………………27

2.6.2 Organisational boundaries……………………………………………..27

2.6.3 Rewards and reinforcements…………………………………………..28

2.6.4 Time availability…………………………………………………………..29

2.6.5 Work Discretion…………………………………………………………..30

2.7 Innovation………………………………………………… .............…….30

2.8 Corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and competition……….33

2.8.1 Entrepreneurship and Corporate Entrepreneurship………………33

2.8.2 Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation……………………….33

2.8.3 Innovation and competitive advantage…………………………….34

2.8.4 Competitive advantage and competition…………………………..35

2.8.5 Corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and competition……..35

2.9 Developing a corporate entrepreneurial strategy………………..36

2.9.1 Developing a vision……………………………………………………38

2.9.2 Encouraging innovation………......................................................38

2.9.3 Forming venture teams………………………………… …………….39

2.9.4 Structuring for corporate entrepreneurial climate……………….39

2.10 South African banking sector………………………………………..40

2.10.1 Introduction and background………………………………………40

2.10.2 Current competitive climate in the South African

banking sector………………………………………………………...42

2.10.3 How South African banks can use innovation to compete…...43

2.10.4 Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation in the South

African banking sector……………………………………………....44

2.11 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….46

CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction………………………………………………...................47

3.2 Aims and objectives of the study………………………….............47

3.2.1 Primary objective……………………………………………………...47

3.2.2 Secondary objectives…………………………………………….......47

3.2.3 Propositions……………………………………………………………48

3.3 Research Methodology………………………………………………48

3.3.1 The research design………………………………………………….48

3.3.2 Population and sample design……………………………………..49

3.3.3 Data Collection………………………………………………………...51

3.3.4 Measurement Instrument…………………………………………….52

3.3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………..54

3.3.6 Limitations……………………………………………………………...54

CHAPTER 4: Results and Findings

4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….55

4.2 Construct discussion…………………………………………………55

4.2.1 Dependent variables…………………………………………………..55

4.2.2 Independent variables…………………………………………..……55

4.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...74

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions, recommendations and limitations

5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………...……....75

5.1.1 Management support…….…………………………………………...75

5.1.2 Work discretion…………………... .......……………….……………..76

5.1.3 Rewards and Reinforcements……………………………………….77

5.1.4 Time availability………………………………………………………..78

5.1.4 Organisational boundaries…………………………………………..78

5.1.5 Management Implications……………………………………………79

5.3 Limitations………………………………………………………………...80

5.4 Future Studies…………………………………………………………….80

5.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………...81

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………82

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………...95

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Components of an Entrepreneurial

Culture: Three Perspectives……………………………………….. 22

Table 2: Underlying variables which form part

and make up the CEAI………………………………………………..53

Table 3: Educational level of participants…………...............……………..56

Table 4: Position of participants………………………………………………57

Table 5: Number of years in the company…………………………………..58

Table 6: Number of years in the banking sector…………………………...59

Table 7: Management level (Authority and Responsibility)……………...60

Table 8: Gender of participants……………………………………………….61

Table 9: Age of participants…………………………………………………...62

Table 10: Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum

of the five CE factors……………………………………………….63

Table 11: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance withfactor one,

the management support sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N =

63) .....................................................70

Table 12: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor two,

the work discretion sub-scale (CE2) as dependent variable (N = 63)

…………………………………………………….71

Table 13: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor three,

the rewards and reinforcement sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N

= 63)…………………………………..72

Table 14: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor four,

the time availability sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N = 63)

…………………………………………………….73

Table 15: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor five,

the organizational boundaries sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N

= 63)………………………………………74

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Categories of Corporate Entrepreneurship……..……………….16

Figure 2: An illustration of corporate entrepreneurship

and intrapreneurship…………………………………………………18

Figure 3: The 5 influential factors of corporate entrepreneurship……....24

Figure 4: The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship,

Innovation, competitive advantage and competition………….35

Figure 5: Flowchart of the key steps in developing a

Corporate entrepreneurial strategy.............................................37

Figure 6: Educational levels of participants…………………………………56

Figure 7: Position of participants……………………………………………...57

Figure 8: Number of years in the company………………………………….58

Figure 9: Number of years in the banking sector…………………………..59

Figure 10: Management level (Authority and Responsibility)……………60

Figure 11: Gender of participants……………………………………………..61

Figure 12: Age of participants………………………………………...……….62

Figure 13: Means of the five CEAI factors…………………………………...63

Figure 14: “The rewards I receive are dependent upon

my work on the job”…………………………………………………64

Figure 15: “My supervisor will increase my job responsibilities if

I am performing well in my job”……………………………………64

Figure 16: “My supervisor will give me special recognition

if my work performance is especially good”.................................65

Figure 17: “I always seem to have plenty of time to get things done”……….66

Figure 18: “I have just the right amount of time and workload to

do everything well”…………………………………………………...66

Figure 19: “I feel that I am always working with time constraints

on my job”…………………………………………………………….67

Figure 20: “There are many written rules and procedures that exist

for doing my major tasks”…………………………………………..68

Figure 21: “On my job I have no doubt of what is expected of me.”…………68

Figure 22: “My job description clearly specifies the standards

of performance on which my job is evaluated.”…………………..69

Figure 23: “I clearly know what level of work performance is

expected from me in term of amount, quality and

time line of output”......................................................................69

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO STUDY

1.1 Introduction

Since the dawn of the global economy, competition posture has begun to influence

organisational performance and success. Similarly, as a result of globalisation there is

currently a global increase in levels of competition (Blanke, 2007:5). Sources and methods

of competing have to be identified and utilised, and one such source of competition is

innovation (Hoy, 2006:832). Innovation is deemed to be a powerful driver of organisational

growth and competition (Scheepers, Hough & Bloom, 2007:238). Many leading

organisations claim to be innovative and attribute their successes to innovation, or

innovative stances by them (McGregor, Arndt, Berner, Rowley, Hall, Edmondson, Hamm,

Ihlwan, & Reinhardt, 2006:1).

According to recent studies and research, innovation is directly related to, and is a

resultant product of, entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship (CE) (Antoncic,

2006:59; Bhardwaj, Camillus & Hounshell, 2006:47; Kamffer, 2004:4; Kuratko, Ireland,

Covin & Hornsby, 2005:699). Organisations have realised that embracing CE, and creating

a CE enabling climate, fast-tracks the innovation process, resulting in increased levels of

innovation, competitive advantage and competitive stature (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:9;

Dess, Lumpkin & McFarlin, 2005:149)

South African banks are following international trends of successful organisations and

have started placing substantial emphasis on innovation, as well as the adoption and

development thereof (Planting, 2004:1). According to Planting (2004:1) innovation is

prevalent and a priority for South African banks. Due to the direct relationship between

innovation and CE, if some form of innovation is present, the assumption can be made that

some degree of CE is consequently also present (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:131). The

assumption can therefore be made that some degree of CE is present within South African

banks and the banking sector.

In order to increase levels of competition and innovation, a higher degree of CE has to be

achieved (Kellermanns &Eddleston, 2006:809; Nayager & Van Vuuren, 2005:30). This can

be done by creating a conducive CE climate which supports the establishment and

development of CE within the organisation (Taylor, 2006:15).

The theory of corporate entrepreneurship is currently a very popular and constantly

evolving topic of research and study. It is the subject of an ever-growing field of research

amongst academic scholars and corporate organisations alike.

CE caters for the need for infusion of dynamic entrepreneurial behaviour into larger,

established organisations and structures, in order to revitalise and give them a fresher,

newer, more dynamic approach to conducting business (Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008:8).

CE has also been proven to have a significant influence and impact on organisational

growth and performance (Hitt, Ireland, Camp & Sexton, 2002:173; Kuratko, Ireland &

Hornsby, 2001: 69; Zahra, 1995:240).

Corporate entrepreneurship, however, still remains a very contemporary ever evolving

subject (Lassen, 2007:1). The concept of corporate entrepreneurship is comprised and

made up of many different forms. Three of the most predominant forms, which will be

discussed in this study, are organisational CE, intrapreneurship, and corporate venturing,

both internal and external corporate venturing (Bouwmeesters, 2006:1).

Corporate entrepreneurship is the term referring to a multidimensional phenomenon

incorporating the individual, a group of individuals, or the entire organisation as well as the

business culture and orientation of the organisation (Michalski, 2004:7). It is the process

through which individuals or a group of individuals within an established organisation

pursue entrepreneurial opportunities through innovation (Ireland, Kuratko & Morris.

2006a:10).

Organisational CE is therefore the label given to the form of entrepreneurship existing

within large organisations and can be defined as the entrepreneurial spirit permeating

throughout the entire organisation, resulting in entrepreneurial behaviour and orientation

within organisation (Chen, Zhaohui & Wang, 2005: 529).

Intrapreneurship, a subfield of corporate entrepreneurship, can be generally defined as

entrepreneurship in existing organisations, with the main focus upon the individual

entrepreneur within an existing organisation. (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003 a:7). The individual

corporate entrepreneur, defined and more commonly known as the intrapreneur, has been

a successful catalyst in the initiation of innovation and creation of a beneficial, and often

more profitable organisational revival (Zhao, 2005:36).

Intrapreneurship involves the employees (individuals and teams) working within the

existing organisations who identify new ideas and opportunities, and transform these into

profitable, commercial successes (Maes 2003:24; Shepherd & Krueger, 2007:176). These

intrapreneurs share the same characteristics of their independent entrepreneur

counterparts, the only aspects which differ in comparison are the environment in which

they operate, and the associated risk (Thornberry, 2003:330). The environment is that of

an established organisation, enabling them greater accessibility to resources, yet less

autonomy while the organisation bears the associated risk.

Corporate venturing can best be described as a business development strategy that aims

to create new business for the parent or host organisation, and is often used as a means

to encourage corporate renewal and rejuvenation therein (Husted & Vintergard, 2004:297).

Corporate venturing characterises the promotion of internally or externally originated

ventures, the soul purpose of these ventures is to pursue both strategic and financial goals

from which the parent organisation is able to benefit (Little, 2002:4).

External corporate ventures are established outside of the parent organisation and

primarily focus on opportunities identified outside the host organisation, and the core

commercial focus of the organisation (Birkinshaw & Hill, 2003:247).

Internal corporate ventures on the other hand can be defined as businesses that are

created, grown and owned by the parent organisation (Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008:81).

This type of venture unit focuses on opportunities which have been identified within the

organisation, and are closely linked to the core commercial focus and objectives of the

organisation (Rajagopal, 2006:704).

For the intended purpose of this study corporate entrepreneurship will be used in the

context of describing the behaviour in large established organisations which engage in

both entrepreneurial and innovative activities, as well as the promotion of entrepreneurial

orientation, mindset, and culture.

Due to the highly competitive nature of modern business, organisations have to constantly

remain competitive in order to remain successful (Meyer, 2007:1; Shepherd & Krueger,

2007:167). According to Maes (2003:1), the higher the frequency of CE, the greater the

levels of innovation and resulting competitiveness. In order to increase the frequency of

CE, a supportive, fostering climate has to be established (Taylor, 2006:15).

Corporate entrepreneurial climate can be defined as a set of existing internal conditions;

administrative and social arrangements; and organisational stimuli that influence the

behaviour of individuals in the manner in which they act, over which management has

some control, and which results in the diffusion of CE throughout the organisation

(Gantsho, 2006:42; Hayton, 2005: 140; Rutherford & Holt, 2007:432).

The focus of this chapter is to briefly introduce and clarify the scope of the study. The

corporate entrepreneurial climate of the South African banking sector will be investigated

by means of testing the perceptions of employees within the South African banking sector.

1.2 Problem formulation

The inclusion of South Africa into an emerging, dynamic, free-market global economy has

resulted in resurgent economic growth and has increased the business potential within the

South Africa economy (Saville, Bader & Spindler, 2005:675). This has led to the

introduction and increase in the number of foreign businesses and operations in the

country (Petrou, 2007:377).

Both these factors have ultimately shaped the competitive landscape of the economy,

making it intensely competitive. Hence, local businesses have to now compete with each

other, as well as international players. The flipside to this coin, however, is the expansion

of South African businesses into the international arena (Saville, Bader, Spindler,

2005:689). This is apparent in the South African banking sector.

There are currently forty four international banks operating in South Africa (Reserve Bank,

2007b:1). Coupled with this is the introduction of new legislation (Basel II compliance

framework and the National Credit Act), as well as continual pressure in the regulation of

banking competition, which has transformed the South African banking sector into a very

competitive environment, forcing banks to commit to innovation as a source of competition

and competitive advantage (Planting, 2007:1)

In a rapidly changing world, organisations need to continually identify new opportunities

beyond existing competencies if they are to survive and remain competitive (Shepherd &

Krueger, 2007:167). The banks have to maintain, and also try to increase, their respective

market share through enhancing their competitive position (Martin, 2006:1).

The question has to be asked: What can be done to improve the level of competitiveness

of South African banks? The answer is simple - to develop forms of sustainable

competitive advantage over other competitors (Bonaglia, Goldstein & Mathews, 2007:369).

Competitive advantage is seen as a measure to increase the competitive stature of an

organisation (Nieman, Hough & Nieuwenhuizen, 2003:85).

Competitive advantage is a product of innovation, and is achieved through the continuous

adoption and implementation of innovation objectives and innovative measures (Bertola &

Texeira, 2003:185; Echecopar, Fetters & McDermott, 2003:2). Innovation is a strategic

process and source that enables organisations to establish a position of competitive

advantage (Poon & MacPherson. 2005:259). Innovation provides a basis for profit and is a

resultant product of entrepreneurship (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003a:8; Shepherd & Krueger,

2007:167). In order for banks to increase their competitive postures they have to increase

their respective levels of CE (Scheepers, Hough & Bloom, 2007:239).

Maes (2003:1) roughly defined corporate entrepreneurship as a tool which can be used to

initiate innovation. Hence the presence of CE in existing organisations leads to a

competitive advantage through established innovation, as well as organisational growth

and improved financial performance (Hitt et al., 2002:173; Kuratko et al., 2001:69; Marvel,

Griffin, Hebda & Vojak, 2007:753). Organisations therefore have to increase the levels of

CE and CE activities in an attempt to maximise potential innovation and competitive

advantages.

Corporate entrepreneurship (CE), corporate entrepreneurial behaviour, and corporate

entrepreneurial activities are promoted and encouraged by the structuring of a CE climate

which fosters and develops such directives within organisations, and stimulates CE and

intrapreneurial behaviour and activities (Dhliwayo, 2007: 144; Ireland et al., 2006b:27;

Kuratko & Welsch, 2001:354). Banks are like any other organisation and are no exception

to this statement, thus they have to establish a CE climate if they are to foster increased

levels of CE and innovation.

There are climate-related organisational factors that represent and potentially encourage

corporate entrepreneurship (Cates, 2007:IV). They are namely: management support, time

availability, rewards and reinforcements, organisational boundaries and work discretion

(Morris & Kuratko, 2002:291; Wilkinson, 2006:104).

The purpose of this study is to investigate the current corporate entrepreneurial climate

within the South African banking sector. This will be achieved by establishing how

supportive and conducive the CE climate in the banking sector is when it comes to

inducing and promoting corporate entrepreneurship, by testing employees’ perceptions

within the South African banking sector.

Although current studies and literature have recognised numerous corporate

entrepreneurial variables and factors, only a few have been consistent throughout. For the

purpose of this study the above-identified climate-related constructs and factors will be

concentrated on, namely: managerial support, work discretion, rewards and

reinforcements, time availability, and organisational boundaries (Cates, 2007:IV; Morris &

Kuratko, 2002: 299).

1.3 Problem statement

Due to the current competitive nature of the banking sector, SA banks are continually

striving to innovate and maintain competitive postures and competitive advantages

(Hedley, 2007:2; Mboweni, 2007:2). In order to do so it is suggested to develop a fostering

CE climate. The main aim of this study is to investigate and explore the current corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector.

1.4 Aim/Importance of this study

This study is exploratory in nature and will investigate the climate of corporate

entrepreneurship within the South African banking sector. It will also identify variables

which have a direct influence upon the CE climate. Furthermore it will also allow us to

briefly evaluate how supportive the corporate environment is in the promotion of corporate

entrepreneurship within the South African banking sector, which may be used for

application in non-performing sectors.

A study such as this can be used to establish the degree of entrepreneurial orientation and

promotion thereof, and be used as a basis or foundation for a more in depth and thorough

research on the same subject at a later stage.

This study will focus on previously highlighted and identified variables which have an

influential effect a corporate entrepreneurial climate. Thus allowing for possible

suggestions to be made in terms of what steps and actions should be taken in improving

and creating a more favourable climate which will result in a higher degree of CE and

innovation in the South African banking sector.

1.5 Research methodology

The research design is comprised of a formal, ex post facto, design. The study is based on

the four major commercial role players of the South African banking sector, namely:

ABSA, FirstRand (FNB), Nedcor (Nedbank) and Standard Bank (Hazelhurst, 2004:1).

These four banks constitute the sample which will be used for this study.

The intention of this study was to test employees’ perceptions of the corporate

entrepreneurial climate in South African banking sector. For the purposes of this study, the

employees’ perceptions which will be tested will be those of middle managers and

operational level employees.

The time dimension was taken over the period of 60 days, thus making it a cross-sectional

study (Anderson, Sweeney & Williams, 2003:7). Further statistical analysis will be

conducted on all empirical data obtained, and will be used to draw inferences and

descriptive statistics. The relevant propositions will be tested quantitatively.

The highest measurement of reliability and high construct validity will be pursued, while the

only foreseeable limitations of the study design being used could be the lack of depth and

inside perspective. Potential sources of error that can occur can be singled to and

attributed to questionnaire error, incorrect answering of questionnaires, or possible data

capturing errors.

The measurement instrument used is known as the Corporate Entrepreneurship

Assessment Instrument (CEAI). CEAI is a specific structured questionnaire and has been

designed to evaluate the manner in which an individual of an organisation perceives

his/her current work environment and to tap the climate-related organisational factors that

represent and potentially encourage corporate entrepreneurship (Cates, 2007:IX; Morris &

Kuratko, 2002:295).

The CEAI has been designed to measure the five key corporate entrepreneurial variables:

management support, work discretion, time availability, rewards/reinforcement, and

organisational boundaries (Morris & Kuratko, 2002:295). All answered questions are

measured according to the Likert scale. Results will be analysed and scrutinised according

to these specific variables and scale

The demographic variables have been broken into age, gender, number of years at the

organisation, management level, position, highest qualification obtained, and how many

years experience the individual has within the banking sector. Non-probability sampling will

be used and the sample will consist of 63 respondents.

The data will take the form of empirical data, and the data will be analysed descriptively as

well as inferentially. Means, standard deviations, frequencies, and variances will be

determined for further comment and analysis of data. Such data and results will be used to

draw conclusions for the findings of the study.

1.6 Demarcation of chapters

Chapter one: The first chapter, as above mentioned, provides a background and

introduction to this study and the associated problem, as well as a condensed version of

the methodology which will be used for this study.

Chapter two: This chapter is primarily the literature review for this study. The literature

used is done so as to provide a clearer insight into the study, and a better

conceptualisation of the associated variables and constructs of the study, as well as to

substantiate and support the propositions of this study. A brief discussion of the South

African banking sector and its associated history and trends, will be given in this chapter.

All the related constructs which make up the theory of corporate entrepreneurship will be

discussed, defined, explained and explored, in order to provide a clearer understanding of

the study and the associated variables. All other related elements which are pertinent to

this study will also be explored and elucidated for the same reason.

Chapter three: The third chapter will contain all the associated research methodology

used in the study. An exact explanation will be given in terms of the aims and objectives of

the study, the research design, research sample, and the methods of data collection and

analysis. A detailed description of the questionnaire used will be given in this chapter.

Chapter four: The forth chapter will contain all the findings of the study, comprising of all

the relevant, interpreted data which will be commented on and explained.

Chapter five: The final chapter will contain an overall conclusion of the study. Areas of

interest, specifically areas of corporate entrepreneurship, within the South African banking

sector will be highlighted, explained, and recommendations given.

1.7 Conclusion

This chapter serves as a brief overview of the study. It has introduced corporate

entrepreneurship, its relevance as well as importance in any organisation, with a focus on

South African banks.

In this chapter CE and its relative construct have been introduced briefly and discussed,

highlighting the influential effect it has on organisations. More importantly the relationship

and link between CE and innovation has been established. The link will be used as a

basis, in context of the South African banking sector, to investigate the corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the sector.

In this chapter it is explained how the state of corporate entrepreneurial climate in the

South African banking sector will be investigated and evaluated by employees’ perceptions

of it. After all the data has been collected and evaluated results will be used to identify

influential areas of CE which can affect the CE climate. Areas of importance and value will

be discussed and recommendations will be given with the purpose of increasing levels of

CE by improving entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVEIW

The purpose of this chapter is to give an extensive review of the relative constructs and

factors associated with corporate entrepreneurship. This will be achieved using all

applicable literature to define, explain and elucidate the constructs and factors associated

with corporate entrepreneurship and the establishment of a corporate entrepreneurial

climate. The literature in this chapter will be used to create foundation for this study.

2.1 Defining Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial thinking and entrepreneurial actions are changing the

way business is conducted at every level and in every country (Kamffer, 2004:1).

Entrepreneurship is both an individual and organisational behavioural phenomenon which

is fast gaining recognition as an important element in economic growth, as well as an

effective means of attaining a sustainable competitive advantage; and positive financial

returns for both independent business ventures and organisations alike (Antoncic &

Hisrich, 2003a:8; Scheepers, Hough & Bloom, 238:2007; Urban, 2007:91).

The term entrepreneurship originates from the French word "entreprendre" and the closely

related German word "unternehmen”, both these words mean to "undertake" (Anderson,

2003:1). The entrepreneurial mindset denotes a way of thinking about business and its

opportunities that capture the benefit of uncertain dynamic environments (Dhliwayo,

2007:144), and revolves around the actions associated with the perceiving of opportunities

and “undertaking” the creation of means to pursue them (Nieman, Hough &

Nieuwenhuizen, 2003:9), whether it be in an individual capacity or in an organisational

context (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003b:8).

Entrepreneurship involves a process of creating value by bringing together a unique

combination of resources to exploit an opportunity (Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008:10;

Schumpeter, 1934:74).

The process of entrepreneurship can be summed up as the undertaking of all the

functions, activities and actions associated with the identifying of opportunities; the

creation of methods and organisations which are harnessed to exploit and seize these

opportunities for commercial gain; through a process of innovation (Anderson, 2003:1;

Jones, 2005:502; Kuratko & Hodgetts, 1989:47).

From a Schumpeterian point of view entrepreneurship is the key catalyst which is needed

for innovation to occur and it is a critical component of the entrepreneurial process

(McFadzean, O’Loughlin & Shaw, 2005a:350; Wickham, 2001:9). According to Ireland,

Kuratko and Morris (2006a:10) entrepreneurial behaviour is the foundation for

organisational innovation in which competitive advantages are grounded.

Entrepreneurship is thus equated with the concept of innovation, stating that if innovation

was present it constituted entrepreneurship (University of Colorado, 2007:1). Innovation

lies at the heart of entrepreneurship (Wickham, 2001:57), and entrepreneurship is termed

as the act of innovation, inside or outside an existing business (Kamffer, 2004:11).

Innovation is the most relevant factor linking entrepreneurship to economic and

organisational growth (Wennekers & Thurik, 1999:34)

Entrepreneurship, in a nutshell, can be described as dynamic process of pursuing an

opportunity and creating incremental wealth and value (Echecopar, Fetters & McDermott,

2003:2). Exploiting an opportunity, whether through an independent personal capacity, or

through an organisational capacity, constitutes the core of entrepreneurship (Antoncic &

Hisrich, 2003a:8; Hitt, Ireland, Camp & Sexton, 2002:6).

Key elements of entrepreneurship include adaptability, flexibility, speed, aggressiveness,

risk taking, and innovativeness (Kuratko & Morris, 2002:15; Zhoa, 2005:26). Below is a list

of some additional dominant characteristics of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs

synthesised and compiled by Kirby (2003:210):

Innovative

Proactive

Able to cope with uncertainty, risk and ambiguity

Goal-orientated

Visionary

Opportunistic

Tolerant of Failure

Flexible

Informal

Committed to growth

In its broadest conception, entrepreneurship is a comprehensive term that captures all

actions related to the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities, in the

process of value creation.

2.1.1 Defining the entrepreneur

The entrepreneurial process always involves teams and individuals (Morris, Kuratko &

Covin, 2008:167). The entrepreneur is an individual who carries out the effective

application of a number of enterprising attributes such as: creativity and innovation; new

combinations; taking proactive initiative; responsibility and autonomy; managing risk and

uncertainty; dogged determination and persistence; creating new novel innovations;

developing solutions to problems; and focusing on new, fresh and ground-breaking

activities (Business Network, 2007: 1; Gantsho, 2006:24; Johnson, 2001:137 ; Pirich,

Knuckey & Campbell, 2001:4; Schumpeter, 1934:74).

Entrepreneurs are the people who identify an opportunity, gather the required resources,

or effectively arrange new combinations of the resources they have, and create and grow

a business venture to meet these needs. They bear the associated risk of such an

undertaking, yet are rewarded with the profits if it succeeds (Nieman et al., 2003:9).

“Schumpeter positioned the entrepreneur as an agent of change, whose creative

behaviour in terms of different innovation aspects was seen as a creative disruption”

(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003:8). Being innovative is therefore a prominent personality trait

of entrepreneurs, and it is safe to classify the entrepreneur as an innovator (McFadzean et

al., 2005a; Wickham, 2001:9).

2.2 Corporate entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship does occur in large companies and organisations and manifests in the

form of corporate entrepreneurship. Much like the field of entrepreneurship itself, a

considerable degree of ambiguity surrounds the corporate entrepreneurship (CE)

construct. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to resolve these issues, it is important

to clarify, define and conceptualise the CE construct. It is also imperative to explore and

define other pertinent aspects which are closely related and fall under the umbrella of CE,

which include organisational corporate entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and corporate

venturing (Antoncic, 2006:59; Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008:11).

Corporate entrepreneurship is the term referring to a multidimensional phenomenon

incorporating the presence of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour within an

established organisation; encompassing innovative, proactive, or risk-seeking behaviours;

in both formal and informal structures; where the organisation is holistically described as

being entrepreneurial; and where the entrepreneurial spirit permeates throughout the

entire organisation (Birkinshaw, 2003: 3; Chen, Zhaohui & Wang, 2005:529; Doh & Pearce

II, 2004: 648; Gantsho, 2006:3; Kamffer, 2004:14; Morris et al., 2008:11; Scheepers,

Hough & Bloom, 240:2007). Expanding upon this definition CE can be defined as a

process through which individuals within an established organisation pursue

entrepreneurial opportunities, through innovation, without regard to the level of resources

currently available (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:134; Ireland, Kuratko & Morris. 2006a:10).

The function of CE is to seek feasible opportunities, utilise the resource base to pursue

and exploit the opportunities, with the aim of creating additional value (Teng, 2007:123),

and CE is a result of entrepreneurial culture, behaviours and activities, or a combination of

all three within the organisation (McFadzean et al., 2005a:350). Generally speaking the

main objective of corporate entrepreneurship is to utilise and harness the successful

characteristics of smaller entrepreneurial businesses and organisations, and apply them to

larger, more established organisations (Maes, 2003:20).

This was supported by Thornberry (2003:330) who elaborated on this by stating that

corporate entrepreneurship is merely an attempt to take the mindset, skill and

entrepreneurial culture of an independent, individual entrepreneur and inculcate these

characteristics into the cultures and activities of a larger organisation, in order to achieve

the same resultant effect. For the purpose of study, the term corporate entrepreneurship

(CE) will be used to describe entrepreneurial behaviour within an already established

organisation.

Corporate entrepreneurship is not confined to a specific industry, sector or particular

organisational size, and is not dependent on the stage in the organisation’s life cycle

(Kamffer, 2004:15; Zhoa, 2005: 28). Hence, CE can happen in any organisation, at any

time and often acts as a reenergising factor for the organisation through the utilisation and

acquisition of innovative skills and capabilities (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:9; Morris et al.,

2008:11)

In order to remain competitive, organisations have to continually utilise these innovative

skills and capabilities to discover new methods through which they can create, increase

and maintain levels of competitive postures (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:134; Maes;

2001:1). As a business tool CE stimulates business rejuvenation and revitalisation,

development, revenue growth, profitability, pioneers the development of new products,

services and processes through innovation (Nayager & Van Vuuren, 2005:29; Pirich,

Knuckey and Campbell, 2001:1; Scheepers et al., 2007:240).

CE acts as the spark and catalyst which is required to assist the organisation to become

more dynamic and more competitive, by changing their competitive profile through

innovation (Goosen, De Coning & Smit, 2002b:21; Kellermanns &Eddleston, 2006:809;

Nayager & Van Vuuren, 2005:30). There is a positive relationship between the CE and

financial performance, and all these factors lead to greater levels of profitability and

competitive standing for the organisation (Goosen et al., 2002b:26; Maes; 2003:1;

Michalski, 2004:4;).

In addition to this, CE acts as a mechanism to leverage the existing resources and

competencies within an organisation, to achieve new and increased levels of innovation,

resulting in optimal opportunity realisation and value creation (Michalski, 2004:8). CE, for

that reason yields above-average returns and is a means to creating a sustainable

competitive advantage, and superior organisational performance culminating in the

promotion of corporate competitiveness (Dess, Lumpkin & McFarlin, 2005:147; Gantsho,

2006:3).

CE can be broken down into three closely, interrelated categories, which form the basis for

corporate entrepreneurship within an organisation: individual (intrapreneurship);

organisation (organisational entrepreneurship); and environment (corporate

entrepreneurial climate) (Gantsho, 2006:30; Kuratko & Hodgetts, 1989:47; Michalski,

2004:7; Pirich et al., 2001:10).

Figure 1: Categories of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Source: Adapted from Adonisi, 2003:24

From the above characteristics it can be concluded that corporate entrepreneurship, for

the most part is an organisational process and that businesses with an entrepreneurial

orientation are innovative, proactive, and prepared to take risks. Corporate entrepreneurial

organisations are by definition more proactive than traditional organisations. Their quick

market response therefore gives them added competitive advantage (Bhardwaj &

Momaya, 2007:131).

2.2.1 Defining the intrapreneur

Corporate entrepreneurship is an area of growing research, to which intrapreneurship is a

closely related subfield. Intrapreneurship can be roughly defined as the science of the

individual entrepreneur within an existing organisation (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003a:7).

Individuals and employees that exercise entrepreneurial orientation and insight are

referred as intrapreneurs (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:10; Michalski, 2004:7; Pirich et al.,,

2001:10).

INDIVIDUAL

ENVIRONMENT

ORGANISATION

Intrapreneurs are corporate entrepreneurs and can be defined as individuals who promote

entrepreneurial activities, innovation and organisational change by championing new and

fresh ideas and outlooks, while at the same time mobilising support for the acceptance and

willingness to adopt change within established organisations (Jones, 2005:491; Kamffer,

2004:15; Maes, 2003:24; McFadzean et al., 2005b:400). Intrapreneurs share the same

characteristics of their independent counterparts, with the only significant difference being

the environments in which they operate, and their risk associations (Thornberry,

2003:330).

Intrapreneurs are creative and resourceful individuals by nature who are comfortable with

ambiguity, uncertainty and risks, and don’t mind long lead times. They are also highly

motivated by problem-solving, thus, they can’t be appointed they have to be volunteers

(Morris & Kuratko, 2002:236).

From a Schumpeterian point of view the intrapreneur is seen as the heart of the

organisation and acts as a catalyst for innovation, developing new innovative ideas, and

innovations (Hellstrom, Jacob & Malmquist, 2002:175; Hitt et al., 2002:8).

The role of the intrapreneur is to systematically generate innovations in the shape of new

successful products, services, processes, new technologies, and new business, as well as

to maximise all levels of efficiency within an already established organisation (Goosen et

al., 2002a:26; McFadzean et al., 2005b:400; Michalski, 2004:7).

Corporate entrepreneurs use basic management procedures and skills, while embracing

behavioural attributes and style that challenges contemporary bureaucracy, by being

prepared to break organisational rules and challenge norms to implement change and

pursue potential opportunities (Barringer & Bluedron, 1999:429; Jones, 2005:491;

Wickham, 2001:389). Intrapreneurs are determined, take decisive action and decisions.

They are the corporate risk takers and due to their dedication and commitment they see

projects through until completion (Kamffer, 2004:72).

Figure 2: An illustration of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship

Source: (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:10)

As seen in Figure 2.2.1 innovation and CE must initially be encouraged by a “top-down”

approach and entrepreneurial strategy implemented by top management. Whereas

intrapreneurship on the other hand, conversely, has the opposite origins where many of

the best ideas are self-determined and come from the “bottom-up”. Individual employees

exercise entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:10; Dess et al.,

2005:149).

Intrapreneurship is the process of creating innovation and pursuing potentially feasible

opportunities within an organisational setting, through the adoption and replication of the

mindset and approach of independent entrepreneurs, by the individual employees of an

organisation. (Thornberry, 2003:331).

2.3 Corporate venturing

In modern organisations there is a management dilemma of how to foster and encourage

innovation and CE from within. Corporate venturing is a simple answer to this problem and

is regarded as a vehicle and a means for identifying new trends, technologies, markets,

and opportunities, as well as a means to fostering of entrepreneurial activity (Hellstrom,

Jacob & Malmquist, 2002:172; Little, 2002:34).

The traditional definition of corporate venturing (CV) pertains to the fostering of new young

ventures by larger, more established parent organisations (Little, 2002:3).

Answer to Corporate a request Entrepreneurship

Intrapreneurship Self-determined

INNOVATION BEHAVIOUR AMONG EMPLOYEES

Corporate venturing is focused on new opportunities for growth (Teng, 2007:119),

therefore CV acts as a business development strategy. Strategic corporate venturing aims

to create new businesses for the parent organisation and is often used as a means to

encourage corporate renewal and rejuvenation therein as it stimulates and increase levels

of innovation (Husted & Vintergard, 2004:299). Corporate venturing can be used by an

organisation to increase its knowledge base, to strengthen its ability to innovate, and is a

powerful supplement to own research and development (Little, 2002:11).

Corporate venturing activities involve substantial risks, but also have the potential for

extraordinary returns (Hayton, 2005:137). Gompers (2002:2) made light of the fact that the

corporate ventures have, on average, been more profitable and successful than

independent ventures. He attributed this to the flexibility and adaptability, through

innovation, of corporate ventures and the pool of resources (both financial and human) at

their disposal.

Little (2002:6) is of the opinion that there are two main types of corporate ventures, and

both are differentiated by their reasons for existence. The author believed one is a

financially motivated corporate venturing, and this type of venturing has the sole objective

of rapidly increasing the financial gains and position of the parent organisation. The

second type is strategically motivated corporate venturing, and is primarily involved in the

increasing of value in the organisation. This can take the form of new skills and expertise,

or even a new direction of business operations and activities. (Birkinshaw & Hall,

2005:252; Little, 2002:6).

The highest form of sustained profitable growth comes from when an organisation

expands and pursues avenues of operations and business which differ from its core

business activities (Zook & Allen, 2003:2). Corporate venturing acts as a means to exploit

this because it involves the starting of new business ventures within an established

organisation, usually stemming from totally different core competencies and activities of

the host organisation (Thornberry, 2003:330).

Corporate venturing provides for an alternative medium to pursue other business

opportunities and facilitate continuous growth by harnessing high levels of innovation and

cutting-edge technologies, as well as intense levels of skills and entrepreneurial flair

(Rajagopal, 2006:704). CE and innovation are generated from both internal and external

sources (Morten, Neubaum & Gabrielsson. 2005:315), therefore CV is used as a means to

encourage corporate renewal and rejuvenation within an organisation, and takes the form

of both internal and external corporate venturing (Birkinshaw and Hill, 2005:247; Husted &

Vintergard, 2004:297; Little, 2002:3; Thornberry, 2003:330).

2.3.1 Internal corporate venturing

Morris et al., (2008:81) define internal corporate venturing as new business creation,

grown and owned by the parent organisation. The authors are of the opinion that internal

corporate ventures generally fall within the parent organisation’s organisational structure,

either as additions to pre-existing sections or as totally new entities.

Internal corporate venturing can thus be defined as the establishment of a separate entity

within itself in order to enter new markets or develop entirely new products or services

(Rajagopal, 2006:704; Zahra, Jennings & Kuratko, 1999:52).

2.3.2 External corporate venturing

This type of corporate venturing focuses on external opportunities, outside to the

organisation and refers to entrepreneurial activity in which businesses are created by

parties which do not form part of the host organisation; which are ventures separate from

the original organisation; and are subsequently invested in or acquired by the parent

organisation (Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008:81; Zahra et al., 1999:52). External ventures

often take on the form of independent start-ups (Birkinshaw & Hill, 2005:247).

Often it is more beneficial for the organisation to pursue a combination of both the internal

and external opportunities than to focus purely on one type of corporate venturing. This is

known as cooperative corporate venturing or joint corporate venturing, and it has recently

become very popular among larger organisations. It refers to the entrepreneurial activity in

which business are started and owned by both the organisation and external parties

(Birkinshaw & Hill, 2005:247; Morris et al., 2007:81).

2.4 Corporate entrepreneurial culture

Organisational culture is a very powerful governing dynamic of the organisation and can

be seen as “a social energy that drives or fails to drive a firm” (Ireland et al., 2006a:16).

Organisational culture is often referred to as “the way we do things around here” (Zhao,

2005:29), and can best be defined as a set of expected behavioural patterns, beliefs,

norms and value (Nieman et al., 2003:81; Logenecker, Moore & Petty, 2003:377). A CE

culture forms the foundation for corporate entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship within

an organisational context (Gantsho, 2006:65).

The implications of this framework suggest that culture and beliefs act as catalysts rather

than causal agents of entrepreneurial outcomes. Essentially this means that there has to

be an established culture to enable a conducive CE climate, which in turn fosters and

encourages increased levels of CE within a favourable environmental setting (Pirich et al.,

2001:11; Urban, 2007:91). The first step to establishing an entrepreneurial culture is

securing the commitment and support of management (Gantsho, 2006:58).

Once management is committed and is supportive of a CE culture within the organisation

employees are persuaded to both act and think entrepreneurially within the business

environment (Kirby, 2003:211). This is very influential in the promotion of corporate

entrepreneurship as it stimulates creativity, new opportunity identification, innovation and

encourages employees to take the initiative and to think “outside the box” (Ireland et al.

2006b:27; Gantsho, 2006: 65; Pirich et al., 2001:11; Zhao, 2005:29).

Morris et al., (2008:252) considered culture to be comprised of substance and forms.

Substance refers to the shared system of expected values, beliefs and norms, while forms

refer to the ways in which substance is manifested throughout the organisation.

Culture substance refers to the shared beliefs, values and doctrines within the

organisation. These doctrines are logically integrated sets of beliefs that create a shared,

combined meaning throughout the organisation (Adonisi, 2003:28). While culture form,

serves as a control mechanism that guides and shapes the attitudes and behaviours of

employees, and takes the form of the ‘social glue’ which binds the organisational members

into a cohesive entrepreneurial unit (Nayager & Van Vuuren, 2005:31)

Table 1: Components of an Entrepreneurial Culture: Three Perspectives

Source: Morris, Kuratko & Covin (2008:259)

Table 2.4 presents a synopsis of the work done by the respective writers on influential

elements which shape an organisational culture, which fosters innovation and CE.

According to Morris et al. (2008:259) these can be synthesized, resulting in the essential

elements required in the establishment of a conducive and successful entrepreneurial

culture:

Focus on people and empowerment

Value creation through innovation and change

Attention to basics

Hands-on, involved management

Doing the right thing

Freedom to grow and to fail

Commitment to personal responsibility

Focus on the future and a sense of urgency

Timmons (1999)

Clarity, being well-organisedHigh standards, pressure for excellenceCommitmentResponsibilityRecognitionEspirit de corps

Peters (1997)

ListeningEmbracing changeCustomer focusTotal integrityExcellenceInvolve everyone in everythingExperimentationFast-paced innovationSmall starts and fast failuresVisible ManagementMeasurement/ Accountability

Cornwall and Perlman (1990)

RiskEarned respectEthics, integrity, trust and credibilityPeopleEmotional commitmentWork is funEmpowered leadership throughout firmValue winsRelentless attention to detail, people, structure, and processEffectiveness and efficiency

When an organisation adopts an entrepreneurial culture, the employees increase their

ability to act entrepreneurially, and this is further complimented by the development of a

supportive corporate entrepreneurial climate (Ireland et al.2006a:16).

2.5 Corporate entrepreneurial climate

In order to stimulate CE in organisations the CE culture has to work in conjunction with the

correct complimentary organisational CE climate (Ireland et al. 2006b:27). The

environment, rather than the individual determine the employees' involvement in CE,

innovation, and change, meaning that the fostering of a CE climate in organisations

stimulates CE, because individuals are encouraged to engage in innovative and

entrepreneurial activities freely. (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:9; Dess et al., 2005:149; Ireland

et al. 2006b:27; Kuratko & Hodgetts, 1989:66).

Corporate entrepreneurial climate can be defined as a set of existing internal conditions;

administrative and social arrangements; organisational stimuli that influence the behaviour

of individuals in the manner in which they act, and over which management has some

control, and which results in the diffusion of CE throughout the organisation (Gantsho,

2006:42; Hayton, 2005: 140; Rutherford & Holt, 2007:432). A corporate entrepreneurial

climate is based upon the organisation’s openness to new ideas and willingness to take

risks, as well as the extent to which intrapreneurs are recognised, appreciated and

supported (Taylor, 2006:15). The consequence of this is a direct relationship: the higher

the employees’ perception of a supportive CE climate, the greater the levels of

intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurial activity (Kuratko & Welsch, 2001:354).

The identification of CE characteristics needs to be done so that organisations can focus

on these characteristics in order to develop an entrepreneurial climate (Adonisi, 2003:24).

Management has control over the organisational factors, which have a direct influence on

the CE climate. Climate is therefore top management’s commitment to establishing an

environment conducive to the creation and development of corporate entrepreneurship

(Dhliwayo, 2007: 144; Ireland et al. 2006b:27). Factors such as management support, time

availability, rewards and reinforcements, organisational boundaries, and work discretion

are all assumed to affect the corporate entrepreneurial climate of an organisation (Morris &

Kuratko, 2002:291; Wilkinson, 2006:104).

2.6 Organisational areas of influence

In order to foster successful innovation and corporate entrepreneurship, management has

to be flexible and support employees by giving them a certain degree of autonomy and

responsibility, provide adequate time and resources for innovation, as well as rewards for

successful innovation and intrapreneurial activities (Nayager & Van Vuuren, 2005:32).

There have been 5 main factors which have been identified and highlighted as factors

which dictate and influence the corporate entrepreneurial climate, and how supportive an

organisation is of CE (Hornsby et al., 2002:267; Ireland et al., 2006b:25; Kuratko & Morris,

2002: 295). They are namely:

Management Support

Organisational boundaries

Rewards and reinforcement

Time availability

Work discretion and autonomy

Figure 3: The 5 influential factors of corporate entrepreneurship

Source: Own compilation

MANAGEMENT

SUPPOR

T

ORGANISATIONAL

BOUNDARIES

REWARD

S AND REINFORCEMENTS

TIM

E

AVA

ILA

BILI

TY

WORK DISCRETION

COPORATEENTREPRENEURSHI

P

These 5 factors form the basis of the CEAI (Corporate entrepreneurial assessment

instrument) which is used to test how supportive an organisation is of CE, ultimately the

corporate entrepreneurial climate within an organisation (Kuratko and Morris, 2002: 295).

Intrapreneurs are very dynamic people and often leave the larger organisations to pursue

their own interests and ideas by themselves, rather than the achievement of corporate

objectives. This often happens because these entrepreneurially minded individuals

become frustrated by the exhaustive bureaucratic process and systems of the

organisation. Another contributing factor of the loss of these intrapreneurs is the lack of

sufficient or adequate compensation (Kirby, 2003:302).

2.6.1 Management support

Management support is defined as the willingness of top level management to facilitate

and promote both corporate entrepreneurial behaviour and activities within an

organisation; including the championing of innovative ideas and providing the resources

intrapreneurs require to take entrepreneurial actions (Bhardwaj et al., 2007:51; Ireland et

al. 2006b:27)

According to Thompson (2004:1082) the main reason behind the failure of CE is that

intrapreneurs do not receive the required support from management, and are unable to

develop their true entrepreneurial potential.

Successful corporate entrepreneurship is initiated from management and management

tends to adopt a mentorship role to create, support and encourage CE and entrepreneurial

behaviour within the organisation, as managerial values will also influence which strategic

objectives are pursued, in this case CE objectives (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:9; Hayton,

2005: 140; Kamffer, 2004:100).

Rutherford & Holt (2007:431), identified management support as one of the crucial

variables of successful CE implementation. Management support captures the

introduction, support, encouragement and willingness of managers to facilitate

entrepreneurial activity within an enterprise (Kamffer, 2004:4; et al., 2007:242)

Support can take many forms, including championing innovative ideas, providing

necessary resources or expertise, or institutionalising intrapreneurial behaviour and activity

within the organisation’s systems and processes (Hornsby et al., 2002:255). In order to

achieve this, management’s role is not only direct, but also influential, thereby shaping

managerial processes and resource deployments (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:133).

Levels of CE are highest when controls are very informal, and where management

encourages uncertainty, promotes risk tolerance, encourages focused experimentation,

and empowers employees to act entrepreneurially (Morris, Allen, Schindehutte & Avila,

2006:476).

Within the CE context, positive perceptions about the organisation and its management’s

supportive nature will positively influence employees’ receptivity towards the organisational

efforts to introduce and implement CE, causing employees and intrapreneurs to act more

entrepreneurially (Rutherford & Holt, 2007:433).

While all managerial behaviour and influence is critical to attaining CE success, successful

corporate entrepreneurship hangs on the dependence of middle managers (Kuratko et al.,

2005:699). For the purposes of this middle management will be deemed to fall under

management support, and hence will be explored.

2.6.1.1 Middle Management

Management, especially middle management, have a key role in supporting and promoting

CE (Hornsby et al.,). They are responsible for the identification and exploitation of

opportunities, as well as providing unwavering support for CE throughout the entire

organisation (Kamffer, 2004:76).

Middle managers (middle management) have a very influential and supportive role when it

comes to fostering entrepreneurial behaviour, and they are able to influence all facets of

the organisation, as they are less vulnerable to organisational boundaries (Hornsby, et al.,

2002:260). The role of middle managers is to initiate and lead CE (Srivastava, Singla &

Chaturvedi, 2004:62), and to focus on effectively communicating information between the

firm’s two internal stakeholders: top managers and operational level employees. (Kuratko

et al., 2005:707).

2.6.1.2 Operational Employees

The most informative and often most innovative employees are the operational level (lower

management) employees (Fearon, Cavaleri & Prairie, 2006:66). This is because these

employees have a direct ‘hands on’ contact, hence they have direct experiences with

business operations. Fearon et al. (2006:66) were of the opinion that operational level

employees are the most intrapreneurial as they are in the best position to identify new

opportunities, as well as to make decisions, give feedback on what works best, and what

doesn’t work in practice to middle managers.

Middle managers communicate their own ideas and these ideas from operational levels

employees, entrepreneurial activities and innovation to upper management (Hornsby et al.,

2002:256). The fact that middle managers interact with all levels within the organisation

they are successfully able to convey communication about the company’s mission, goals,

and priorities throughout (McFadzean et al., 2005b:402)

2.6.2 Organisational boundaries

In order to have a successful corporate entrepreneurial climate in an organisation

employees must be encouraged to diversifying their skills by operating outside of their

specified job descriptions (Ireland et al. 2006b:28). This can be done by talking and

interacting with people in other departments and by pursuing areas of interest, and can

only be supported by fewer and more flexible organisational boundaries (Bhardwaj &

Momaya, 2007:136).

Organisational boundaries can be referred to as the precise confines and structures

implemented by respective organisations. These boundaries form expected measures of

organisational work and become mechanisms used for evaluating and bench marking

(Ireland et al. 2006b:28). Boundaries can be real or imaginable and could either prevent or

encourage employees to act entrepreneurially or not (Adonisi, 2003:31). Researchers

have identified fewer and flexible organisational boundaries as critical for the success of

corporate entrepreneurship (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:136).

Organisational boundaries are enforced through organisational structure, thus the

structure needs to have fewer boundaries to be supportive of innovation and

entrepreneurship (Gantsho, 2006: 59).

Formal centralised structures have many boundaries and layers, they tend to also be very

bureaucratic and restrictive in nature (Adonisi, 2003:32; Goosen, De Coning & Smit,

2002b:22). Hierarchical and elongated structures tend to create an old “one-way top-down”

approach with many different boundaries that smother CE development, leading to

opportunity loss identified in lower organisational levels (Srivastava et al., 2004:62).

An organisational structure which best facilitates and promotes CE is one consisting of

fewer barriers and boundaries, which is flatter; with fewer layers; decentralised; more

horizontal over vertical in structural design; and a network-orientated structure which

encourages entrepreneurial activities by allowing for free-flowing movement of knowledge,

information and skills (Adonisi, 2003:32; Bertola & Texeira. 2003:189; Bhardwaj et al.,

2007:50; Dhliwayo, 2007: 112; Hellstrom et al., 2002:173; Ireland et al., 2006a:14;

Scheepers et al., 2007:242; Viswanathan & Nagarajan. 2004:20).

2.6.3 Rewards and reinforcements

Our review of the literature revealed that reward structures in particular are critical for

aligning individual goals with organisational goals (Rutherford & Holt, 2007:432).

Intrapreneurs are goal-oriented and seek rewards, feedback, and recognition. An

appropriate reward system keeps these individuals motivated and committed, constantly

striving for new ideas and opportunities (Adonisi, 2003:35; Viswanathan & Nagarajan.

2004:21)

The rewards and reinforcement philosophy influences the degree of continued

commitment that management can expect from individuals (Nicholson-Herbert, Mkhize &

Schroder, 2004:44), and develops individuals’ motivation to engage in innovative,

intrapreneurial behaviour. Innovative organisations are characterised by the awarding of

bonuses and rewards subject to performance, offering challenges, increasing

responsibilities, and making the ideas of innovative people known to others in the

organisational hierarchy (Scheepers et al., 242:2007).

Use of appropriate rewards can enhance employees’ willingness to assume the risks

associated with entrepreneurial activity (Ireland et al., 2006b:28). An effective reward

system that spurs entrepreneurial activity must consider goals, feedback, emphasis on

individual responsibility, and results based incentives (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:136).

Rewards are very influential in motivating employees, and rewards can take on both

financial and intangible forms (Kirby, 2003:304). Financial rewards in the forms of

bonuses, incentives or resources needed for new ideas/ innovations (Ireland et

al.2006b:28). Intangible rewards in the form of greater responsibility and autonomy, status

through promotion, recognition, career enhancement, and social rewards (Morris et al.,

2008:175).

2.6.4 Time availability

Time availability involves the relationship of employees/team’s workloads and time needed

for the pursuit of new innovations. It is defined as evaluating workloads to ensure that

individuals have the time needed to complete workloads detailed in their job description,

as well as having enough additional time to pursue innovations and opportunities (Ireland

et al., 2006b:28). Employees’ jobs are structured in ways that support efforts to achieve

short-term and long-term organisational goals (Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:131; Ireland et

al., 2006b:28). Time availability becomes of greater importance when innovation is the

focus. More time is needed in the successful development of innovations and CE

(Gantsho, 2006: 59).

Organisations need to devote “work time” to intrapreneurs to create and develop new

innovative ideas. 3M is a testimony to this approach as they deliberately foster innovation

and CE through people by devoting 15% of their overall “work time” to the development of

employees’ new ideas, thereby cultivating organisational entrepreneurship (Thompson,

2004:1084).

Researchers have emphasised the criticality of availability of time for CE, stating that in

successful entrepreneurial work environments, employees are permitted to conduct

creative, entrepreneurial experiments in a limited portion of their working time (Scheepers

et al., 242:2007).

2.6.5 Work Discretion

Work discretion refers to the degree of autonomy given for entrepreneurial efforts

(Bhardwaj et al., 2007:51). Autonomy refers to employees’ discretion and the extent to

which they are empowered to make decisions on the performance of their own work in the

way they believe is most effective (Scheepers et al., 2007:242).

The facilitation of entrepreneurship appears more consistently with role flexibility and

autonomy, which can be achieved if employees are given greater responsibility and self-

governance, thereby being empowered and able to use their own discretion whilst

conducting business operations (Gantsho, 2006: 58).

In the organisational environment, work discretion induces and contributes to a corporate

entrepreneurial culture and climate by allowing the employees and intrapreneurs of an

organisation the freedom to “break the rules”; work outside of their job description; make

their own decisions and use their own judgement regarding their direct areas of activity

and operations (Ireland et al., 2006b:27).

People should be encouraged to diversify and develop their skills, ultimately broadening

their job description. This can be done by talking and interacting with people in other

departments and by pursuing areas of personal interest (Hellstrom et al., 2002:173; Ireland

et al., 2006a:14; Ireland et al., 2006b:28). It should be the employees own responsibility to

decide how the job should be done and this is achieved through work discretion (Ireland et

al., 2006b:27).

2.7 Innovation

The modern day organisations are faced with slow growth, commoditisation and global

competition, innovation is an extremely, influential economic multiplier an effective solution

to this ever-growing dilemma (Hitt, et al., 2002:6; Montalvo. 2006:312; Sawhney, Wolcott &

Arroniz. 2006:75). To be successful, a firm must have the capacity to innovate faster than

its best competitors. Essentially, this capacity is about identifying opportunities, new ways

of doing business, as well as developing new technologies and products, (Bhardwaj &

Momaya, 2007:131; Teng, 2007:119).

Traditionally, innovation has been defined as the successful development and

implementation of creative ideas, which initiate the creation of new, or improved products,

services and technologies, resulting in some form of value creation (Hayton, 2005:33;

Ireland, Kuratko & Morris. 2006a:10; McFadzean, et al., 2005a:353; Pirich et al., 2001:15;

Scheepers et al., 2007:240). From an entrepreneurial perspective innovation can best be

defined as the application of creativity to create, identify and exploit opportunities (Kirby,

2003:132).

This organisational creativity and experimentation leads to efforts to improve or develop

new resources, discover new opportunities, or novel solutions. The net result of this

approach is the improvement or development of new products, new services, or improved

technological processes (Dess et al., 2005:150; Lassen, Gertsen & Riis, 2006:361; Teng,

2007:122). Innovation is currently recognised as a key means of initiating change and from

a broad, organisational perspective, innovation can consequently be referred to as the

creation of substantial value by creatively initiating some form of change in the dimensions

of the organisational business systems (Montalvo, 2006:312; Pirich et al., 2001:11;

Sawhney et al., 2006:79).

This change often comes in the form of applied research in one or more dimensions in the

organisational business systems, allowing for the successful transfer of new opportunities

and knowledge into new commercially feasible products and processes (Gantsho,

2006:25). It focuses on developing new resources and capabilities that offer growth

potential, and tends to be the most important and influential driver of organisational

performance and growth (Antoncic, 2006:59; Teng, 2007:122; Zhoa, 2005:28).

It should also be noted that, as with all business operations, such changes and the

innovation process is also susceptible to failure, hence involves some degree of risk, but

has the potential for extraordinary returns (Hayton, 2005: 137; Kamffer, 2004:83).

Another key feature of innovation is its knowledge orientation, as it deals with generating

know-how for doing things differently, this results in greater effectiveness and efficiencies

for the organisation (Ireland et al., 2006a:10; Teng, 2007:131).

The main goal or purpose of innovation within in an organisation is for the entire

organisation and its employees to work proactively in locating or identifying new ideas and

opportunities which, once exploited, will render an increase and added value to the

organisation. An organisation’s innovativeness is positively correlated to its ability to

identify applications, products and opportunities, and to also commercialise them for

profitable success (Poon & MacPherson, 2005:270).

Innovations can be distinguished in three forms: (1) Product/service innovation- the

development of new and improved products and services, (2) Process innovation- the

harnessing and implementation of new technologies in business activities, and (3)

Organisational innovation- the establishment of new organisational structures and

administrative systems (Morten et al., 2005:316).

Product/ service innovation: This is the organisation’s pursuit to create new products and

services by means of radical innovation, or the improvement of existing products and

services by means of incremental innovation (Canibano, Garcia-Ayuso & Sanchez,

2000:331). This is often the area of the most concentrated focus and need for innovation

(Morten et al., 2005:316).

Process innovation: represents the organisation’s effort in introducing (radical innovation)

or improving (incremental innovation) the methods, processes, and procedures in which

business operations and activities occur. Often the main objective with process innovation

is increasing the overall organisational innovation and efficiency (Morten et al., 2005:316;

Pirich et al., 2001:15).

Organisational innovation: reflects on an organisation’s attempt to encourage and promote

innovation through various organisational structures and systems (Poon & MacPherson.

2005:270). The organisation’s structure, decision making procedures, and reward

systems, as well as training programs can be changed to make the innovation process

easier, by the introduction of effective administrative systems to foster innovative and

entrepreneurial behaviour (Morten et al., 2005:316).

2.8 Corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and competition

2.8.1 Entrepreneurship and Corporate Entrepreneurship

The greatest most significant factors differentiating entrepreneurship and corporate

entrepreneurship are the respective environments in which they work and the associated

risk they deal with (Thornberry, 2003:330). CE is the process of creating innovation and

pursuing potentially feasible opportunities within an organisational setting, through the

adoption and replication of the mindset and approach of independent entrepreneurs,

through the individual employees of an organisation (Thornberry, 2003:331).

Entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs share the same personality traits, qualities and

characteristics (Pirich et al., 2001:10; Thornberry, 2003:330). Both entrepreneurship and

intrapreneurship are fairly grounded in innovation, and both entrepreneurs and

intrapreneurs actively engage in innovation and are catalysts for the innovation processes.

(Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:10; Hellstrom et al., 2002:175; Hitt et al., 2002:8; Ireland et al.,

2006a:10; Zhoa, 2005:28) Therefore it is logical to assume that corporate entrepreneurs

think, act, and behave in the same manner as their independent counterparts.

2.8.2 Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Innovation cannot be ignored as a defining element of both intrapreneurship and

entrepreneurship. Innovation is the most relevant factor linking any form of

entrepreneurship to economic and organisational growth (Wennekers & Thurik, 1999:34).

CE and innovation are increasingly understood as the basis for wealth and value creation

within larger organizations (Echecopar et al., 2003:2).

There are strong complimentary interdependencies and direct relationship between

corporate entrepreneurship and innovation (McFadzean et al., 2005b:402; Zhoa, 2005:34).

There is a definite, positive relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation (Åmo &

Kolvereid, 2005:16; Bhardwaj & Momaya, 2007:131; Lassen et al., 2006:359).

According to Ireland et al. (2006a:10) corporate entrepreneurial behaviour is reciprocally

related to innovation. This means that where innovation exists in an organisation,

corporate entrepreneurial behaviour will be present (Maes, 2003:22) and where corporate

entrepreneurship is found some form of innovation will also be present (Viswanathan &

Nagarajan. 2004:20).

Innovation can be perceived to be a focal point of corporate entrepreneurship and without

corporate entrepreneurship there is no innovation (Lassen et al., 2006:361). Consequently,

in order to create innovation, the organisation has to have an internal environment and

climate that supports entrepreneurship (Nayager & Van Vuuren, 2005:37). CE acts as the

catalyst which changes the ‘ideas’ into implemented ‘action’. The outcome of the

methodical application of CE in the marketplace, thus results in innovation (Kirby,

2003:132; Michalski, 2004:4).

2.8.3 Innovation and competitive advantage

Entrepreneurial activities and innovations have a positive link to organisational

performance (Zhoa, 2005: 28). The strength of a business is achieved by the development

and maintenance of a competitive advantage, which is the development of unique

opportunities through innovation (Bertola & Texeira, 2003:185). Competitive advantage is

the product of innovation (Zahra & Covin, 1995: 55) and Ireland et al. (2006a:10) firmly

believe that in business, innovation holds greater competitive advantage than the

organisation’s physical assets.

Innovation has a positive effect on firm performance. “This positive relationship stems from

the reasoning that knowledge is, and innovations are, a strategic resource that enables the

firm to establish a position of competitive advantage” (Poon & MacPherson. 2005:259).

Competitive advantage is what distinguishes an organisation from its competitors and

occurs when an organisation is able to provide something unique or superior to customers

than its competitors, and is difficult for others to imitate (Nieman et al., 2003:85). The only

way an organisation is able to achieve and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage

is through continuous innovation (Echecopar et al., 2003:2; Goosen et al., 2002b:22;

Morris & Kuratko, 2002:10).

The level and degree of innovation in which a business is involved acts as a source of

sustainable competitive advantage (Wickham, 2001:155).

2.8.4 Competitive advantage and competition

In South Africa, the innovation imperative is emphasised by intensified competition

(Scheepers et al., 2007:239). The competitive posture or competitive aggressiveness of an

organisation refers to a firm’s predisposition to directly and intensely challenge its

competitors through its competitive advantage (Lassen et al., 2006:362). Competitors can

only be out-performed by the establishment of a superior organisational competitive

position. This can be achieved by creation of a sustainable competitive advantage (Morris

et al., 2008:8).

In order to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage, organisations have to continually

and constantly reinvent and improve themselves (Morris et al., 2008:8). The competitive

position of an organisation is ultimately based upon the organisation’s competitive

advantage/s and the rate thereof (Bertola & Texeira. 2003:185).

2.8.5 Corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and competition

There is a growing awareness of the beneficial effect that both corporate entrepreneurship

and innovation are having on the performances of organisations (McFadzean et al.,

2005a:350). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation are deemed to be the basis for

competitive advantage (Echecopar et al., 2003:2). Zhao (2005:25) argued that in the

modern business environment of rapid change the combination of entrepreneurship and

innovation is imperative to sustainable competitiveness, and organisational stability.

Figure 4: The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, innovation,

competitive advantage and competition

Source: Own compilation

INNOVATIONCORPORATE

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

OVERALL COMPETITIVENESS

Corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and competitive advantage have a direct

relationship and a positive influence on organisational growth and performance (Hitt et al.,

2002:173; Scheepers et al., 2007:238). Hornsby et al., (2002:254) explored this evident

link between corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and competitive advantage. They

explained that corporate entrepreneurship, through innovation, could be used as a growth

strategy and a means for achieving a superior competitive position through the

development and implementation of competitive advantages.

Corporate entrepreneurship is becoming an increasingly important means of regulating the

organisation competitive posture (Antoncic, 2006:59). CE actions can be used to exploit

opportunities, through continual innovation which in turn results in the creation of

sustainable competitive advantages (Bhardwaj et al., 2007:47; Kamffer, 2004:4; Kuratko et

al., 2006:699).

2.9 Developing a corporate entrepreneurial strategy

It has been established that employees conduct themselves and act in accordance to

strategically set objectives and goals which they need to achieved (Montalvo, 2006:312).

Strategy is thus an effective means of channelling employees’ behaviour, energy, and

actions and aligning them with organisational objectives (Wickham, 2001:108).

Strategy can be defined as a plan of action that co-ordinates the allocation resources and

commitments of an organisation to achieve its respective and goals (Longenecker, Moore

& Petty, 2003:30; Wickham, 2001:163). CE can be developed through integrated

management strategies (Michalski, 2004:4). The process of encompassing CE with

strategic requirements for an established organisation results in corporate

entrepreneurship (Kamffer, 2004:1). Ultimately a company’s strategy has a significant

influence on its entrepreneurial efforts (Scheepers et al., 242:2007). A corporate

entrepreneurial strategy (CES) has been recognised as an important factor in

organisational growth, performance and value creation, adding to a conducive CE climate

(Antoncic, 2006:49).

A CES is a bold, opportunity seeking, form of strategy that is implemented to initiate,

encourage, and stimulate the development of corporate entrepreneurship within an

organisation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003a:16; Dess et al., 2005:147; Ireland et al.,

2006a:14).

CES is a “vision-directed, organisation-wide reliance on entrepreneurial behaviour that

purposefully and continuously rejuvenates the organisation and shapes the scope of

operations by recognising and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities that are orientated

towards innovation” (Ireland et al., 2006b:21).

Through a corporate entrepreneurial strategy, management is able to cultivate an

entrepreneurial climate and encourage innovation within an organisation. This involves the

building of appropriate flexible structures, empowering employees with an entrepreneurial

mindset and skills, all of which are enforced and supported through the implementation of

a CES (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:16; Dhliwayo, 2007: 144).

Figure 5: Flowchart of the key steps in developing a corporate entrepreneurial

strategy

Source: Adapted from Kuratko and Welsch (2001:349)

2.8.1 Developing the vision

Radical Innovation

2.8.2 Encouraging Innovation

Incremental Innovation

2.8.3 Forming Venture Teams

2.8.4 Structuring for an Corporate Entrepreneurial

Climate

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURIA

L ACTIVITY

2.9.1 Developing a vision

The basic definition of entrepreneurial vision would be an indication of what the

organisation wants to achieve, and where it wants to strategically be in the future

(McFadzean et al., 2005a:365).

Morris et al. (2008:167) are of the opinion that a clear organisation-wide entrepreneurial

vision has to be given, accepted, and conceptualised within the organisation through

strategy, for corporate entrepreneurship and all the associated benefits to flourish. They

believed vision to be an initiative that comes from top management, and is conveyed

through a CE strategy.

2.9.2 Encouraging innovation

The successful promotion, stimulation and implementation of innovation occur through CE

strategies, enabling innovation within an organisation is an important means of instigating

and maintaining both CE and competitive advantage (Hoy; 2006:832).

All forms of strategic CE have one thing in common: the adoption of innovation (Morris et

al., 2008:88). Innovation is only made possible through the presence of entrepreneurship,

and corporate entrepreneurship within an organisation. Innovation and CE are positively

correlated and directly related, so in order to increase CE, innovation is encouraged and in

order to stimulate levels of innovation CE objectives are pursued as part of the corporate

entrepreneurial strategy (Antoncic, 2006:51; Dess et al., 2005:150; Ireland et al.,

2006a:10; Kirby, 2003:212; Morris et al., 2008:167; Poon & MacPherson. 2005:270;

Wennekers & Thurik, 1999:34). Innovation allows for the implementation of new products,

services, processes, and technology changes. These changes are either incremental or

radical in nature, and both form part of the CES (Canibano et al., 2000:331).

Radical innovation is the formation of new, revolutionary and untried products, services or

processes and is often very experimental and revolutionary, adding new additional

product/ service lines to the organisation (Morten et al., 2005:316; Pirich et al., 2001:15).

Incremental innovation is the continual improvement; routine adjustments and expansion

of current operational lines of products, services and processes (Pirich et al., 2001:15;

Zhoa, 2005:27).

2.9.3 Forming venture teams

A venture team can be defined as a group of individuals, with different skills, knowledge

and experience, that work interdependently to achieve a common goal (Gido & Clements,

2003:324). Venture teams can be seen as a form of collective entrepreneurship

(Bouwmeesters, 2006:19). CE can be efficiently maximised by the inclusion of teams in

the CES (Gido & Clements, 2003:328). By grouping employees into specific groups

intrapreneurs are effectively able to share ideas and knowledge with other intrapreneurs

and able to influence the employees who are not entrepreneurially orientated (Hellstrom et

al., 2002:173).

Organisational teams act with autonomy, greater responsibility and work discretion and

these are factors which positively influence corporate entrepreneurship (Kuratko & Morris,

2002:295). Through teams CE is consequently permeated through the organisation as

more employees are actively involved, resulting in greater levels of entrepreneurial

orientation throughout the organisation (Bouwmeesters, 2006:20)

2.9.4 Structuring for corporate entrepreneurial climate

The establishment of a CE climate promotes and increases levels of CE within the

organisation (Dess et al., 2005:149). All the expected norms, attributes, values and

attitudes are entrepreneurially orientated and motivated with a correctly structured CE

climate (Adonisi, 2003:24; Taylor, 2006:15).

A CE climate stimulates innovation and CE (Åmo & Kolvereid, 2005:9), and can be defined

as the existing internal conditions and organisational stimuli that influence the diffusion of

CE throughout the organisation (Gantsho, 2006:42; Hayton, 2005:140; Rutherford & Holt,

2007:432). Climate is the organisation’s and top management’s commitment to

establishing an environment conducive to the creation and development of corporate

entrepreneurship (Ireland et al. 2006b:27).

A successful and complimentary CE climate acts as a stimulant which encourages and

motivates employees to think and act intrapreneurially (Taylor, 2006:15). Employees must

perceive that the entrepreneurial climate is one where they can engage in intrapreneurial

activities freely, in order for the climate to be conducive for CE (Åmo & Kolvereid,

2005:10).

The cultivation of an entrepreneurial climate within an organisation involves the building of

appropriate flexible structures, empowering employees with an entrepreneurial mindset

and skills, all enforced and supported by a CES (Dhliwayo, 2007:144).

Through the structuring of a conducive CE climate, by a CES, greater CE contributions

and collaborations occur, as employees feel comfortable and purpose driven with a

collective CE objective, resulting in a greater degree of organisational CE (Srivastava et

al., 2004:58).

The intended purpose of this study is to explore the CE climate within the South African

banking sector. In order to give a sufficient background to the study, as well as to establish

the link upon which this research is based, the following section will be on the South

African banking sector, and South African banks link with innovation and CE.

2.10 South African banking sector

2.10.1 Introduction and background

Since the beginning of the 1990s the South African banking sector has gone through

substantial changes, resulting in a world-renowned banking industry of the highest

standard able to compete internationally (FMD, 2003:1).

Over the past decade new bank legislation and regulatory requirements were introduced,

foreign banks entered the domestic market, competition from non-bank entities intensified

(FMD, 2003:1), resulting in South Africa establishing a well-developed and well-structured

banking system, which ranks ahead of those of France and Japan (Harris, 2007:1) and

compares favourably with those in many developed countries and which sets South Africa

apart from many other emerging market countries.

South African banks are currently regulated in accordance with the principles set by the

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Mboweni, 2004:1). This compliance framework

addresses the risk sensitivity much further by allowing capital to vary according to the

credit, operational, and market risk of the bank, leveraged off innovations made in risk

management within the banking industry (Rosengren, 2007:36).

South Africa’s political transformation and the relaxation of exchange controls effectively

opened up the South African economy and banking markets (Standard Chartered,

2007:1). Post 1994 and after amendments to the Banks Act were made (Mboweni,

2004:3), a number of foreign banks entered the country, setting up subsidiaries, branches,

and representative offices in an attempt to capitalise and gain market share and be “part of

the action” (Lofton, 2007:22; Martin, 2006:2). This resulted in increased competitive

pressure within the South African banking sector (Hazelhurst, 2004:1).

With the liberalisation of African economies, the market potential in Africa has been

realised by the global economy and banks, resulting in a growing demand for value added,

structural products and services in Africa (Standard Chartered, 2007:1). From a banking

point of view this has led to a surge in South African and foreign banks expanding and

establishing themselves on the continent (Standard Chartered, 2007:1). South African

banks have started implementing operations and offices in over 18 African countries

(Harris, 2007:1), resulting in a new competitive dimension for the banks.

The South African economy and banking industry suffered an initial blow as a result of

global instabilities in 2002. However, 2003 and 2004 saw a significant recovery in global

economies, resulting in greater stability and progressive advancements within the South

African banking sector (Mboweni, 2004:3).

The National Credit Act came into full effect on 1 June 2007, providing for enhanced

transparency, fairness and responsibility in the extension of credit. While in some

instances it is likely to result in more rigorous processes in the screening of credit

applications (Reserve Bank, 2007:1). The introduction of the new national credit act (NCA)

and its associated legislation, as well as recent interest rate increases, greater regulation

and pressure put on banks in an attempt to regulate competition, has intensified the

competitive aggressiveness between banks in the sector (Geldenhuys, 2007:11).

Consequently, South African banks have become more complex, it has become

increasingly important for institutions to develop their own internal models and innovations

to remain competitive and develop some form of sustainable competitive advantage

(Rosengren, 2007:36).

As a result of all these specific changes, the South African banking sector has evolved into

a highly competitive environment. In order for banks to remain competitive they have to

maintain, as well as try to increase, their competitive posture and this can be achieved

through constant and continual innovation (Martin, 2006:1). Innovation can be encouraged

and increased through the continual adoption of corporate entrepreneurial orientations and

mindsets (Zhao, 2005:25).

2.10.2 Current competitive climate in the South African banking sector

According to the annual report by the South African Reserve Bank, the Herfindahl-

Hirschman index - a measure of concentration and competition in the banking system,

taking into account both the size and number of institutions - worsened from 0.182 in 2004

to 0.184 in 2005. The higher the index the weaker the competition and the higher the

levels of concentration in the banking system (Mafu, 2006:2).

The report attributed to the deterioration in the index due to the fact that the four largest

banking groups (namely: ABSA, FirstRand, Nedcor and Standard Bank) dominated the

banking system, with 83.8 percent, or R1.4 trillion, of the industry's total assets of R1.7

trillion (Hazelhurst, 2004:1).

Traditionally South Africa's banking sector has been dominated by the ‘big four’ banks,

which tended to stifle competition, as it was difficult for newcomers to break into this sector

(Mafu, 2006:2). But since the “spotlight” has been put on banking competition, the

competitive state in the banking sector has been unhindered and intensified. This can be

attributed to recommendations based on the findings of the Jali commission on banking

competition, as well the National Treasury and Reserve Bank’s specialised task teams

(Competition Commission, 2004:1; Hazelhurst, 2004:1). The big four banks, nonetheless,

still do compete more aggressively with each other, which is a sign of a challenging and

competitive environment (Mafu, 2006:2).

With global financial and economic stability, a more stable economy and currency, as well

as inflation being brought under control, the South African banking sector has been further

strengthened. The number of South African citizens holding bank accounts jumped by

11% to 15.9 million in the year 2005, against 4% in 2004 (RNCOS, 2007:2). This shows

the growth in the banking sector, and this can be translated into new potential customers

and markets for banks.

One of the main reasons for the growth in ‘bankable’ populace is the introduction of an

innovative system called Mzansi. The Mzansi account was launched in October 2004 and

is a low-cost national bank account which extends banking to low-income earners and

those previously living beyond the reach of banking services (SouthAfrica.Info, 2005:1). As

it can be well assumed, a decrease in the level of the ‘unbanked’ and a similtaneous

increase in the potential ‘bankable’ population has resulted in a new dimension of an

‘untapped’ customer market for South African banks, ultimately resulting in greater levels

of competition amongst banks, as they pursue the capture this new market (RNCOS,

2007:2; SouthAfrica.Info, 2005:1).

A smaller scale of competition has now emerged at the retail end. New feasible

opportunities have risen from the introduction and implementation of the Dedicated Banks

Bill, as it opens up for retailers, cellular operators, insurers, and micro lenders to become

involved and offer a limited range of banking service business (e.g. Pick ’n Pay

GObanking, Vodacom and Discovery credit facilities) (Hazelhurst, 2004:1). The legislation,

combined with technological advances, will make it possible for new entrants to deliver

cost effectively to the low end of the retail market, thereby placing competitive pressures

on the traditional banks (Hazelhurst, 2004:1).

Currently major developments within the banking sector have created a climate of

heightened competitiveness within the sector. New players both inside and outside the

South African banking sector have to enhance their competitive aggressiveness and

posture, to remain competitive, and innovation is a manner in which they are able to do

that (Hedley, 2007:2).

2.10.3 How South African banks can use innovation to compete

Briefly stated, competition drives margins down and thus erodes profits. As a

consequence, the bank’s profitability declines, thereby leaving banks with two options (1)

take on more risk, which may induce more severe liquidity issues or (2) adopt a new

competitive strategy of innovation (Bolt & Tieman, 2004:783). Banks have responded by

significantly enhancing their contingency planning, through creative and innovative

approaches (Rosengren, 2007:36).

Due to the increase in the competitive nature of the South African banking sector, and

heightened levels of competition in the banking industry, South Africa banks have to be

competitive, flexible and dynamic in nature in order to operate successfully and maintain

levels of profitability. Competition undermines prudent and conservative banking practices,

causing banks to think ‘outside the box’ and more creatively, resulting in banks being more

innovative and entrepreneurial (Bolt & Tieman, 2004:784). In order to do so, and to remain

competitive, banks have to constantly develop and maintain competitive advantages over

other rival banks. This competitive advantage can be developed through successful

implementation of innovation by the banks (Bertola & Texeira, 2003:185).

There are various ways in which banks in the South African banking sector compete with

each other. Generally speaking South African banks compete with each other in terms of

levels of pricing, innovation, product and service offering, customer service, relationship

management, delivery channels, and advertising (Falkena, Davel, Hawkins, Llewellyn,

Luus, Masilela, Parr, Pienaar & Shaw, 2004:18). However, the two most prominent factors

of competition, and the most contested factors between banks are (1) pricing and (2)

innovation. Innovation in terms of the product range, constantly resulting in new, innovative

products and services offered (Falkena et al., 2004: 18). Therefore, innovation can be

used as a medium of competitive advantage, or used as a source to develop a competitive

advantage for South African banks (Wickham, 2001:155).

2.10.4 Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation in the South African banking

sector

Hedley (2007:1) stated that innovation is changing the banking industry and that the

success of most modern banks is built on a firm foundation of innovation. He believes

innovation is important because differentiation is crucial for successful competitiveness in

today’s banking environment.

South African banks, and the South African banking sector, have been considered to be

world leaders in terms of banking innovation (Harris, 2007:1) and many world-wide

banking innovations originated in South Africa. According to Harris (2007:1) South African

banks have achieved the following groundbreaking feats:

The first country in the world to introduce interoperability of ATM cards through

SASwitch.

The first developing country to introduce credit cards.

The first African country to introduce ATMs.

The first country in the world to introduce biometrics on cards for the payment of

pensions.

The first countries to use satellite communication for branch operations.

Further indication of high levels of innovation within the South African banking sector has

become prevalent in years where competition was stiffest, banks were forced into

successful innovative measures which served as an indication that competition not only

benefits consumers but can also work as a rejuvenating stimulant for banks (Hazelhurst,

2004:1).

The overload of laws weighing down heavily on the South African banking and financial

services sector has also forced institutions to utilise innovation in an attempt to find new

and innovative measures in which to conduct business (Nyamakanga, 2007a:1).

Due to the stability of the South African economy and the banking sector, as well as global

financial markets there has been a noted significant increase in the levels of innovation

and integration on an unprecedented scale (Mboweni, 2007:2).

From all the above evidence it is evident that innovation is rife in the South African banking

sector. Corporate entrepreneurship is the foundation and basis for organisational

innovation (Zhao, 2005:25). Therefore, it is logical to deduce that if innovation is so

ubiquitous in the sector, corporate entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurial

behaviour is present within the South African banking sector (Hellstrom et al., 2002:175;

Hitt et al., 2002:173; Ireland et al., 2006a:10; Maes, 2003:22; Michalski, 2004:4).

2.11 Conclusion

This chapter served as an introduction to the study, a well as forming the basis for the

study. An extensive review all the relative constructs and factors associated with corporate

entrepreneurship and the establishment of a corporate entrepreneurial climate took place,

as well as how these constructs and variables are positioned and related within the South

African banking. The research methodology will be based upon the above mentioned

review and will be discussed in chapter 3.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed description of the research

methodology used in this study, as well as to provide the results of the empirical research.

This chapter includes a discussion of the research methodology used, which includes the

aims and objectives, the research design, the measuring instrument used, method of data

collection, and data analysis which was used in this study.

3.2 Aims and objectives of the study

The intended purpose of this study is to explore and assess the current corporate

entrepreneurial climate, as well as to test perceptions towards the corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector. This study will also

highlight influential factors which have a direct or indirect affect upon it. Recommendations

to help encourage and promote a supportive climate for corporate entrepreneurship within

the sector will also be given after the relevant conclusions have been achieved.

3.2.1 Primary objective

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the corporate entrepreneurial climate

within the South African banking sector.

3.2.2 Secondary objectives

In order to achieve the primary objective the following secondary objectives have to set:

Establish the management support of corporate entrepreneurial behaviour in the

South African banking sector.

Determine the level of work discretion permitted for enabling of corporate

entrepreneurship within the South African banking sector.

Determine employees’ perception towards rewards and reinforcements.

Asses the time availability as a resource in inducing corporate entrepreneurial

behaviour.

Measure organisational boundaries as a factor of corporate entrepreneurial climate.

3.2.3 Propositions

Proposition 1: Managerial support contributes significantly to a favourable corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector.

Proposition 2: Organisational boundaries do contribute significantly to the corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector.

Proposition 3: Work discretion does contribute significantly to the corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector.

Proposition 4: Rewards do contribute significantly to the corporate entrepreneurial

climate within the South African banking sector.

Proposition 5: The availability of time does contribute considerably to the corporate

entrepreneurial climate within the South African banking sector.

3.3 Research Methodology

3.3.1 The research design

The degree to which the research question has been crystallised indicates that this is a

formal study, as the study begins with a research question. This study focuses on precise

procedures, specific to a data source, with the main objective of testing the research

propositions. It is a formal study with an ex post facto design, as no control was able to be

extended over the variables and the outcomes of the study, and data couldn’t be

manipulated (Cooper & Schindler, 2003: 149). The fact that the intention of this study is to

quantify findings makes it quantitative study (Diamantopoulos & Sclegelmilch, 2000: 27). It

was only possible to report what was happening and what had already happened.

The purpose of this study is to derive descriptive results. The method of data collection

renders this as a type of interrogation/ communicative study (Cooper & Schindler, 2003:

147) as all relevant data and information was derived through the completion of personal

questionnaires by the respondents.

The data was collected over a single, particular period in time, a snapshot of

approximately 60 days, making it a cross-sectional study. A cross-sectional study is one

which is taken over a specific moment in time (Anderson, Sweeney & Williams, 2003:7).

All data was collected in a research environment of exact everyday settings where

participants’ perceptions were captured and recorded in the actual routine, everyday

conditions and approaches to conducting business operations within the South African

banking sector.

All relevant information sources will be consulted, the majority of them being published

academic papers, books and articles. Information gathered from all these different sources

will act as basis of the literature review, which will in turn be used to give a greater

understanding of the study.

3.3.2 Population and sample design

A population is the set of all elements of interest in a particular study, such as a collection

of individuals, objects, or events of people (Diamantopoulos & Sclegelmilch, 2000:10;

Anderson et al., 2003:14). The population of the current study can be defined as middle

managers and operational employees within.

Middle managers and operational level employees are in the best position to identify new

opportunities, as well as to encourage, promote and initiate corporate entrepreneurship

(Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra 2002:260).

A sample is an extract, or subset, of the population which is representative of it (Anderson

et al., 2003:14).

A sample of both middle managers (middle management) and operational employees

(lower management) was drawn from the four leading banks in South Africa, namely,

ABSA, FirstRand (FNB), Nedcor (Nedbank) and Standard Bank.

The fact that these four banks hold a combined market share of 83.8 percent (Hazelhurst,

2004:1) deems them sufficient to constitute valid sample, and represent the South African

banking sector for the purposes of this study

The largest group, which formed the biggest portion and majority of the sample, was the

middle managers group. The middle managers group was constituted of and included the

some of the following: organisational managers, divisional managers, team leaders,

project managers, and bank managers.

The operational level employees form the smaller portion of the sample and were made up

of two subsets: Influential Employees and Consultants. The latter group Consultants

consisted of internal consultants such as human resources consultants, financial

consultants, sales consultants, legal consultants, and organisational business consultants.

Influential Employees included control analysts, business analysts, and general

operational banking clerks.

For the purpose of the research a subjective, arbitrary approach using non-probability

sampling was applied, meaning that the selection of sample respondents was left to the

discretion of the researcher, allowing the “at random” selection of sample elements

(Cooper & Schindler, 2003:184). This specific method of non-probability sampling is

unrestricted and hence is the best suited method as the researcher has freedom of choice

within the sample, in order to find suitable candidates and have the CEAI completed.

The sample which was drawn included middle management, managers and operational

employees from the four respective banks from within Gauteng. The sample used was

drawn from the respective banks’ head offices and larger more commercially active

branches, and was selected randomly, irrespective of age, gender, race, department, bank

or experience.

A total amount of 100 questionnaires (25 per bank) were issued to managerial staff and

operational employees within the four banks for the data collection. In total 63 respondents

were interviewed and completed questionnaires (n=63), resulting in a response rate 63

percent.

3.3.3 Data Collection

All data and responses used in the study were collected by means of the Corporate

Entrepreneurial Assessment Instrument (CEAI) questionnaire, developed by Kuratko and

Morris (2002:295). The CEAI is a basic self-administered questionnaire, and was

distributed using two methodologies, either paper-based or electronic based

questionnaires.

The researcher conducted personal interviews and questioned a large majority of the

respondents, while a smaller percentage was completed by the aid of ‘contacts’ within the

respective banks during August and September 2007.

The method of data collection used in this type of study is empirical by nature, while the

parameter of interest and type of data used consists of nominal and ordinal data.

Nominal data is data on a variable that can be classified but no order, distance or origin

can be given. Nominal data can be grouped into two or more categories which are

mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, which is used to determine equality

(Cooper & Schindler, 2003:223). The nominal data for this study included the following

classifications: age; gender; years in the organisation; management level; position; highest

qualification and number of years experience in the banking sector.

Descriptive data such as age, gender, years in the organisation, and number of years in

the banking sector had to be specifically given by each respondent. They had to select

management level from a list of: senior, middle and lower management, as well as highest

qualification, from a list of: matric, national diploma, undergraduate degree and posted

graduate degree. Each respondent also had to specifically state their position within the

organisation, and the researcher grouped these into one of the three groups of: Middle

mangers, Consultants and Influential Employees.

The groups: Middle mangers, Consultants and Influential Employees were selected

because Middle mangers directly perform organisational and administrative functions like

planning, organising, leading and controlling (Venter & Rwigeni, 2005:6). They generally

have substantial authority, responsibility and have a direct impact on the manner in which

business is conducted.

Consultants within the banks have considerable autonomy as well as management

influence. They tend to have less restrictive mandates, coupled with greater flexibility and

authority, which allows them to act as entrepreneurial managers. Influential employees are

employees who have significant impact and say in the manner in which the business

operates, and are in a position to effect change, and encourage new changes within the

organisation, as they are involved in the ‘frontline’ activities and business operations of the

organisation.

Ordinal data, on the other hand, is data which can be classified and ordered, yet no

distance or origin can be given, and is used to determine a greater or lesser value

(Diamantopoulos & Sclegelmilch, 2000:25). Ordinal data was derived from the Linkert

Scale, through ranked answers (strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, strongly

disagree) which were used for answering the 48 questions contained in the CEAI

questionnaire.

3.3.4 Measurement Instrument

The measurement instrument known as the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment

Index (CEAI) is a diagnostic tool which has been developed by leading researchers in the

corporate entrepreneurship research field, namely Kuratko, Hornsby and Montango

(Morris & Kuratko, 2002:295). It was designed to tap the climate-related organisational

factors that represent and potentially encourage corporate entrepreneurship, and is used

for evaluating individual’s perceptions of his/ her current work environment and climate

within the organisation (Cates, 2007:IV).

The questionnaire takes approximately 25 minutes to complete and consists 7 the

demographic based questions, in addition to the 48 Linkert-style questions of the CEAI. In

the additional demographic questions added by the researcher, the following information

was required:

Age

Gender

Years in the organisation

Management level

Position

Highest qualification

Number of years experience in the banking sector.

In the CEAI a five-point Linkert scale is used, for the original 48 questions, and

respondents have to answer the questions by choosing: strongly disagree, disagree, not

sure, agree, strongly agree. Each question may only be answered once and has only one

answer.

The CEAI as a measurement instrument has been designed to measure the following five

key climate-related corporate entrepreneurial variables: (1) management support (2) work

discretion (3) rewards/reinforcement (4) time availability (5) organizational boundaries

(Hornsby et al., 2002:269; Kuratko et al., 2005:703; Morris & Kuratko, 2002:291).

All the results were analysed and scrutinised according to these specific variables, in

conjunction with using the five-point Linkert scale. The five key variables are broken down

and designated into the following sections in the structure of the CEAI

Table 2: Underlying variables which form part and make up the CEAI

Section Questions

1. Management Support for corporate Entrepreneurship Q1 – Q19

2. Work Discretion Q20 – Q29

3. Rewards/ Reinforcement Q30 – Q35

4. Time availability Q36 – Q41

5. Organisational boundaries Q42 – Q48

The CEAI is a practical, reliable and validated measurement instrument, making the

results of the instrument equally reliable and valid (Adonisi, 2003:94; Cates, 2007: 27;

Gantsho 2006:83). The CEAI which can be easily applied to any business environment

and therefore it can be successfully used to gauge the organisational factors that foster

corporate entrepreneurial climate and activity within an the banking sector, allowing for the

researcher to make deductions regarding the entrepreneurial climate within the South

African banking sector (Adonisi, 2003; 93).

3.3.5 Data Analysis

For all intensive purposes of this study, the data collected was analysed to yield

descriptive statistics which include frequencies, means, and standard deviations of the

captured data. Results were received from the statistically analysed data in an attempt to

capture the population’s characteristics by making inferences from the sample’s

characteristics. The objective of these results was to yield descriptive indicators, which will

be used to substantiate of the propositions of the study.

A statistical computer package, BMDP Statistical Software, was used by an external

researcher in the analysis of collected data.

Due to the small sample size nonparametric tests were used instead of parametric test.

Nonparametric tests are used to test the propositions and hypotheses with normal and

ordinal data (Cooper & Schindler, 2003:531). For this study the Kruskal-Wallis test was

used. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a one-way analysis of variance by ranks, across three or

more independent groups and does not require the assumption of normally distributed

populations (Cooper and Schindler, 2003: 554; Diamantopoulos & Sclegelmilch, 2000:182

and Anderson et al., 2003:775).

Inferential statistics involving the analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine

results in order to determine differences between the respective groups and management

levels, which was used in the culminating of conclusions for the research.

3.3.6 Limitations

Certain limitations could have affected the initial outcomes of the study, such as depth and

the lack thereof in this study. Depth of the study is listed as a limitation, as the sample

size, in a relation to the population, was very small. The sample consisted of 63

respondents, only taken from Gauteng, opposed to thousands who constitute the

population. Errors could also have occurred during the course of the study which could

have altered the eventual outcomes. These errors include: questionnaire error, interviewer

error or undue influence, data capturing errors and analysis errors (Mouton, 2001:153).

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings of the study and to give a brief

explanation of them. The results of the study are described in this chapter. Both the

descriptive statistics of the sample and the inferential statistics of the sample will also be

reported in this chapter. The inferential results will be used in answering the research

propositions previously establish for the study, in chapter 3.

4.2 Construct discussion

4.2.1 Dependent variables

The dependent variables of this study are comprised of the following five CE variables,

identified by Morris and Kuratko (2002: 299): management support, work discretion,

rewards and reinforcements, time availability, and organisational boundaries. These

variables have all been highlighted as playing an important role in the development of a

CE climate (Cates, 2007:IV).

4.2.2 Independent variables

The independent variables comprised of the following variables: educational level,

position, years of employment in current organisation, number of years in the banking

sector, management level, gender, and age of the participants respectively.

This chapter will be used as a basis to address the research questions and problems

discussed in chapter 1, and will also be used in support for forming arguments,

conclusions, and interpretation of the study.

The relationship between the independent and dependent variables will be analysed by

means of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance. The descriptive statistics of the

participants are displayed in Tables 4.1-4.7, representing the independent variables of the

study. Namely: educational level, position, years of employment in current organisation,

number of years in the banking sector, management level, gender, and age of the

participants respectively.

Table 3: Educational level of participants

Educational level Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Matric 32 50.79 32 50.79

National Diploma 9 14.29 41 65.01

Under-graduate 13 20.63 54 85.71

Post-graduate 9 14.29 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 6: Educational levels of participants

Educational Levels

50.79%

14.29%

20.63%

14.29%

Matric

National Diploma

Under-graduate

Post-graduate

The above table indicates that the majority of the participants (50.79%) had a matric

qualification, followed with 20.63% of respondents holding some form of under-graduate

qualification. A small percentage of respondents (14.29%) had either a national diploma or

post-graduate qualification.

Table 4: Position of participants

Position of participants Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Consultant 12 19.05 12 19.05

Middle management 35 55.55 47 74.6

Influential employees 16 25.40 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 7: Position of participants

Position of Participants

12

35

16

Consultant

Middle management

Regular employees

Table 4.2 indicates that the majority of the participants (n = 35), were in middle

management positions, followed by regular employees that made up just of a quarter of

the sample (n=16), forming the focal group of the study with 51 respondents, while the

remainder of the sample was made up of consultants (n=12).

Table 5: Number of years in the company

Number of years in

the company

Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

0-10 36 57.14 36 57.14

11-20 15 23.81 51 80.95

21-40 12 19.05 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 8: Number of years in the company

No. of years in the company

57.14%23.81%

19.05%

0 to10

11 to 20

21 to 40

Of the sample drawn 57.14%, more than half, consist of employees who have been

working at their respective banks for less than 10 years. The second longest time frame

working for the same bank is between 11 and 20 years which formed 23.81% of the

sample, while the rest of the sample (19.05%) have been working for the same bank for

anywhere between 21 and 40 years.

Table 6: Number of years in the banking sector

Number of years in

the banking sector

Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

0-10 31 49.21 31 49.2

11-20 15 23.81 46 74.02

21-40 17 26.98 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 9: Number of years in the banking sector

No. of years in the banking sector

31

15

17

0 to10

11 to 20

21 to 40

Thirty one of the 63 people of the sample drawn, the majority of the sample, have been

working in the banking sector for 10 years or less.

The remainder of the sample was rather evenly distributed into the different classes, with

115 people involved in the banking sector in the last 11 to 20 years, and 17 others for

more than 21 years.

Table 7: Management level (Authority and Responsibility)

Management level Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Senior Management 10 15.87 10 15.87

Middle Management 20 31.75 30 47.62

Lower Management 33 52.38 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 10: Management level (Authority and Responsibility)

15.87%

31.75%

52.38%

Senior Management

Middle Management

Low er Management

Management level (Authority and Responsibility)

The management levels of the sample were graded according to three tiers of

management in terms of authority and responsibility with 52.38% being lower management

(limited authority and responsibility), 31.75% middle management (substantial authority

and responsibility), collectively making up an area of interest representing percentage

84.13%. Senior management formed the smallest percentage of the sample with only 10

respondents, resulting in forming only 15.87% of the sample (extensive authority and

responsibility).

Table 8: Gender of participants

Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Male 16 25.40 16 25.40

Female 47 74.60 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 11: Gender of participants

25.40%

74.60%

Male

Female

Gender of praticipants

The sample consisted of a skew distribution of men (25.40%) and women (74.60%), with

women forming the majority of the sample.

Table 9: Age of participants

Age Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

20-30 23 36.51 23 36.51

31-40 17 26.98 40 63.49

41-50 13 20.64 53 84.13

51-60 10 5.87 63 100.00

Total 63 100.00 63 100.00

Figure 12: Age of participants

Age of participants

36.51%

26.98%

20.64%

5.87%

20-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

The sample drawn can be generalised as being a relatively young sample as majority of

the respondents were below 30 years of age (36.51%). The number of employee

decreased as age increased, with 26.98% between 31 and 40 years of age, 20.64%

between 41 and 50 years of age. The smallest percentage recorded was 5.87% between

the ages of 51 and 60.

The mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum of each of the five dependent

variables identified by the CEAI (Morris & Kuratko, 2002:295) are reported below in Table

4.8.

Table 10: Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum of the five CE factors

Factor name Mean Standard

deviation

Minimum Maximum

Management

support

3.38 0.59 2.37 5.00

Work

discretion

3.42 0.58 2.00 4.90

Rewards and

reinforcement

3.75 0.64 1.00 4.83

Time

availability

2.98 0.45 2.17 4.00

Organisational

boundaries

3.84 0.70 2.00 5.00

Figure 13: Means of the five CEAI factors

Means of the five CEAI factors

3.38

3.42

3.75

2.98

3.84

0 1 2 3 4 5

Management support

Work discretion

Rewards and reinforcement

Time availability

Organisational boundaries

Fac

tors

Range

Table 4.8 and figure 4.1 indicate that none of the CE factors performed significantly above

or below average. Only the rewards/reinforcement and organisational boundary sub-scales

stood out as performing slightly above average, while time availability seemed to perform

slightly below average.

Figure 14: “The rewards I receive are dependent upon my work on the job”

Question 31

1

8

38

97

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

The combined majority of the employees (74.6%) of the sample agreed that receiving of

rewards was only dependent upon the work they do, detailed by their job description and

not additional or extra work. While the minority (25.4%) of the sample either were

uncertain or disagreed with the statement. This is a possible indication that rewards are

used as a means to motivate employees.

Figure 15: “My supervisor will increase my job responsibilities if I am performing well in my

job”

Question 32

2

9

34

117

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

It is revealed that 17.5% of employees strongly agree that responsibilities are extended as

a result of good performances, followed closely by the majority of 54% who merely agree

with the statement. Although 14.3% were undecided, a further collective 14.3% opposed

this statement, indicating that the majority of respondents felt that superior job

performance allowed them to receive an increase in warranted responsibilities.

Figure 16: “My supervisor will give me special recognition if my work performance is

especially good”

The majority of 40 respondents believed that exceptionally good work performance was

recognised and acknowledged by their superiors, 6 respondents were uncertain whether

or not recognition was given, and a collective amount of 9 respondents felt no recognition

Question 33

16

40

88

0

10

20

30

40

50

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No. of Respondents

was given for good works. The assumption can be made that superiors give praise and

recognition when due and this acts as an additional form of motivation for employees.

Upon investigation into time availability some of the following significant results were

revealed, which can accounted for the below average of this section.

Figure 17: “I always seem to have plenty of time to get things done”

Question 37

12

3

17

2

29

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

19.1% of respondents strongly disagreed that they do not have sufficient time to get things

done, complimented by 46% who disagreed with the statement, making it a collective

65.1% who feel they have insufficient time to get everything done. This is a possible

indication that shows that the majority of people need more time to get their jobs done.

Figure 18: “I have just the right amount of time and workload to do everything well”

Question 38

5 6

20

0

32

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

An overwhelming amount of 37 respondents feel they do not have the right amount of time

to get to get there workload done, and to have it well done. Alternatively 20 respondents

do feel the time they have is sufficient to get the job done well, while a remaining 6 are

uncertain. This means workloads, standards of completed jobs and the amount of allotted

time are, currently, mismatched and have to be addressed and correctly apportioned

should a CE climate be developed.

Figure 19: “I feel that I am always working with time constraints on my job”

Question 40

1

8

37

89

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

The collective amount of 45 people, the majority (71.4%), of people feel they are

constrained by time on their jobs, opposed to 18 respondents (28.6%) who were either

uncertain or disagreed with the statement to some degree. This indicates that people are

constantly pressured and restricted by time while doing their jobs, possibly restricting a

healthy CE climate.

Organisational boundaries were also examined and investigated and revealed the

following results which substantiate slightly above average performance in this section.

Figure 20: “There are many written rules and procedures that exist for doing my major

tasks”

Question 43

1 1

31

18

12

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

The majority, 49 of respondents agree to some extent, that there are rules and procedures

in place for doing major tasks, while a joint 13 respondents disagreed with the statement.

Only 1 respondent was uncertain about the extent of the rules and procedures for doing

major tasks. This is proof of the institution of rules and procedures which are adhered to

while completing major tasks.

Figure 21: “On my job I have no doubt of what is expected of me.”

Question 44

0

5

30

22

6

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

The larger majority 87.3% agree, to some extent, that there is no doubt or confusion

regarding their job description, followed the remainder 17.4% of respondents who were

either uncertain or disagreed with this statement. This is an indication the majority of

people clearly understand what their job descriptions entail and what is expected of them.

Figure 22: “My job description clearly specifies the standards of performance on which my

job is evaluated.”

Question 47

03

37

15

8

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Of the total 63 respondents a total of 37 agree that their job description clearly specifies

the standards of performance on which the job was evaluated, while an additional 15

strongly agree with the statement. As a result the minority of the sample believe otherwise

with 3 respondents impartial on the matter, while the remaining 8 merely disagree. It is

evident that the job descriptions and evaluation benchmarks are made clear to the majority

of respondents.

Figure 23: “I clearly know what level of work performance is expected from me in term of

amount, quality and time line of output”

Question 49

0 1

33

23

6

0

10

20

30

40

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

A grouped cluster of 56 respondents (88%) know and understand what level of work

performance is expected of them and what there job description involves. 1 respondent

(2%) is uncertain and not sure what is expected of them, while 6 respondents (10%) of the

sample don’t know what level of work performance is expected of them. The deduction

can be made that, for the most part, employees are clearly aware of what level of work

performance is expected from them in term of amount, quality and time line of output, and

what is expected of them in their job description.

In order to investigate the relationships between the different CE factor-scales, reported in

Table 4.8 as dependent variables and the categorical biographic variables as independent

variables, a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance was conducted.

For the purposes of this study a non-parametric test was used due to the small sample

size and lack of the assumption of a normal distribution (Cooper & Schindler, 2003:531).

The results are shown in Tables 4.9 to 4.14.

Table 11: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor one,

the management support sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N = 63)

Independent

Variable

F df p > F

Age 5.82 3 0.1207

Gender 0.45 1 0.5018

Management level 1.37 2 0.5049

Years in sector 1.31 2 0.5194

Years in org/comp 2.57 2 0.2764

Position 12.28 2 0.0022*

Qualification 1.08 3 0.7823

*p = .05

Only groups formed in terms of position were shown to be as significantly different at the

95% level of significance, on the management support sub-scale as dependent variable,

as shown in Table 4.9.

These differences were further investigated by means of a Z-test on the LS-mean scores

on the management support sub-scale. Significant differences were indicated between

consultants and middle management and consultants and influential employees at the 95

percent level of significance, with consultants scoring significantly higher than middle

management and influential employees on the management support sub-scale.

Table 12: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor two,

the work discretion sub-scale (CE2) as dependent variable (N = 63)

Independent

Variable

F df p > F

Age 4.07 3 0.2543

Gender 3.79 1 0.0514

Management level 6.08 2 0.0478*

Years in sector 5.52 2 0.0633

Years in org/comp 3.86 2 0.1450

Position 6.44 2 0.0399*

Qualification 2.63 3 0.4522

*p = .05

Only groups formed in terms of management level and position were shown to be as

significantly different at the 95% level of significance, on the work discretion sub-scale as

dependent variable shown in Table 4.10.

These differences were further investigated by means of a Z-test on the LS-mean scores

on the work discretion sub-scale. Significant differences were indicated between senior

and lower management levels on the work-discretion sub-scale at the 90 percent level of

significance, with senior management scoring higher than lower management concerning

work discretion.

Further differences were indicated between middle managers and influential employees at

the 95 percent level of significance, with middle managers scoring higher than the regular

employees on the work discretion sub-scale.

Table 13: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor three,

the rewards and reinforcement sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N = 63)

Independent

Variable

F df p > F

Age 0.70 3 0.8740

Gender 0.46 1 0.4998

Management level 0.93 2 0.6277

Years in sector 0.11 2 0.9476

Years in org/comp 1.65 2 0.4389

Position 2.14 2 0.3432

Qualification 5.83 3 0.1201

*p = .05

None of the groups formed were shown to be as significantly different at the 95% level of

significance, on the rewards and reinforcement sub-scale as dependent variable shown in

Table 4.11.

Table 14: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor four,

the time availability sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N = 63)

Independent

Variable

F df p > F

Age 5.12 3 0.1630

Gender 1.14 1 0.2853

Management level 0.60 2 0.7408

Years in sector 0.06 2 0.0484*

Years in org/comp 4.16 2 0.1252

Position 4.20 2 0.1224

Qualification 0.91 3 0.8223

*p = .05

Only groups formed in terms of years in sector were shown to be as significantly different

at the 95% level of significance, on the time availability sub-scale as dependent variable as

shown in Table 4.12.

These differences were further investigated by means of a Z-test on the LS-mean scores

on the time availability sub-scale. Significant differences were indicated between

individuals working between 0-10 years in the banking sector and individuals working

between 21-40 years in the banking sector, at the 95 percent level of significance.

Individuals working between 0-10 years scored higher on the time-availability sub-scale

than individuals working between 21-40 years.

Table 15: Results of Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance with factor five,

the organizational boundaries sub-scale (CE1) as dependent variable (N = 63)

Independent

Variable

F df p > F

Age 2.10 3 0.5527

Gender 2.35 1 0.1256

Management level 5.35 2 0.0690

Years in sector 0.15 2 0.9300

Years in org/comp 0.07 2 0.9638

Position 3.32 2 0.1904

Qualification 6.42 3 0.0929

None of the groups formed as independent variables were shown to be as significantly

different at the 95% level of significance, on the organizational boundaries sub-scale as

dependent variable shown in Table 4.13.

4.3 Conclusion

The current chapter discussed both the descriptive and inferential statistics of the current

study. The descriptive statistics indicated and verified the biographic and demographic

variables of the participants. A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of

Variance was employed to investigate the differences in the biographic and demographic

variables as independent variables, and the five identified CE factors of (management

support, work discretion, rewards and reinforcements, time availability, and organisational

boundaries) as dependent variables. The significant differences and findings were

examined. The following chapter will be a discussion of the findings of the current chapter in

combination with the indications of the literature and theory, discussed in chapter 2.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This is the final and concluding chapter of the study. All the recommendations, conclusions

and limitations of the study will be discussed and interpreted, based upon the findings of

this study and related to the literature findings reported in chapter 2. The findings will be

discussed in relationship to the five CE factors, identified by Morris and Kuratko

(2002:295), namely management support, work discretion, rewards and reinforcements,

time availability and organisational boundaries.

5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1.1 Management support

The first factor, management support refers to the introduction, support, encouragement

and willingness of managers to facilitate entrepreneurial activity within an enterprise

(Kamffer, 2004:4; Scheepers, Hough & Bloom, 2007:242), and promote both corporate

entrepreneurial behaviour and activities within an organisation (Bhardwaj, Camillus &

Hounshell, 2007:51; Ireland et al. 2006b:27).

It was found that as far as management support is concerned, results indicated that

management granted significantly higher support to consultants than to middle

management, as well and regular employees at the 95% level of significance. It has been

established that a successful CE climate is dependent on support and encouragement

from middle management (Kuratko, et al., 2005:699).

The management support for CE seems to be unevenly distributed, with consultants being

the focal group opposed to middle managers and regular employees. It is concerning to

see that the findings of the current study indicates a lack of support from management for

their own middle management and regular employees, but that the expected support is

channelled to consultants.

In view of Kuratko et al.’s (Kuratko et al., 2005:699) argument that management should be

supportive in advancing a climate of CE, as well as the findings of Adonisi (2003:123) that

management support contributes to internal, external as well as total job satisfaction, it is

concerning that this support did not feature in the current study.

5.1.2 Work discretion

The investigation into the second factor, work discretion, refers to the degree of autonomy

given to individuals to complete or conduct business operations, as well as entrepreneurial

efforts (Bhardwaj, Camillus & Hounshell, 2007:51). Autonomy refers to employees’

discretion and the extent to which they are empowered to make decisions on the

performance and direction of their own work in the way they believe is most effective.

(Scheepers, Hough & Bloom, 2007:242).

Findings indicate that senior management scored significantly higher than lower

management at a 90% level of significance, and middle management scored significantly

higher than regular employees at a 95% level of significance, concerning work discretion.

This reveals that top management have significantly more discretion (extensive authority

and responsibility), than lower levels of management (limited authority and responsibility)

as far as corporate entrepreneurial authority and responsibilities are concerned.

Gantsho (2006: 58) suggests that in order to develop and maintain a conducive CE

climate, a more even distribution of authority, responsibility and autonomy should take

place at all levels of the organisation. The indication is that an even distribution of CE

authority and responsibility leads to internal, external as well as total job satisfaction

(Adonisi, 2003:123&124).

The significantly lower authority and responsibility granted to lower management, in

comparison to middle management is understandable in the light of their lower experience

and therefore exposure to possible risks. Methods should be developed allowing lower

management greater work discretion, responsibility and authority, under controlled

environments. Similarly in order to create a supportive CE climate, the gap between

middle management and regular employees should be decreased. In the light of Adonisi’s

(2003:123) study, this can potentially prevent job dissatisfaction.

Indications are that in the current study, responsibility and authority concerning the CE

factor of work discretion is significantly uneven and skewly distributed to top management,

leaving little or no opportunities of work discretion to lower management and regular

employees.

5.1.3 Rewards and Reinforcements

The third factor of rewards and reinforcements refers to an appropriate reward system that

keeps employees motivated and committed, constantly striving for new ideas and

opportunities (Morris and Kuratko, 2002, 296; Viswanathan & Nagarajan. 2004:21).

Rewards are the very influential in motivating employees, and rewards can take on both

financial and intangible forms (Kirby, 2003:304). According to Adonisi (2003:123&124),

rewards and reinforcement also contribute to internal, external and total job satisfaction.

The Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance indicated that none of the groups

formed were shown to be as significantly different at the 95% level of significance, on the

rewards and reinforcement sub-scale. This can be interpreted as an equal distribution to of

rewards and reinforcements on the measured independent variables of age, gender,

management level, years in the sector and organisation, position and qualification. Thus,

rewards and reinforcements can be seen as a constant factor which is impartial to any of

the measured independent variables. The conclusion can therefore be drawn that rewards

and reinforcements were equally distributed on the independent variables.

An overwhelming majority of respondents made it clear that rewards and recognition were

given in accordance to their work related performances, and they knew what they had to

do in order to achieve it. This compliments CE and contributes to the development of a CE

climate, as employees are rewarded for acting entrepreneurially. According to Bhardwaj

and Momaya (2007:136) an effective reward system is important means of encouraging

and promoting entrepreneurial activity and behaviour.

Rewards and reinforcements seem to play a healthy role in the corporate entrepreneurial

climate of the current study.

5.1.4 Time availability

The fourth factor of time availability involves the relationship of employees/ team work

loads and time needed for the pursuit of new innovations. It is defined as evaluating

workloads to ensure that individuals have the time needed to complete workloads detailed

in their job description, as well as having enough additional time to pursue CE activities

and opportunities (Ireland et al.2006b:28).

Only groups formed in terms of years in sector were shown to be as significantly different

on the time availability sub-scale. Significant differences were indicated at the 95% level of

significance for individuals working between 0-10 years in the banking sector > than

individuals working between 11-20 years and > than individuals working between 21-40

years in the banking sector.

This is an indication that individuals working for les than ten years had more time available

for CE activities than individuals working more than 11 years. This finding indicates an

implicit possible imbalance, indicating that individuals with the most work experience had

the least amount of time to pursue CE activities. The fact that the majority of employees

indicate they have insufficient time for CE activities, can contribute to a potentially

unhealthy CE climate.

To create a situation which will compliment the CE climate, it’s suggested that there be an

equal distribution of time across all groups, with additional time given to pursue CE

orientated activities (Scheepers, Hough & Bloom, 2007:242).

5.1.4 Organisational boundaries

The fifth and final factor of organisational boundaries can be referred to as the particular

precincts and structures which differentiate certain areas within organisations.

Organisational boundaries form expected measures of organisational work and become

mechanisms used for evaluating and bench marking (Ireland et al. 2006b:28).

None of the groups formed as independent variables were shown to be as significantly

different, on the organisational boundaries sub-scale. This means that no differences were

found with organisational boundaries as the dependent factor and age, gender, position,

qualification, management level, years in the sector and years in the organisation.

There is a distinct indication that employees know and understand what is expected of

them in terms of standards, levels of work performance as well as the quality and time

frame of output. Hence, a healthy CE climate concerning organisational boundaries is

seen to exist in the current study.

In a study by Adonisi (2003:123) the CE factors of rewards/reinforcement, work

improvement, work discretion had a total prediction of 47.34% in extrinsic job satisfaction

as dependent variable. Additionally, the CE factors of rewards/reinforcement, work

improvement, work discretion and a significant prediction of 26.98% in internal job

satisfaction as dependent variable. Total job satisfaction was predicted 21.42% by the

three CE factors of rewards/reinforcement, work improvement, work discretion (Adonisi,

2003:124). This finding emphasises the importance of the nurturing of CE in an

organisation, as it is not only advantageous to the development of a CE culture, but it has

a direct influence on the external, internal and total experience of job satisfaction of

employees. Therefore the notion of CE should be carefully fostered in any organisation to

preserve a healthy organisational culture.

5.1.5 Management Implications

The fact that consultants enjoy more management support for CE activities than middle

management and regular employees is concerning. Similarly senior management scored

higher on the work discretion CE scale than middle management and regular employees,

which could lead to many frustrations. Time-availability was also unevenly distributed, with

individuals with less experience in years in the banking sector enjoying more time

availability for CE activities than individuals with more experience in years. Seen in the

light of the findings of Adonisi (2003:123&124), that a healthy CE climate leads to job

satisfaction, it is concerning that middle management and regular employees do not enjoy

the necessary support for CE activities, but that consultants rather enjoy this advantage.

Work discretion is also less allowed to middle management and regular employees than

senior management, while time availability is an overall problem, but significantly more so

for individuals with more than 11 years experience than those with less than 10 years

experience. This could potentially lead to a climate of job dissatisfaction, if the results of

Adonisi (2003:123&124) are brought into consideration. Management should therefore

take extra care in creating a healthy support climate for CE activities amongst their own

employees, not only to uplift the CE climate in the banking sector, but also to implicitly

create a culture of job satisfied individuals.

5.3 Limitations

The greatest limitation to this study is the lack of depth associated with the relatively small

sample size of 63 respondents. It should be indicated that the results should be interpreted

with caution.

The findings of the current study can only be generalised to the four representative South

African banks that took part in the study, namely ABSA, FNB (FirstRand), Nedbank

(Nedcor) and Standard Bank. No generalisation or assumptions can be made in relation to

the other banks which make up the banking sector.

Due to possible response bias, it could be that results are slightly skewed, however

individuals were ensured of anonymity and confidentiality of their responses.

5.4 Future Studies

The following six areas might be considered for future research into the subject of CE in

the banking sector. Firstly, a more detailed and in-depth study involving a much larger

sample, which is more representative of the whole population, should be conducted.

Secondly, ‘bank specific’ studies should be conducted upon the respective banks.

Meaning each bank’s CE climate should be individually evaluated as comparisons

between banks will allow for more accurate conclusions to be achieved. These findings

could be used as a guideline to rehabilitate CE short comings in the different banks.

Thirdly, studies should be done comparing the CE climate of the South African Banking

sector opposed climates of banking sectors outside South Africa. The fourth possible

future study is one which involves the monitoring of the CE climate within the banking

sector over time to see changes in CE climate and levels of CE. Lastly, a study should be

conducted comparing the CE climate of the banking sector versus, other financial

institutions.

5.5 Conclusion

This chapter has concluded the research by giving a summary of the climate of the five

different CE factors, concerning the independent variables of educational level; position;

years of employment in current organisation; number of years in the banking sector;

management level; gender and age. The findings illustrate the use of the CEAI as a means

of assessing and testing the CE climate in the South African banking sector. The research

conducted contributes to a better understanding of CE, as well as the CE climate within

the sector, and can be used as a basis for the successful rehabilitation of CE in the

banking sector.

REFERENCES

Adonisi, M.P. 2003. The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, market

orientation, organizational flexibility and job satisfaction. Doctoral thesis. University of

Pretoria. . Doctoral thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Åmo, B.W. & Kolvereid, L. 2005. Organisational strategy, individual personality

andinnovation behaviour. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1):7-19.

Anderson, D.R., Sweeney, D.J. & TA Williams, T.A. 2003. Modern Business statistics.

Ohio: South- Western.

Anderson, K. 2003. The subject of entrepreneurship. [Online] Available from:

(http://www.celcee.edu/publications/digest/Dig02-09.html- [Accessed: 10/10/2007].

Antoncic, B. & Hisrich, R.D. 2003a. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of

Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1):7-24.

Antoncic, B. & Hisrich, R.D. 2003b. Privatization, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and

Performance: Testing a Normative Model. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,

8(3):197-218

Antoncic, B. 2006. Impacts of diversification and corporate entrepreneurship strategy

making on growth and profitability: A normative model. Journal of Enterprising Culture,

14(1):49-63.

Baron, R.A. & Shane, S.A. 2005. Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. 1st edition.

Ohio: Thomson South-Western.

Barringer, B.R. & Bluedorn, A.C. 1999. The relationship between corporate

entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5):421-

444.

Bertola, P. & Texeira, J.C. 2003. Design as a knowledge agent: How design as a

knowledge process is embedded into organisations to foster innovation. Design studies,

24(2):181-194.

Bhardwaj, B. R. & Momaya, K. 2007. Corporate Entrepreneurship Model: A Source of

Competitiveness. IIMB Management Review, 19(2):131-150.

Bhardwaj, B. R., Sushil, Momaya, K. 2007. Corporate Entrepreneurship: Application of

Moderator Method. Singapore Management Review, 29(1):47-58.

Bhardwaj, G., Camillus, J.C. & Hounshell, D.A. 2006. Continual Corporate Entrepreneurial

Search for Long-Term Growth. Management Science, 52(2):248-261

Birkinshaw, J. & Hill, S.A. 2003. Corporate venturing units: Vehicles for strategic success

in the new Europe. Organizational Dynamics, 34(3):247-257.

Blanke, J. 2007. Assessing Africa’s Competitiveness in a Global Context. Global

Competitiveness Report 2007, 3-28.

Bolt, W. & Tieman, A.F. 2004. Banking Competition, Risk and Regulation

Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(4), 783–804.

Bonaglia, F., Goldstein, A. & John A. Mathews, J.A. 2007. Accelerated internationalization

by emerging markets’ multinationals: The case of the white goods sector, Journal of World

Business, 42:369–383.

Bouwmeesters, A. 2006. Corporate Entrepreneurship in The Pretoria East Hospital.

Unpublished Mphil Dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Business Network, 2007, Definition of entrepreneurship. [Online] Available from:

http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/Entrepreneur.html [Accessed: 10/10/2007]

Canibano, L., Garcia-Ayuso, M. & Sanchez, P. 2000. Shortcomings in the management of

innovation: Implications for accounting standard setting. Journal of Management and

Governance, 4:319-342.

Cates, M.S. Major, USAF. 2007. Corporate Entrepreneurial Assessment Instrument:

Refinement and validation of survey measure. Masters Thesis. Air force Institute of

Technology. [Online] Available from: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?

&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA467545 [Accessed: 21/11/2007].

Chen, J., Zhaohui, Z. & Wang, A. 2005. A system model for corporate entrepreneurship.

International Journal of Manpower, 26(6): 529 – 543.

Competition Commision, 2004. Banking Enquiry. [Online] Available from:

http://www.compcom.co.za/banking/ [Accessed 29/10/2007].

Cooper D.R. & Schindler, P.S. 2003, Business Research Methods, 8th edition. New York :

McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.

Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T., & McFarlin, D. 2005. The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation

in Stimulating Effective Corporate Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive,

19(1):147-156.

Diamantopoulos, A. & Sclegelmilch, B.B. 2000. Taking the Fear Out of Data Analysis.

London: Thomson Publishers.

Dhliwayo, S. 2007. The relationship between the practice of strategic planning and levels

of corporate entrepreneurship in South African public companies. Doctoral thesis.

University of Pretoria. [Online] Available from UPeTD:

http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-05022007-123553/unrestricted/00front.pdf

[Accessed: 2007/11/03].

Doh, J.P. & Pearce II, J.A. 2004. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Real Options in

Transitional Policy Environments: Theory Development. Journal of Management Studies,

41(4):645-664.

Echecopar, G., Fetters, M. and McDermott. 2003. Entrepreneurship, an engine for

innovation. [Online] Available from:

http://www.uai.cl/p4_centros/site/asocfile/ASOCFILE120040427104311.pdf [Downloaded:

25/08/2007].

Falkena, H., Davel, G., Hawkins, P., Llewellyn, D., Luus, C., Masilela, E., Parr, G.,

Pienaar, J. & Shaw, H. 2004. Competition in South African Banking: Task group report for

the national treasury & the South African reserve bank.

Fearon, D.S., Cavaleri, S.A. & Prairie, R. 2006. Inside knowledge: Rediscovering the

source of performance improvement. Milwaukee: Quality Press.

FMD Reference Library, 2003, South African Banking Industry Analysis December 2002 -

2003 . [Online] Available from:

http://www.fmd.co.za/FMD/Reference_library/2004/caratings/FMH04_CAratings.htm

28/10/2007 [Accessed: 28/10/2007].

Gantsho, M.S.V. 2006. Corporate entrepreneurial development within finance institutions:

An experimental case study design. Doctoral thesis. University of Pretoria. [Online]

Available from UPeTD:

http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/submitted/etd-11152006-162242/unrestricted/00front.pdf

[Accessed: 2007/09/23].

Geldenhuys, J., 2007: 11 ABSA group limited: The national credit act. [Online] Available

from:

http://www.absa.co.za/absacoza/generated/files/792ea0c680dae010VgnVCM1000003511

060aRCRD/National%20Credit%20Act.pdf [Accessed: 28/10/2007].

Gido, J. & J.P. Clements, 2003. Successful Project Management, 2nd edition. Ohio:

Thomson South-Western.

Gompers, P.A. 2002. Corporations and the financing of innovation: The corporate

venturing experience. Economic Review, Fourth Quarter 97(3):1-17.

Goosen, C.J., De Coning, T.J. & Smit, E. V d M. 2002a. The development of a factor

based instrument to measure corporate entrepreneurship : a South African perspective.

South African Journal of Business Management, (33)3:39-51.

Goosen, C.J., De Coning, T.J. & Smit, E. 2002b.  Corporate entrepreneurship and financial

performance : the role of management. South African Journal of Business Management,

(33)4:21-27

Harris, P., 2007, Our Banking Sector: One of the Best In The World. [Online] Available

from: http://www.sagoodnews.co.za/search/banking/347904.htm [Accessed: 28/10/2007].

Hayton, J.C. 2005a. Competing in the new economy: the effect of intellectual capital on

corporate entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures. R&D Management,

35(2):137-155.

Hayton, J.C. 2005b. Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource

management practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management

Review, 15:21-41.

Hazelhurst, E., 2004, SA Banking: Long perspectives and short horizons. [Online]

Available from: http://www.mba.co.za/article.aspx?rootid=6&subdirectoryid=428

[Accessed: 28/10/2007].

Hedley, K., 2007. Dare to be different: Why banking innovation matters now. [Online]

Available from: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/ibvstudy/bcs/a1027366?

cntxt=a1000043 [Accessed: 16/11/2007]

Hellstrom, T., Jacob, M. & Malmquist, U. 2002. Guiding innovation socially and cognitively:

the innovation and team model at Skanova Networks. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 5(3):172-180.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. & Sexton, D.L. 2002. Strategic entrepreneurship:

Creating a new mindset. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F. & Zahra, S.A. 2002. Middle managers’ perception of the

internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale”.

Journal of Business Venturing 17:253-273.

Hoy, F. 2006. The Complicating Factor of Life Cycles in Corporate Venturing.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(6):831-836.

Husted, K. & Vintergard, C. 2004. Stimulating innovation through corporate venture bases.

Journal of World Business, 39:296-306.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. & Morris, M.H. 2006a. A health audit for corporate

entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels: part 1. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(1):10-

17.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. & Morris, M.H. 2006b. A health audit for corporate

entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels: part 2. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(2):21-

30.

Johnson, D. 2001. What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for large

organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(4):135-140.

Jones, O. 2005. Manufacturing regeneration through corporate entrepreneurship: Middle

managers and organisational innovation. International Journal of Operations and

Production Management, 25(5):491-511.

Kamffer, L. 2004. Factors impacting corporate entrepreneurial behaviour within a retail

organisation- A case study. Masters thesis, University of South Africa. [Online] Available

from etd.Unisa: http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08172005-083558/

unrestricted/00front.pdf [Accessed: 2007/09/23].

Kellermanns, F.W. & Eddleston, K.A. 2006. Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms:

A Family Perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(60):809-830.

Kirby, D.A. 2003. Entrepreneurship. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kuratko, D.F. & Hodgetts, R.M. 1989. Entrepreneurship: a contemporary approach. 4th ed.

Orlando: The Dryden Press.

Kuratko, D.F. & Welsch, H.P. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurial growth, Harcourt College

Publishers.

Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. & Hornsby, J.S. 2005. A Model of Middle-Level

Managers’ Entrepreneurial Behavior, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(6):699-716.

Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. & Hornsby, J.S. 2005. A Model of Middle-Level

Managers’ Entrepreneurial Behavior, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(6):699-716.

Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D. & Hornsby, J.S. 2001. Improving firm performance through

entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Academy of

Management Executive, 15(4):66-71.

Lassen, A.H. 2007. Corporate Entrepreneurship: An empirical study of the importance of

strategic considerations in the creation of radical innovation, Managing Global Transitions,

5(2):109–131.

Lassen, H., Gertsen, F. & Riis J.O. 2006. The Nexus of Corporate Entrepreneurship and

Radical Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(4):359-372.

Little, A.D. 2002. Venturing for innovation. Journal unknown, December:1-40.

Lofton, L. 2007. Banking competition fierce in fast-growing DeSoto County. Mississippi

Business Journal • August 13-19:22-27.

Longenecker, J.G., Mooer, C.W. & Petty, J.W. 2003. Small Business Management: An

Entrepreneurial Approach. 12th edition. United States of America: Thomson/South-

Western.

Maes, J. 2003. The search for corporate entrepreneurship: a clarification of the concept

and its measures. Working paper Steunpunt, September 2003.

Mafu, T., 2006, SA banking industry stifles possible competition. [Online] Available from:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3344859&fSectionId=606&fSetId=662

[Accessed: 28/102007].

Martin, S. 2006. Banking: Through the eyes of a woman. [Online] Available from:

http://www.bankseta.org.za/wdp/downloads/S_Martin_Speaker_Notes.doc[Accessed:

28/10/2007].

Marvel, M.R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J. & Vojak, B. 2007. Examining the Technical Corporate

Entrepreneurs’ Motivation: Voices from the Field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

753-768.

Mboweni, T.T. What is happening in financial markets? Address by Mr T.T. Mboweni,

Governor of the South African Reserve Bank, at the Cape Town Club, Cape Town, 5

October 2007.

McFadzean, E., O’Loughlin, A. & Shaw, E. 2005a. Corporate entrepreneurship and

innovation, part 1: The missing link. European Journal of Innovation Management,

8(3):350-372.

McFadzean, E., O’Loughlin, A. & Shaw, E. 2005b. Corporate entrepreneurship and

innovation, part 2: A role- and process-based approach. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 8(4):393-408.

McGregor, J., Arndt, M., Berner, R., Rowley, I., Hall, K., Edmondson, G., Hamm, S.,

Ihlwan, M. & Reinhardt, A. 2006. The World's Most Innovative Companies. [Online]

Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17/b3981401.htm

[Accessed: 17/11/2007].

Meyer, F. 2007. Meyer report on innovation. AIM Advisors Inc, 1:1-4.

Michalski, T. 2004. A competence-based framework for innovation management through

corporate entrepreneurship. General Management Institute Postdam, 6:1-28.

Montalvo, C. 2006. What triggers change and Innovation? Technovation, 26:312-323.

Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. 2002. Corporate Entrepreneurship. USA: Harcourt College

Publishers.

Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. & Covin, J.G. 2008. Corporate Entrepreneurship and

Innovation. 2nd Edition. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Morris, M.H.; Allen, J., Schindehutte, M. & Avila, R. 2006. Balanced Management Control

Systems as a Mechanism for Achieving Corporate Entrepreneurship. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 18(4):468-493.

Morten, H., Neubaum, D.O. & Gabrielsson, J. 2005. Corporate innovation and the

corporate environment. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, (1):313-

333.

Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your master’s and doctoral studies. 1st Edition,

Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Nayager, T. & Van Vuuren, J.J.  2005. An analysis of an organisational strategy, structure

and culture that supports corporate entrepreneurship in established organizations :

management. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 8(1):29-38.

Nayager, T. & Van Vuuren, J.J.  2005. An analysis of an organisational strategy, structure

and culture that supports corporate entrepreneurship in established organizations :

management. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 8(1):29-38.

Nicholson-Herbert, S., Mkhize, S. & Schroder, A. 2004. A South African perspective on

corporate Entrepreneurship: Turning managers into leaders, ESADE MBA Business

Review. 2004:40-46.

Nieman, G., Hough, J. & Nieuwenhuizen, C. 2003. Entrepreneurship: A South African

perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Nyamakanga, R. 2007a. New laws cost SA banks. [Online] Available from:

http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/TarkArticle.aspx?ID=2822738 [Accessed:

28/10/2007].

Petrou, A. 2007. Multinational banks from developing versus developed countries:

Competing in the same arena? Journal of International Management,13:376–397.

Pirich, A., Knuckey, S. & Campbell, J. 2001. An interface between entrepreneurship and

nnovation. Paper presented at the DRUID Neslon and Winter conference, Aalborg

University, Denmark, 12-15 June:1-50.

Planting, S. 2007. The wonderful world of money. [Online] Available from:

http://free.financialmail.co.za/innovations/5nov/binn.htm [Accessed: 21/11/2007].

Poon, J.P.H. & MacPherson, A. 2005. Innovation strategies of Asian firms in the United

States. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22:255-273.

Rajagopal, 2006. Innovation and business growth through corporate venturing in Latin

America. Management Decision, 44(5): 703-718.

Reserve Bank. 2007a. Annual Economic Report: 2007. [Online] Available from:

http://www.reservebank.co.za/internet/Publication.nsf/WPSCNPV/F319983D47F3E7E042

25735B0030FCAF?opendocument [Accessed: 20/10/2007].

Reserve Bank. 2007b, Registered Branches. [Online] Available from:

http://www2.resbank.co.za/BankSup/BankSup.nsf/$

$ViewTemplate+for+Registered+Branches?OpenForm [Accessed: 21/11/2007].

RNCOS. 2007. Mzansi: Taking the South African banking sector high. [Online] Available

from: http://www.24/7pressrelease.com/index.php?

tf7sid=d2ba6522c9543d4e6274b61b1abe121f [Accessed: 10/05/2007].

Rosengren, E.S. 2007. Market and Risk Management Innovations: Implications for Safe

and Sound Banking. Economic Review, 1st &2nd quarters:39-39.

Rutherford, M.W. & Holt, D.T. 2007. Corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical look at the

innovativeness dimension and its antecedents Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 20(3):429-446.

Saville, A., Bader, M & Spindler, Z. 2005. Alternative monetary systems and the quest for

stability: Can a free banking system deliver in South Africa. South African Journal of

Economics, 73(4):674-693.

Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R.C. & Arroniz, I. 2006. The 12 different ways to innovate. MIT/

Sloan Management Review, 47(3):75-81.

Scheepers, M.J., Hough, J. & Bloom, J.Z. 2007. Entrepreneurial intensity : a comparative

analysis of established companies in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and

Management Sciences, 10(2):238-255.

Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The theory of economic development (1st translation: 1961). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Shepherd, D.A. & Krueger, N.F. 2007. An Intentions-Based Model of Entrepreneurial

Teams’ social Cognition. Entrereneurship Theory and Practice, Winter:167-185.

Southafrica.Info, 2005, Mzansi: SA banking spreads its net. [Online] Available

from:http://www.southafrica.info/publicservices/citizens/consumer_services/

mzansi.htm[Accessed: 24/10/2007].

Srivastava, P. Singla, D. & Chaturvedi, M. 2004. Organizational conditions and processes,

ESADE MBA Business Review. 2004:58-66

Standard Chartered. 2007. Corporate expansion across Africa is forcing banks to rethink

their African strategies. [Online] Available from:

http://www.standardchartered.co.za/news/2007/pdf_za_12062007.pdf[Accessed:

2/11/2007].

Taylor, J.S. 2006. What makes a region entrepreneurial? A literature review for the Centre

for Economic Development, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland

State University, September 2006.

Teng, B. 2007. Corporate Entrepreneurship Activities through Strategic Alliances: A

Resource-Based Approach toward Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management

Studies, 44 (1):119-142.

Thompson, J.L. 2004. Innovation through people. Management Decision, 42(9):1082-

1094.

Thornberry, N.E. 2003. Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be

entrepreneurs. The Journal of Management Development, 22(4):329-344.

Timmons, J and Spinelli, S. 2003. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st

Century. 6th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

University of Colorado, 2007, definition of entrepreneurship. [Online] Available from:

http://bus.colorado.edu/faculty/meyer/6700syl.html. [Acessed: 10/10/2007].

Urban, B. 2007. A framework for understanding the role of culture in entrepreneurship.

Acta Commercii. 7:82-95.

Venter and Rwigeni, 2005, Advanced Entrepreneurship, 2nd edition. Cape Town: Oxford

University press.

Viswanathan, R.J. & Nagarajan, G.S. 2004. The 4E Model: Designing an incentive system

for internal ventures. ESADE MBA Business Review, 2004:24-32.

Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small

Business Economics, 13:27-55.

Wickham, P.A. 2001. Strategic Entrepreneurship: A decision making approach to new

venture creation and management. England: Pearson Education.

Wilkinson, T.J. 2006. Entrepreneurial Climate and U.S. State Foreign Trade Offices as

Predictors of Export Success. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(1):99-113.

Zahra, S.A. 1995. Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: the case of

management leverage buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3):225-247.

Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F. & Kuratko, D.F. 1999. The antecedents and consequences of

firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,

24(2):45-65.

Zahra, SA & Covin, G. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship

performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 10:43-

58.

Zhao, F. 2005. Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation.

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1):25-41.

Zook, C. & Allen, J. 2003. Growth outside the core. Harvard Business Review, December,

3-9.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: The CEAI Questionnaire

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURIAL CLIMATE WITHIN THE SOUTH

AFRICAN BANKING SECTOR

The theory of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is currently a very popular and constantly

evolving topic of research and study. The purpose of this study is to determine and

evaluate the corporate entrepreneurial climate within the South African banks which

make up the South African banking sector.

Corporate Entrepreneurship can be defined as the form of entrepreneurial spirit

permeating throughout an organisation, brought about by the visions, actions and

mindsets of employees and management alike, and results in entrepreneurial behaviour

and orientation within established organisations.

Dear Respondent,

All the information will be treated as STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.

Instructions for completion

All information will be treated as confidential and respondents aren’t required to fill in

their names or the names of their respective organisations.

Please answer the questions as objectively and honestly as possible.

Please answer based on your own business and experiences as much as possible.

Please mark the option which reflects your answer the most accurately by making

an (X) in the space provided.

Please answer all the questions as this will provide more information to the

researcher so that an accurate analysis and interpretation of data can be made

FOR OFFICE USE 

RESPONDENT NUMBER       V1    

 A BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS  

 

1 Age     V2    

 

 2 Gender  

 

Male 1 V3  

Female 2  

 

3 Number of years at company     V4    

 4 Management Level  

 

Senior Management 1  

Middle Management 2 V5  

Lower Management 3  

  

5 Position  

    V6  

 6 Highest qualification obtained?  

 

Matric (Grade 12/Std 10) 1  

National Diploma 2 V7  

Undergraduate degree 3  

Postgraduate degree 4  

 

7How many years experience do you have in the banking sector?

 

 

 V8

 

 

 

 Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’:

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Un

cert

ain

Agr

ee

Str

ong

ly A

gree

 

No.Code: Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’

 

Management Support for Corporate Entrepreneurship    

1Our departmental vision and strategies are clear to me.

  Q1  

2My organization is quick to use improved work methods that are developed by workers.

  Q2  

3In my organization, developing ideas for the improvement of the corporation is encouraged.

  Q3  

4Upper management is aware of and very receptive to my ideas and suggestions.

  Q4  

5A promotion usually follows from the development of new and innovative ideas.

  Q5  

6

Those employees who come up with innovative ideas on their own often receive management encouragement for their activities.

  Q6  

7

The “doers” on projects are allowed to make decisions without going through elaborate justification and approval procedures.

  Q7  

8

Senior managers encourage innovators to bend rules and rigid procedures in order to keep promising ideas on track.

  Q8  

9Many top manages are known for their experience with the innovation process.

  Q9  

10Money is often available to get new project ideas off the ground.

  Q10  

11

Individuals with successful innovative projects receive additional rewards and compensation for their ideas and efforts beyond the standard reward system.

  Q11  

12

There are several options within the organization for individuals to get financial support for their innovative projects and ideas

  Q12  

 Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’:

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Un

cert

ain

Agr

ee

Str

ong

ly A

gree

 

No.Code: Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’

 

13People are often encouraged to take calculated risks with ideas around here.

  Q13  

14

Individual risk takers are often recognized for their willingness to champion new projects, whether eventually successful or not.

  Q14  

15The term “risk taker” is considered a positive attribute for people in my work area

  Q15  

16

This organization supports many small and experimental projects realizing that some will undoubtedly fail

  Q16  

17An employee with a good idea is often given free time to develop that idea.

  Q17  

18

There is considerable desire among people in the organization for generating new ideas without regard for crossing departmental or functional boundaries.

  Q18  

19

People are encouraged to talk to employees in other departments of this organization about ideas for new projects.

  Q19  

Work Discretion    

20I feel that I am my own boss and do not have to double-check all of my decisions with someone else.

  Q20  

21Harsh criticism and punishment result form mistakes made on the job

  Q21  

22This organization provides the chance to be creative and try my own methods of doing the job.

  Q22  

23This organization provides the freedom to use my own judgment and initiative

  Q23  

  Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’: S

tro

Dis

a

Un

c

Agr

e

Str

o    

ngly

Dis

agre

e

gree

erta

in

e

ngly

Agr

ee

No.Code: Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’

   

24This organization provides the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities.

  Q24  

25I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job.

  Q25  

26It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done

  Q26  

27I almost always get to decide what I do on my job.

  Q27  

28I have much autonomy on my job and am left on my own to do my own work.

  Q28  

29I seldom have to follow the same work methods or steps for doing my major tasks from day to day.

  Q29  

Rewards/Reinforcement    

30My manager helps me get my work done by removing obstacles and roadblocks.

  Q30  

31The rewards I receive are dependent upon my work on the job.

  Q31  

32My supervisor will increase my job responsibilities if I am performing well in my job

  Q32  

33My supervisor will give me special recognition if my work performance is especially good

  Q33  

34My manager would tell his/her boss if my work was outstanding

  Q34  

35There are a lot of challenges in my job.

  Q35  

Time Availability    

36During the past three months, my workload kept me from spending time on developing new ideas.

  Q36  

37I always seem to have plenty of time to get everything done.

  Q37  

 Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’:

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Un

cert

ain

Agr

ee

Str

ong

ly A

gree

   

No.Code: Please mark the respective column with an ‘X’

   

38I have just the right amount of time and workload to do everything well.

  Q38  

39My job is structured so that I have very little time to think about wider organizational problems.

  Q39  

40I feel that I am always working with time constraints on my job

  Q40  

41My co-workers and I always find time for long-term problem solving

  Q41  

Organizational Boundaries    

42

In the past three months, I have always followed standard operating procedures or practices to do my major tasks.

  Q42  

43There are many written rules and procedures that exist for doing my major tasks.

  Q43  

44On my job I have no doubt of what is expected of me.

  Q44  

45 There is little uncertainty in my job.   Q45  

46

During the past year, my immediate supervisor discussed my work performance with me frequently

  Q46  

47My job description clearly specifies the standards of performance on which my job is evaluated

  Q47  

48There are people in the department who always lend a hand when needed.

  Q48  

49

I clearly know what level of work performance is expected from me in terms of amount, quality, and time line of output.

  Q49