THE INFLUENCING FACTORS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

IN PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIAL

SPACE CONFERENCE || APRIL 2016

CARISSA BARBOSA & ANABELA MESQUITA (ISCAP)

TOPICS

Intrapreneurship (in assistant management)

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion (implications for practice)

Conclusion

INTRAPRENEURSHIP

Process within an existing company that includes the development of new business

investment and other innovative activities and guidelines

Ex.: management techniques, strategies and competitive postures (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001);

Innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking (Stam et al., 2012);

Technical or non-technical and several management levels (Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006).

Factors Characteristics AuthorsPerson

Dispositional

traits

1. Proactive personalityBateman & Crant, 1993; Parker & Collins, 2010; Parker et al., 2006; Crant,

1996; De Jong et al., 2011

2. Need of achievement McClelland, 1961; Rauch & Frese, 2000; Miner, 2000; cited by Stam et al., 2012

3. Locus of control Rotter, 1966; Rauch & Frese, 2000; Stam et al., 2012

4. Self efficacy Stam et al., 2012; Bandura, 1982

Demography 5. AgeDe Jong et al., 2011 (Terracciano, McCrae, Brant & Costa, 2005; Lange, van

Yperen, van der Heijden & Bal, 2010; Unger, Rauch, Frese, Rosenbusch, 2011)

Cognitive

abilities

6. Educational attainment Unger, et al, 2011; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; De Jong et al., 2011

7. Domain-related experience Shane, 2003

Organ

ization

Job design

8. Type Stam et al., 2012; Kanter, 1988; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006

9. Autonomy Axtell et al., 2000; Bindl & Parker, 2010

10. Variety Kanter, 1988; Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008

11. External work contacts Stam et al., 2012 and Kanter, 1988

Work

context

12. Rewards Hornsby et al., 1993; cited by Stam et al., 2012

13. ResourcesHornsby et al, 2002; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; cited by Fuller et al., 2006 and

Scott & Bruce, 1994

14. Leadership De Jong, 2007; Axtell et al., 2000; cited by Stam et al., 2012

15. Work group climate Tesluk et al., 1997; Axtell et al., 2000; cited by Stam et al., 2012

INTRAPRENEURSHIP IN SECRETARIAT

Professionional evolution + responsibility, knowledge and update

The secretary needs to be:

“an innovative, creative and entrepreneur professional and able to perform their

responsibilities while facing numerous socio-economic changes”

Marques dos Santos (2011, p. 5)

OBJECTIVE

To identify which factors influence the intrapreneurship in the specific

professional: management assistant

METHODOLOGY

Theoretical background: Literature review

(books and articles)

Empirical research: Qualitative approach

(semi-structured interview)

Content analysis and comparison

discussion

RESULTS – INTERVIEWED:

8 secretarial professionals of different companies (informatics consulting,

auto industry, financial advisory, print media, distribution and logistics);

Age range between 23-51 years;

Higher education in area;

Years of experience: 1-2 (3 ♀); 10-20 (4 ♀) and 30 (1 ♀).

DISPOSITIONAL TRAITS

Proactive personality improvement, identify changes, tasks in advance and exceed

expectations (except E2 and E5);

Need of achievement E3, E6 and E8 wanted other challenges: hardworking in bringing

ideas and self motivating;

Locus of control E1 and E8 influence results of their work (eg: empathy);

Self efficacy negative vs natural mistake (> sense of efficacy > challenges).

DEMOGRAPHY –AGE

Limited evidence understudied factor

With age the motivation but the capacity to explore opportunities (Stam et al., 2012)

E6 (> 50 years):

Proactive personality

contradicts what people with aging may be - predisposed to change

reinforces that have + capacity and experience to analyze opportunities

COGNITIVE ABILITIES – EDUCATION ADN EXPERIENCE

National and multinational

experience:

• E3 enriching knowledge influenced the

vision of work;

• “Always do better” e “fight to get away”;

• People with + experience exploit

entrepreneurial opportunities.(Shane, 2003)

E5 e E6 = Education level:

• E6 knowledge and confidence to

solve problems;

• E5 without that trust, - prone to

challenges, - proactive and resigned;

• Education vs personal traits/ job design.

(Le Pine & Van Dyne, 1998)

JOB DESIGN

Type routine with newness (solving attitude) vs rigorous systems;

Autonomy managers expect everything prepared vs limitation of E2 (organization) and

E5 (work);

Variety diversified tasks (SME) vs most rigorous tasks (big enterprise);

WORK CONTEXT

Rewards without promotion, performance evaluation, annual premium, salary increase;

Resources working conditions influence the experience of other behaviors (E3);

Leadership laissez-faire type except for E1 (scapegoat) and E2 (depreciation);

Work group climate favorable with active participation (error without consequence) vs

restrictive rules (E2).

DISCUSSION

It seems to have + influence

Neutral needs + study

It seems to have - influence

DISCUSSION

Big enterprises open-mind, professional recognition, freedom and trust;

Secretariat assumes > importance facilitator and information manager;

SMES secretaries have difficulties to behaviors intrapreneurs:

E2: organization with strict rules, without space to suggestions, employees can not

have initiative or change the form of work;

E5: tasks not included in function, demotivation, rather have + responsibilities,

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Results may help companies to identify what are the enablers and constraints to the

development of intrapreneurial skills and attitudes:

EMPLOYEE try to develop personal traits of intrapreneurial ability: a more

proactive personality (take more initiative, be persistent and dynamic), increase the

realization of need’s levels (look for own motivation) and self-efficacy.

ORGANIZATION should provide a working environment open to change,

reward employees for acting proactively and giving suggestions for improvement,

sufficient autonomy, a participatory leadership style, working teams and a culture in

which mistakes are accepted where people are not afraid of making mistakes and

CONCLUSIONS

The role of intrapreneur is undervalued and little understood (Martiarena, 2013);

Secretaries with particular characteristics and different environments;

Factors that seem to have + influence personal traits, job design and work context;

Knowing realities and study professional experiences;

Depth analysis would not have been possible with another method.

LIMITATIONS

Concept in the growth phase curiosity vs difficulty;

Only one work appointing intrapreneurship factors (Stam et al, 2012.);

Degree of depth vs flexibility interviews and investigator experience/competence;

Group of 8 people;

+ Investigations to understand what drives one intrapreneur.

THANK YOU!