Paper presented at SPACE conference

1. THE INFLUENCING FACTORS OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP
IN PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIAL
SPACE CONFERENCE || APRIL 2016
CARISSA BARBOSA & ANABELA MESQUITA (ISCAP)

2. TOPICS
 Intrapreneurship (in assistant management)
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion (implications for practice)
 Conclusion

3. 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).

4. Factors Characteristics Authors
Person
Dispositional
traits
1. Proactive personality
Bateman & 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
Demograph
y
5. Age
De 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
Organization
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
12. Rewards Hornsby et al., 1993; cited by Stam et al., 2012
13. Resources
Hornsby et al, 2002; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; cited by Fuller et al.,

5. 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)

6. OBJECTIVE
 To identify which factors influence the intrapreneurship in the
specific professional: management assistant

7. METHODOLOGY
Theoretical background:
Literature review
(books and articles)
Empirical research:
Qualitative approach
(semi-structured
interview)
Content analysis and
comparison 
discussion

8. 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 ♀).

9. 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).

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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);

13. 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).

14. DISCUSSION
It seems to have +
influence
Neutral  needs + study
It seems to have -
influence

15. 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,

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. THANK YOU!