The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.

htm

Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth: a model

Jasna Auer Antoncic
Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia, and

Employee satisfaction

589
Received 2 November 2010 Revised 21 January 2011 Accepted 6 February 2011

Bostjan Antoncic
Turistica, Faculty of Management, Faculty of Tourism Studies Portoroz University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia and Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract
Purpose Organizational performance, growth and development may depend considerably on entrepreneurship in existing organizations (intrapreneurship) and intrapreneurship employee-related antecedents. The purpose of this study is to focus on employee satisfaction (composed of four dimensions: general satisfaction with work; employee relationships; remuneration, benets and organizational culture; and employee loyalty), intrapreneurship and rm growth. The models underlying hypotheses were conceptually developed and empirically tested. Design/methodology/approach Using data collected via a structured questionnaire sent by e-mail to 149 rms from Slovenia, the models hypotheses were tested by applying structural equation modeling. Findings The ndings support the hypothesized relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and growth. The inuence of the control variables was also assessed in the model and rm age was found to be inuential. Research limitations/implications Firm growth can depend strongly on intrapreneurship and intrapreneurship employee-related antecedents. The study contributes to intrapreneurship research by empirically examining the relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship and testing the impact of employee satisfaction on rm growth. Practical implications Firms need to take a detailed and systematic approach to employee satisfaction in order to improve intrapreneurship and growth. Social implications Activities related to the stimulation of employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship can have also social implications, since they can increase creation of the new wealth in the society. Originality/value This study can be differentiated from past studies, since it considers an ensemble of employee satisfaction elements (general satisfaction with work, employee relationships, remuneration, benets and organizational culture and employee loyalty) as a crucial antecedent of intrapreneurship and builds a model of employee satisfaction-driven intrapreneurship and rm growth, which has not been examined before. Keywords Employees, Employee behaviour, Job satisfaction, Entreprenurialism, Business development, Slovenia Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Organizational performance, growth and development may depend considerably on entrepreneurship in existing organizations (intrapreneurship) and intrapreneurship employee-related antecedents. The study focuses on employee satisfaction,

Industrial Management & Data Systems Vol. 111 No. 4, 2011 pp. 589-607 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-5577 DOI 10.1108/02635571111133560

IMDS 111,4

590

intrapreneurship and rm growth. It deals with the elements of job satisfaction important for the survival and growth of rms. Elements of employee satisfaction are intertwined with elements of organizational factors related to intrapreneurship. Previous research on the relationship between organizational elements and intrapreneurship has focused on the characteristics of internal organizational environments and their relationships with entrepreneurship in existing organizations (Souder, 1981; Schollhammer, 1982; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Hornsby et al., 1993; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Antoncic, 2007). In addition to some descriptive evidence (Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985), in one study Kuratko et al. (2005) empirically examined the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, internal organizational antecedents and job satisfaction and found that they are related, but used a narrower measure of employee satisfaction and focused only on one aspect of intrapreneurship (number of new and implemented ideas and unofcial improvements). Past research in intrapreneurship has covered some elements important for employee satisfaction, but has only partially addressed the relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship. This study can be differentiated from past studies, since it considers an ensemble of employee satisfaction elements (general satisfaction with work, employee relationships, remuneration, benets and organizational culture and employee loyalty) as a crucial antecedent of intrapreneurship and builds a model of employee satisfaction-driven intrapreneurship and rm growth, which has not been examined before. This study lls the research gap by developing and empirically testing a model. Based on theoretical starting points, we developed hypotheses and sought to nd out whether the hypothesized relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and growth exist. The key contribution of our research is the model which sheds light on the linkages between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth. 2. Theory and hypotheses This section describes the elements of employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship along with the hypotheses on the relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth. 2.1 Elements of employee satisfaction Employee satisfaction is the satisfaction of employees with their jobs or the degree to which employees like their jobs (Spector, 1997). An overall job satisfaction and elements of employee satisfaction were traditionally emphasized as important elements of organizational management, behavior and development (Lofquist and Dawis, 1969; Smith et al., 1969; Locke, 1976; Cranny et al., 1992). Varoius job satisfaction-related elements exist. For example, on one hand, job satisfaction factors can be classied accordingly to the well-known Herzbergs (1964, 1966) two-factor theory into hygienes (supervision, working conditions, co-workers, pay, policies/procedures and job security), which lead to dissatisfaction, and motivators (achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth), which lead to satisfaction. On the other hand, job satisfaction elements can be considered in relative terms, as proposed in equity theory (Adams, 1963; Vecchio, 1982), in which employees evaluate the fairness of exchange and base their satisfaction-related elements on the comparison of the ratio of personal outcomes (pay, recognition, job satisfaction, opportunity and advancement) and personal inputs (time, effort, knowledge and skills) with

the ratio of reference group outcomes and inputs. Important elements that affect employee satisfaction, which are used in this study, are: . General satisfaction with work, consisting of the work conditions (Mozina, 1991; Miskell, 1994), working time (Pierce and Newstrom, 1980; Ronan, 1981; Christensen and Staines, 1990) and reputation of the company (Mulej, 1986). . Employee relationships, consisting of relationships between employees (Mayer, 1991; Miskell and Miskell, 1994; Welsby, 2003) and also includes annual personal interviews with employees (Majcen, 2004). . Remuneration, benets and organizational culture, these elements include salary (Hanneman and Schwab, 1985; Brecko, 2005), remuneration in the form of benets and praise (Rosenbloom and Hallman, 1991), promotion (Mozina, 2002), education (Tsui et al., 1997; Joy-Matthews et al., 2007; Noe, 2008), permanency of the job (Maslow, 1997; McGregor, 2002) and the organizational climate and culture (Pinchot, 1985; Fiedler, 1993; Hisrich and Peters, 1995). . Employee loyalty (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Tsui et al., 1997; Varona, 2002). These elements are important for anyone directly or indirectly related to the companys operations. Employees value the operation of a company based on their own needs and interests. If the rm functions internally in accordance with their interests, stemming from their needs, they are satised. The way employees in the company are dealt with determines whether employees can be considered a true competitive advantage of the company. 2.2 Intrapreneurship Entrepreneurship can be dened:
[. . .] as the process of uncovering and developing an opportunity to create value through innovation and seizing that opportunity without regard to either resources (human and capital) or the location of the entrepreneur in a new or existing company (Churchill, 1992, p. 586).

Employee satisfaction

591

Intrapreneurship can be dened in broad terms as entrepreneurship within an existing organization. Intrapreneurship includes entrepreneurial behaviors and orientations of existing organizations. Intrapreneurship exists in a rm, for example, when the rm acts entrepreneurially in pursuing new opportunities; in contrast, a non-intrapreneurial rm would be mostly concerned with the management of the existing (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003) and would make decisions predominantly on the basis of the currently controlled resources (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Intrapreneurship may be seen as doing new things and departing from the customary to pursue opportunities (Vesper, 1984); as a process by which individuals inside organizations pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990); as a spirit of entrepreneurship within the existing organization (Hisrich and Peters, 1995); or as emergent behavioral intentions or behaviors deviating from the customary way of doing business (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). Intrapreneurship (corporate entrepreneurship, intrapreneuring) can also be dened by its content (for a more precise conceptual denition, see Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003) including dimensions based on the Schumpeterian innovation concept that can be considered a building block of entrepreneurship. Previous views of intrapreneurship can for the purpose of this study be classied in four dimensions which encompass the following entrepreneurial activities in existing rms:

IMDS 111,4

592
.

New business venturing (Schollhammer, 1982; Hisrich and Peters, 1984; Vesper, 1984; Rule and Irwin, 1988; Zahra, 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994) the new business venturing dimension refers to the creation of new businesses related to existing products or markets and the creation of new units without regard to the level of autonomy or size. Product/service innovativeness (Schollhammer, 1982; Covin and Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1993; Knight, 1997) the product/service innovativeness dimension refers to product and service innovation. Process/technology innovativeness (Schollhammer, 1982; Covin and Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1993; Damanpour, 1996; Knight, 1997; Tushman and Anderson, 1997; Antoncic et al., 2007) the process/technology innovativeness dimension refers to innovations in production processes, procedures and techniques, as well as in technologies. Self-renewal (Vesper, 1984; Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1991; Stopford and Baden-Fuller, 1994; Muzyka et al., 1995) the self-renewal dimension reects the transformation of organizations through a renewal of the key ideas on which they are built.

2.3 Hypotheses Hypotheses are developed in terms of relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth. 2.3.1 Employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship. The elements of employee satisfaction described above, namely: . general satisfaction with work; . employee relationships; . remuneration, benets and organizational culture; and . employee loyalty are important for the companys operations. In their nature, the elements of employee satisfaction are important organizational elements that can be very inuential for the development of entrepreneurial activities and orientations in the organization. In particular, they tend to be related to organizational and management support and organizational values the driving forces of intrapreneurship. Previous research on the relationship between organizational elements and intrapreneurship has focused on characteristics of intra-organizational environments that can facilitate or impede intrapreneurship development (Souder, 1981; Schollhammer, 1982; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985; Luchsinger and Bagby, 1987; Hornsby et al., 1993; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Antoncic, 2007). Organizational characteristics such as communication openness, control mechanisms, environmental scanning intensity, organizational and management support, and organizational values can be considered important predictors of intrapreneurship, with organizational and management support, and organizational values having a particularly strong association with intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). Kuratko et al. (2005) demonstrated positive relationships between corporate entrepreneurship internal organizational antecedents (management support, work discretion, rewards/reinforcement, time availability and organizational boundaries) and job satisfaction. Top managements style of dealing with employees is crucial for employee satisfaction and employee involvement in entrepreneurial activities and can play

an important role in innovation performance (Huang and Lin, 2006). Giving employees work discretion, rewards, time availability, training, trust, loose intra-organizational boundaries, and management support, commitment and involvement may be considered vital characteristics of organizational support conducive to intrapreneurship (MacMillan, 1986; Hornsby et al., 1990; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Merrield, 1993). Investing in employees can encourage their self-initiative (Hom et al., 2009), which is important for intrapreneurship. Managers and employees, who are involved in the team for changing the organization, need to be able to implement new business processes (McAdam and Galloway, 2005). Support from senior management may represent important encouragement for employees to innovate (Lee and Tsai, 2005). As important elements of organizational culture, values can be essential for the development of intrapreneurship. Values are an important component of an innovative organizational culture in which individuals are continuously encouraged to generate new ideas, solutions and knowledge (Wong, 2005). Employee emotional and value commitment tends to improve innovativeness in organizations (Kanter, 1984). Employee satisfaction is also built on values-related drivers of intrapreneurship such as: the attitudes of individuals within the rm (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990), individual-centered intrapreneurship and organizational values (focusing on ways in which employees are treated in the organization) and competition-centered organizational values (focusing on approaches organizational members should follow when attempting to achieve organizational goals) (Zahra, 1991). It may be concluded from the above research that elements of organizational factors intertwine with elements of employee satisfaction and may be important for the development of intrapreneurship. Therefore, the expected relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship is positive: H1. Employee satisfaction is positively associated with intrapreneurship. 2.3.2 Employee satisfaction and growth. Employee satisfaction can be related to rm performance in terms of growth. The practices of managing human resources show that the possibility of education, adequate pay, benets, continuity of employment and the right approach to employees encourage a high level of employee motivation and their willingness to invest in their own knowledge and skills (Shaw et al., 1998; Tsui et al., 1997). Improving the satisfaction of workers is a central task of management since satisfaction creates condence, loyalty and consequently improved quality in the output of employees (Tietjen and Myers, 1998). Top managements commitment to improving employee satisfaction takes into account factors that affect employee satisfaction and can encourage employees to improve the performance of their tasks and boost the level of their work performance, which can in turn contribute to the companys growth (Tsui et al., 1997; Shaw et al., 1998; Gerhart and Rynes, 2003). The role of employee training and the top management leadership of employees can be essential for the quality and performance of rms (Demirbag et al., 2006). Employee job satisfaction and performance can be moderately related ( Judge et al., 2001). Practices which increase employee satisfaction tend to increase the quality of employees and the level of their performance (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003) and may impact the growth of the rm (Antoncic, 2008). Investing in employee development is crucial for the organization and its business results (Tsui et al., 1997; Merkac Skok, 2008). Therefore, the expected relationship between employee satisfaction and growth of the company is positive. On the basis of the above research, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2. Employee satisfaction is positively associated with rm growth.

Employee satisfaction

593

IMDS 111,4

594

2.3.3 Intrapreneurship and growth. Firm performance can be considered the most important consequence of intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001) and usually denotes performance in terms of growth and protability (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Entrepreneurial activities can be important for the growth of rms and economic growth since entrepreneurship tends to contribute to economic performance through the introduction, creation and enhancement of innovations, change, rivalry and competition (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Carree and Thurik, 2003). Successful enterprises have been characterized with intrapreneurship (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985). Empirical evidence from past research indicates intrapreneurship is related to small-rm growth (Covin, 1991), performance in hostile environments (Covin and Slevin, 1989), large-rm growth (Covin and Slevin, 1986; Zahra, 1991, 1993; Zahra and Covin, 1995) and the growth of existing rms regardless of their size (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). This research underpins the following hypothesis: H3. Intrapreneurship is positively associated with rm growth. 3. Research methods The research methods include the survey questionnaire, the sample and methods of data analysis. 3.1 Survey questionnaire An anonymous questionnaire with mainly closed questions was developed and used for subsequent detailed processing. In the study, we used a questionnaire containing questions divided into four parts, based on employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship, growth and control variables. Likert-type scale ratings of responses to the question are mainly based on the scale, ranging from 1 very untrue to 5 very true. Employee satisfaction was measured with questions taken and adapted from previous research (Brayeld and Rothe, 1951; Porter et al., 1968; Churchill et al., 1974; Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Teas, 1979; Oliver and Brief, 1983) and based on the following dimensions of employee satisfaction: . general satisfaction (working hours, conditions of work and reputation); . employee relationships (relationships with co-workers); . remuneration, benets and organizational culture (salary, remuneration in the form of benets and praise, promotion, education, job stability, organizational climate and culture); and . employee loyalty. The reliabilities of the four dimensions of employee satisfaction (with retained items after factor analysis) were very good to moderately good: general satisfaction (12 retained items, Cronbachs alpha reliability 0.94), employee relationships (four retained items, Cronbachs alpha reliability 0.92), remuneration, benets and organizational culture (nine retained items, Cronbachs alpha reliability 0.88) and employee loyalty (two retained items, Pearsons correlation coefcient 0.43, signicant at the 0.05 level) (Table I). Intrapreneurship, growth and control variables (industry, company size and age) were assessed by using questions from previous research (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). The 23 questions of intrapreneurship (Table II) assessed four aspects of intrapreneurship: new businesses, product/service innovation, process/technology

Items General satisfaction Employees are relatively well-rewarded nancially for their work Employees nd their work challenging, exciting and giving them a sense of accomplishment The employees are commited to the organization Employees are proud to tell others that they are part of their organization For employees, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work Most people in our organization feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when they do the job well Most people in our organization are very satised with the job Employees are generally satised with the kind of work they do in our company Employees think their job is very interesting Employees nd real enjoyment in their work Employees feel they have the opportunity for independent thought and action in their working position Employees feel the prestige of their position inside the company (that is, the regard received from others in the company) Employee relationships Employees feel that their fellow workers are the kind they would like to have around Employees get along well with their coworkers Employees are happy with their relationship with their fellow workers Employees feel that their fellow workers are stimulating Remuneration, benets and organizational culture Employees are satised with the pay they receive for their job The basic values of this organization include learning as key to improvement The sense around here is that employee learning is an investment, not an expense Supervisors in this company are willing to share all relevant information with subordinates This organization can be described as exible and continually adapting to change This organization is always moving toward improved ways of doing things The opportunity for personal growth and development exists in our organization Employees feel they receive enough information from their supervisor about their job performance Employees are satised with their working time Employee loyalty Employees talk up their organization to their friends as a great organization to work for Employees feel very little loyalty to their organization (r)

Mean 3.34 3.38 3.70 3.43 3.07 3.59 3.46 3.56 3.52 3.36 3.34 3.56 3.44 3.65 3.66 3.43 3.05 3.50 3.69 3.59 3.71 3.90 3.72 3.42 3.71 3.58 3.89

SD 0.94 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.94 0.80 0.83 0.78 0.85 0.87 0.84 0.81 0.73 0.83 0.85 0.83 0.95 0.96 1.09 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.86 0.83 0.90 0.89 0.99

Employee satisfaction

595

Table I. Employee satisfaction items

innovation and self-renewal (23 retained items, Cronbachs alpha reliability 0.90). Growth was measured by three questions addressing absolute and relative growth (three retained items, Cronbachs alpha reliability 0.75). 3.2 Data collection and description of the sample The data were collected by e-mail sent to rm managers stating the purpose of the survey and asking them to complete the attached questionnaire. The top manager of a rm was selected as a key informant, since he or she has the most knowledge about the organizational-level questions and therefore is being able to provide the most valid data, relative to other people in a given rm. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a small number of companies in order to check its usefulness to avoid incomprehensible

IMDS 111,4

Items Stimulating your new demand on your existing products in your current markets through aggressive advertising and marketing Broadening your business lines in your current industries Pursuing new businesses in new industries that are related to your current business Finding new niches for your products in your current markets Entering new businesses by offering new lines and products Your companys emphasis on developing new products Rate of new product introduction into the market Your companys spending on new product development activities The number of new products added by your company The number of new products introduced by your company Your investment in developing proprietary technologies Your emphasis on creating proprietary technology Your adoption of technologies developed by other companies or industries Your companys emphasis on technological innovation Your companys emphasis on pioneering technological developments in your industry The percent of the companys revenue generated from products that did not exist three years earlier Dening your companys mission Revising your business concept Redening the industries in which your company will compete Reorganizing units and divisions to increase innovation Coordinated activities among units to enhance company innovation Increasing the autonomy (independence) of different units to enhance their innovation Adopting exible organizational structures to increase innovation

Mean

SD

2.95 3.36 3.35 3.62 3.20 3.48 3.15 3.05 3.07 2.81 3.07 3.09 2.96 3.18 3.25 2.82 3.61 3.53 3.18 3.07 3.16 2.65 3.09

1.34 1.18 1.25 1.03 1.27 1.04 0.92 1.09 1.01 1.19 1.27 1.19 1.05 1.12 1.19 1.56 1.01 0.94 1.08 1.14 1.12 1.05 1.20

596

Table II. Intrapreneurship items

and sensitive items. To improve the understanding of the questionnaire items, some questions were edited by replacing some words on the basis of reasonable proposals from businesspeople before the main data collection. The data were collected from rms in Slovenia. Questionnaires were sent to 2,977 large, medium and small companies; all companies with e-mail addresses in the complete database of Slovenian rms with 20 or more employees (full-time equivalent). As part of the data collection via e-mail, a second

reminder was sent out two weeks after the rst one in order to achieve a better response rate. After sending the questionnaire out in the rst round, it was found that 31 e-mail records included a false e-mail address (wrong characters), whereas 671 e-mail addresses were invalid because they no longer existed. The surveys were ultimately sent out to 2,275 e-mail addresses. In total, 149 of the questionnaires which were returned were usable for analysis (a 6.5 percent response rate). The response rate to the e-mail survey was relatively low because generally a lot of junk e-mail (spam) is sent to companies and individuals and because we targeted the total population (Slovenian rms with 20 or more employees). Comparisons of mean values of key model variables and comparisons of control variables between two sub-samples based on the response time (earlier respondents responded in the rst two weeks, n 37; later respondents responded after the rst two weeks, n 112) showed no differences, which indicated an absence of non-response bias. The sample was represented by rms from various industries. Most rms in the sample were from service industries (56.9 percent) and less from manufacturing industries (36.1 percent). The key service industries included in the sample are: transportation and public goods (13.9 percent of rms in the sample); consulting and business services (11.8 percent); retail and wholesale trade (10.4 percent); tourism (6.3 percent); construction (5.6 percent); banking, investment and insurance (4.2 percent); and engineering, research and development (4.2 percent). Manufacturing industries included in the sample are: production of industrial goods (26.4 percent) and production of consumer goods (9.7 percent). The average rm in the sample was 11-20 years old, had total annual sales of e1,600,000-e4,000,000, and was small with 20-50 employees. These gures are very close to the data in the total database population and hence indicate the good representativeness of the sample. 3.3 Methods of data analysis All model constructs were checked for their reliability. The employee satisfaction construct was checked by using exploratory factor analysis to identify R-type factor dimensions by employing the SPSS software package. An oblique rotation oblimin was used where the factors are correlated. The data were suitable for factor analysis because the variables were adequately correlated, which was reected in the correlation matrix. Keiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartletts test of sphericity were adequate. The initial number of factors was selected according to the theory-based expectations. When the model was re-specied on the basis of eigenvalues, the decision was made on how many factors to retain (four factors). The decisions on which variables to retain were based on communality values (higher than 0.2) of individual variables and the associations of variables with one or more factors. To test the hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling with the EQS program package. The ERLS method was used, noting it is less sensitive to deviations of variables from the normal distribution than the ML method. The model with structural equations included three key constructs: employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth. The four employee satisfaction dimensions were included as elements composing the independent variable, whereas intrapreneurship was included as the intermediate dependent variable and growth as the nal dependent variable. The control variables age and size of the company were included as additional independent variables, whereas the impact of industry was tested by dividing the sample by the two key industry groups (services and manufacturing).

Employee satisfaction

597

IMDS 111,4

598

4. Findings The ndings after testing the hypotheses by using structural equation modeling are presented below. The ndings are related to the hypothesized relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth which are included in the structural model together with control variables, which refer to rm age and size. The structural model with standardized coefcients is shown in Figure 1. Model t indices indicate a moderately good model t (NFI 0.86, CFI 0.89, RMSEA 0.12); NFI and CFI are very close to the threshold of 0.9, which indicates a very good model t, whereas the value of RMSEA is somewhat too high, although its value may be increased due to the inclusion of control variables in the model. H1. predicted a positive association between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship. The estimated standardized coefcient was found to be positive (0.59) and signicant (sig. , 0.05). This nding is in support of H1. Employee satisfaction (composed of four dimensions) was found positively related to intrapreneurship. H2 predicted a positive association between employee satisfaction and growth. The standardized coefcient was found to be positive (0.33) and signicant (sig. , 0.05). This nding is in support of H2. Therefore, employee satisfaction showed a positive relationship with intrapreneurship and rm growth. An indirect effect of employee satisfaction on rm growth (through intrapreneurship) was also estimated. The standardized coefcient for the indirect effect was also found to be positive (0.17) and signicant (sig. , 0.05). This indicates that employee satisfaction may importantly affect rm growth both directly and indirectly (via intrapreneurship). H3 predicted a positive association between intrapreneurship and rm growth. The estimated standardized coefcient was found to be positive (0.29) and signicant (sig. , 0.05). This nding supports H3. Intrapreneurship can be predictive of rm growth.
E75* 0.23

GS
0.97 0.59*

IN

0.80

E79*

E76*

0.53

ER

0.85* 0.88*

ES

E77*

0.47

RE
0.66*

0.06 0.10 0.33*

0.29*

E78*

0.75

EL

Age Size

0.21* 0.02

GR

0.81

E80*

Figure 1. Structural equation model (standardized coefcients)

Notes: *Significance at: 0.05; ES employee satisfaction; IN intrapreneurship; GR firm growth; GS general satisfaction; ER employee relationships; RE remuneration, benefits and organizational culture; EL employee loyalty; age firm age; size firm size; E error terms

The impacts of control variables (industry, age and size of the rm) were checked in the model. Only one relationship including a control variable was found substantial and signicant: a negative relationship between rm age and growth (standardized coefcient 2 0.21, sig. , 0.05). Therefore, rm age may negatively affect rm growth; younger rms tend to grow faster than older rms. The impact of the industry control variable was checked by estimating the model on two sub-samples based on industry (manufacturing, n 52 and services, n 82). All hypotheses-related estimated standardized coefcients were found to be positive and signicant (sig. , 0.05), which indicated an absence of the industry control variable impact in the model. 5. Discussion The ndings are in support of the proposed model, which includes the hypothesized positive relationships between employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth. In addition, the employee satisfaction construct was conrmed (by factor analysis and structural equation modeling) as being composed of four factors (1 general satisfaction, 2 employee relationships, 3 remuneration, benets and organizational culture and 4 employee loyalty). The employee satisfaction construct includes various dimensions and composite elements which are important for achieving satisfaction among employees; these range from nancial and non-nancial incentives to the conditions and characteristics of work and even further to psychological and value aspects or employee satisfaction with work. The elements of employee satisfaction as a construct tend to be predictive of the ensemble of intrapreneurship activities (new business venturing, product/service innovation, process/technology innovation and self-renewal). Employee satisfaction tends to positively impact growth of the rm (both absolute and relative growth). This study conrmed a positive intrapreneurship-growth relationship, which is in accordance with past intrapreneurship research (Covin, 1991; Covin and Slevin, 1986; Zahra, 1991, 1993; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). Firm growth can also be inuenced by employee satisfaction indirectly through intrapreneurship. Two control variables may not be important in the model, namely rm size and industry, whereas rm age may be negatively related to rm growth. 6. Contributions and implications The studys key contribution is the development and testing of a model of employee satisfaction-driven intrapreneurship and rm growth. The study contributes to intrapreneurship research by empirically examining the relationship between employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship. In methodological terms, this study has contributed by developing and partly empirically validating a wide-ranging construct of employee satisfaction (with 27 explanatory variables), which was found to be composed of four distinctive dimensions: (1) general satisfaction (including working hours, conditions of work and reputation); (2) employee relationships (including relationships with co-workers); (3) remuneration, benets and organizational culture (including salary, remuneration in the form of benets and praise, promotion, education, job stability, organizational climate and culture); and (4) employee loyalty.

Employee satisfaction

599

IMDS 111,4

600

The construct of employee satisfaction as a whole was also found to be predictive of intrapreneurship and rm growth, indicating nomological validity. The study contributes to the term human capital, which refers to the range of valuable skills and knowledge accumulated over time (Burt, 1992) and is embodied in people (Becker, 1993); the scope of the study included employee satisfaction, which is embodied in people employees and may be considered an element of human capital, and the role of employee satisfaction in intrapreneurship and rm growth. The study also indicated that employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship may contribute to sustainability of a rm in its business environment by positively affecting rm growth. The study has important implications for researchers and practitioners. We recommend that intrapreneurship researchers take employee satisfaction variables into account when designing models of intrapreneurship-inuenced growth, and that researchers in other areas recognize the importance of employee satisfaction elements in rm growth. In addition to the classic recommendation to practitioners to support and foster intrapreneurship activities (entering new businesses, innovating products, services, processes and technologies, and self-renewing the rm in strategic and organizational terms) in order to achieve the rms faster growth, we believe that rms need to take a detailed and systematic approach to employee satisfaction. Recomendations are linked to the results of the study, which include the associations found in hypotheses testing and the structure of the two key constructs in the study (employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship; see items in Tables I and II), which can be important for rm growth. First, employee satisfaction-related recommendations are: . companies should ensure that their employees are paid fairly for their work; . companies should make it possible for employees to work on challenging and interesting tasks; . learning should be considered as a value; . education should be considered as an investment; . it is important that leaders and managers share relevant information with their subordinates; . leaders and managers should provide sufcient information to employees about the effectiveness of implementing work tasks; . companies should be exible in response to changes and continuously look for and make improvements; . an excessive number of formal procedures in the implementation of tasks should be avoided; . employees should be allowed to make decisions related to their workplace; and . companies should provide opportunities for personal growth and development for their employees. Second, in terms of intrapreneurship, companies are recommended to: . stimulate new demand; . enter new businesses in new markets; . nd new market niches; . offer and develop new products;

. . . . . . . . .

develop their own technology; introduce technological newness and innovations; redene the mission of the company; re-assess the business concept; redene industries in which the company will compete in the future; reorganize parts of the organization; increase the autonomy of their units; improve co-ordination between the units; and create a exible organizational structure to advance business innovation.

Employee satisfaction

601

Firms, regardless of their age, size and industry, can increase their chances of achieving all of these entrepreneurial activities, as well as rm growth, by stimulating employees and making improvements in employee satisfaction (the ten employee satisfaction-related recommendations stated above). Older rms in particular need to be very active in encouraging employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship, since they tend to grow slower than younger rms. Improvements in employee satisfaction elements (for example, learning and education potential, information sharing, exibility, decision-making possibilities and reduced number of formal procedures) may advance information ows, employee collaboration and network tie formation and so strengthen an ongoing effort to better utilize social networks within a company. Activities related to the stimulation of employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship can have also social implications, since they can increase creation of the new wealth in the society. 7. Limitations, future research opportunities and conclusion The key limitations of the study relate to the study design, concepts, sample, and questionnaire and data collection. The study design was cross sectional; a longitudinal study may provide even better results. The focus of the study was limited to a few concepts (employee satisfaction and intrapreneurship) which are important for rm growth; it did not include other factors that might also be important for growth, although it did examine the focal concept of employee satisfaction, its structure and its impact on intrapreneurship and growth. The study did not differentiate between blue and white-collar (as well as knowledge) workforce and between less and more project-based rms (e.g. construction, design and R&D). In limiting the sample, we selected companies from Slovenia and not from other countries and restricted the sample to existing rms with 20 or more employees; yet, the sample was very representative and ndings based on Slovenian samples tend to be comparable to other countries as shown in past cross-nationally comparative studies in intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2000, 2001; Antoncic, 2007), business ethics (Bucar et al., 2003), entrepreneurship education (Antoncic et al., 2005) and technological innovativeness (Antoncic et al., 2007). The data were obtained by an e-mail survey with a structured questionnaire. The respondents were able to choose between pre-formulated answers which represents a weakness since such responses are limited in content and number; however, they provide precise answers to the focal questions. With each rm the response was given by only one person the manager, who should have the most knowledge and information about organizational-level matters of the rm. The respondents answers were based on their

IMDS 111,4

602

perceptions and questions about the companys growth were not based on companies annual nancial statements. However, despite the limitations, the collection of data on the growth and protability of rms based on perceptions of company representatives has already been identied as very relevant in previous studies in intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001, 2004; Antoncic, 2007). Some future research opportunities can be noted. In order to form a more comprehensive and integrative model, some other variables possibly important to intrapreneurship and rm growth could also be included, such as the characteristics of strategic alliances and networks, or the personalities of managers. Since employee satisfaction and organizational antecedents of intrapreneurship can be related (Kuratko et al., 2005), it may be interesting to empirically partition the antecedents into groups (employee satisfaction related and employee satisfaction non-related) to nd out if there are differences between the groups in their impact on intrapreneurship and growth. Cross-cultural comparisons may further validate the construct of employee satisfaction and the model generally. Firm growth can depend strongly on intrapreneurship and intrapreneurship employee-related antecedents. The study has conrmed the importance of employee satisfaction for intrapreneurship and rm growth where employee satisfaction was described using four dimensions (general satisfaction with work; employee relationships; remuneration, benets and organizational culture; and employee loyalty). The role of employees and their satisfaction with work can be considered essential in all companies regardless of their size, age, or industry. Despite the limitations, the study contributes to intrapreneurship research by empirically examining the relationships in the model, which includes employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and rm growth.
References Adams, J.S. (1963), Toward the understanding of inequality, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 422-36. Antoncic, B. (2007), Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 309-25. ic , B., Bratkovic , T. and Antoncic, B. (2008), Notranje podjetnistvo, in Ruzzier, M., Antonc Hisrich, R.D. (Eds), Podjetnistvo, Drustvo za akademske in aplikativne raziskave, Koper, pp. 93-101. Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2000), Intrapreneurship modeling in transition economies: a comparison of Slovenia and the United States, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 21-40. Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001), Intrapreneurship: construct renement and cross-cultural validation, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 495-527. Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003), Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-24. Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2004), Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational wealth creation, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 518-50. Antoncic, B., Scarlat, C. and Hvalic Erzetic, B. (2005), The quality of entrepreneurship education and the intention to continue education: Slovenia and Romania, Managing Global Transitions, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 197-211.

Antoncic, B., Prodan, I., Hisrich, R.D. and Scarlat, C. (2007), Technological innovativeness and rm performance in Slovenia and Romania, Post-Communist Economies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 285-302. Becker, G.S. (1993), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Practical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Brayeld, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951), An index of job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 35, October, pp. 307-11. Brecko, D. (2005), Razvitost kadrovske funkcije v Sloveniji, Human Resource Management Magazin, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 74-7. Bucar, B., Glas, M. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003), Ethics and entrepreneurs an international comparative study, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 261-81. Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Carree, M.A. and Thurik, R. (2003), The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth, in Audretsch, D.B. and Acs, Z.J. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 437-71. Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. Jr (1974), Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial salesperson performance: a meta-analysis, Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 11, August, pp. 254-60. Churchill, N.C. (1992), Research issues in entrepreneurship, in Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D. (Eds), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, PWS-KENT, Boston, MA, pp. 579-96. Christensen, K.E. and Staines, G.L. (1990), Flextime: a viable solution to work/family conict, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 455-76. Covin, J.G. (1991), Entrepreneurial vs conservative rms: a comparison of strategies and performance, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 439-62. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1986), The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale, in Ronstadt, R., Hornaday, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 628-39. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), Strategic management of small rms in hostile and benign environments, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, January, pp. 75-87. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as rm behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25. Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (1992), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel about Their Jobs and How It Affects Their Performance, Lexington Books, New York, NY. Damanpour, F. (1996), Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716. Demirbag, M., Koh, S.C.L., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2006), TQM and market orientations impact on SMEs performance, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 1206-28. Fiedler, F. (1993), The Leadership Situation and the Black Box in Contingency Theories, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Gerhart, B. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Guth, W.D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990), Guest editors introduction: corporate entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-15.

Employee satisfaction

603

IMDS 111,4

Hackman, R.J. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), Development of the job diagnostic survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-70. Hanneman, H.G. III and Schwab, D.P. (1985), Pay satisfaction: its multidimensional nature and measurement, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 129-41. Herzberg, F. (1964), The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower, Personnel Administrator, Vol. 27, January-February, pp. 3-7. Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing, Cleveland, OH. Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1984), Internal venturing in large corporations, in Hornaday, J.A., Tarpley, F., Timmons, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 321-46. Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1995), Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a New Enterprise, 3rd ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL. Hom, P.W., Tsui, A.S., Wu, J.B. and Lee, T.W. (2009), Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 277-97. Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1990), Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 49-58. Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F. and Montagno, R.V. (1993), An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 29-37. Huang, E.Y. and Lin, S.C. (2006), How R&D management practice affects innovation performance, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 966-96. Joy-Matthews, J., Megginson, D. and Surtees, M. (2007), Human Resource Development, Kogan Page, London. Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407. Kanter, R.M. (1984), The Change Masters, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Knight, G.A. (1997), Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure rm entrepreneurial orientation, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 213-25. Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Bishop, J.W. (2005), Managers corporate entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 275-91. Lee, T.S. and Tsai, H.J. (2005), The effects of business operation mode on market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 325-48. Locke, E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job dissatisfaction, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-347. Lofquist, L.H. and Dawis, R.V. (1969), Adjustment to Work: A Psychological View of Mans Problems in a Work-oriented Society, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY. Luchsinger, V. and Bagby, D.R. (1987), Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 10-13.

604

McAdam, R. and Galloway, A. (2005), Enterprise resource planning and organisational innovation: a management perspective, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 280-90. McGregor, D. (2002), Theory X and Theory Y, Workforce, Vol. 81 No. 1, p. 32. MacMillan, I.C. (1986), Progress in research on corporate venturing, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA, pp. 241-63. Majcen, M. (2004), Redni letni razgovor, GV Zalozba, Ljubljana. Maslow, A.H. (1997), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Mayer, J. (1991), Ustvarjalno misljenje in delo, Moderna organizacija, Kranj. Merrield, D.B. (1993), Intrapreneurial corporate renewal, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 383-9. Merkac Skok, M. (2008), Zaposleni v organizaciji Kadri v sportu, in Gerlovic, D. (Ed.), Sport: trzenje sporta, podjetnistvo v sportu, sportna infrastruktura, sport v lokalni skupnosti, kadri v sportu, zavarovanje v sportu, Sokolska zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana, pp. 175-214. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Miskell, J.R. and Miskell, V. (1994), Motivation at Work, Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL. Mozina, S. (1991), Sociopsihologija v podjetju, Ekonomska fakulteta, Ljubljana. Mozina, S. (2002), Management kadrovskih virov, Fakulteta za druzbene vede, Ljubljana. Mulej, M. (1986), Inovacijski procesi in izobrazevanje, Organizacija in kadri, Kranj. Muzyka, D.F., de Koning, A.J. and Churchill, N.C. (1995), Entrepreneurial transformation: a descriptive theory, in Bygrave, W.D., Bird, B.J., Birley, S., Churchill, N.C., Hay, M.G., Keeley, R.H. and Wetzel, W.E.J. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson Park, MA, pp. 637-51. Noe, R. (2008), Employee Training & Development, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Oliver, R.L. and Brief, A.P. (1983), Sales managers goal commitment correlates, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 3, May, pp. 11-17. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Pierce, J.L. and Newstrom, J.W. (1980), Toward a conceptual clarication of employee response to exible working hours: a work adjustment approach, Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 117-34. Pinchot, G. III (1985), Intrapreneuring, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Porter, M.E., Lyman, W. and Lawler, E.E. III (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Ronan, S. (1981), Flexible Working Hours: An Innovation in the Quality of Work Life, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rosenbloom, J.S. and Hallman, G.V. (1991), Employee Benet Planning, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Rule, E.G. and Irwin, D.W. (1988), Fostering intrapreneurship: the new competitive edge, The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 44-7. Schollhammer, H. (1982), Internal corporate entrepreneurship, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 209-29.

Employee satisfaction

605

IMDS 111,4

606

Shaw, J.D., Delery, J.E., Jenkins, G.D. Jr and Gupta, N. (1998), An organizational-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 511-25. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. Souder, W.E. (1981), Encouraging entrepreneurship in the large corporations, Research Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 18-22. Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, Summer, pp. 17-27. Stopford, J.M. and Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994), Creating corporate entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 521-36. Teas, K.R. (1979), An empirical test of linkages proposed in the Walker, Churchill, and Ford model of salesforce motivation and performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 8, Winter, pp. 58-72. Tietjen, M.A. and Myers, R.M. (1998), Motivation and job satisfaction, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 226-31. Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1089-121. Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (Eds) (1997), Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Varona, F. (2002), Conceptualization and management of communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three Guatemalan organizations, American Communication Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 114-36. Vecchio, R.P. (1982), Predicting worker performance in inequitable settings, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 103-10. Vesper, K.H. (1984), Three faces of corporate entrepreneurship, in Hornaday, J.A., Timmons, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 294-320. Welsby, P. (2003), Medosebno razumevanje kljuc do uspesnega dela z ljudmi, Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 56-7. Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999), Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth, Small Business Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-55. Wong, K.Y. (2005), Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 261-79. Zahra, S.A. (1991), Predictors and nancial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-85. Zahra, S.A. (1993), Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and nancial performance: a taxonomic approach, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-40. Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.C. (1995), Contextual inuences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-58.

About the authors Jasna Auer Antoncic is a Researcher in the eld of Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia. She obtained her Master of Science degree from the Faculty of Management. Her area of expertise covers customer satisfaction, psychology of the entrepreneur, corporate entrepreneurship and company growth. She has authored a monograph, a scientic paper in the journal Management, various scientic papers in conference proceedings, as well as technical papers. Bostjan Antoncic is Full Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Management, Turistica, University of Primorska, and the Faculty of the Faculty of Tourism Studies Portoroz Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia. His main research interests include corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial networks, entrepreneurial personality and international entrepreneurship. He has authored or co-authored 14 books (11 of them in the area of entrepreneurship) and various scientic research articles. His papers were published in academic journals such as the Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Managing Global Transitions, Journal of Management Development, and Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Bostjan Antoncic is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: b.antoncic@gmail.com

Employee satisfaction

607

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints