Emotional Intelligence
and Psychological Ownership: Entrepreneurial Behaviour of Employees in SMEs in
Pakistan
Jawaid
Ahmed Qureshi
Department of Management
Sciences,
Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of
Science & Technology (SZABIST),
Pakistan-UAE
Arslan
Ayub
Lahore Business School,
The University of Lahore,
Sargodha Campus, Sargodha, Pakistan
Masood
Ul Hassan
Department of Commerce,
Bahauddin Zakariya University
Multan Pakistan
Salman
Bahoo
Department of Commerce,
The Islamic University of Bahawalpur
Abstract
The
purpose of this study is to explore individual and work contextual factors that
stimulate entrepreneurial behavior of employees in small and medium enterprises
(SMEs). The study utilized the non-experimental face-to-face method of data
collection and analysed 383 responses using SmartPLS (v 3.2.7). Since SMEs
operate in small scale; thereby, we propose that this results in a proximal
employee-employer relationship. This proximity induces psychological ownership
in employees which results in increased entrepreneurial behavior. Results show
a significant positive relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial behavior and perceived supportive context and entrepreneurial behavior.
Additionally, the study found significant mediation of psychological ownership
in the proposed relationship. Since the results support our theoretical
framework, e.g., people high in
emotional intelligence deliver exceptional outcomes than those with low
emotional intelligence. Thus, the study proposes that employers should assess
emotional intelligence of applicants in the recruitment process so that people
with high emotional intelligence can be hired.
Key Words- Emotional
Intelligence; Perceived Supportive Context; Psychological Ownership; Entrepreneurial
Behavior; SMEs
Introduction
Research
in entrepreneurship provides two-fold benefits for the scientific community and
economy at large. First, it helps in expanding the existing body of knowledge;
second, it results in advancing economic activities (Acs, Desai, & Hessels,
2008). There has been considerable popular interest in bringing clarity to the
concept of entrepreneurship (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Bygrave & Hofer,
1992; Zahra, 2007). For instance, one strand of researches advocates that
entrepreneurship is about the creation of a new business (Barringer&
Ireland, 2010; Bygrave & Hofer, 1992; Davidson &Wiklund, 2007). This
form of entrepreneurship may also occur outside the organizations (e.g., individual's undertaking part-time
businesses, Ahmetoglu, Leutner, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
On
the contrary, another strand of researches has endorsed that entrepreneurship
also exists within organizations. This notion prevails in many literatures under
different tags such as corporate entrepreneurship (Sharma & Chrisman, 2007;
Stevenson &Jarillo, 2007), day-to-day entrepreneurship (Mair, 2005; Zampetakis,
Beldekos, &Moustakis, 2009), intrapreneurship (Antoncic&Hisrich, 2001,
2003), and sometimes social entrepreneurship (in regards of CSR activities, Dees,
1998). Being species to its genus, entrepreneurship within organizations has
gained substantial researchers’ attention.For reflecting parsimony, the authors
have considered day-to-day entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship (used interchangeably) in this study.
Zampetakis
et al. (2009) stated that“day-to-day entrepreneurship aims at getting things
done in an unusual and entrepreneurial-innovative way within organizations”.
As,day-to-day entrepreneurship may occur at all individual levels, and all
types of individuals can exercise entrepreneurial activity within organizations.
Therefore, an integrative view of this literature suggests that entrepreneurial
success can be better explained in terms of individual behavior. There has been
found a substantial nexus between entrepreneurship and organizational behavior
field (Baron, 2002). Following the behavioral approach, two factors are found
paramount in stimulating or constraining entrepreneurial behavior within
organizations, i.e. individual personality
differences and work contextual.
The
authors in this study extend the version of Zampetakis et al. (2009) that both work contextual factors and individual
differences in personality play significant roles in explaining entrepreneurial
behavior of employees within organizations. Expanding the notion, work
contextual factors are characterised as perceived supportive context of
organizations (Mair, 2005). Simultaneously, research in the field of
personality has endorsed that individual differences can be examined in terms
of personality traits (Ajzen, 1987), personality styles (Moscoso& Salgado,
2004), and/or abilities (Daus&Ashkanasy, 2005).
Building
on this research, we link emotional intelligenceand perceived supportive
context with entrepreneurial behavior through the mediating role of
psychological ownership.
Theoretical
Justification
“Experience
is not what happens to you, experience is what you do with what happens to
you.”
-- Epictetus
Emotional
intelligence has gained plentiful popularity since the publicationofDaniel
Goleman’s best-selling article “What makes a leader?” (1995). Thereafter, researchers
have explored it from trait-based model to ability-based model to mixed-model
of emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002; Petrides, Pita,
& Kokkinaki, 2007; Salovey& Mayer, 1990; Wong & Law, 2002). It has
been found that emotional intelligence delivers more promising outcomes than IQ
(Goleman, 1995).
For
the last two decades, emotional intelligence has shown significant impacts on
job satisfaction and job performance (Van Rooy&Viswesvaran, 2004). Indeed,
a recent meta-analysis has shown significant predictive capabilities of
emotional intelligence on job performance even after controlling big five
personality factors and IQ (O’Boyle et
al., 2010). Despite practitioners’ trust in emotional intelligence, its
relationship with other forms of career success has been found near to
non-existent (Ahmetoglu et al.,
2011). In the related stream, only limited studies can be found in examining
the impact of emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial behavior/success
(Ahmetoglu et al., 2011; Zampetakis et al., 2009). As such, Zampetakiset al. (2009) have found a positive
correlation between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial behavior.
Besides, Ahmetoglu et al. (2011) have
found significant results in the relationship between emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurship.
Ahmetogluet al.(2011) have provided grounds for
investigating the incremental validity of emotional intelligence in the context
of entrepreneurial behaviour over other individual differences. However, these
authors have used trait-based emotional intelligence in their study. Whereas,
Wong and Law (2002) have developed an instrument based upon Salovey and Mayer’s
(1990) ability-based model of emotional intelligence. They have developed this
scale in accordance to the Chinese context, which is quite like Pakistani
context, e.g. collectivist culture
(Sultana, Yousaf, Khan, & Saeed, 2016); therefore, the construct mentioned
above has been adapted in this study.
Another
independent variable of this study is perceived supportive context of organizations.
For instance, Mair (2005) endorsed that organizational factors significantly
affect entrepreneurial behavior. The notion is why do some managers act
entrepreneurially while others cannot despite being exposed to the same work
environment? The answer is simple but tricky and can be found in the literature
of organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It has been
advocated that organizational support is subjective; therefore, the employee's
perception of organizational support determines their behavior. Furthermore,
given the role of emotional intelligence, an investigation of the
organizational contextual factor is also needed to answer the aforesaid
question (Zampetakis et al., 2009).
In
lieu of this study, psychological ownership has been considered a mediating
variable. Since this study addresses entrepreneurial activity in terms of
subjective support from the organization and individual differences;
psychological ownership serves as a critical factor that stimulates overall
relationship (Sieger, Bernhard, & Frey, 2011). As discussed in the
preceding paragraphs, entrepreneurial behavior depends upon the affective
experience of individuals. In this filament, literature advocates that the
feeling of possession or ownership can regulate affective experience of
individuals, a concept became much famous for the last decade in OBOP (Van Dyne
& Pierce, 2004).
Contextual Justification:
An Overview of SMEs
In
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the organizational scale was considered
an important factor in international trade. Since small scale enterprises could
not enter in the international markets. As historically, trade has been
considered a costly activity. However, this internet era has witnessed rapid
globalization and shrinking of distant boundaries which have lowered the trade
costs (World Trade Report, 2016). Hence, proved fruitful for micro, small, or
medium enterprises (MSMEs) or more generally known as Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs). According to IFC's MSME Country Indicators, MSMEs
constitute 80.5% micro firms, 15.6% small firms, and 3.9% medium-sized firms in
developing nations (2016).
SMEs
are critical players in today’s economy for any nation ranging from developing,
emerging, to developed (Rauch &Frese, 2000). In this regard, Drucker (1985)
has endorsed this as a shift to an entrepreneurial economy from managerial one.
According to World Bank Enterprise Surveys, in the sample of 99 developing and
emerging countries, SMEs stand for two-thirds of private employment (World
Bank, 2013). SMEs have been considered a vital source of employment and
constitute a significant share in the national income of countries. These also
result in technological innovation, for instance, technological upgradation in
SMEs help them compete in the national/international markets as well as their
easy access in the markets also stimulate innovation in other firms (WTR, 2016).
Despite
the importance of SMEs for any developing country, SMEs face severe challenges
that range from micro to macro level and internal and external environment
which underpin their performance (PBS, 2011). Given the perspectives of the
present study, the authors have considered individual factors. For instance,
according to OECD and World Bank (2015), workforce capacity and managerial
skills are the factors at the individual level that affect the level of
productivity of SMEs. Accordingly, management training, the resilience of
formal institutional frameworks, and individual innovation and learning are
those factors that need serious and immediate attention (Dar et al., 2017).
Since
this individual level perspective demands a shift from managerial mindset to an
entrepreneurial mindset. Therefore, the current study aims at measuring the
impact of emotional intelligence and perceived supportive context in
entrepreneurial behavior of employees through psychological ownershipas a
mediator in SMEs in Pakistan.
Research Questions
Given
the nature of the problem in SMEs in a developing country like Pakistan, the
current study aims to address the following research objective:
“Why do some managers
act entrepreneurially while others cannot despite being exposed to the same
work environment?”
Since,
the upsurge of SMEs and their significant proportion in the business markets,
researchers has shown greater interest in examining the antecedents of entrepreneurial
behavior of employees (Mair, 2005;Zampetakiset
al., 2009). As such, SMEs operate in smaller scales, and this problem slows
down their progress. Contrariwise, employees become more receptive due to
psychological proximity with their employers (Bernhard &O'Drisscoll, 2011).
Also, this results in a shift from a managerial mindset to an entrepreneurial
mindset.
To
address this issue, the current study employing theoretical lenses at both
individual and contextual levels emphasizes the roles of emotional intelligence
and perceived supportive context and empirically demonstrates the value-added
nature of psychological ownership in entrepreneurial behavior of employees.
Thus,
extracting from the research objective following research questions are
addressed in this study:
RQ1.
How do emotional intelligence and perceived supportive context influence
entrepreneurial behavior?
RQ2.
How do emotional intelligence and perceived supportive context influence
psychological ownership that affects entrepreneurial behavior?
RQ3.
How does psychological ownership affect entrepreneurial behavior?
Literature Review
Emotional
Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Behavior
Entrepreneurship
research proposes different perspectives on entrepreneurship (Ahmetoglu et al., 2011). Due to its
multidimensionality, to define entrepreneurship and identify the nature of
entrepreneurial activities ascertained with entrepreneurial behavior has
remained obscure till date (Hisrich, Langan-Fox, & Grant, 2007). However,
entrepreneurial behavior, i.e. to
pursue opportunities by innovatively exploiting organizational resources is
vital for organizations (Dess, Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999; Sharma & Chrisman,
1999).
To
reach some agreement about what entrepreneurial behavior is, the current study
employs a definition proposed by Mair (2005). Mair (2005) encapsulated
entrepreneurial behavior based upon the fundamental elements of
entrepreneurship, i.e. autonomy,
innovation, and opportunity and defined it as autonomous practices and set of
activities that individuals undertake by innovatively exploiting resource
combinations at different hierarchical levels in the pursuance of
opportunities. Mair’s (2005) conceptualization can be traced in the literature
of Pearce et al. (1997) that entrepreneurial behavior is the ability to cut the
red tape by setting the strategic vision and changing orientation that creates
an energetic working environment. Similarly, this line of inquiry is
corroborated by Ghosal and Barlett (1994) that "it includes a spectrum of
activities ranging from independent/autonomous to integrative/cooperative behavior."
Indeed,
the consideration from the integrative/cooperative behavioral aspect opens
avenues for emotional intelligence research. A growing stream of research on
emotional intelligence has been employed in the fields/disciplines of
organizational behavior (Ashkanasy&Daus, 2005), leadership (George, 2000),
psychology (Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, &Yoo, 2008), and neuroscience
(Baron-Cohen, Tager-Flusberg, & Lombardo, 2013). To date, emotional
intelligence construct has been conceptualized in terms of traits (Petrideset al., 2007), abilities (Mayer
&Salovey, 1997), and mixed models (Goleman, 1995) and various instruments
have been developed that yield psychometric properties and incremental
validities (Spielberger, 2004).
Emotional
intelligence is defined as “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and
express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they
facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge;
and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional intelligence and
intellectual growth” (Mayer &Salovey, 1997, p. 10).
As
noted above, emotional intelligence has shown incremental validity in examining
job satisfaction and job performance. Despite its paramount importance in
explaining satisfaction/performance outcomes, only a handful of literature
correlates it with other forms of career success (Ahmetogluet al., 2011; Van Rooy&Viswesvaran, 2004), specifically,
entrepreneurship (Chell, 2008; Zampetakiset
al., 2009). Not surprisingly, it has been found that emotional intelligence
delivers promising results when explaining entrepreneurial behavior (Ahmetogluet al., 2011).
Emotional
intelligence plays a significant role in exhibiting entrepreneurial behavior.
Following a cognitive approach, recent research conducted at Cambridge provided
a comparison of top managers with entrepreneurs and found that managers and
entrepreneurs both shared abilities of rational analysis, i.e. cold cognitive as well as emotional thinking, i.e. hot cognitive (Lawrence et al., 2008). The term hot cognitive
explains entrepreneurial abilities in regard to emotions. As such,
entrepreneurs are engaged in complex and cognitive appraisal of opportunities;
therefore, hot cognition appraises the social dimension of entrepreneurs
(Krueger &Welpe, 2014). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1.
There is a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial behaviour
Perceived Supportive
Context and Entrepreneurial Behavior
Perceived
supportive context plays a significant role in determining employee's behavior
(Zampetakiset al., 2009). Based on
perceived organizational support theory, the authorselucidate perceived
supportive context (Eisenbergeret al.,
1986). Perceived organizational support theory translates organizational
membership into self-identity thus, stimulating emotional bonding of employees
with the organization. This theory explains that employees create an image of
organization based upon the perception of support they receive from their
employers as explained by effort-outcome expectancy. Secondly, emotional bonding
increases employee’s efforts to achieve organizational goals and objectives as
explained by affective attachment.
It
has been found in the literature that amongst other factors management support
is at the top that explains entrepreneurial behavior (Kuratko et al., 2005). It
is the facilitation and promotion of entrepreneurial activities within the
organization (Zampetakiset al.,
2009). An abundant literature has highlighted the importance of support in
inducing entrepreneurial behavior in employees (Alpkanet al., 2010; Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002). However, the
vital consideration of Eisenbergeret al.(1986)
theory is “globality” which induces that employees accumulate overall treatment
and form "global perception concerning the extent to which the
organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being."
In this regard, empirical researches proclaimed that perceived supportive
context influences entrepreneurial behavior (Zampetakiset al., 2009). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2. There is a positive relationship
between perceived supportive context and entrepreneurial behavior
Introducing Mediating
Effect
Psychological
ownership has received significant researchers’ attention (Avey et al., 2009).
Psychological ownership is at the stage of infancy, and researches need to be
conducted that may expose it under different contexts and with different
antecedents and consequences (Aveyet al.,
2009). It addresses the key issue "feeling of possession," i.e., something as ‘Mine' or ‘Ours' (Van
Dyne & Pierce, 2004). It is the feeling of possession, which can take place
in the presence as well as absence of legal possession (Wilpert, 1991). Etzioni
(1991, p. 466) differentiated possession from the feeling of possession and
explained ownership as “dual creation, part attitude, part object, part in the
mind, part real”.
As
of its application, psychological ownership enhances employee’s feeling of
possession/ownership in the organization which induces a higher degree of
control over business activities (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Simultaneously,
literature endorsed that individual locus of control is majorly affected by
emotional intelligence (Singh, 2006). Such as, “people with high emotional
intelligence exhibit more significant control over their emotions and hence,
they achieve a higher degree of personal control which is ultimately regarded
as a proxy that serves to control their work environment” (Singh, 2006). Thus,
enabling them to have a feeling of ownership.
Another
line of inquiry in this study is the relationship between perceived supportive
context and psychological ownership. Literature in this perspective endorsed
that there is a proximal relationship between psychological ownership and
psychological connection with the whole organization. For instance, managerial
support, work environment, organizational culture and setting, policies,
procedure, goals, and objectives are the number of different characteristics
that influence psychological ownership (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, &
Gardner, 2007). Employees are willing to exercise control when they perceive
the feeling of fair support from the organizations (Rudmin& Berry, 1987).
Since psychological ownership helps in shaping self-identity therefore, those
factors which are out of personal control are associated with non-self, thus,
demand appropriate support from the organization to form the part of the
extended self to exhibit higher performance (Mayhew et al., 2007).
As
noted above, two aspects have been identified as crucial for psychological
ownership such as proximity and autonomy. For instance, considering the small-scale
nature of SMEs, it has been found that employees working in SMEs must go beyond
their job description and to perform other tasks as well which increases their
control over business operations, and hence they exhibit entrepreneurial behavior
(Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011). Literature also suggested that based upon
the proximal employee-employer relationship, information access increases and
the rights to exercise influence enhances (Sieger, Zellweger, & Aquino,
2013). Therefore, chances of a shift from a managerial mindset to an
entrepreneurial mindset increases. Since employees feel a more affective
attachment with their organizations, they exercise more entrepreneurial
activities which ultimately results in the enhanced entrepreneurial behavior.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H3a. Psychological ownership
mediates the positive relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial behavior
H3b. Psychological ownership
mediates the positive relationship between perceived supportive context and
entrepreneurial behavior
Method
Participants and
Procedures
The
target population was employees at different hierarchical levels in these
organizations located in Northern Punjab, Pakistan. Initially, researchers
interacted several respondents and discussed the significance of the study with
them in person. The discussion helped researchers to bring parsimony in
research. They were then requested and informed in random to provide their
feedback. There was no monetary benefit to complete the survey. At the next
level, researchers employed enumerators that were experts in this area.
The
study employed the positivist philosophical stance to explore the proposed
theoretical framework. Thereby, a non-experimental, face-to-face data
collection method was utilized (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The
enumerators administrated 500 research questionnaires, and437 were received
back out of which 383 were found appropriate for data analysis leaving a
response rate of 77%. The instrument contained 38 items along with demographic
data. The sample included 311 males and 72 females. More than 50% of
respondents were graduates and aged between 26 to 35 years.
Accounting for Survey
Method Bias
The
study utilized a cross-section design using self-report measures. However, the
self-report measure is problematic because of the common method bias (CMB),
which was accounted for using Harmon's One-Factor test, and its value was below
the acceptable threshold of 50% (Podsakoffet
al., 2000).
Measurement of
Theoretical Constructs
The
study contains four variables, two exogenous variables, and two endogenous
variables. The scales to measure each construct have been adapted from the
well-known researches having established psychometric properties. All
instruments are assessed through multi-items self-report measures on 5-point
Likert scales ranging from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree.
Measurement scales are presented in table 1.
|
Table 1 Research
Instrument |
|
|
|
Construct |
No. of Items |
Source |
|
Emotional
Intelligence |
16 |
Wong and Law (2002) |
|
Perceived Supportive
Context |
9 |
Mair (2005) |
|
Psychological
Ownership |
7 |
Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) |
|
Entrepreneurial
Behavior |
6 |
Pearce et al. (1997) |
Results
Measurement Model
The
study employed SmartPLS (v 3.2.7) using a two-stage approach (Hair et al., 2017). The study assessed the
measurement model through internal consistency, indicator reliability, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity (Henseleret al., 2009). Variance inflation factor (VIF) scores are presented
in table 2. Results show that the study is free from multicollinearity issue.
|
Table 2 Collinearity Assessment |
||
|
Constructs |
Entrepreneurial
Behavior |
Psychological
Ownership |
|
Emotional Intelligence |
2.648 |
2.146 |
|
Perceived Supportive Context |
2.198 |
2.146 |
|
Psychological Ownership |
1.790 |
|
Table
3 shows psychometric properties. Composite reliability values were higher than
the baseline value of 0.6 (Hair et al., 2017). Besides, the indicator
reliability was measured by assessing the outer loadings of the manifest
variables. Scale items with outer loadings above 0.5 were retained for further
analysis (Henseleret al., 2009). Moreover,
the average variance extracted (AVE) was utilized to determine the convergent
validity (Hair et al., 2017). All the
AVE values were above the minimum acceptable threshold value of 0.5.Thereby,
the findings indicated no convergent validity issue in this study.
|
Table 3 Psychometric Properties |
|||||
|
Outer Loadings (λ) |
Cronbach’s Alpha (α) |
CR |
AVE |
||
|
Emotional
Intelligence |
|
0.882 |
0.912 |
0.597 |
|
|
|
“I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the
time” |
0.816 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I have good understanding of my own emotions” |
0.876 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I always know whether or not I am happy” |
0.807 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I always know my friends’ emotions from their behaviour” |
0.740 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I am a good observer of others’ emotions” |
0.824 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others” |
0.842 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me” |
0.841 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve
them” |
0.704 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I would always encourage myself to try my best |
0.753 |
|
|
|
|
|
I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties
rationally” |
0.810 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions” |
0.772 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I have good control of my own emotions” |
0.760 |
|
|
|
|
Entrepreneurial
Behavior |
|
0.816 |
0.873 |
0.581 |
|
|
|
“I encourage my colleagues to take the initiatives for their own
ideas in order to improve our services” |
0.711 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I create a co-operational and team working climate in my
department in order to meet a challenge” |
0.840 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I seldom devote time to help my colleagues in order to find ways
to improve our services r” |
0.770 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I cannot change quickly course of action when results aren’t
being achieved r” |
0.821 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I don’t inspire my colleagues to think about their work in new
and stimulating ways r” |
0.652 |
|
|
|
|
Perceived Supportive
Context |
|
0.876 |
0.902 |
0.537 |
|
|
|
“How I organize my department is pretty much left to me” |
0.656 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I can manage my department in an autonomous manner” |
0.673 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I am autonomous in managing employees in my department” |
0.751 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I have the support I need from colleagues at the regional
office to do my job well” |
0.786 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I have the support I need from colleagues at head office to do
my job well” |
0.752 |
|
|
|
|
|
“When I need additional financial and material resources I can
get them” |
0.804 |
|
|
|
|
|
“When I need additional human resources and manpower I can
usually get them” |
0.678 |
|
|
|
|
|
“It is easy to receive means and instruments for realizing
original (new) projects within my department” |
0.747 |
|
|
|
|
Psychological
Ownership |
|
0.807 |
0.867 |
0.567 |
|
|
|
“This is MY organization” |
0.628 |
|
|
|
|
|
“I sense that this is MY company” |
0.802 |
|
|
|
|
|
“This is OUR company” |
0.770 |
|
|
|
|
|
“Most of the people that work for this organization feel as
though they own the company” |
0.763 |
|
|
|
|
|
“It is hard for me to think about this organization as MINE
r” |
0.790 |
|
|
|
In
addition to convergent validity, discriminant validity was also measured (Hair et al., 2017). Heterotrait-monotrait
(HTMT) ratio was assessed using Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap
confidence intervals with resampling of 5,000 using one-tailed tests at 90%
significance level to warrant an error probability of 5% (Henseleret al., 2015) and results indicate no
issues regarding discriminant validity (table 4).
|
Table 4Heterotrait-Monotrait
Ratio (HTMT) |
||||
|
Constructs |
EI |
EB |
PSC |
PO |
|
EI |
|
|
|
|
|
EB |
0.862 CI.900 [0.813;0.915] |
|
|
|
|
PSC |
0.799 CI.900 [0.749;0.845] |
0.776 CI.900 [0.719;0.825] |
|
|
|
PO |
0.719 CI.900 [0.651;0.784] |
0.840 CI.900 [0.765;0.905] |
0.642 CI.900 [0.567;0.694] |
|
|
Note.
EI
= Emotional Intelligence, EB = Entrepreneurial Behaviour, PSC = Perceived
Supportive Context, PO = Psychological Ownership |
||||
Structural
Model
Table
5 illustrates the results of the β for the direct and indirect effects. βvalue
for H1 was 0.431 (t = 4.762, p < 0.001)
with CIs between 0.247 and 0.603. β value for H2 was 0.177 (t = 2.477, p < 0.05) with CIs 0.047
and 0.328. Similarly, β value for the indirect paths were 0.165 for H3a and
0.053 (t = 3.511, p < 0.001) for
H3b (t = 1.869, p < 0.1)
respectively. The findings demonstrated that complementary mediation exists
because the direct and indirect effects were significant and point in the same
direction (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Moreover,
in our study, coefficients of determination (R2) indicated moderate
and substantial impacts on psychological ownership with variance explained by
44.1% and entrepreneurial behavior with variance explained by 66.4% (see figure
1).
|
Table 5 Tests of Direct and
Indirect Effects |
||||
|
Effects |
Coefficients |
95%
BCa CIs |
S.E. |
t-value |
|
Direct
Effect |
||||
|
EIàEB |
0.431*** |
[0.247;
0.603] |
0.090 |
4.762 |
|
EIàPO |
0.530*** |
[0.377;
0.680] |
0.077 |
6.835 |
|
PSCàEB |
0.177** |
[0.047;
0.328] |
0.072 |
2.477 |
|
PSCàPO |
0.170** |
[0.007;
0.308] |
0.078 |
2.196 |
|
POàEB |
0.312*** |
[0.186;
0.458] |
0.072 |
4.352 |
|
Indirect
Effect |
||||
|
EIàPOàEB |
0.165*** |
[0.095;
0.281] |
0.047 |
3.511 |
|
PSCàPOàEB
|
0.053* |
[0.005;
0.113] |
0.028 |
1.869 |
|
*Significance p<0.1 (1.65) **Significance p<0.05 (1.96) ***Significance p<0.01 (2.57) |
||||
Figure
1 Structural Equation Model with Psychological Ownership as proposed mediator
of Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Supportive Context to Entrepreneurial
Behaviour
The
GoF Index
Recent
literature has advised the use of a global fit measure criterion for PLS-SEM
(Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, & Van Oppen, 2009). For this purpose, the
goodness-of-fit (GoF) index is
utilized to serve the diagnostic purpose in the structural path (Wetzelset al., 2009). The GoF (0 ≤ GoF ≤ 1),
defined as “the geometric mean of the average communality and average R2”
(Navimipour, Milani, &Hossenzadeh, 2018). The GoFindex calculation is as follows:
For
calculation of the AVE average value, Eq. (2) is employed:
For
calculation of the R2 average value, Eq. (3) is employed:
Substituting
Eq. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1), the GoF
value will be:
GoF
= 0.561
The GoF index value is 0.561, which is above the baseline value of 0.36 for the large effect size of R2 (Cohen, 1988).
Discussion
The
structural equation modelling supported our all hypotheses. For instance,
hypothesis H1 was “there is a positive relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial behaviour”. The result of this relationship is
in harmony with other research findings. As such, Ahmetogluet al.'s (2011) research findings indicated incremental validity of
emotional intelligence in the prediction of entrepreneurial activities beyond
other personality measures. Similarly, hypothesis H2 was “there is a positive
relationship between perceived supportive context and entrepreneurial behaviour”.
The result of this relationship is in harmony with other research findings. As
such, Eisenbergeret al. (1986)
endorsed that organizational support reciprocates employees’ effort in the
organizational activities and found significant rise in the perceived
organizational support impacting increased work behavior and activities.
Similarly, findings of Mair (2005) validated the effect of perceived supportive
context in entrepreneurial behavior.
Consistent
with hypotheses H3a and H3b, the results are in harmony with other research
findings. Ultimately, this tendency of leaders gives them control over things
which impacts their feeling of owning work situations, thus enabling them to
induce higher psychological ownership (Singh, 2006).Correspondingly, Mayhew et al. (2007) argued that a significant
relationship exists between psychological ownership and autonomy. Similarly,
Eisenberger et al. (1986) found that
a high level of perceived support motivates employees in reciprocity to
increase their support for the organization to achieve its goals and
objectives. Besides, the literature of psychological ownership suggests that a
proximal employee-employer relationship exists which helps in instilling the
entrepreneurial intentions of the employer in the managerial mindset of
employees (Sieger et al., 2013).
Hence, this shift results in enhanced entrepreneurial behavior.
Study
Limitations and Future Research
The
study addressed the following limitations and directions for future studies.
First, the current study employed self-report measure to assess the
relationship amongst variables. To evaluate the predictive validity of the
construct, object measures may be employed in addition to self-report measures
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). Second,
contextual limitation of this study includes the sample extracted out of SMEs.
Since it has been observed that large organizations have more resource
potential as compared to SMEs, thus, entrepreneurial behavior in large firms in
different contexts is needed to be assessed (Stambaugh et al., 2017). Third, the study used the ability-based emotional
intelligence model to measure the construct (Petrideset al., 2016). Fourth, since entrepreneurial behavior also depends
on other personality factors of individuals, therefore, future studies should
assess emotional intelligence with some other measures as well (Miller, 2015).
Fifth, by controlling extraneous variables, results attained can be varied;
therefore, future studies should control those factors that affect emotional
intelligence such as gender, education, age, and organizational tenure.
Practical Implications
The
study provides numerous practical and research implications. First, the current
study consistent with other researches throws light on the significance of
emotional intelligence in delivering desired outcomes in regards of job
satisfaction, performance, and entrepreneurial behavior (Zampetakiset al., 2009). As it has been noticed
that individuals with high emotional intelligence outer-perform others those
having low emotional intelligence. Therefore, organizations should consider
assessing emotional intelligence of applicants while hiring them and should
hire those individuals who are high in emotional intelligence. Second, as
discussed above the role of government in SMEs development in developing
countries. Therefore, governments should promote SMEs by providing financial
assistance to organizations at small and medium scale with people high in
emotional intelligence so that SMEs role in economic upgradation may be
stimulated. Third, organizations should provide vocational training to their
employees to synchronize goals and objectives.
Conclusion
The
current study revolves around a critical agenda that ‘why do some managers act
entrepreneurially while others cannot despite being exposed to the same work
environment?’. To empirically investigate this issue, entrepreneurial behavior
and factors that stimulate entrepreneurial behavior are addressed in this
study. The current study proposed that both individual personality differences and
work contextual factors stand significant in explaining entrepreneurial behavior
of employees in SMEs. The study found the significant result, as such,i) at individual
level, i.e. emotional intelligence
positively impacts entrepreneurial behavior; and ii) at contextual level, i.e. perceived supportive context
positively impacts entrepreneurial behavior. In addition, the study introduced psychological
ownership as a mediating variable and found a significant positive impact of
psychological ownership in entrepreneurial behavior. Thus, the results reported
in this study are useful for researchers and practitioners as these provide
essential insight into the significance of this theoretical framework.
References
Acs,
Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic
development and institutions. Small business economics, 31(3),
219-234.
Ahmetoglu,
G., Leutner, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). EQ-nomics: Understanding
the relationship between individual differences in trait emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurship. Personality and
Individual differences, 51(8), 1028-1033.
Ajzen,
I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior
in personality and social psychology. In Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 1-63). Academic Press.
Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G.,
&Kilic, K. (2010). Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its
interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance. Management decision, 48(5), 732-755.
Antoncic,
B., &Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and
cross-cultural validation. Journal of
business venturing, 16(5), 495-527.
Antoncic,
B., &Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of small business and enterprise
development, 10(1), 7-24.
Ashkanasy, N. M., &Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of
the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly
exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26(4), 441-452.
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D.,
&Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions,
measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173-191.
Baron,
R. A. (2002). Entrepreneurship and organizational behavior. Research in organizational behavior, 24,
225-270.
Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Lombardo,
M. (Eds.). (2013). Understanding other
minds: Perspectives from developmental social neuroscience. Oxford
University Press.
Barringer,
E., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Successfully
Launching New Ventures. Pearson.
Bernhard, F., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2011).
Psychological ownership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and
nonfamily-employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 345-384.
Bruyat,
C., & Julien, P. A. (2001). Defining the field of research in
entrepreneurship. Journal of business
venturing, 16(2), 165-180.
Bygrave,
W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1992). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, 16(2),
13-22.
Chell, E. (2008). The entrepreneurial personality: A social construction (2nd Ed).
Routledge.
Cohen, J.
(1988).Statistical Power Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dar,
M. S., Ahmed, S., &Raziq, A. (2017). Small and medium-size enterprises in
Pakistan: Definition and critical issues. Pakistan
Business Review, 19(1), 46-70.
Daus,
C. S., &Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability‐based model of
emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 453-466.
Davidsson,
P., &Wiklund, J. (2007). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research:
Current research practice and suggestions for the future. In Entrepreneurship (pp. 245-265).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Dees,
J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship.
Dess. G. G.,Lumpkin, G. T., &McGee, J. E.(1999).
Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy. structure. and process:
Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 23(3), 85-102
Drucker,
P.F. (1985). Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper.
Eisenberger,
R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of
Applied psychology, 71(3), 500.
Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property.
In F. W. Rudmin (Ed.), To have possessions: a handbook on ownership and
property. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6(6), 465–468.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The
role of emotional intelligence. Human
relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.
Goleman,
D. (1995). Emotional intelligence.
New York, NY: Bantam Books.
International
Finance Corporation (IFC) (2016). MSME
Country Indicators. Available at www.ifc.org/msmecountryindicators
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M.,
&Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modelling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publicaitons, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., &Sarstedt,
M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of
marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., &Sinkovics,
R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international
marketing. In New challenges to international marketing (pp.
277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hisrich, R. D., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S.
(2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice. A call to action for
psychology. American Psychologist, 62,
575–589.
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(3), 253-273.
Krueger, N. F., &Welpe, I. (2014).
Neuroentrepreneurship: what can entrepreneurship learn from neuroscience.Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and
Pedagogy, 60-90.
Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., &
Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 11,
699-716.
Lawrence,A., Clark,L., Labuzetta, J., Sahakian,B.,
Vyakarnum,S. (2008). The innovative brain. Nature,
456(7219), 168-169.
Mair,
J. (2005). Entrepreneurial behavior in a large traditional firm: Exploring key
drivers. In Corporate entrepreneurship
and venturing (pp. 49-72). Springer, Boston, MA.
Mayer, J. D., &Salovey, P. (1997). What is
emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer,
J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer– Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) user’s
manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MHS Publishers.
Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., &
Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of
psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of social psychology, 147(5), 477-500.
Miller, D. (2015). A downside
to the entrepreneurial personality?.
Moscoso,
S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). “Dark side” personality styles as predictors
of task, contextual, and job performance. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(4), 356-362.
Navimipour, N. J., Milani, F. S., &Hossenzadeh, M. (2018). A
model for examining the role of effective factors on the performance of
organizations. Technology in Society, 55, 166-174.
O’Boyle,
E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P.
(2010). The relation between Emotional Intelligence and job performance. A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,
1002.
PBS
(2011).Economic Census of Pakistan 2005.Retrieved
on 9 January, 2010,fromhttp://www.statpak.gov.pk.
Pearce, J. A., Kramer, T. R., & Robbins, K. D.
(1997). Effects of managers’ entrepreneurial behavior on subordinates. Journal of Business Venturing, 12,
147-160.
Petrides, K. V., Mikolajczak, M., Mavroveli, S.,
Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J., Furnham, A., & Pérez-González, J. C. (2016).
Developments in trait emotional intelligence research. Emotion Review, 8(4),
335-341.
Petrides,
K. V., Pita, R., &Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional
intelligence in personality factor space. British
journal of psychology, 98(2), 273-289.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., and
Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review
of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26(3),
513–563.
Rauch,
A., &Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success:
A general model and an overview of findings. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 15,
101-142.
Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics
of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37, 257-268.
Salovey,
P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., &Yoo, S.
H. (2008). Chapter 11: The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. Counterpoints, 336, 185-208.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A.
(2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson education.
Sharma. P. & Chrisman, J. J.(1999). Toward a
reconciliation of the defmitional issues in the field of corporate
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice. 23(3). 11-27.
Sharma,
P., & Chrisman, S. J. J. (2007). Toward a reconciliation of the
definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. In Entrepreneurship (pp. 83-103). Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Sieger,
P., Bernhard, F., & Frey, U. (2011). Affective commitment and job
satisfaction among non-family employees: Investigating the roles of justice
perceptions and psychological ownership. Journal
of Family Business Strategy, 2(2), 78-89.
Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., & Aquino, K. (2013).
Turning agents into psychological principals: aligning interests of non‐owners through
psychological ownership. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(3), 361-388.
Singh, S. K. (2006). Social work professionals’
emotional intelligence, locus of control and role efficacy: an exploratory
study. South African Journal of Human
Resource Management, 4, 39-45.
Spielberger, C. (2004). Encyclopedia of applied psychology. Maryland Heights, MO: Academic Press.
Stambaugh, J. E., Martinez, J., Lumpkin, G. T., &Kataria, N.
(2017). How well do EO measures and entrepreneurial behavior match?. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(3), 717-737.
Stevenson,
H. H., &Jarillo, J. C. (2007). A paradigm of entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial management. In Entrepreneurship
(pp. 155-170). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Sultana,
R., Yousaf, A., Khan, I., & Saeed, A. (2016). Probing the interactive
effects of career commitment and emotional intelligence on perceived
objective/subjective career success. Personnel
Review, 45(4), 724-742.
Van
Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of
possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal
of organizational behavior, 25(4), 439-459.
Van
Rooy, D. L., &Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A
meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of vocational Behavior, 65(1),
71-95.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009).
Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines
and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly, 177-195.
Wilpert, B. (1991). Property, ownership, and
participation: on the growing contradictions between legal and psychological
concepts. In R. Russell, & V. Rus (Eds.), International handbook of participation in organizations: For the study
of organizational democracy, co-operation, and self management (Vol. 2, pp.
149– 164). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wong,
C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The leadership quarterly, 13(3),
243-274.
World Bank (2013). Doing Business 2014: Understanding Regulations for Small and
Medium-Size Enterprises. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2015). Doing Business 2016: Measuring Regulatory Quality and Efficiency. Washing
DC: World Bank.
World Trade Report (WTR) (2016). Levelling the trading field for SMEs.
World Trade Organization.
Zahra,
S. A. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business venturing, 22(3),
443-452.
Zampetakis,
L. A., Beldekos, P., &Moustakis, V. S. (2009). ‘‘Day-to-day”
entrepreneurship within organisations: The role of trait Emotional Intelligence
and Perceived Organisational Support. European
Management Journal, 27(3), 165-175.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q.
(2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation
analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2),197-206.
