IER-08-02-04-pp051--2077-Okwor,Ogbo,Ndu,Onwe 2022, Vol. 8, No. 2 10.15678/IER.2022.0802.04 Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe A B S T R A C T Objective: The objective of this article is to determine the relationship between intrapreneurial competencies (IC) (i.e. opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, business drive, and risk assumption) and organizational growth (OG) and to test the mediating role of perceived organizational support (POS). Research Design & Methods: A simple random sampling technique was used to draw a sample of 408 em- ployees from 34 small manufacturing firms. We analyzed the influence of IC on OG through a parallel mediation involving POS. Findings: The results show that POS mediates the path through which opportunity promoter, proactivity, flex- ibility, drive, and risk assumption impact OG. Implications & Recommendations: IC fosters OG, particularly with high POS by employees. Thus, employers must identify and strengthen factors that support employees to improve their abilities and enhance OG. Contribution & Value Added: The findings of this study highlight the importance of IC in fostering OG, partic- ularly when employees perceive that they are valued by the organization and that their well-being is of im- portance to the organization. Article type: research article Keywords: intrapreneurial competencies; perceived organizational support; organizational growth; intrapreneurship; entrepreneurial behaviours JEL codes: L21 L22, L26 Received: 17 March 2022 Revised: 24 May 2022 Accepted: 7 June 2022 Suggested citation: Okwor, H., Ogbo, A., Ndu, V., & Onwe, C.C. (2022). Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The me- diating effect of perceived organizational support. International Entrepreneurship Review, 8(2), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2022.0802.04 INTRODUCTION Employees of a firm usually approach their duties with the intentions of growing their firms' assets and reducing their liabilities to enable them to compete favourably, or dominate their industries (Koch et al., 2019; Ms Ginu & Binoy, 2014). Growth is the process of a steady increase in size. It is a stage in a firm’s lifecycle when it expands and seeks other options to create more profit (Weinzimmer et al., 1998). It can assist in reducing external risks of a firm, creating an economy of scale, diversifying, in- creasing protection, and increasing a firm’s market influence (Rexhepi et al., 2013). Shane (1996) ex- plained that organizational growth (OG) relates to the employees’ activities within the organization. Prior research studies have recounted that organizations with high employees involvement in the de- cision-making processes, experience growth (Alavi & Karami, 2009; Mendes, 2012), and are more prone to dominate their markets (Yaemjamuang, 2017). Farrukh, et al., (2017) found that intrapre- neurial behaviours were positive predictors of organizational performance, which is related to OG. According to Dobre (2013) managers can achieve OG by identifying and incorporating the abili- ties, and competencies of employees to craft, detect and pursue new opportunities, and create eco- nomic values. OG refers to the increase in assets and capital of a firm as a result of employees’ International Entrepreneurship Review RI E 52 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe activities. Also, competent employees can equip a firm with the opportunities to endure market fluctuations, increase their power and develop efficiencies from economies of scale (Alvarez & Bar- ney, 2001; Kasser et al., 1992; Kuratko et al., 1990). Such abilities are usually associated with entre- preneurs (Oslon, 1985). Some employees have similar competencies to entrepreneurs and are re- ferred to as intrapreneurs (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Parker, 2009). Thus, these competencies are referred to as intrapreneurial competencies (IC), and we, argue that they might foster OG. Employ- ees with IC may be able to promote ideas that will cause OC. The concept of intrapreneurship focuses on creating chances for entrepreneurial employees to display their capabilities under the control of managers. It offers employees chances to innovate, pro- mote ideas, and participate in the creation and execution of valued organizational processes. Litera- ture has shown that intrapreneurship allows organizations to grow effectively, and manage change, it also fosters employees’ growth (Hiwarkar & Vidiyapeeth, 2019). Dublin and Onuoha (2020) found that jobs that allow intrapreneurial behaviours changed employees’ reactions to organizational tasks. Prior research also acknowledged that firms across the globe are placing a higher emphasis on employability because only employees with the abilities to promote and drive businesses, that are flexible and can assume risks, can guarantee their success (Hostager et al., 1998; Klofsten et al., 2020; Kuratko et al., 1990; Rathna & Vijaya, 2009). However, while there is the notion that IC is steadily becoming fecund, there is sparse empirical evidence to show how they may influence OG in developing countries like Nigeria, plus, the little knowledge so far is atheoretical. Moreover, the roles that these firms play in giving support have not been captured. Thus, there is a need for an empirical understanding of the mediating role of organizational support in the relationship between IC and OG. In Nigeria, for example, the quest for outstanding, knowledgeable, and skilful employees who can contribute to OG has been on the increase in recent times. Firms tend to be interested in employing people who have certain skills aside from their educational qualifications. They believe that this can help them succeed in their operations (Nkechinyere, 2019). But there appears to be a scarcity of these types of employees in Nigeria. Nkechinyere (2019) reported that the unemployment rate in Nigeria is increasing because the majority of employees do not meet the expectations of the labour market. Isa and Sharma (2016) also highlighted poor employees’ performance as one of the major causes of em- ployee retrenchment in Nigeria. In 2018, a University don and top employer of labour in the financial sector declared that 95% of Nigerian graduates are not employable (Iyabo, 2018). His statement was probably borne out of notions that business stagnation and failures that are plaguing the businesses in Nigeria were caused by a lack of employees’ competencies. More is that employees have been ob- served in some cases, that they hardly promote opportunities, neither are they proactive nor flexible, they barely take a risk for the firm, nor do they take actions to drive the business. Possibly, it may be as a result of outright lack of these IC, or as a result of their perceived lack of organizational support. Perceived organizational support (POS) represents the awareness of employees about the way they feel that the firm values their input and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1990). POS has been found to have significant impacts on employees’ performance and well-being (Islam et al., 2015; Maan et al., 2020). Thus, the lack of organizational support might dampen the IC of employees when they sense that their contributions are not valued, or that their well-being is not considered. This study sets out to determine the relationships the various dimensions of IC (opportunity pro- moter, proactivity, flexibility, drive & risk-taking) have with OG, and how POS might moderate these relationships. This study contributes to the literature in many ways. First, prior research on IC has fo- cused on performance and not growth per se (Parada et al., 2019). Moreover, constructs on the di- mensions of IC are mostly lumped up in one latent construct, thus ignoring the individual impact that the respective dimensions have on organizational outcomes (e.g. Farrukh et al., 2017). Thus, this re- search contributes to entrepreneurship literature by providing an understanding of how IC might fos- ter OG in a developing economy. Second, this study incorporates the impact of organizational support on the IC-OG relationship. No study to the best of our knowledge has combined these variables in a single model to explain the import of IC. This is a significant contribution because it advances the tenets of two different theories: Resource Base View (RBV) and Social Exchange Theory (SET) in explaining how IC can foster OG in the existing body of literature. Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 53 In the remaining sections of this study, we proceed to review the literature on IC of employees. We then discuss the potential influence of IC on OG, both directly and indirectly through POS. We test our hypotheses with a sample of employees and discuss the implications of our results. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT Intrapreneurial Competencies (IC) In the context of this study, IC represents the combination of skills and abilities of employees, which permits them to act like entrepreneurs (i.e. promote opportunities, act proactively, be flexible, drive businesses and assume risk) while being engaged as employees. IC specifically focuses on how entre- preneurial employees can utilize their skills and knowledge to improve the outcomes of the firms. It comprises the five different dimensions: opportunity promoter: employees’ ability to identify, utilize, demonstrate, and reflect diligence about opportunities for new initiatives in a company (Lombriser, 1994). Proactivity: employees’ willingness to assess and support new ideas that could transform or expand their firms (Galvez, 2011). Flexibility: the ability of the employees to detach from rigid proce- dures and schemas (Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017). Drive: the capacity of the employees to be involved in various processes to support new initiatives (Vargas-Halabi et al., 2016). Risk-taking: the capacity of the employees to take risks on new ideas on behalf of the firm (Vargas-Halabi et al., 2017). Prior re- searchers have found that IC can lead to positive outcomes such as firm performance, innovation, sur- vival, and projects (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Parada et al., 2019). Albeit these positive outcomes were identified by prior researchers, the links between IC and OG appear to have received scant attention in the literature from developing economies. Little appears to be known about how IC might influence OG or the core mechanism of such effects. We consider this a theoretical and empirical gap and thus argue that there is a need for systematic study. This study intends to cover this gap by considering the mechanisms through which IC might influence OG. Thus, we conducted a systematic study on the na- ture of the mechanisms focusing on a parallel mediation process linking IC to growth via POS. The research applies an in-depth empirical analysis of a set of complementary hypotheses (Figure 1). Figure 1. Hypotheses Development Model Source: own elaboration. Perceived Organi- zational Support Opportunity Pro- moter Proactivity Flexibility Business Driver Risk Assumption Organizational Growth H1c (+) H1d (+) 54 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Theoretical framework This study combines resource-based view (RBV) and social exchange theory (SET) to investigate how IC via POS might foster OG. RBV explains that resources and capabilities are two factors required for a firm to be successful (Davis & Cobb, 2010). Agbenyegah and Mahohoma (2020) explained that the RBV variables such as knowledge, managerial skills, and technological and marketing skills are essential to the sustainability of firms. The RBV is essential in explaining the impact of employees’ behaviour on the firms’ outcome because it is premised on the tenets that the right combinations of resources, in- cluding competencies i.e. the pool of the human resources: skills, abilities behaviours, and motivation will place a firm in a strategic position to take advantages of opportunities in the marketplace for prof- itable earnings (Geoffrey & Christos, 2015). SET, on the other hand, assumes that firms’ support for employees can foster favourable workplace attitudes and behaviours (Kurtessis et al., 2017). The variables of SET include POS, commitment, en- gagement, etc. which are very essential to the performance of employees (Colquitt et al., 2013). SET is generally based on the tenets of reciprocity, which assumes that employees will react positively via performance if the organization furnishes them with the necessary support required to do their jobs (Gould-Williams, 2007). The linkage between these theories to this study is that firms with adequate human resources (skills, abilities, behaviours, and motivation) could enjoy various advantages in the marketplace that position them to earn profits to grow and that the support from the organization for these skills and competencies would most definitely foster growth. IC and OG Prior research showed that intrapreneurial behaviours are positively and significantly related to firms’ performance (Dung, 2021; Farrukh et al., 2017; Hashemi et al., 2012). Albeit, only a few studies have examined the influence of IC on OG, since IC positively predicted firms’ performance (Carter & Tamayo, 2017; Mahmoud et al., 2020; Rathna & Vijaya, 2009), IC might foster organizational growth and expan- sion. This could be interpreted to mean that firms with employees, who can promote opportunities within the firm, act proactively, are flexible, can take a risk, and drive businesses, will most likely wit- ness expansion and growth than firms without such types of employees. Drawing on RBV, we argue that firms with scarce and valuable resources like intrapreneurs can gain an advantage that fosters growth easily in the marketplace (Barney, 1991). Firms with the right pool of employees would most likely grow. Such firms may be able to gain a competitive advantage that would enable them to get more profit that will enable them to expand and grow (Barney, 1991). IC can help organizations inno- vate, rebrand, renew, reengineer and revive their operation that fosters their growth (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Trujillo & Guzman, 2008; Varela & Irizer, 2009). Thus, our research model considers op- portunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, business driver, and risk assumption, as significant predic- tors of OG. Based on these arguments, we might expect positive relationships between opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, business driver and risk assumption, and OG. Thus, we propose: H1a: Opportunity promoter is directly and positively related to OG. H1b: Proactivity is directly and positively related to OG H1c: Flexibility is directly and positively related to OG. H1d: Business Driver is directly and positively related to OG. H1e: Risk Assumption is directly and positively related to OG. IC and POS Evidence is rife from prior research where POS impacts positively on employees’ entrepreneurial behav- iours (Meyer & Allen, 1997); this implies that opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, business driver, and risk assumption will thrive in only firms that encourage them. Firms can provide adequate supervisory, emotional and material support that could encourage employees who have these compe- tencies. It is vital to note that the nature of the relationship between intrapreneurs and their firms is Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 55 dependent on the levels of support from the firms. The more intrapreneurs perceive that their firms support them, the more likely they feel committed to engaging in the expansion and growth of the firms. POS can contribute to explaining a variety of employees’ attitudes, behaviours, engagement, satisfaction, motivations, and emotions (Islam et al., 2015; Kraimer et al., 2011; Maan et al., 2020). Employees, who perceive that they have the support of their firms, would display positive attitudes or behaviours that would foster OG. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) asserted that supports are the catalyst for employees’ positive attitudes, behaviours, and performance. The relationships between IC as a multidimensional construct and POS appear not to have received full study. Meyer et al. (1990) explained that POS is the positive and negative attitudes and behaviours that employees dis- play as a result of the care, respect, and values they receive for their contributions to the firms. Prior research has reported positive links between employees’ behaviours and organizational support in terms of entrepreneurial activities. POS is crucial in the SET (Eisenberger et al., 1986) because it promotes the reciprocity of favourable or unfavourable behaviours. It facilitates employees’ engage- ment, commitment, and performance (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Rahman & Karan, 2016; Rhoades et al., 2001). POS can assist employees to promote opportunities within the firm, embrace proactivity, act flexibly, drive businesses and take risks for the firm (Chouchane et al., 2021; Lukes, 2012; Mirkamandar & Malikehbeheshtifar, 2015). We argue that the various dimensions of IC would have direct and positive effects on POS. Thus, we propose that: H2a: Opportunity promoter is directly and positively related to POS. H2b: Proactivity is directly and positively related to POS. H2c: Flexibility is directly and positively related to POS. H2d: Business Driver is directly and positively related to POS. H2e: Risk Assumption is directly and positively related to POS. The influence of IC on OG via POS Organizational support among other things improves job satisfaction and positive moods of employ- ees, commitment, performance, and fewer withdrawal behaviours for the firms (Rhoades & Eisen- berger, 2002). We argue that favourable employee behaviours can encourage the firm to improve or increase their levels of support to the employees. This argument is based on the tenets of the SET, which avers that favourable actions will be replied to with favourable behaviours. Thus, if the firm perceives that employees have IC and encourage others to adopt initiatives that improve the OG, they will most likely provide support by providing rewards, a conducive workplace, and fairness. Previous studies have presented evidence that showed that entrepreneurial behaviours foster POS (Chouchane et al., 2021; Jong et al., 2015), and OG as well (Kellermanns et al., 2008). But there appears to be a dearth of studies that have considered how various dimensions of IC might influence growth through POS. Farrukh et al., (2017) indicated that intrapreneurs who perceive support might display greater commitment. Similarly, Hecker (2017) highlighted that POS enhances entrepreneurial employees to innovate, and initiate OG. Based on the RBV and the SET, we deduce that the set of resources (human capital) within the firm, whose behaviours favour the outcomes of the firm might gain more support from the organization in exchange for their effort, which might, in turn, initiate more OG. Thus, we might expect that POS will improve the effect of IC on OG. Therefore, we propose that: H3a: POS mediates the relationship between opportunity promoter and OG. H3b: POS mediates the relationship between proactivity and OG. H3c: POS mediates the relationship between flexibility and OG. H3d: POS mediates the relationship between business drivers and OG. H3e: POS mediates the relationship between risk assumption and OG. 56 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Employees of manufacturing firms in Nigeria made up the population of this study. This choice was based on the notion that such employees are sometimes placed in situations where they have to utilize their initiatives, which place them in positions that may involve taking a risk, being proactive, remain- ing flexible, and driving businesses with their ideas. Thus, we believe that a population of this kind will present the necessary responses to the variables of this study. Based on data from the National Survey of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises (2017), a total of 2277 employees of small manufacturing firms in South-East Nigeria were selected as the population of this study. A simple random sampling tech- nique was used to draw a sample of 340 employees. We worked with the definition that small firms have between 10-49 employees, thus assuming that we randomly pick 10 employees from each firm, we would study a total of 34 firms. Albeit, we envisaged that there may be non-responses, thus we accounted for this by adopting a 20% (i.e. 68) attrition rate (Wayne, 1975). The total sample size for this study was 408 employees of small manufacturing firms in South-East Nigeria. An authorization letter was sent to a total of 34 firms to inform them about the intended survey of their employees. A copy of the structured questionnaire that was designed for the study, and a consent note indicating that participation was voluntary and that personal data and responses would be confidential as such responses were for research purposes only were sent also. After two weeks, we received authorization from only 27 firms out of the 34 requests made. Thus, we con- ducted our study on the employees of the 27 firms that agreed since we were certain we would get the required number of responses from these firms. With the aid of research assistants, we admin- istered copies of the questionnaires face-to-face to the employees The survey was done during break periods to avoid supervisors’ influence on the employees’ responses. The questionnaire was divided into two: part A for the employees’ demographic information and part B contained the main questionnaire. A total of 311 completed questionnaires (excluding all respondents with missing information) from 27 small manufacturing firms in South-East Nigeria were returned. 76% (236) of respondents were male employees, while 84% (261) indicated that there were below 40 years of age. Measurements and scale development The scales of the study were adopted from prior research. Few adjustments were made in the wording to suit the purpose and context of the current study. The scales in part B of the instrument were placed on five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The demographic information where gathered via categorical data: Gender was placed on either male = 1; female = 2; Age was placed thus; 23-27 = 1, 28-32 = 2, 33-37= 4, 38-42 = 5. The reliability of these scales was accessed through the composite reliability (CR), and only scales with alphas above .70 were utilized. Intrapreneurial Competencies To access the IC scale, the scale developed and validated by Vargas-Halabi, et al., titled COIN_CR1 ©2017, comprising five dimensions: opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, business driver, and risk assumption was adopted. Opportunity promoter A total of 6-item made up this scale. The scale aimed at determining the extent: to which employees agree that they never/always act diligently to avail opportunities to change or generate new initiatives for the firm, have the ability to convince others of the benefits of carrying out new initiatives for the company; encourage others to remain enthusiastic during the implementation of the new initiative of the company. Unfortunately, the items of this scale all cross-loaded under other scales, thus, they were eliminated from further analysis in the current study. Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 57 Proactivity This scale accessed behaviours that are aimed at supporting actions and making efforts for new initia- tives. The scale is comprised of 4-items that: ascertain the extent: to which employees agree that they are never/always willing to assess with others any new opportunity for the firm; to which they agree that they never/always support new ideas regardless of who puts them forward in the firm. These items all loaded together with a CR of 0.945. Flexibility This scale assessed those behaviours that are aimed at lack of adherence to rigid schemes and pro- cedures. The scale comprised of 4-items that aimed to ascertain the extent: to which employees agree that they never/always have a well-defined scheme to identify opportunities to generate new initiatives in the firm; they recognize how to get the resources to fund new initiatives in the firm; they have methods to evaluate the costs and benefits of new initiatives in the firm. These items all loaded together with a CR of 0.943. Business Drive This scale measures employees’ behaviours that reflect their ability to take interest in the progress and support new initiatives and also take actions to convince other people. 4-items made up this scale. It measures the extent to which: employees agree that they never/always monitor the progress of new initiatives in the firms; they try to clarify the importance of the new initiative for the firm to their superiors. All the items here are loaded together with a CR of 0.903. Risk Assumption This scale measures employees’ behaviours regarding their capacities to take risks on new initiatives for the firm. The scale is made up of 3-items that sought to measure the extents to which: they agree that they never/always enjoy betting and gambling on new initiatives in the firm; are willing to take chances on new initiatives with uncertain results. All the items were loaded together with a CR of 0.915. POS This scale reflects the general belief that employees of a firm hold concerning the levels of values that the firm has about their membership in the firm. This scale was adopted from the scale devel- oped by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). This is a one-dimensional scale that consists of 4-items that assessed the extent to which: employees perceived that their firms are fair, they perceive su- pervisors’ support, and they perceive organizational rewards and favourable job conditions. These items are loaded together with a CR of 0.937. Organizational Growth This scale reflects the extent to which a firm has improved or expanded over the years based on the activities of the employees. We decided to utilize subjective measures as against objective measures because the survey was on the employees who could not be able to provide us with objective data. Thus, we assessed their perception of how they felt their firms may have increased since the last 3 years when they joined the firm. The scale was built from a scale by Alves and Gama (2019). It com- prised of 6-items that sought to identify the extent to which: the employees believe that their actions have made the firm worse/better with regards to their competitors; they estimate that their sales growth was worse/better; they have gained more market share; they receive more customers’ com- pliments. 2-items from this scale loaded below the 0.50 cut-off and were removed from the final items utilized in further analyses of the current study. The CR of the scale was 0.939. 58 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Gender Gender in this study reflects the sexual orientation of the employees (male or female). This was to determine whether the gender of the employees affects their IC or the growth of the firm. This was categorized thus, Male =1 and Female = 2. Employees Age This scale assessed the extent to which the age brackets of employees might affect their IC or ability to contribute to OG. It was categorized thus; 23-27 years =1; 28-32 years = 2; 33-37 years = 3; 38- 42 years = 4. Table 1. The Measurement Scale Variables Indicators (items) Loadings Convergent and discriminant validity check Reliability test AVE MSV MAXR(H) CR Flexibility Flx1 0.90 Flx2 0.90 Flx3 0.91 Flx4 0.89 0.806 0.202 0.944 0.943 Proactivity Pro1 0.90 Pro2 0.93 Pro3 0.88 Pro4 0.90 0.812 0.172 0.947 0.945 Risk-Taking Rsk1 0.89 Rsk2 0.90 Rsk3 0.86 0.781 0.276 0.916 0.915 Business Drive Drv1 0.84 Drv2 0.90 Drv3 0.88 0.757 0.210 0.907 0.903 OG Gwt1 0.87 Gwt2 0.88 Gwt3 0.91 Gwt4 0.90 0.793 0.181 0.940 0.939 POS Pos1 0.88 Pos2 0.89 Pos3 0.88 Pos4 0.90 0.788 0.276 0.937 0.937 Note: AVE = Average variance extracted, MVS = Minimum Shared Variance, CR = Composite Reliability. Source: own Calculations in AMOS V. 24. Overall measurement model fit To ensure a fit in the overall model of this study, we performed a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The measurement model consisted of seven latent variables: IC (opportunity promoter, proactivity, flexibility, business driver, and risk assumption), POS, and OG. The CFA indicated that the items meas- uring opportunity promoter cross-loaded with other items in the model and caused the model not to be fit. However, when they were removed from the model, every other item loaded fine under their latent variable, and the overall goodness-of-fit became adequate: χ2 = 231.8; df = 194; χ2/df =1.19; CFI = 0.994; TLI = 0.993; RMSEA = 0.025, reflecting an acceptable model fit (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity and discriminant validity Convergent validity was attained as the indicator factor loadings were significant and exceeded the acceptable value of ≥0.6 on their corresponding constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE) is ≥0.50. Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 59 Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha reliability Scales with alphas and composite reliability that are ≥ 0.70 and ≥ 0.60 are considered reliable, while the factor loadings should be ≥0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). Based on the outputs of the overall CFA analysis, all these criteria were met in this study (Table 1). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive The means, SDs, and bivariate correlations among the variables of the study are presented in Table 2. The table showed that proactivity; flexibility; business driver and risk assumptions were positively re- lated to OG and POS as well. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations among Variables Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 Flexibility 12.61 5.448 Proactivity 11.53 5.154 0.093 Risk Taking 9.33 3.961 0.365** 0.233** Business Drive 9.52 3.730 0.285** 0.383** 0.217** POS 12.56 5.068 0.423** 0.241** 0.487** 0.422** OG 12.87 5.168 0.362** 0.231** 0.300** 0.398** 0.26** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Own calcutaions in SPSS V. 25. Hypotheses testing The Hayes PROCESS Macro 3.5 (Model 4 – Hayes, 2018) was utilized to test the study hypotheses. These were conducted by applying bias-corrected 5,000 resample bootstraps to determine the di- rect, indirect, and total effects (Hayes, 2018). The results of the analysis of direct and total effects have been presented in Figure 2, whereas Table 3 was used to display the analysis of the indirect effect. Influences of IC on OG Every one of the proposed hypotheses under hypothesis 1 was supported as displayed on the regres- sion model (Fig. 2). The respective direct relationships between Proactivity; flexibility; business drive; risk assumption and OG are statistically significant (β = 0.162, p<0.001; β = 0.259, p<0.001; β = 0.439, p<0.001; β = 0.241, p<0.001). These coefficients reflect the direct effects (c’) of IC on OG within the path model. Similarly, the total effects (path c) of IC on OG showed significant positive relationships: proactivity, POS and OG (β = 0.233, r2 = 0.0533, p < 0.001); flexibility POS and OG (β = 0.344, r2 = 0.1311, p < 0.001); business driver, POS and OG (β = 0.552, r2 = 0.1587, p < 0.001); and risk assumption, POS and OG (β = 0.391, r2 = 0.2371, p < 0.001). Impact of IC on POS In the second set of hypotheses, i.e. Hypotheses 2b, c, d, and e, the direct relationships between the various IC dimensions and the mediating variable were tested. The results as indicated in Figure 2 shows that proactivity; flexibility; business drive and risk assumption respectively, are significantly re- lated with POS (β = 0.241, p < 0.001; β = 0.393, p < 0.001; β = 0.573, p < 0.001; β = 0.623, p < 0.001). These imply that all the second sets of hypotheses developed for this study were supported. 60 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Figure 2. Results of the structural model Source: own elaburations, from AMOS V. 24. Table 3. Mediation Analysis Path Indirect effect Bias-correlated 95% CI Lower Upper Proactivity → POS → OG 0.0695 0.325 0.1139 Flexibility → POS → OG 0.0846 0.0325 0.1414 Business Driver → POS → OG 0.1125 0.408 0.1990 Risk Assumption → POS → OG 0.1502 0.0653 0.2468 Note: POS = Perceived Organizational Support, OG = Organizational Growth. Source: own calculations from PROCESS 3. The influence of IC on OG via POS (indirect effect) In the third set of hypotheses of this study, i.e. Hypotheses 3b, c, d, and e, the influence of the various dimensions of IC on OG through a parallel mediation involving POS was tested. With the aid of a boot- strapping method, the indirect effects were examined. Table 3 indicated positive and significant relation- ships between: proactivity on OG via POS; flexibility’s on OG via POS; business drive on OG via POS; risk assumption on OG via POS (β = 0.0695, p < 0.001; β = 0.085, p < 0.001; β = 0.113, p < 0.001; β = 0.150, p < 0.001). The bootstrapping mediation test demonstrated that POS mediates the path through which various dimensions of IC influence OG. Thus, the third sets of hypotheses 3b, c, d, and e were supported. Discussion Studies examining the impact of IC on performance are rife but are scanty in the area of expansion and growth. An understanding of this impact will improve our knowledge of the growth of small firms and add to the entrepreneurship literature as well. No prior research to the best of our knowledge has combined RBV and SET in one comprehensive model to test the relationships among IC, OG, and POS. We proposed that (IC) proactivity, flexibility, business driver, and risk assumption, influence OG indi- vidually, and that POS mediated these relationships. We found that they all have positive associations with POS. These indicate that employees with IC and perceptions that they have a supportive organi- zation would be highly motivated to continue in their entrepreneurial behaviours in other to grow the organization. This could also be interpreted to mean that intrapreneurs can display their competencies of promoting opportunities, proactivity, flexibility, business driving, and risk assumptions only because they perceived that the organization encourages them (Chouchane et al., 2021). These findings suggest that IC festers in a supportive environment. Organizational Growth Perceived Organiza- tional Support Proactivity Flexibility Business Driver Risk Assumption c’ =0.241; ; c = 0.391 Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 61 We also found that POS is associated positively with OG. This finding corroborates Hariani and Masdupi, (2019) view that firms that provide adequate encouragement, supervision, and motivation for their employees usually experience growth and expansion because their employees would be en- gaged in innovative activities. We also made similar findings to Butali and Njoroge (2018), that a sup- portive workplace that encourages employees to participate decision making usually enjoys some measures of expansion and growth. This implies that the levels of support that employees get from their firms would enable them to engage in activities that would foster growth in the organization. Also, the results showed that the relationships between the different dimensions of IC and OG were mediated by POS. Proactivity showed a positive relationship with growth via a link with POS. Similarly, flexibility, business driver, and risk assumption also indicated positive relationships with growth through POS. These results meet expectations; given that evidence from previous studies showed that entrepreneurial behaviours and supports are good predictors of organizational success (Maan et al., 2020). These findings also support the impact of support in fostering OG. Since IC fosters OG, then organizational support would encourage employees to explore behaviours that would enable the organization to exploit more profitable options. Drawing on RBV which posits that rear, valuable and hard to imitate resources can assist a firm to grow for instance (Barney, 1991), and SET, which supports the tenets of reciprocity (Kurtessis et al., 2017), we can suggest that firms with intrapreneurs, who provide the necessary support to such intrapreneurs, would enjoy favourable returns like innova- tions and commitments from them to foster their expansions and growth. CONCLUSIONS This study adopts RBV and SET to examine the relationship between the dimensions of IC and OG. The results of the study stressed the importance of IC as a tool of OG. The findings of this study have im- plications for managers, employees, and policymakers in Nigeria and other countries. The study high- lights the importance of organizational support by managers on the development of IC in the firm. For employees, the study highlights how they can benefit from developing IC, while policymakers can ben- efit from this study by encouraging policies that will foster IC in firms because their growth will trans- late into economic growth. There are practical and theoretical insights from this study. This study ad- vances theories and contributes to how IC can foster OG in the existing body of literature. This study empirically confirms that IC has both direct and indirect influences on growth through POS. The results indicated that IC can foster employees’ engagements, which would ultimately lead to OG. Also, IC can boost the reputation of a firm because it affords them rear, valuable and hard to imitate resources that would also place them in vantage positions (Barney, 1991). The findings of the current study are not bereft of some limitations, thus, we advise that they should be taken into consideration when interpreting the result of this study. Firstly, only employees from small manufacturing firms were studied. Intrapreneurship exists in virtually all levels of firms in different sectors, thus, this limits the generalization of our findings to other firms in different levels and sectors. We call for further studies to investigate with employees of firms from different sectors and levels as well. Also, some country constraints may exist in the generalization of our findings since the current study was conducted in Nigeria. These relationships may not subsist in developed climes where the concept of intrapreneurship is at its advanced stage. We however suggest the replication of the studies in other cultures. Finally, the scale we adopted for this study may have limited our findings. We gathered responses on an OG scale from employees which are mainly perceptual. We, therefore, recommend that future studies should develop objective scales for employees. REFERENCES Agbenyegah, A.T., & Mahohoma, T. (2020). The impact of selected entrepreneurial competencies on SMEs per- formance in Ethekweni regions of South Africa: Theoretical and practical implications. Business Administra- tion and Business Economics, 16 (4), 64-85. 62 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Alavi, M.T., & Karami, A. (2009). Managers of small and medium enterprises: mission statement and enhanced organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 28(6), 555-562. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910959729 Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B. (2001), How intrapreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Acad- emy of Management Executive, 15 (1), 139-148. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4251563 Alves, C.A., & Gama, A.P.M. (2019). Family business performance: A perspective of family influence. Review of Business Management, 22(1), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i1.4040 Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enter- prise Development, 10(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000310461187 Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 495-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00054-3 Balanovska, T., Gogulya, O., & Wyrzykowska, B. (2018). The role of entrepreneur competencies in the develop- ment of rural areas. Proceedings of the 2018 International Scientific Conference Economic Sciences for Agri- business and Rural Economy, 1(7-8), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.22630/ESARE.2018.1.6 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Butali, P., & Njoroge, D. (2018). Effect of employee participation on organizational performance with organiza- tional commitment as a moderator. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 6(6), 478- 485. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i6.el015 Carter, M.E., & Tamayo A.M. (2017). Entrepreneurial and Intrapreneurial Skills of Managers as Determinant of Organizational Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in Davao Region, Philippines. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-14 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2927916 Chouchane, R., Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Zouaoui, S.K. (2021). Organizational support and intrapreneurial behavior: On the role of employees’ intrapreneurial intention and self-efficacy. Journal of Management & Organiza- tion, 1-17. http://dx.doi:10.1017/jmo.2021.14. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E., & Wesson, M.J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236. http://dx.doi:10.1037/a0031757. Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. Research in the Sociology of Organ- izations, 28, 21-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2010)0000028006 Dobre, O. (2013). Employee motivation and organizational performance. Review of applied socio-economic re- search, 5(1), 53-60. Dublin, G.S., & Onuoha, B.C. (2020). Intrapreneurship and organizational responsiveness of bottle water manu- facturing firms in Rivers State. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research (Social and Manage- ment Sciences), 6(11) 32-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.46654/ij.24889849.s61119 Dung, L.T. (2021). The mediating role of employee intrapreneurial behavior in nexus between constructs of in- ternal corporate social responsibility practices and organizational outcomes. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 22(2), 134-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2021.1905494. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee dili- gence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 Farrukh, M., Chong, W.Y., Mansor, S., & Ramzani, S.R. (2017). Intrapreneurial behavior: The role of organizational commitment. World Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development, 13(3), 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WJESD-03-2017-0016 Galvez, E.J., (2011). Intra-entrepreneurial culture and innovation: An empirical study in the Colombian tourism micro and SMEs. Cuadernos de Administracion, 27(46), 1-12. Geoffrey, J., & Christos, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial imagination and a demand and supply-side perspective on the MNE and Cross-border organization. Journal of International Management, 21(4), 309-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2015.07.003 Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 63 Gould-Williams, J. (2007), HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: evaluating social ex- change relationships in local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(9), 1627-1647. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570700 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Hariani, B., & Masdupi, E. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership, PEP, POS and organizational com- mitment on OCB: A literature review. Third International Conference on Economics Education, Economics, Business and Management, Accounting and Entrepreneurship (PICEEBA 2019), 97, 371-378. https://doi.org/10.2991/piceeba-19.2019.43 Hashemi, K.M.S., Nadi, H.K., Hosseini, S.M., & Rezvanfar, A. (2012). Explaining agricultural personnel’s intrapre- neurial behavior: The mediating effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(6), 299-308. Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences) (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. Hecker, A. (2017). The intrapreneurial nature of organizational innovation: toward a new. International Journal of Innovation, 5(3), 375-406. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v5i3.208 Hiwarkar, A.S., & Vidyapeeth, T.M. (2019). Importance of intrapreneurship. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 6(1), 351-357. Hostager, T.J., Neil, T.C., Decker, R.L., & Lorentz, R.D. (1998). Seeing environmental opportunities: effects of in- trapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation and desirability. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819810369536 Isa, A.A., & Sharma, K.D. (2016). Labour law and staff retrenchment in commercial banks in Nigeria: Causes and consequences. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 3(11), 90-93. Islam, T., Ahmed, I., & Ahmad, U.N.B.U. (2015). The influence of organizational learning culture and perceived organizational support on employees’ affective commitment and turnover intention. Nankai Business Review International, 6(4), 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-01-2015-0002 Iyabo, L. (2018). 95% of Nigerian graduates are not employable, says don. Retrieved from https://guard- ian.ng/features/education/95-of-nigerian-graduates-are-not-employable-says-don/ Jong, J.P.J. De, Parker, S.K., Wennekers, S., & Wu, C.-H. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matter?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 981-995. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12084 Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R.M. (1992). Motivation and employee supervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric voca- tional rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(3), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079104 Kellermanns, F.W., Eddleston, K.A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory study of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family firm. Family Business Re- view, 21(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00107.x Klofsten, M., Urbano, D., & Heaton, S. (2020). Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: An overview. Technovation, 99(102177), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102177 Koch, C., Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., Bögel, P.M., & Adam, U. (2019). Employees’ perceived benefits from partici- pating in CSR activities and implications for increasing employees’ engagement in CSR. Corporate Communi- cations. An International Journal, 11(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2017-0123 Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E., Wayne, S.J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational sup- port for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 484- 500. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021452 Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., & Honsby, J.S. (1990).Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Mangement Journal, 11, 45-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2486669. Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A., & Adis, C.S. (2017). Perceived organiza- tional support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554 Lombriser, R. (1994). Top entrepreneurs. The Financial Times, Londres, Pitman Publishing. https://www.ft.com/?saveConsentPreferences=success 64 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Lukes, M. (2012). Supporting entrepreneurial behavior and innovation in organizations. Central European Review, 1(2), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.15 Maan, A.T., Abid, G., Butt, T.H., Ashfaq, F., & Ahmed, S. (2020). Perceived organizational support and job satis- faction: A moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00027-8 Mahmoud, M.A., Ahmad, S., & Poespowidjojo, D.A.L. (2020). Intrapreneurial behavior, big five personality and indi- vidual performance. Management Research Review, 43 (12), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2019-0419 Mendes, L. (2012). Employees’ involvement and quality improvement in manufacturing small and medium en- terprise (SME): A comparative analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 6(23), 6980-6996. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM12.234 Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Sage. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Gellatly, I.R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Eval- uation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 710-720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.710 Mirkamandar, S., & Beheshtifar, M. (2015). The role of perceived organizational support on entrepreneurial be- havior. Research Journal of Social Sciences, 8(7), 155-159. Ms Ginu, G., & Binoy, J. (2014). A study on employees’ engagement level in travel organisations with reference to Karnataka. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 5(3), 8-15. Nkechinyere, A.M. (2019). Developing approach to employability in Nigerian graduates in labour market: Need for curriculum improvement. Pan-Commonwealth Forum, 9-12 September 2019, Edinburgh, Scotland. De- veloping, (September), 9-12. Oslon, P.D., (1985). Entrepreneurship: Process and abilities. American Journal of Small Business, 10(1), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878501000103 Parada, A.I.O., Marquez, I.L C., Acosta, L.R.S., & Flores, C.C.D. (2019). Intrapreneur´s competencies and skills: evidence from Mexico. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 12(1), 51-60. Parker, S.C. (2009). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? IZA Discussion Papers, No. 4195, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn. Rahman, M.S., & Karan, R. (2016). Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment: Bangladesh perspective. Journal of Business Administration, 27, 205-220. Rathna, K.G., & Vijaya, T.G. (2009). Competencies of entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs: A comparative study. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(2), 28-60. Rexhepi, G., Kurtishi, S., & Bexheti, G. (2013). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and innovation drivers of busi- ness growth? 2nd International Conference on Technology and Innovation Management Corporate, 75, 532- 541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.058 Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698 Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825 Shane, S. (1996). Hybrid organizational arrangement and their implications for growth and survival: A study of new franchsors. Academy on Management Journal, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/256637 SMEDAN/NBS. (2017). National Survey of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Retrieved from http://smedan.gov.ng/images/NATIONAL%20SURVEY%20OF%20MICRO%20SMALL%20&%20ME- DIUM%20ENTERPRISES%20(MSMES),%20%202017%201.pdf Trujillo, M.A. & Guzmán, A. (2008). Intraemprendimiento: Una revisión al constructo teórico, sus implicaciones y agenda de investigación futura. Cuadernos de Administración, 21(35), 37-63. Varela, J. & Irizar, I. (2009). Caracterización de los Intraemprendimientos en el Grupo Mondragón de España y en las empresas de Ibagué en Colombia, 21 de enero de 2011. Vargas-Halabí, T., Mora Esquivel, R., & Siles, B. (2017). Intrapreneurial competencies: development and valida- tion of a measurement scale. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(1), 86-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-006. Intrapreneurial competencies and firms’ growth: The mediating effect of perceived… | 65 Wayne, I. (1975). Nonresponse, sample size, and the allocation of resources. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(4), 557-562. https://doi.org/10.1086/268253 Weinzimmer, L.G., Nystrom, P.C., & Freeman, S.J. (1998). Measuring organizational growth: Issues, consequences and guidelines. Journal of Management, 24(2), 235-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400205 Yaemjamuang, B. (2017). Investigating motivation of the hotel employees at the operational level: A case study of the hotel business in Samut Songkram province, Thailand. International Journal of Business and Economic Affairs, 2(1), 8-11. https://doi.org/10.24088/IJBEA-2017-21002 66 | Helen Okwor, Anastasia Ogbo, Vitalis Ndu, Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Authors The Contribution share of authors is as follows: H. Okwor – 35%, A. Ogbo – 20%, V. Ndu – 15%, C.C. Onwe – 30%. Helen Okwor PhD Candidate. Her research interests include entrepreneurship, strategic management, organizational be- haviours, and human resource management. Correspondence to: Helen Okwor, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Faculty of Business Administration, Depart- ment of Management, Nigeria, e-mail: helen.okworpg@outlook.com ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9237-1877 Anastasia Ogbo Professor of Management. Her research interests include management, business, entrepreneurship, innova- tion, strategic planning, business development, human resource management, economic development, and business management. Correspondence to: Prof. Anastasia Ogbo, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Faculty of Business Administration, Department of Management, Nigeria, e-mail: ann.ogbo.@unn.edu.ng ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4569-9623 Vitalis Ndu PhD Candidate. His research interests include strategic management, strategic planning, and human resource management. Correspondence to: Vitalis Ndu, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Faculty of Business Administration, Department of Management, Nigeria, e-mail: vitalis.ndupg@outlook.com ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7912-8044 Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe Doctor of Management. His research interests include entrepreneurship, strategic management, organiza- tional behaviours, and operational research. Correspondence to: Dr. Chukwuemeka Christian Onwe, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Faculty of Business Ad- ministration, Department of Management, Nigeria, e-mail: chukwuemeka.onwe.pg002459@unn.edu.ng ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7976-5385 Acknowledgements and Financial Disclosure The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments, which allowed to increase the value of this article. We did not receive any financial support for this study. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relation- ships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Copyright and License This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NoDerivs (CC BY-ND 4.0) License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Published by Cracow University of Economics – Krakow, Poland