http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz A B S T R A C T Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2019, Vol. 29, No. 01, 71-84 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2019 Small Business Institute® w w w. j s b s . o rg Innovation through new products, processes, and ser- vices is arguably the chief potential means for small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) to confront and overcome significant capital barriers and wage gaps. Traditionally, SMEs operate with flatter structures, broader and some- times more amorphous roles, less bureaucracy, and less rou- tinization (Perrow, 1967) than larger firms. Such qualities enable SMEs to develop the potential for financial perfor- mance and achieving competitive advantage in relation to larger counterparts (Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011). But what compels individuals in SMEs to engage in innovative activity? An emerging body of scholarly work turns attention to the concept of passion as one potentially unique individual characteristic for understanding and providing insight into the question of what drives innovative activity in SMEs. Passion is argued to be at the very heart of entrepreneurship (Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens, & Patel, 2013) because it foster the recognition of new information patterns that lead to the discovery of new and promising opportunity (Baron, 2008) and the propensity to exploit it (Klaukien, Shepherd, & Pat- zelt, 2013). Passion among founders and leaders acts as a source of emotional contagion (Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009) and shared vision (Strese, Keller, Flatten, & Brettel, 2018) for activities that underpin and fosters en- thusiasm, effort, and persistence in SMEs. Yet we still know relatively little about how employees’ own passions for “being entrepreneurial” affect their innovative efforts in an SME. Such insight is crucial for two reasons. First, the inev- itability of founding leadership transitions can have a pro- found impact on enduring operations and venture outcomes (Schenkel, Yoo, & Kim, 2016). Family businesses schol- ars, for instance, observe that value creation and improved Introduction Mark T. Schenkel1, Steven Farmer2, John M. Maslyn3 1 Belmont University, USA, mark.schenkel@belmont.edu 2Wichita State University, USA, steven.farmer@wichita.edu 3Belmont University, USA, john.maslyn@belmont.edu Process improvement in SMEs: The impact of harmonious passion for entrepreneurship, employee creative self-efficacy, and time spent innovating Harmonious passion, Creative self-efficacy, Innovation, SME Harmonious passion, creative self-efficacy, and time spent innovating are examined as antecedents to innovative process improvement suggestions in a field study of 213 employees in an SME. Results show that time spent innovating, or thinking about and experimenting with new ideas, predicts the number of process improvement suggestions. Time spent innovating is, itself, influenced by the employee’s level of harmonious passion for entrepreneurship, moderated by creative self-efficacy. Counter to expectations, the moderation was neg- ative; such that the positive relationship between harmonious passion and time spent innovating became weaker as creative self-efficacy became stronger. The results provide insight into the complex relationships between passion, competency, and entrepreneurial behavior and suggest the need for additional focus on the processes employees follow to engage in workplace innovation. In doing so, this study makes three specific contributions. First, it provides a fundamental step toward understanding the role harmonious passion plays in innovation in an SME context. Second, it begins to explain the relationship between individuals’ thoughts, behaviors, and outcomes in the nascent stages of innovation in SMEs. Finally, it provides insight into the heretofore unexplored link between passion and creative self-efficacy in fostering innovative behavior. APA Citation Information: Schenkel, M. T., Farmer, S., & Maslyn, J. M. (2019). Process improvement in SMEs: The impact of harmonious passion for entrepreneurship, employee creative self-efficacy, and time spent innovating. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(1), 71-84. http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 72 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 performance depend on the extent to which founding lead- ership imbues beliefs, values, and attitudes toward entre- preneurship that foster the permeation of a combination of optimism, hope, resilience and perseverance throughout the firm over time (Hoy & Sharma, 2010). Given this, the ex- tent to which employee passion matters as SMEs transition toward professionalization likely goes beyond perceptions of their founding leaders’ passion (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt, & Klaukien, 2012). This makes employee passion important to understand in its own right. Second, it is axi- omatic that before there can be innovation there must be the potential for innovation, and such potential requires willing and able individuals (Krueger Jr. & Brazeal, 1994). Our objective in this study is to extend this emerging body of work by examining the influence of harmonious passion, an agent-based construct shown to be related to innovative activity in larger organizational settings (Liu, Chen, & Yao, 2011), yet largely unconsidered in SMEs. We draw on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2011) to investigate the role harmonious passion for being entrepre- neurial plays as a driver of an employee’s time spent inno- vating, along with the mediating role of time spent inno- vating on making new and innovative process suggestions. Further, while passion represents a desire to engage in an activity, the unstructured and often counter-normative na- ture of innovative activities also requires persistence in the face of these challenges (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Thus, we also investigate the interplay between harmonious pas- sion (representing “want to”) and creative self-efficacy (representing “can do”) (Tierney & Farmer, 2002) on each of these outcomes. We reason that harmonious passion, particularly in the presence of creative self-efficacy, is likely to lead individu- als to spend time personally thinking about and experiment- ing with innovative ideas. Doing so allows them to develop knowledge depth and breadth independently, avoiding is- sues like the ideas being subjected to the emotional embed- dedness of others’ professional envy (Biniari, 2012). It also helps avoid challenges of others applying progressively subjective (e.g., feelings, tastes) and excessively pragmatic criteria in the early stages of knowledge creation (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1999), along with centrality effects associated with existing information and decision-making networks (Ho & Pollack, 2014). Collectively, then, harmonious pas- sion facilitates the time and space needed to formulate to one’s own conclusions with respect to the economic value each reflects before choosing to overtly suggest what are believed to be innovative ideas. This study makes three key contributions to the litera- ture. First, it provides an important step toward understand- ing the role passion plays in innovation in an SME context. Second, by examining time spent innovating as a mediator of the passion-innovation relationships this investigation starts to explore the relationship between the individuals’ thoughts, behaviors, and outcomes involved in the nascent stages of innovation in SMEs. Third, while creative self-ef- ficacy has been consistently linked to innovative efforts (Farmer & Tierney, 2017), its role in combination with en- trepreneurial passion is surprisingly uninvestigated. Thus, we examine the interaction between individuals’ harmoni- ous passion and creative self-efficacy while acknowledging and controlling for other facets previously considered like autonomy (Hornsby, Kuratko, & Montagno, 1999) and su- pervisory relations (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Theory and Hypotheses Vallerand et al. (2003) note that a passion for something can be considered as a strong emotion with inherent behav- ioral tendencies. This is particularly true in an entrepreneur- ial organization where people can be inspired and steadfast toward creating or inventing new products and services based on ideas for which they have strong feelings toward (Cardon et al., 2013). Passion alone, however, and partic- ularly in the absence of reason, is rarely sufficient to bring innovative new ideas to the marketplace (Vallerand et al., 2003) since ideas rarely come to individuals in a form that can be considered fully developed in a commercial sense (Casson, 2005). Further, passion, when obsessive in nature or extent, can be counterproductive or even destructive na- ture (Vallerand, Paquet, Philippe, & Charest, 2010). When ideas are generated inside existing organizations they in- herently collide with existing systems and structures (Fiol, 1995), often contradicting current organizational norms and controls (de Jong, 2013). In SMEs, where the organizations may be characterized as particularly prominent reflections of their leaders, what ultimately turned out to be good in- novative ideas may arguably be rejected prematurely based on being perceived as inconsistent, or even incongruent, with leaders’ passions (Strese et al., 2018). Those passion- ate about such ideas then confront a choice between giving up on them or pursuing them independently until such time they might be able to assess, shape, articulate and work with others to demonstrate alignment more clearly, or why and how such ideas are in the interest of the organization’s long term health and performance despite immediate perceptions of misalignment with leaders’ passions. Harmonious passion’s effects on innovative activity 73 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 in a SME setting are particularly relevant for two reasons. First, passion-focused innovative activity is rooted in a long-standing psychological perspective in which at its core reflects the need for “a person, in whose mind all of the possibilities come together, who believes that innovation is possible, and who has the motivation to persist until the job is done” (Shaver & Scott, 1991, p. 39). It is consistent with the idea that innovation begins with the actions of individu- als (Casson, 2005; Krueger Jr. & Brazeal, 1994; Rutherford & Holt, 2007). Second, innovative activity driven by har- monious passion reflects a distinct interest in a self-defining activity individuals value, enjoy, and in which they invest time and energy (Vallerand et al., 2003). The fact that such actions emanate from intrinsic and integrative tendencies of the self that are internalized (Deci & Ryan, 2000) engen- ders a willing and enduring (but not excessively rigid or inflexible) motivational force in the pursuit of such activi- ty (Vallerand, 2010). Coupled with observations noting the disproportionately greater relative impact of individuals’ efforts and contributions on firm outcomes in SMEs than in larger organizational contexts, the importance of under- standing and weighing the potential of individuals’ passion as a driver of internal innovation against externally-based alternatives is underscored (Maes & Sels, 2014; Prajogo & McDermott, 2014). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptualized framework guid- ing this investigation. It focuses on extending prior insights into how passion acts to influence innovative activity within the broader SME context. We begin the discussion of our proposed model by concentrating on the direct effects of harmonious passion as the primary and initial stimulus for entrepreneurial activity. Harmonious Passion: Direct Effects Passion, defined as consciously accessible intense pos- itive feelings experienced through engaging in activities of particular interest (Cardon et al., 2009), is considered a source of intrinsic motivation (Vallerand et al., 2003). More specifically, the harmonious form of passion is defined as “a motivational force that leads the person to engage in the activity willingly and engenders a sense of volition and per- sonal endorsement about pursuing the activity” (Vallerand & Houlfort, 2003, p. 178). As such, it can be considered as originating from an autonomous internalization of a given activity into one’s identity and expected to generally lead to adaptive outcomes. It is important to note that harmonious passion is often contrasted with obsessive passion, a form of passion which is associated with an uncontrollable need to excessively or compulsively engage in an activity and is ultimately expected to lead to less adaptive, or even mal- adaptive, outcomes (Vallerand, 2010). Harmonious passion extends beyond simple interest and affect, becoming attached to the very core identity of the person (Cardon et al., 2013; Vallerand et al., 2003; Val- lerand & Miquelon, 2007). When individuals freely accept the focal activity (e.g., being entrepreneurial) as signif- icant, and without contingency, it fosters a “harmonious” or unforced sense of free choice focused on engaging in the activity consistent with one’s full, internalized sense of identity (Vallerand, 2010). As such, it comes as no surprise harmonious passion has been linked to innovative activi- ty engagement (Liu et al., 2011). The construct reflects the identification of individuals with the task itself, and is expe- rienced as interest, involvement, curiosity, satisfaction, and positive challenge (Amabile, 1996). We base our theorizing in large part on self-determi- nation theory (SDT). SDT focuses on the degree to which individuals’ behavior is self-motivated, or the nature of choices people make without external influence or interfer- ence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It distinguishes activities that are inherently enjoyable (intrinsically motivating) from activi- Figure 1. Conceptual Model Time Spent Innovating Harmonious Passion Number of Process Suggestions Creative Self- Efficacy 74 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 ties that are undertaken because of an externalized reason (norms, rewards, etc.). Passion for the former reflects a har- monious type in which individuals can readily integrate that activity with other life activities and disengage when neces- sary. Passion for the latter activities is considered obsessive (reflecting emotional dependence on the activity; Vallerand, 2003), it can psychologically or behaviorally crowd out oth- er activities and may be very difficult to quit. The key differ- ence between the two is a sense of choice. While research suggests that the two types of passion tend to be positively correlated (Curran, Hill, Appleton, Vallerand, & Standage, 2015; Vallerand, 2015), it also indicates convergent and di- vergent validity for the two constructs (Marsh et al., 2013). Given our interest in creativity and innovation we focused exclusively on harmonious passion. Drawing on this prior research, we postulate that har- monious passion will predict the initiation of personal time spent on innovative activity because it leads individuals to seek out opportunities for self-determination and choice (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In other words, time spent thinking about and experimenting with innovative ideas enables the pursuit of pleasurable affect experienced through the act of creating in a value-centric way (Fisher & Amabile, 2009). This line of reasoning is consistent with the level of per- sistence observed in prior work (Deci & Ryan, 2000), par- ticularly where focused on independent new venture cre- ation (Cardon & Kirk, 2013). Based on this evidence and reasoning, we suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1. Harmonious passion for being entrepreneur- ial will positively predict time spent innovating. Harmonious Passion: Mediated Effects Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray (2003) argue that an “op- portunity” may first appear as a chance to fulfill what is otherwise an imprecisely-defined market need, or to create and deliver something new that represents value by put- ting to work what otherwise were un- or under-utilized or employed resources. Yet they conclude opportunity is best conceptualized as something being “developed” over time versus being “identified” at a discrete point in time. This distinction is consistent with the notion that the recogni- tion of entrepreneurial opportunity involves a two-phase process that begins with individual preparation, incubation, and insight, followed by a formation stage in which pro- spective entrepreneurs elaborate and evaluate the quality of their ideas by sharing them with others (Lumpkin, Hills, & Shrader, 2001). We theorize that time spent innovating enables individ- uals to prepare, incubate, and gain insight into their innova- tive ideas in a self-determinant way (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research in cognitive neuroscience has found this sort of incubation to be a necessary precondition for the sort of sudden comprehension we call “insight” (Kounios & Bee- man, 2009). As noted above, time spent innovating facili- tates generating ideas in a way that is not only a personally value-centric way at the outset (Fisher & Amabile, 2009) but also at a time in the innovation process in which they largely have autonomy over their own efforts (Holt, Ruth- erford, & Clohessy, 2007; Kuratko, Montagno, & Hornsby, 1990). As a result, individuals will feel a strong sense of personal control over immediate outcomes of their efforts (de Jong, 2013). As individuals incubate their ideas, they likely begin to informally share pieces of information with others and receive feedback with the goal of developing knowledge and competence depth (Zahra, Nielsen, & Bogner, 1998). From such informal interactions, they are likely to become familiar with the emotional tensions that their ideas are like- ly to raise as they are exposed to the subjective judgments of others and socio-political structures embedded in the organization (Biniari, 2012). Yet because these efforts are likely informal, and uniquely magnified given the charac- teristics of the SME context (Perrow, 1967), the prospective entrepreneurial individual still largely enjoys the freedom to think about how their respective idea(s) can be shaped within the organization’s broader strategies and structures (Zahra et al., 1998). In this way, they are able to manage the tension between the internal exploration and exploitation of innovative ideas. Stated differently, time spent innovating helps to foster deeper processing and conceptual learning that might otherwise be short-circuited prematurely (Gag- né & Deci, 2005). This line of reasoning is consistent with research findings that creative process engagement (i.e., employee involvement in creativity-relevant methods or processes) predicts innovative outcomes (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). For these reasons, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2. Time spent innovating mediates the positive relationship between harmonious passion for being entre- preneurial and the number of process innovations suggest- ed. Harmonious Passion & Creative Self-Efficacy: Moder- ated Effects Self-determination theory suggests that people need 75 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 to feel competent in their abilities to make important de- cisions without interference or external influences (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Consistent with this reasoning, Tierney and Farmer (2002, p. 1140) argue that creative endeavors are such that “some internal, sustaining force [is needed] that propels individuals to persevere in the face of challenges”. For example, “being creative” not only requires an ability to challenge existing mental schema sets but also a comfort level with one’s abilities to handle the corresponding chal- lenges and ambiguities that can arise (Amabile, 1988). In organizations, it also requires the confidence to champion ideas that can challenge existing problems in novel ways (Kanter, 1983), which can mean being willing to visibly act as a nonconformist (Amabile, 1988). Tierney and Farmer (2002) point to the resistance of employee engagement in creative behavior to underscore the relevance of these moti- vational underpinnings. In SMEs, the relative impact of any one individual’s impact across others is likely to magnify such conditions. Given these observations, we posit that creative self-ef- ficacy, defined as “the belief one has the ability to produce creative outcomes” (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, p. 1138), will have an amplifying effect on the relationship between har- monious passion and innovative activity. Specifically, we theorize that creative self-efficacy in the presence of har- monious passion should intensify the likelihood individuals will initiate efforts to spend time on innovative activity for two reasons. First, the ability to challenge existing mental schema should complement efforts to seek out opportuni- ties for self-determination and choice. It does so by creating additional cognitive variability during the preparation and incubation stages, both of which are associated with op- portunity recognition in turn. In other words, because it is informed by task knowledge (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), it should make efforts driven by affect and identity more ef- ficient, thereby increasing the probability of generating po- tentially effective ideas. Second, it should instill a sense of confidence for the subsequent management and overcoming of nonconformity pressures that could result if the time is spent. We believe this line of reasoning is consistent with the idea that identity management involves a sense of hi- erarchical ordering whereby the likelihood of engagement increases with a closer alignment of self and behavior (Car- don et al., 2013). Hypothesis 3. Creative self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between harmonious passion for being en- trepreneurial and time spent innovating, such that the great- er the sense of creative self-efficacy, the stronger the rela- tionship. Method Research Context Our ideas are based on the noted challenges that can be faced in innovating in SME environments in competing with larger organizations (Rosenbusch et al., 2011). Thus, we chose to conduct this study in the insurance claims pro- cessing industry, an industry generally dominated by large organizations. The particular firm sampled qualified as a “small business” based on the Small Business Administra- tion’s size standards. These standards focus employee and revenue number comparisons of a given firm against oth- ers in the same industry. Departments in this organization included accounts receivable, business development, cus- tomer contact, product development, IT support, client ser- vices, training and quality improvement, human resources, administrative services, claims processing, third-party lia- bility, and payments. Until a year before our study, this firm had been founder-controlled and at the time of the study was working to transition toward professionalization. The nature of the work environment was generally bureaucratic, reflecting, at least in part, the regulated nature of this service industry, but organizational leadership indicated an explicit interest in improving innovation throughout the organiza- tion. The challenge of innovating reflected in this balance is particularly acute for many SMEs as competitive pressures continue to increase (Parida, Westerberg, & Frishammar, 2012). Procedure We used survey sampling to collect data. An on-line survey was conducted through organizational email, with surveys distributed to all employees (both managerial and non-managerial; all were full-time). Employees were noti- fied in advance of the upcoming survey and survey process, and managers were asked to allow employees time during work hours to complete the survey. The survey asked ques- tions regarding personal practices concerning being innova- tive at work, personality characteristics, manager-subordi- nate relationship quality, and demographic characteristics. Of two hundred thirteen employees, 80% completed surveys. Seventy-eight percent of the sample was female, with an average 13.8 years of full-time work experience. Forty-five percent reported their level of education as high school diploma or some college and 55% reported earning a 76 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 college degree or above. Responses regarding participant’s age were grouped approximately by decade with a modal age of 31-40 years (mean age was 2.16 on a 5-point scale with a range from 18 to greater than 61 years). Measures Participant responses were provided on a 5-point Likert format for measures of harmonious passion for entrepre- neurship, creative self-efficacy, job autonomy, and lead- er-member exchange. Assessment of time spent innovating and the number of process suggestions were each open-end- ed and filled in by participants. Harmonious passion. The Vallerand et al. (2003) har- monious passion scale was adapted to reflect a passion for activities associated with being entrepreneurial. Consistent with our reasoning, connecting passion and innovative ac- tions such as process improvement suggestions, the har- monious, as opposed to obsessive type of passion has been shown in a meta-analysis to be positively related to positive affect, intrinsic motivation, mastery approach goals, and flow, while obsessive passion is not significantly related to any of these (Curran et al., 2015). The Vallerand et al. (2003) harmonious passion subscale has construct validi- ty and is empirically distinguishable from obsessive pas- sion (Marsh et al., 2013). Survey directions defined being entrepreneurial as pursuing innovative ideas for new work process(es), product(s), or service(s), or improvement(s) to an existing work process(es), product(s), or service(s). Because Vallerand et al. (2003) scale development work utilized item wording to represent passion for activities, generally we chose those items with the best conceptual fit with the focus in this investigation (being entrepreneurial in one’s job). In total, five of the seven items were used (al- pha = .93). Sample items include “Being entrepreneurial in my job reflects the qualities I like about myself,” “The new things I discover by being entrepreneurial in my job allow me to appreciate innovation even more,” and “I am enthusi- astic about being entrepreneurial in my job.” Creative self-efficacy. We used the three-item Likert scale from Tierney and Farmer (2002) to assess creative self-efficacy (alpha = .84). A sample item is “I have confi- dence in my ability to solve problems creatively.” Time spent innovating. Drawing broadly on research suggesting the significance of internal strategic focus on firm performance (Harris, Gibson, & McDowell, 2014) and more specifically from a group of studies focused on as- sessing the impact of various innovation-related constructs (Brazeal, Schenkel, & Kumar, 2014; Murnieks, Mosakow- ski, & Cardon, 2014; Vallerand et al., 2003), participants were asked to report the number of hours in a typical week they spent, both inside and outside of the workplace, think- ing about, planning, or experimenting with new ideas or im- provements for work processes. The hours were added to- gether and the resulting reported range of time varied from zero to 60 hours per week. Process improvement suggestions. Given the service basis of the industry, participants were asked how many spe- cific job-related innovative ideas, defined as any new work process or an improvement to an existing work process, they have suggested to their organization through their supervi- sor, suggestion program, or other means over the course of the past year. This measure is consistent with observations that process improvements are an important source of SME growth and profitability (Wolff & Pett, 2006) as a means of compensating for the lack of resource endowments. Be- ing agile, flexible, and hence innovative, are important in confronting the unpredictability, instability, or general un- favorableness often reflected SME’s respective competitive operating environments. The reported range was from zero to 100 suggestions per year. Control variables. With our main focus on how the ba- sic self-determination need for competence factors into the passion-innovativeness relationship, we control for self-de- termination needs for autonomy and relatedness (Gagné & Deci, 2005) to better isolate the unexplored effect of creativ- ity self-efficacy as a form of competence. Three items from Hornsby, Holt, and Kuratko (2008) were used to assess au- tonomy on the job. Sample items include “It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done” and “I have much autonomy on my job and am left on my own to do my own work” (alpha = .73). We used a measure of lead- er-member exchange (LMX) to tap relatedness. LMX was assessed with the 12-item LMX-MDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). This measure is designed to assess follower percep- tions of manager-follower relationship quality and reflects the LMX dimensions of loyalty, professional respect, con- tribution, and affect (alpha = .94). Gender (coded 1 = male, 2 = female) has also been found to predict entry into nascent entrepreneurial activity (Davidsson & Honig, 2003) and has been correlated with perceptions of entrepreneurial passion (Breugst et al., 2012). Accordingly, we controlled for its influence. Additionally, we controlled for educational level 77 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 as it has been shown to be related to creative engagement as well as creative self-efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). This variable was coded as 1 = High school or below to 5 = Graduate degree. Finally, years of full-time work experi- ence was included as a control, with the consideration that domain-relevant knowledge is an important predictor of in- novative activity (Amabile, 1996). Results Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Ta- ble 1. Prior to hypothesis testing, we assessed factor struc- ture, discriminant and convergent validity of the multi-item self-rated scales (harmonious passion, creative self-efficacy, LMX, and job autonomy) with confirmatory factor analysis. To maintain a favorable estimator to sample size ratio, for LMX we used scores on each of the four subscales as indica- tors. Because the assumption of multivariate normality was violated per the normalized Mardia coefficient, we reported results using statistics designed to adjust for non-normality (Satorra & Bentler, 1994): a scaled chi-square statistic for overall model fit, robust versions of the comparative fit in- dex (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and robust estimates of standard error. The proposed four-factor model had adequate fit to the observed covariance matrix, χ2 = 152.70, df = 71, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07, with all standardized loadings significant. This model was compared to a model collapsing harmonious passion and creative self-efficacy to- gether, with that model showing poor fit (χ2 = 224.62, df = 72, p < .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .10; scaled χ2 difference with hypothesized model = 221.15, df = 1, p < .01). The hy- pothesized model was also compared to a two-factor model collapsing job autonomy and LMX, with that model show- ing poor fit (χ2 = 195.28, df = 72, p < .001, CFI = .91, RM- SEA = .09; scaled χ2 difference with hypothesized model = 43.14, df = 1, p < .01). A single factor model was assessed (χ2 = 268.08, df = 77, p < .001, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .11). This model also fit significantly worse than the hypothe- sized model (scaled χ2 difference with hypothesized model = 136.424, df = 5, p < .001). These results suggest adequate measurement characteristics for the multi-item scales. Because the time spent innovating and number of pro- cess suggestions dependent variables had the distributional form of event counts, regression equations testing hypoth- eses were modeled with the SPSS GENLIN procedure, a procedure which allows unbiased maximum likelihood es- timation of regression models with response variables from any member of an exponential family of distributions. The distributions for these variables were over-dispersed (that is, the variance was greater than the mean), so a negative bi- nomial distribution was used to model the regression equa- tions (Gardner, Mulvey, & Shaw, 1995). Negative binomial regression analyses are shown in Ta- ble 2. Choice of hierarchical entry steps tracked the model in Figure 1. Model fit was assessed by changes in model deviance, changes which are distributed as chi-squares and indicate the extent of improvement over the previous mod- el. We also utilized the McFadden pseudo R-squared to es- timate model fit (Hilbe, 2011). The pseudo R-squared statis- tic measures the improvement of the given model over one with only a constant term in terms of model log likelihood, and thus is appropriate for this functional form. McFadden (1978, p. 307) notes that pseudo r-squared values “tend to be considered lower than those of the R2 index and should not be judged by the standards for a ‘good fit’ in ordinary regression analysis”. For the time spent innovating dependent variable, con- trols of gender (-.42, p < .05) and educational level (-.18, p < .05) were significant predictors in the first step. At the next step, higher levels of autonomy (.47, p < .01) and creative self-efficacy (.66, p < .01) were associated with more time spent innovating. At the third step, the inclusion of harmo- nious passion as a significant predictor (.64, p < .01) result- ed in additional model fit improvement. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Finally, the last step included the harmo- nious passion by creative self-efficacy product term, which was significant (-.37, p < .01) and resulted in an incremental improvement in model fit, significant per the reduction in deviance. The graph of this interaction is plotted in Figure 2. The plot shows little effect of creative self-efficacy on the har- monious passion—time spent innovating relationship at low levels of efficacy, but a more pronounced effect at higher levels of creative self-efficacy. Hypothesis 3 predicted that creative self-efficacy would strengthen the relationship but the graph shows that the reverse was true; at higher levels of harmonious passion, creative self-efficacy resulted in less time spent innovating. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not support- ed. This result, however, is quite interesting in that it tracks recent conceptual arguments that high levels of efficacy can actually result in reduced levels of resources allocated toward accepted goals (Vancouver, More, & Yoder, 2008; Yeo & Neal, 2013). This finding will be discussed at greater length later. For the number of process suggestions, the results for control variables in step 1 showed only gender (-.82, p < 78 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. R. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) 1.76 0.43 2. Educational level 2.76 1.12 -.21** 3. Work experience (years) 13.82 9.62 .13 .02 4. Job autonomy 3.43 0.86 -.27** .05 .10 (.73) 5. Leader-member exchange 3.94 0.76 -.11 .09 -.09 .09 (.94) 6. Harmonious passion 3.43 0.78 -.16* .06 .08 .22** .40** (.93) 7. Creative self-efficacy 3.88 0.63 -.16* .07 -.03 .09 .09 .40** (.84) 8. Time spent innovating 6.57 11.52 -.17* -.06 .04 .21* .09 .28** .15* 9. Number of process suggestions 5.14 12.14 -.18* .00 -.02 .08 .00 .15* .18* .26** Notes: n = 172 after list wise deletion; reliabilities in parentheses on diagonal; * p < .05 ** p < .01 Table 2 Negative binomial regression analyses for time spent on ideas and number of process suggestions Time Spent Innovating Number of Process Suggestions Independent Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Gender -.42* -.54** -.61** -.61** -.82** -.85** -.83** -.56* Educational level -.18* -.23* -.20* -.20* -.09 -.09 -.11 -.02 Work experience (years) .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 Job autonomy .49** .47** .37** .36** .12 -.06 -.06 -.10 LMX .08 .06 -.07 -.04 -.08 -.07 -.10 -.04 Creative self-efficacy .66** .33* .28 .34* .65** .64** Harmonious passion .64** .74** .46** .23 Harmonious passion by creative self-efficacy -.37* -.41* -.27 Time Spent Innovating .05** Pseudo R2 .05 .07 .09 .10 .03 .06 .07 .10 Δ Pseudo R2 .05 .02 .02 .01 .03 .03 .01 .03 Deviance 298.06 278.44 258.04 254.00 321.40 291.99 282.77 255.81 (166df) (165df) (164df) (163df) (166df) (165df) (163df) (162df) Deviance change as x2 difference vs. prior model 42.62** 19.62** 20.40** 4.04* 23.68** 29.41** 3.18* 26.96** Notes. N = 172 after list wise deletion. Pseudo R2 is based on 1 – (log likelihood of model / log likelihood intercept only model) (Hilbe, 2011). Deviance change x2 for step 1 model is based on a comparison with a null model (intercept only). Unstandardized regression coefficients are at each step. * p < .05 ** p < .01 79 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 .01) as a significant predictor (pseudo R-squared = .03, de- viance change from the null model significant at p < .05). At the second step, creative self-efficacy was associated with process suggestions (.34, p < .01), accounting for an additional improvement in model fit per pseudo r-square, deviance change p < .05. Harmonious passion and its inter- action with creative self-efficacy were entered in the next step, with the product term being significant (-.41, p < .05), adding another model fit improvement based on significant reduction in the deviance parameter. In the fourth step, time spent innovating (.05, p < .01) accounted for incremental- ly significant deviance reduction at p < .01, and additional model fit improvement. This suggests possible mediation in line with Hypothesis 2. As noted above, Hypothesis 2 positioned time spent innovating as mediating the effects of harmonious passion on the number of process innovations suggested. This pre- diction, along with the possibility that the indirect effect is conditional on the first stage interaction of harmonious pas- sion and creative self-efficacy, was tested using bootstrap procedures from Preacher and Hayes (2008). Analysis indi- cated that the overall indirect effect of harmonious passion on process suggestions via time spent innovating was sig- nificant (indirect effect = 1.08, SE = .51, p < .05), support- ing Hypothesis 2. This effect, however, was not significant when creative self-efficacy was low (-1 SD, indirect effect = 1.18, SE = .66, p > .05) but was significant only when creative self-efficacy was high (+1 SD, indirect effect = .96, SE = .46, p < .05). Discussion This study makes a number of contributions to the the- oretical literature. First, it extends prior studies suggesting passion may play a key role as an impetus for innovative activity, independent of other influences in SMEs. Specif- ically, our findings show that variation in the harmonious passion of individuals for being entrepreneurial signifi- cantly and positively predicts innovative activity and out- comes, irrespective of other predictors extant theory sug- gests. Harmonious passion is a stronger predictor of time spent innovating than other main effects of job autonomy and leader-member relations, factors which prior research has shown to be associated with leader communication and promotion of strategic vision for innovative activity (Ruth- erford & Holt, 2007). This finding is particularly interest- ing because it suggests harmonious passion may be more closely aligned to the employee’s personal affect (Breugst et al., 2012) and, in turn, the potentially greater explanatory power for innovative outcomes reflecting a bias (Vallerand et al., 2003) and intent (Biraglia & Kadile, 2017) toward engaging intrinsically valued activity such as being entre- preneurial. As such, and coupled with Hoy and Sharma’s (2010) observation of the centrality of beliefs, values, and attitudes toward entrepreneurship beyond founding leader- ship control, it suggests employee harmonious passion may be an essential focal point in future research toward under- standing what enables SMEs to persist and move toward professionalization. Figure 2. Interaction of harmonious passion and creative self-efficacy for time spent innovating 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Low Harmonious passion High Harmonious passion T im e sp en t i nn ov at in g (h r.s /w ee k) Low creative self- efficacy High creative self- efficacy 80 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 A second core contribution is found in the mediation in- sights. Specifically, by theoretically incorporating the con- cept of time spent thinking, planning, or experimenting with new ideas or improvements, this study starts to reveal the relationship between the individuals’ thoughts, behaviors, and outcomes involved in the nascent stages of innovation in SMEs. Prior theorizing focuses on CEO passion as an important driver of innovative outcomes in SMEs (Strese et al., 2018) noting its potential as a contagious quality (Car- don, 2008). Yet such an explanation is insufficient in that it fails to consider, and hence provide, a bottom up basis for understanding the origins of why and how such con- tagiousness may also occur. Equally important, the media- tional effect observed suggests the transition from thought- ful consideration of one’s ideas to committed overt action is dependent upon the expenditure of such time. For scholars, this suggests that a fruitful area for future research is teas- ing out the influence of harmonious passion on the iden- tification of viable business opportunities (Casson, 2005), particularly with respect to how it may or may not take on a more contagious quality among other SME stakeholders (Cardon, 2008). For example, studies focusing on SMEs transitioning from family founding-control (e.g., Randøy & Goel, 2003), one interesting area where further insight is needed is in understanding how choices in (and changing) structural relationships like family involvement and out- side governance mechanisms might influence the extent to which employees perceive distance between founding and future management objectives, and in turn, if and how such distance impacts willingness to spend time on ideas that might lead to new opportunity identification. A third and closely related contribution is found in the moderation findings. The main effect findings lend support to the idea that competency with creative activity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2004) is an important motivation-based complement to developing a sense of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005) leading to in- novative activity engagement in SMEs. Interestingly, how- ever, the moderating influence we find is in contrast with the augmenting influence hypothesized. Specifically, we find that when creative self-efficacy is low, it bears little effect on the harmonious passion—time spent innovating relationship. By contrast, higher levels of creative self-effi- cacy have a more pronounced effect but in an adverse way – that is, creative self-efficacy results in less time spent in- novating. This raises the possibility that creative self-effi- cacy could serve to lessen the otherwise positive influence of harmonious passion, particularly in an SME context in- volving innovation of some sort. For example, drawing on a combination of socio-cognitive and resource allocation the- ory, Yeo and Neal (2013) summarize a stream of research that finds that people act to conserve resources, particularly in situations in which people have competing demands and limited resources (SMEs, for instance). In such cases, high self-efficacy can have a negative, not positive relationship with some outcomes, as individuals (sometimes mistaken- ly) believe such efforts are not necessary for success. Thus, one interesting question for future SME research revolves around the extent to which choices in important factors like leadership (e.g., Schenkel et al., 2016) and structure (e.g., Randøy & Goel, 2003) influence the self-regulatory nature of purposive innovative behavior (Bandura, 1991) as SMEs professionalize beyond founding leadership. One potential- ly fruitful approach could be the design of studies intended to examine dynamic within-person differences in harmoni- ous passion and creative self-efficacy, both independently and in combination, and the influence of these factors on in- novation engagement (Yeo & Neal, 2013) in SME settings. Practical implications Our results also have at least three important practical implications for SME leaders. First, the positive relation ob- served between harmonious passion and entrepreneurial be- havior here is strikingly consistent with findings in studies of independent entrepreneurs (Murnieks et al., 2014). The message for SME managers here is fostering innovation in- volves more than relying on basic skills proficiency (Frank- lin, 2015) or external factors such as tangible rewards and deadlines (Gagné & Deci, 2005). These approaches may be insufficient or even undermine the intent to spur innovation. A more robust approach also involves understanding em- ployees’ passion with innovative activity in order to gain insight into how to leverage intrinsic sources of motivation. Such an approach may serve as a means for SMEs to better compete against larger, more resource-endowed firms. Sec- ond, for managers, our mediation results suggest caution must be exercised to avoid creating systems, structures, and processes that promote employees prematurely confound- ing the incubation and formation stages of opportunity identification. Such caution is particularly important in cas- es where a novel idea might feasibly be developed despite perceived uncertainty and risk that may otherwise inhibit an employee from suggesting it (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Fisher & Amabile, 2009; Prajogo & McDermott, 2014; Sarasvathy, 2001). Third, the present results suggest the importance of managers proactively seeking to understand and differenti- ate when innovative ideas may be driven by an appropriate 81 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 sense of confidence versus a potentially false sense of over- confidence. One way this may be achieved is through ques- tioning focused on drawing out assumptions, particularly in cases where those suggesting innovative ideas appear both passionate in their ideas and confident in creative capability. Limitations Our study is limited in several important ways. First, our results should be treated cautiously because they are based on a single organization. Although our sample is sim- ilar in nature to those including service-based firms in past research (Hornsby, Kuratko, & Zahra, 2002), it is possible that our results were systematically influenced by unspec- ified firm-level characteristics. It has become increasingly clear that entrepreneurial and innovative activities are het- erogeneous within and across firms and that more knowl- edge about such variation is needed (Phan, Wright, Uc- basaran, & Tan, 2009). Therefore, it is important for future research to validate and extend the present results. A second potential limitation rests in our measure of the number of process suggestions. Specifically, this measure was based on a time frame “in the past year.” The approach of using number per week is consistent with prior research (Brazeal et al., 2014; Murnieks et al., 2014; Vallerand et al., 2003) and with the idea that the extent to which innovative activi- ties are central and meaningful to an individual’s self-iden- tity differentiates individuals from one another (Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Vallerand et al., 2003). Yet it is possible that the variability in process suggestions could be systemati- cally influenced by participants that have less than a year of tenure in the organization (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). We do not have an assessment of organizational tenure to use as a control variable to account for this possibility. However, we believe such a possibility is likely to attenuate the aver- age number of ideas for participants, resulting in an overly conservative test of our model. Third, we measured harmo- nious passion but not obsessive passion, so we cannot ful- ly discount its potential effects. However, strong evidence exists that indicates discriminant validity between the two constructs (Marsh et al., 2013), and a meta-analysis of 94 studies indicates the two types of passion show very differ- ent patterns of relationships with well-being, motivational, cognitive, and performance factors (Curran et al., 2015). Additionally, we relied on a cross-sectional design to test our ideas, raising concerns about causal sequencing. For instance, spending more time thinking of and gener- ating innovative ideas could result in autonomous inter- nalization of this activity into identity, thereby enhancing harmonious passion. We do not discount this ordering but remind that such identity-based sequencing is likely to be reciprocal, such that as a passion for innovative activity in- creases, so will passion-relevant efforts such as spending more time thinking about new ideas. The limitation here is not so much that the sequence we propose is wrong, but that it is incomplete and so future research ought to exam- ine reciprocal causation longitudinally. A closely related final concern is the use of self-report data. Self-reporting of harmonious passion and the three self-determination variables (creative self-efficacy, job autonomy, and LMX), as well as time spent innovating, was appropriate as these are only internally accessible to individuals. It would have been preferable to have independent reports of suggested process innovations in order to mitigate possible common method bias. However the organization had no formal sys- tem in place for this and, as a result, we used self-report measurements. Self-reports of suggestions have been used before, though, with substantive validation with indepen- dent reports (Axtell, Holman, & Wall, 2006). Also, because “interaction effects cannot be artifacts of CMV” [common method variance] (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010, p. 456; Evans, 1985), this possibility is mitigated for our modera- tion and conditional indirect relationship findings. Conclusion Notwithstanding the noted limitations, this study con- stitutes and informative investigation of how harmonious passion factors into the nascent stages of innovation in SMEs. The study reveals harmonious passion reflects the capacity to serve as a unique and vital source of innovative process suggestions, beyond other notable structural and contextual factors observed previously and often suggested as essential to SMEs’ ability to achieve and sustain advan- tage. It reveals the simultaneous need for awareness that harmonious passion also introduces complexities into the innovation process. Such insights into the nascent processes whereby individuals choose to engage innovative aspects of their work lives provide SME leaders with practical possi- bilities for harnessing the power of individual affect while avoiding its pitfalls. References Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innova- tion in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The social psychology of creativity”. Boulder, 82 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 CO: Westview Press. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and de- velopment. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123. Axtell, C., Holman, D., & Wall, T. (2006). Promoting in- novation: A change study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 509-516. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regu- lation. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 50(2), 248-287. Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328-340. Biniari, M. G. (2012). The emotional embeddedness of cor- porate entrepreneurship: The case of envy. Entre- preneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 141-170. Biraglia, A., & Kadile, V. (2017). The role of entrepreneur- ial passion and creativity in developing entrepre- neurial intentions: Insights from American home- brewers. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 170-188. Brazeal, D. V., Schenkel, M. T., & Kumar, S. (2014). Be- yond the organizational bounds in CE research: Exploring personal and relational factors in a flat organizational structure. Journal of Applied Man- agement and Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 78-106. Breugst, N., Domurath, A., Patzelt, H., & Klaukien, A. (2012). Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees’ commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 171-192. Cardon, M. S. (2008). Is passion contagious? The transfer- ence of entrepreneurial passion to employees. Hu- man Resource Management Review, 18(2), 77-86. Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Con- ceptual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 373-396. Cardon, M. S., & Kirk, C. P. (2013). Entrepreneurial pas- sion as mediator of the self‐efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 39(5), 1027-1050. Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepre- neurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511-532. Casson, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organiza- tion, 58(2), 327-348. Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Appleton, P. R., Vallerand, R. J., & Standage, M. (2015). The psychology of passion: A meta-analytical review of a decade of research on intrapersonal outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 39(5), 631-655. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Jour- nal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301-331. de Jong, J. P. J. (2013). The decision to exploit opportunities for innovation: A study of high-tech small-business owners. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 281-301. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-deter- mination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Self-determination the- ory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416-433). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305-323. Farmer, S. M., & Tierney, P. (2017). Considering creative self-efficacy: Its current state and ideas for future inquiry. In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The creative self (pp. 23-47). London, UK: Aca- demic Press. Fiol, C. M. (1995). Thought worlds colliding: The role of contradiction in corporate innovation processes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(4), 71- 90. Fisher, C. M., & Amabile, T. (2009). Creativity, improvisa- tion and organizations. In T. Rickards, M. A. Run- co, & S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativity, (pp.13-24). New York, NY: Routledge. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: The renewal of organizational capability. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 123-144. Franklin, G. M. (2015). Basic skills deficiencies at work: Perceptions of small and large employers. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 4(1), 73-78. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theo- ry and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regres- sion analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdis- persed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 392-404. 83 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of lead- er-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219- 247. Harris, M. L., Gibson, S. G., & McDowell, W. C. (2014). The impact of strategic focus and previous business experience on small business performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 24(1), 29-44. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ho, V. T., & Pollack, J. M. (2014). Passion isn’t always a good thing: Examining entrepreneurs’ network cen- trality and financial performance with a dualistic model of passion. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 433-459. Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & Clohessy, G. R. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical look at individual characteristics, context, and process. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 40-54. Hornsby, J. S., Holt, D. T., & Kuratko, D. F. (2008). The dynamic nature of corporate entrepreneurship con- structs: Assessing the CEAI. Academy of Manage- ment Proceedings, 2008(1) 1-6. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1999). Perception of internal factors for corporate entre- preneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 11-26. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Mid- dle managers’ perception of the internal environ- ment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273. Hoy, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). Entrepreneurial family firms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and productivity in American corporations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Klaukien, A., Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2013). Pas- sion for work, nonwork-related excitement, and in- novation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities. Journal of Product Innovation Man- agement, 30(3), 574-588. Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The aha! moment: The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210-216. Krueger Jr., N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneur- ial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104. Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S. (1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instru- ment for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 49-58. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assess- ment through scale development. Journal of Man- agement, 24(1), 43-72. Liu, D., Chen, X. P., & Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel investigation of the mediat- ing role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 294-309. Lumpkin, G. T., Hills, G. E., & Shrader, R. C. (2004). Op- portunity recognition: A CEAE white paper. Uni- versity of Illinois at Chicago. Maes, J., & Sels, L. (2014). SMEs’ radical product innova- tion: The role of internally and externally oriented knowledge capabilities. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(1), 141-163. Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M.A. K., Parker, P., Morin, A. J. S., Carbonneau, N., Jowett, S., Bu- reau, J. S., Fernet, C., Guay, F., Abdulijabbar, A. S., & Paquet, Y. (2013). Passion: Does one scale fit all? Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796-809. McFadden, D. (1978). Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent devel- opments. In D. A. Hensher & P. R. Stopher (Eds.), Behavioural travel modelling (pp. 279-318). Lon- don,UK: Croom Helm. Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E., & Cardon, M. S. (2014). Pathways of passion identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1583-1606. Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). In- bound open innovation activities in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283-309. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative anal- ysis of organizations. American Sociological Re- view, 32(2), 194-208. Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. L. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197-205. Prajogo, D., & McDermott, C. M. (2014). Antecedents of service innovation in SMEs: Comparing the effects of external and internal factors. Journal of Small 84 M. T. Schenkel, S. Farmer. J. M. Maslyn Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 29, No. 1 (2019) / 71-84 Business Management, 52(3), 521-540. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resa- mpling strategies for assessing and comparing indi- rect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. Randøy, T., & Goel, S. (2003). Ownership structure, founder leadership, and performance in Norwegian SMEs: Implications for financing entrepreneurial opportu- nities. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 619- 637. Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and perfor- mance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441-457. Rutherford, M. W., & Holt, D. T. (2007). Corporate entre- preneurship: An empirical look at the innovative- ness dimension and its antecedents. Journal of Or- ganizational Change Management, 20(3), 429-446. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theo- ry and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psycholo- gist, 55(1), 68-78. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: To- ward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Man- agement Review, 26(2), 243-263. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test sta- tistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Wye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), La- tent variables analysis: Applications for develop- mental research (pp. 399-419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schenkel, M. T., Yoo, S. S., & Kim, J. (2016). Not all cre- ated equal: Examining the impact of birth order and role identity among descendant CEO sons on family firm performance. Family Business Review, 29(4), 380-400. Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23- 45. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, qua- dratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Re- search Methods, 13(3), 456-476. Strese, S., Keller, M., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2018). CEOs’ passion for inventing and radical innova- tions in SMEs: The moderating effect of shared vision. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(3), 435-452. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to cre- ative performance. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 45(6), 1137-1148. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432. Vallerand, R. J. (2010). On passion for life activities: The dualistic model of passion. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 42, pp. 97-193). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Vallerand, R. J. (2015). The psychology of passion: A du- alistic model. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Vallerand, R. J., & Houlfort, N. (2003). Passion at work. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on values in organi- zations (pp. 175-204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Incorporated. Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Marso- lais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’Âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85(4), 756-767. Vallerand, R. J., & Miquelon, P. (2007). Passion for sport in athletes. In S. Jowett & D. Lavalle´ (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 249–263). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vallerand, R. J., Paquet, Y., Philippe, F. L., & Charest, J. (2010). On the role of passion for work in burn- out: A process model. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 289-312. Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 35-47. Wolff, J. A., & Pett, T. L. (2006). Small‐firm performance: Modeling the role of product and process improve- ments. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 268-284. Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2013). Revisiting the functional properties of self-efficacy a dynamic perspective. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1385-1396. Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corpo- rate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 23(3), 169-189. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motiva- tion, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.