1Foba.indd


It is common wisdom that technological advances in the fields 
of communication such as digitalization, satellite transmission, 
and intercontinental transport have, over the past two decades, 
facilitated the trend towards globalization. Slabbert et al (2003:2-
20) concur that one of the consequences of globalisation, with 
markets no longer limited to specific geographic regions, products 
no longer specific to single buying or geographic populations, 
and with most businesses avariciously pursuing the global market, 
has been an increasing demand for competitiveness within 
organisations. A further consequence is that organisations are 
faced with constraints on available resources, both human and 
capital, as the need for innovation, quality and competencies 
is amplified in endeavours for competitive advantage and 
compliance with customer requirements. 

Globalisation and its consequential outcomes have had 
an inordinate impact on the world of work. One of the 
consequences has been a trend toward virtual employment 
where technologically complex cell phones, wireless connected 
laptop computers, and air travel possibilities have enabled 
employees to communicate and interact globally. This, in turn, 
facilitated the servicing of national and international customers 
and markets. Slabbert et al (2003:2-20) support this view, 
pointing out that technological developments and progress 
over the past few years have changed the way in which work is 
done and organised as the world moves towards virtual offices, 
workers and organisations. 

Another development flowing from globalisation is the demise 
of the traditional production environment and the growth 
of value added economic activities. This in turn has led to 
questions about the continued viability of the traditional 
basis of employment. Traditionally, management consisted of 
instructing the employee about what work had to be done, how 
it had to be done and when it had to be done, but in the new 
world of work, innovation, creativity, proactiveness, initiative, 
risk taking, personal decision making, flexibility and mobility 
dictate success. Thus, the traditional employment relationship 
and management style may no longer be feasible. 

Finally, changes in work place and work method have raised 
questions about the continued feasibility of traditional 
performance measurement systems and approaches. As a result, 
alternatives to the traditional human characteristic or performance 
measure based approaches have been sought. New approaches to 
performance management have been suggested by academics such 
as Norton and Kaplan (2005), and later Rampersad (2003), who 
created the various Balanced Score Card methodologies. 

This deviation indicating recognition of the need for a new 
approach to performance measurement and represents the first 
steps in the direction of addressing the dynamics of the new 
world of work. However, the conceptual leap to recognising the 
increasingly important role of intrapreneurship in the corporate 
environment and the need to be able to measure the intrapreneurial 
behaviour as a part of the new management dynamics of the global 
business environment had not yet been made.

Intrapreneurship 
Economists have long recognised the role of entrepreneurial 
initiative as a generator of greater economic activity and its 
value in sustaining economic stability, usually outside of the 
traditional production based environment. Audretsch (2004) 
declares that entrepreneurship is the engine of economic 
and social development throughout the world. Antoncic and 
Hisrich (2003) state that the initial research into, and view of 
entrepreneurship focused on the initiatives taken by individuals 
with regard to new business venture creation. They espouse the 
view that, whereas entrepreneurship gives life to small businesses 
and individual enterprises, the so-called ‘knock-on effect’ is that 
these small businesses often grow into large production based 
corporations. Little research has, however, been done on the 
role of entrepreneurship, or rather intrapreneurship, within the 
already existing large corporates. Equally little research exists 
with regard to the interface between entrepreneurship and the 
emerging corporates that are value-added based rather than 
production based and which increasingly have to maintain their 
competitiveness in the global environment.

A new economic paradigm recognises that, while there is a need 
for new entrepreneurs to emerge and generate new economic 
activity which will eventually develop into larger businesses, 
thereby generating capital growth and employment opportunities, 
a substantial need also exists for entrepreneurship within the 
new knowledge-based, value-added business organizations of the 
global economic environment. 

Antoncic and Hisrich (2003) recognise this development and 
point out that economists are now increasingly transferring their 
attention to the role and contribution of entrepreneurs within 
the larger organisation. They refer to these as “intrapreneurs”, 
emphasising that it is characteristic of the intrapreneur to 
behave as an entrepreneur and recognising entrepreneurs 
according to their economic behaviour. Kuratko et al (2001) 
concur that entrepreneurship should in future include acts of 
creation, renewal or innovation with regard to economic or 
business activities that occur within or outside an organisation, 

THABO WL FOBA
Vuyani @mweb.co.za

DAWIE DE VILLIERS
Department of Human Resource Management

University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using the dynamics of intrapreneurship to develop a new 
generation performance management model based on the structural dynamics of the Balanced Score Card approach.  
The literature survey covered entrepreneurship, from which the construct, intrapreneurship, was synthesized.  
Reconstructive logic and Hermeneutic methodology were used in studying the performance management systems 
and the Balanced Score Card approach.  The dynamics were then integrated into a new approach for the management 
of performance of intrapreneurial employees in the corporate environment.  An unstructured opinion survey 
followed: a sample of intrapreneurship students evaluated and validated the model’s conceptual feasibility and 
probable practical value.

Key words:  Intrapreneurship, performance management

THE INTEGRATION OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP INTO A 
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL 

1

SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 2007, 5 (2), 1-8
SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 2007, 5 (2), 1-8



as well as activities that take place in an established organisations 
and that they describe these as corporate entrepreneurship or 
intrapreneurship. 

Relevant research and publications reveal a common finding 
that there are four primary characteristics which identif y 
entrepreneurship, and mutatis mutandis also intrapreneurship. 
These characteristics are: (1) corporate or new business 
venturing, (2) proactiveness, (3) self renewal or transformation 
and (4) competitive aggressiveness. In addition it has been 
become common cause that there are a further five secondary 
characteristics that can be found in most, if not all, intrapreneurs. 
These are (1) strategy, (2) innovativeness, (3) autonomy, (4) risk-
taking, and (5) team-building. 

The classification of primary and secondary characteristics 
is fairly arbitrary and, for purposes of this study, all nine of 
these characteristics were used as a set of common variables 
for the integration into an envisaged conceptual model for the 
management of intrapreneurial performance. It was obvious that 
these nine variables would be the critical items to be ‘measured’ 
or evaluated when intrapreneurial behaviour in organisations is 
evaluated.

In addition to the above mentioned nine variables, research has 
identified that there are a number of organisational dynamics that, 
although they cannot in any way be classified as intrapreneurial 
characteristics, but which in fact facilitate, promote and enhance 
intrapreneurial behaviour. It has been suggested that these factors 
actually ‘enable’ the exercise of intrapreneurial behaviours in 
the corporate environment, and must therefore also be taken 
into account when intrapreneurial behaviour in organisations 
is evaluated. For the purposes of this investigation these factors 
have, therefore, been classified as ‘enablers’. They are: vision, 
mission, objectives, strategy, culture, structure, risk-taking, team 
work, autonomy, employee involvement, processes, resources, 
reward systems, competitiveness, innovativeness, proactiveness, 
and learning. 

Performance Management
Traditionally performance management in production based 
organisations could readily be achieved by first identif ying 
critical performance variables such as the number of units 
of productions, and simply evaluating the achievement of 
certain production output against a predetermined standard or 
benchmark. Another approach to performance management in 
the traditional environment is the evaluation of the degree to 
which employees respond positively to the direct supervision by 
their managers, where they are required to carry out instructions 
meticulously and closely adhere to prescribed operational 
methodology.

The management of performance in the knowledge based 
organisations however differs from that of traditional organisations 
in that competitiveness and responsiveness to client needs are 
critical considerations. Templer (2000) suggests that the output 
of intrapreneurs in knowledge-based competitive organisations 
can probably not be measured in units of production or 
employee response to prescription in terms of instruction, but 
will have to be assessed in terms of added value outputs. It is 
almost axiomatic that value added outputs are exceptionally 
difficult to measure accurately. Performance management will 
therefore undoubtedly become a critically important challenge 
facing management as organisations transform into knowledge-
based global organisations. It is safe to deduce that a re-
engineered approach to performance management has already 
become essential to facilitate the management of employees in 
the globally competitive environment. 

This assumption regarding the critical need for transformation 
in the approach to performance management in ‘new age’ 
organisations is exacerbated by the paradigm of a ‘roving, 
virtual’ operator, working from a virtual office, whose work 

performance can be judged only by his or her value added 
‘outputs’ which are often not really quantifiable in the short 
term. This begs the question regarding the viability of direct 
supervision and control. It further suggests that a totally fresh 
view of, and approach to, performance management is an 
imperative. 

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Approach
In contemporary qualitative research the trend is that researchers 
clarif y their scientific beliefs and values prior to deciding on 
the research design. Accordingly, it is prudent to reflect on the 
ontological and epistemic rationale, which underpinned the 
study.

Scientific Values
Ontology refers to a person’s views on the nature of things in 
the social world (Schurink, 2004). According to Bryman (2004: 
19) ontological assumptions and commitments shape the ways 
in which research questions are formulated and the research is 
carried out. The views of a group of students and academics, 
who tested the veracity of the model created as a consequence 
of this study, shaped the social reality about intrapreneurial 
principles and the performance management as well as reflected 
the ontological context of the study. 

Epistemology refers to what a person regards as knowledge 
or evidence of things in the social world (Schurink, 2004). 
With reference to this study, document analysis, unstructured 
questionnaires were used to capture the social views and 
experiences of the authors, students and academics. Their 
knowledge, experience and perceptions on the concepts 
of entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship and performance 
management therefore provided an epistemological basis for 
developing new theories and models for the study. Having 
reflected on the ontological and epistemic rationale underpinning 
the study, it is therefore prudent to present a synopsis on the 
research approach.

As the intention of the study was to build a conceptual model, 
the definition of what constitutes a model, needed to be 
defined. Mouton (1996: 196) stresses that the key issue to bear 
in mind when either studying or using models is that they do 
not purport to be anything more than partial representations of 
given phenomena. In this study this description of a “model” 
was adopted as the intention was to provide a representation of 
what constitutes intrapreneurship, as well as a model depicting 
a typical intrapreneurial performance management system.

The research was guided by the reconstructive logic process, 
when constructing the envisaged conceptual model. Literature 
was used in reconstructing two concepts in order to integrate 
them using an inductive logical reasoning process that is 
contained in the hermeneutic methodology proposed inter 
alia by Neuman (2003: 140). The methodology employed in 
gathering and interpreting the data for this study is described 
below. 

Research Methodology
The premise from which this investigation departed with 
regard to the methodology employed was that generally, 
methodological reasoning dictates that: (1) where there is little 
or insufficient literature on the subject being investigated, an 
empirical examination would be required in order to generate 
the necessary data; and (2) conversely, where a mass of data 
already exists, an ‘interpretive analysis’ may be utilised to 
synthesize the common knowledge generated by this mass of 
data, to clarif y the actual common meaning or discover new 
meanings of constructs, or some ‘reconstructive logic’ may be 
used to generate new constructs. 

FOBA, DE VILIIERS2



The availability of extensive literature and research reports on 
the constructs, intrapreneurship and performance management, 
facilitated the choice of the interpretive methodology which 
was suggested for the first phase of the study. The intention 
of the first phase of the study was to conduct a literature 
survey on the above constructs and synthesise the data to 
generate new understanding and reconstructive logic to create 
a new construct which would lead to the emergence of a 
conceptual model. The second phase would test the veracity 
of the conceptual model in terms of its validity, theoretical 
or academic value and practical value, by soliciting nominal 
data by means of an opinion survey of a sample of relevant 
respondents. The methodology employed for the two phases of 
the study is explained below. 

Phase One
The data for Phase One, which formed the main body of 
this investigation, mainly comprised literature and research 
publications dated between 1998 and 2007, on the constructs; 
intrapreneurship and performance management. It was assumed 
that such articles would provide the most developed and recent 
data, particularly on intrapreneurship. 

Sample
The sample, from which the data of Phase One was solicited, 
constituted all the authors of all the publications on the 
subject of entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and performance 
management, which was relied on in the interpretive analysis. 

An extensive literature survey was conducted on literature, books 
and periodicals and on academic as well as research library bases 
on the internet, regarding the constructs intrapreneurship and 
performance management, in terms of the prescribed dates 
(between 1998 and 2007). The data derived from the publications 
from the internet library bases was down-loaded and read. 
Only the data which was extracted from the publications was 
referenced in this research report. These were mainly publications 
which best summarised the required data or presented them in a 
manner that facilitated a better integration of opinions and facts 
or the discovery of new knowledge.

Data Collection
As this phase of the investigation relied on the available literature 
to extract data from publications, the literature survey method 
was employed. According to Neuman (2000: 33) every researcher 
collects data using one or more techniques. The techniques 
may be grouped into two categories: quantitative methodology, 
which involves the collection of data in the form of numbers, 
and qualitative, which refers to the collection of data in the form 
of words or pictures.

This phase of the investigation utilised the qualitative method of 
collecting data. This was done by means of identif ying academic 
and research bases on the internet, downloading the extracted 
data and storing them in marked files, which were categorised 
according to the constructs entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship 
and performance management. The collection of the above data 
led to the analysis, which is explained below.

Data Analysis
The analysis of the data for Phase One of this study was guided 
by the opinions expressed by Neuman (2003) and Schwandt 
(2003).

According to Neuman (2003: 76), documentary or text analysis 
is ordinarily interpretive, as its objective is to seek to extract 
meaning from the text. This interpretive approach often typifies 
a qualitative method of research. As the intention of the study 
was to interpret the published opinion and research findings 
of previous authors on intrapreneurship and performance 
management, the hermeneutic methodology, was felt to be best 
suitable, as its analysis is meant to discover meaning or explain 
a lot of discrete but interrelated data.

Neuman (2003:76) describes hermeneutics as a methodology 
which “emphasises a detailed reading or examination of 
text, which could refer to a conversation, written words or 
pictures”. According to Neuman, a researcher conducts a 
reading to discover meaning embedded within text. Each 
reader brings his or her subjective experience to the text. 
When studying the text, the researcher/reader tries to absorb 
or ‘get inside’, to adopt the viewpoint that it presents as a 
whole, and develops a deep understanding of how its parts 
relate to the whole. True meaning is rarely simple or obvious 
on the surface; one reaches it through a detailed study of 
the text, contemplating its many messages and seeking the 
connections through its parts.

This investigation was guided by the criteria recommended 
by Madison (1990) and adapted by Whittaker (2001) for 
using the hermeneutics methodology. Madison developed 
his principle for the purpose of the validation of a specific 
text. Whittaker (2001) adapted these principles for the 
purpose of working with a multit ude of texts from a 
multitude of authors. As this study focuses on a multitude 
of texts from various authors, these criteria seemed the most 
appropriate. The guiding principles that Madison lists are: 
coherence, comprehensiveness, penetration, thoroughness, 
appropriateness, contextuality, agreement, suggestiveness and 
potential (Madison, 1990). 

Phase Two 
It was anticipated, through a structured research methodology 
utilised in the main body of this investigation that the 
interpretation of data in Phase One would yield data in the 
form of a conceptual model that would have to be validated. 
Accordingly, it was decided that an unstructured opinion 
survey methodology, be utilised on data solicited from sample 
of respondents who were exposed to entrepreneurial projects 
and studies, would also yield findings that could confirm the 
veracity of the conceptual model. 

Sample
In order to test the veracity of the conceptual model it  
was felt that such test would have to be conducted by a  
sample of highly credible respondents. The appropriate 
sample was found amongst a group of 21 students and 
academics from the Faculty of Economics and Management 
Sciences at the University of Western Cape, in South Africa, 
who were involved in entrepreneurial studies and projects 
under the guidance of their academic leaders and the 
auspices of the University. This group was selected because 
it was assumed that as they were involved in st udies 
and projects of entrepreneurship, they would have the  
academic understanding and the theoretical, as well as 
the practical, knowledge of entrepreneurship. Thus, their 
opinions would be relatively ‘valid’ and ‘reliable’. 

This sample could be regarded as a ‘representative sample’ 
because they are representative of a profile of students and 
academics of entrepreneurship within a University. 

Data Collection
The data for this second phase of the study was collected by 
means of unstructured questionnaires which were administered 
to a sample of students and researchers of entrepreneurship. 
According to Miller and Salkind (2002: 51), the collection of 
data is a crucial step in the execution of a good research design, 
because the quality of the research often rests upon the quality 
of the data 

The questionnaires solicited only nominal data, to test the 
veracity of the conceptual model which would emerge from the 
first phase of this study. Although the data are nominal, they are 
valuable in that they represent the valid and reliable opinions 
of a sample of respondents involved in entrepreneurial studies 
and projects.

INTRAPRENEURSHIP IN A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL 3



Data Analysis
In the analysis of the nominal data collected during the 
opinion survey, use was made, largely, of histograms, in order 
to determine the implications of the views of the respondents. 
According to Neuman (2000: 317), a histogram is a type of 
graphical representation of numerical data which may be 
nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio-level data. Neuman op cit., 
further explains that histograms are usually upright bar graphs 
of interval or ratio data.

The nominal data contained in the questionnaires was analysed 
by grouping them into 15 mutually exclusive categories in 
accordance with the questions on the questionnaires which 
had elicited various responses from the respondents. Twelve of 
the categorised questions related to an assessment whereby the 
respondents rated aspects of the conceptual model according to 
a scale of between 1 and 10, where 1 reflected a very low score 
and 10 represented a very high score. Three of the categorised 
questions solicited responses which gave a negative or positive 
answer to inquiries about some aspects of the conceptual model.

The responses to the twelve questions, which were in the form of 
raw scores, were then transcribed and converted to bar charts, in 
order to represent the ratings by the respondents. These ratings 
had to be above a score of 5, which is the median of the 10 point 
scale in order to reflect a high rating.

The responses to the three questions were also computed as 
above and translated into bar charts which, based on the median, 
which was 10.5, of the total number of respondents, which was 
21. To represent a high rating, the responses had to be at 10.5 
or above. All the graphs were consolidated into a finding that 
reflected a validation of the model. 

RESULTS/FINDINGS

The qualitative analysis of the data in phase one of the study, 
yielded the following findings:
l The resultant demands of globalisation have exerted pressure 

on organisations to attract, employ, develop and retain the 
calibre of employee who thinks and acts like an entrepreneur. 

l The need for entrepreneurial employees has generated 
significant interest in the construct, intrapreneurship which 
has developed as a corollary of entrepreneurship.

l Whereas authors agree that there are four key dimensions of 
intrapreneurship, this study revealed 5 additional dimensions 
which are characteristics of intrapreneurship. 

l The current performance management systems are not 
suitable for or effective in managing the calibre of employee 
required for globally competitive organisations.

l Although the current performance management systems 
were found to have deficiencies that make them unsuitable 
for measuring intrapreneurship, as it was established that 
the Balanced Scorecard created by Norton and Kaplan (1995) 
and the Total Performance Scorecard created by Rampersad 
(2003) provided the most suitable (operational) frameworks 
that could be adapted in order to be integrated with 
intrapreneurship. 

l The key finding of the study is the development of a new 
generation score card for the management of intrapreneurship, 
which is referred to in this research as the Intrapreneurial 
Performance Management Model (IPMM). 

The findings of the opinion survey, conducted in phase two, are 
that; the majority of the respondents felt that:
1. The researcher had identified all the dimensions of 

intrapreneurship and was correct in differentiating between 
the true dimensions or characteristics of an intrapreneur and 
the enablers of intrapreneurship. 

2. The approach of the score card measurement is most 
appropriate for the measurement of intrapreneurship and 
such approach is of a high value.

3. The conceptual model is highly valid and is of high academic 
value.

4. They strongly supported the validity of the proposed 
conceptual model and felt that it would provide a theoretical 
and practical value. 

5. The weighting of the raw scores is highly valid and that these 
weightings provide a theoretical and practical value.

6. The proposed empirical testing of the conceptual model 
would be of high theoretical and academic value.

The above-mentioned findings are discussed in detail below.

DISCUSSION

The analysis of the theory and literature with regard to the 
construct and content of the concept of entrepreneurship, and 
thereafter of the emerging concept of intrapreneurship, confirmed 
that the need for organisations to respond to the requirements of 
globalisation to produce innovative and competitive products or 
services to be able to remain competitive and viable, has exerted 
pressure on them to attract, employ, develop and retain the 
calibre of employee who thinks and acts like an entrepreneur. 

The interpretive analysis revealed that this is because entrepreneurs, 
and in the context of this study also intrapreneurs, generally 
respond to demands and situations by finding innovative solutions 
to problems, optimising available resources and ensuring more 
innovative utilisation of resources. Entrepreneurs do this, inter 
alia, by being innovative, proactive, taking risks, interpreting 
and exploring new business opportunities and conceiving new 
combinations of existing resources (see Yamada, 2004). 

The study revealed that the pursuit of entrepreneurial orientation 
and behaviour within organisations has generated considerable 
interest and has been a subject of research over the past two 
decades, resulting in the adoption and development of a construct 
which has become known or referred to as intrapreneurship. 

This development of a new construct for the understanding of 
human behaviour in the work environment, is the result of the 
recognition that traditionally the term ‘entrepreneur’ refers to a 
person who embarks on a new business venture for his or her 
own account, usually through the establishing of a small (often 
one-man) business, which may or may not over time develop 
into a larger corporate. This realisation identified the needs for a 
new theoretical construct called ‘intrapreneur’ to identif y those 
employees who demonstrate entrepreneurial behaviour in the 
corporate environment.

The study further concludes that the promotion and pursuance 
of intrapreneurship, the new management construct which 
evolved as the corporate corollary of the commonly held 
business economics concept of entrepreneurship, suggests a 
certain pattern of behaviour on the part of the employee in 
the corporate environment to the execution of his or her tasks. 
This also applies in his or her attitude towards his work such as, 
being proactive, innovative and being risk prone, which have 
emerged as key organisational strategies that positively impact 
the demands of innovation and competitiveness in the emerging 
global economic environment. 

The above mentioned finding is supported by Antoncic and Hisrich 
(2003) who refer to intrapreneurship as “…entrepreneurship 
within an existing business organization…” thereby referring 
to emergent behaviours in an organization that are related 
to departures from the customary organisational behaviour 
patterns. Taylor (2001) concurs that if companies are to survive 
and succeed, management teams in large companies need to act 
more like individual entrepreneurs. 

Relying on the research of a large number of authors and 
researchers the study concludes that the definition of 
intrapreneurship is most practical in terms of what these authors 

FOBA, DE VILIIERS4



and researchers refer to as the ‘dimensions of intrapreneurship’. 
This definition of the construct in terms of certain dimensions 
has been described by many researchers, inter alia Yamada 
(2004), as the “…functional view…” of entrepreneurship. It 
is this functional view that was used in this study for the 
purpose of explaining the nature and content of the construct 
‘intrapreneurship’.

In addition, the study determined that most authors agree that 
there are four ‘key’ or ‘primary’ dimensions of intrapreneurship, 
namely (1) corporate or new business venturing, (2) 
proactiveness, (3) self-renewal or transformation and (4) 
competitive aggressiveness. An in depth analysis of the literature 
revealed, however, that in addition to the above mentioned four 
dimensions, the following characteristics of the entrepreneur 
should also be included as dimensions of intrapreneurship, 
namely (1) strategy, (2) innovativeness, (3) autonomy, (4) risk-
taking, and (5) team-building. 

The veracity of this finding of the necessity to expand the 
dimensions of intrapreneurship to a total of nine, is supported 
by the research findings of inter alia Antoncic (2000) and Goosen 
(2002) who concluded that the construct intrapreneurship 
comprises of dimensions which exceed the commonly accepted 
four ‘key’ or ‘primary’ dimensions. 

Having determined the nature and dimensions of the construct, 
the study further established that these dimensions have to be 
allowed proper and practical expression, for intrapreneurship to 
succeed within organisations. It was found that these dimensions, 
when allowed proper expression within organisations, translate 
into a different form, and in that way, play the role of ‘facilitating’ 
or ‘enabling’ the dimensions to be effective. It was determined 
that the practical effect of intrapreneurship within organisations 
could be achieved by isolating or identif ying these translated 
dimensions, and referring to them as the “enablers of the (true) 
dimensions” of intrapreneurship. 

The significance of these findings is that the researcher was able, 
in his analysis of the construct intrapreneurship, to:
l identif y and define the following key variables which facilitate 

or enable the practice of intrapreneurship. 
l identif y these enablers as being the following: vision, 

mission, objectives, strategy, culture, structure, risk-taking, 
team work, autonomy, employee involvement, processes, 
resources, reward systems, competitiveness, innovativeness, 
proactiveness, and learning. 

l synthesize the dimensions and the enablers into a 
conceptual model for the measurement of the behaviour 
of entrepreneurial employees in a corporate environment. 
Clearly the benefit for the organisations of having such an 
instrument is that, they will be able to structure themselves 
in accordance with the conceptual model should they intend 
to achieve competitiveness;

l identif y and define the following key variables which 
characterise an intrapreneurial employee being innovativeness, 
proactiveness, autonomy, commitment, risk-taking, 
competence and ability to learn or being trained.

The importance of the findings mentioned above is that 
organisations will be able to: 
l create environments which are conducive for intrapreneurial 

behaviour and activities, as the models tabulate the variables 
which characterise the dimensions of intrapreneurship and 
their enablers; 

l enhance the selection of employees for intrapreneurial 
programmes as the models specif y the attributes of an 
intrapreneurial employee.

These findings have considerably enhanced the understanding of 
the dynamics of intrapreneurship and through highlighting the 
deficiencies of the traditional and contemporary performance 
management systems, confirm that an unequivocal necessity 

exists for research into the need for a next generation of 
performance management systems that would enable or enhance 
the management of intrapreneurs and the measurement of 
intrapreneurial behaviour.

The study concludes that the proven deficiencies of current 
performance management systems, are not suitable for or effective 
in managing the calibre of employee required for globally 
competitive organisations even more so with the demands 
of the new world of work. This applies to even more recently 
developed approaches to performance management such as the 
Total Performance Scorecard developed by Rampersad (2003). 

Although the current performance management systems were 
found to have deficiencies that make them unsuitable for 
measuring intrapreneurship, it was established that the Balanced 
Scorecard created by Norton and Kaplan (1995) and the Total 
Performance Scorecard created by Rampersad (2003) provided 
the most suitable (operational) frameworks that could be 
adapted in order to be integrated with intrapreneurship. 

Their scorecard approach differs from the earlier or more 
traditional approaches in that they include the key aspects of 
organisational performance in addition to the performance 
criteria for individual employees for the measurement of 
performance in that their approach to performance management 
is much more ‘holistic’ than earlier approaches. The score 
card approach was therefore found to be the most suitable or 
appropriate for integrating the dimensions of intrapreneurship, 
as all aspects of organisational functioning should embrace 
intrapreneurship if innovation and competitiveness were to be 
achieved.

This discovery facilitated the synthesis of the dimensions 
and enablers of intrapreneurship into a list of variables to be 
used in a new measuring instrument based on the conceptual 
structure of the above mentioned scorecard system. This led 
to the development of a new generation score card, which 
will henceforth be referred to in this research report as the 
Intrapreneurial Performance Management Model (IPMM). 

This model was developed as a conceptual model only as it 
had not been based on empirical evidence. Obviously, for the 
new model to gain practical value and usage it will need to be 
subjected to empirical investigation in order to determine the 
comparative statistical or arithmetic values for the variables, as 
well as the correlation dynamics of the variables in the model.

This conceptual model is meant, therefore to provide a 
theoretical and scientific conceptualization of the integration 
of the said variables into the score card structures. The intention 
is to contribute a research framework for future empirical 
research into the practical measurement of intrapreneurial 
behaviour within organizations, as well as the extent to which 
organizations facilitate, support and promote intrapreneurial 
behaviour. As the model is a consequence of the consolidation of 
in depth literature analysis, it is further intended to contribute 
to the theoretical expansion of the construct as its findings may 
trigger additional need for further research on the construct.

From the interpretive analysis of the dynamics of intrapreneurship 
it was also found that variables, both the intrapreneurial 
dimensions and the enablers, will of necessity have different 
values (in relation to each other) in different situations, and 
for different types of organization, in terms of technology, 
markets, products and processes. Consequently it was found 
that the Intrapreneurial Performance Management Model will 
of necessity have to be a ‘situational model,’ in that it is not 
intended to be generalized but to be adapted to suit variant 
organisational sizes, industries, and technological bases. 

The basic premise from which the research departs is that, while 
the founding construct is universally applicable, the model will 
in practice have to be adapted to accommodate the varying 

INTRAPRENEURSHIP IN A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL 5



dynamics of different technologies and operating systems, 
varying complexities created by size and structure, culture, 
climate, and the impact of market differences, supplier bases 
and resource availability. The study also determined that for the 
model to be successful, it has to function primarily through four 
separate and discrete (subordinate) score cards, each dealing with 
a different component of the organisational system. Each would 
eventually have to be integrated into an overall (super-ordinate) 
score card measuring instrument, that will measure or evaluate 
the complete organisational system with the view to determining 
its’ viability for competitiveness and survival in the new world 
of work. The four subordinate scorecards are listed below: 
1. organisational score card, 
2. employee score card, 
3. client score card and 
4. supplier score card. 

The above score cards were designed to measure the expression 
of the nine dimensions of intrapreneurship together with their 
enablers. 

The study determined that to ensure the structural feasibility of 
the conceptual model and also to create an operational framework 
against which further empirical research aimed at determining 
the empirical values of the conceptual model as a measuring 
instrument could be developed, use of the criteria (a) what to 
measure, and (b) how to measure, would considerably enhance 
the structural dynamics of the model. Using these criteria, the 
model will theoretically be able to ‘measure’ variables which 
determine the intrapreneurial capacity of the organisation. The 
consequential benefit of using the model and its measuring 
instruments or criteria is that, organisations may, based, on the 
outcome of the measure (through the model) devise strategies 
for improvement in order to achieve competitiveness. 

It was further determined that, the evaluation of the performance 
of the employee and that of the organisation, in terms of the 
above stated criteria of the model would have to be done by 
means of a Likert-type 5-point rating scale. The Likert rating 
scale is commonly acknowledged and applied in social sciences, 
because it allows the categorisation of the raw scores given by 
each assessor into intervals of sufficient size or scope to allow 
for adequate differentiation across a continuum from zero to 
100. As the Intrapreneurial Performance Management Model 
is a conceptual model, the ratings, will not be exact statistical 
intervals, but will rather be conceptual indications of the 
measures that can be applied. The actual statistical measures will 
have to be determined by means of an empirical investigation, 
and probably by means of the development of a properly 
researched stochastic or statistical model, once the veracity and 
viability of the conceptual model has been determined.

Another finding is that as the model is aimed primarily 
at measuring the expression of the nine dimensions of 
intrapreneurship, in order for it to function properly, it had 
to recognise the varying and complex nature in which these 
dimensions manifest themselves within an organisation. As a 
consequence it was established that such recognition could be 
achieved by differentiating between the true dimensions and 
their enablers, in each score card of the model. Furthermore, 
the study concludes that the recognition of the varying and 
complex nature of the manifestation of the dimensions and the 
differences in size, nature of operation and industry, required 
the provision of the weighting of the scores resulting from the 
measuring instruments of the scorecards. 

The concept of weighting is used in scientific methodological 
language to refer to a process of translating ‘absolute raw 
scores’ into ‘relative weighted scores.’ This is done to ensure 
that a comparator, or basis of equivalent comparisons, can be 
established: ‘to compare apples with apples’. Weighting can also 
be referred to as a process of translating raw scores which are 
not comparable to comparable values. Owing to the variance in 

the relative value of each of the dimensions and their enablers 
in the respective score cards, it was found that weighting would 
then provide a fair measure of comparability. 

Once the isolation and differentiation of dimensions and 
enablers was achieved, it was found that the consolidation of 
the measuring instruments on the conceptual model could be 
achieved by referring to all the dimensions and enablers as 
‘variables’. This would facilitate the application of the model 
as all the measuring instruments would refer to each factor 
requiring measurement, as a variable as a variable.

The significance of the Intrapreneurial Performance Management 
Model is that it is able to integrate the measurement of 
intrapreneurship and organisational performance, including 
that of employees, into a single measuring framework. The value 
for organisations is that they will be able to conduct analysis of 
all the components of their business in a structured manner. 
The results of such measurement would determine the extent 
to which organisations have the capacity to respond to the 
requirements of globalisation.

The conceptual nature of the model was found to pose some 
challenges as, although it is based on extensive literature review 
of the construct intrapreneurship, its measuring instruments 
and ratings are not exact statistical measures or intervals, but 
rather conceptual indications of the measures that can be 
applied. It would therefore have to be subjected to an empirical 
investigation in order to determine the veracity of its values. 

Although the model which has emerged from this study is a 
conceptual one, a questionnaire was developed to elicit the 
opinion of a sample of respondents. The aim was to determine 
the functionality and feasibility of the model in so far as its 
academic and theoretical value, practical value and the value of 
its scorecards, proposed weighting of scores, and recommended 
empirical value can be determined. This questionnaire was 
administered to a sample of 21 respondents (comprising of 
academics and students of entrepreneurship) from the University 
of Western Cape, in South Africa. 

Value of the Study
In summary it can be stated that the study makes the following 
key contributions to the field of intrapreneurship, human 
resources management, and industrial psychology. 
1. Firstly, it consolidates various research findings and literature 

on the construct intrapreneurship and expands on the 
findings of previous studies on the construct by discovering 
additional dimensions that characterise intrapreneurship. 
This is despite previous propositions that intrapreneurship 
has four dimensions. The isolation of the dimensions and 
the enablers of intrapreneurship is a major contribution, as 
through the two conceptual models on intrapreneurship, 
it will: (i) enhance the identification and definition of the 
variables that characterise the true nature of intrapreneurship, 
and (ii) enhance the identification and definition of the 
variables which enable intrapreneurship by the employee or 
organisation.

2. A further contribution is the developing of two conceptual 
models of intrapreneurship that depict the dimensions of 
intrapreneurship and characteristics of an intrapreneurial 
organisation as well as those of an employee. These models 
will contribute towards further studies on the development 
of the construct, as through the variables depicting the true 
dimensions and their enablers will provide the empirical basis 
for the extrapolation of the true value of these variables on 
intrapreneurship. 

3. The study has contributed towards enhancing the 
developments and future research on the efficacy of 
performance management by highlighting the deficiencies of 
the current performance management systems and the future 
challenges thereof within the context of the new world of 
work. 

FOBA, DE VILIIERS6



4. Finally, through the development of a conceptual performance 
management model, a sound scientific basis, albeit conceptual 
at this stage, has been provided for the measurement of 
intrapreneurship in the corporate environment in the new 
world of work. This will also provide a basis for further 
empirical research into determining the mathematical or 
arithmetic value of a measure of intrapreneurship and 
performance.

Recommendations
In light of the foregoing findings and limitations, it is the 
recommended that an empirical investigation be conducted to 
determine the true value of the measures of the Intrapreneurial 
Performance Management Model. In addition, future research 
on the application and true value of the measures of the 
model should recognise the differences in the values of the 
dimensions of intrapreneurship and attempt to determine the 
true or statistical value of those differences including that of 
weightings. 

It should be noted that any research conducted on the practical 
value of intrapreneurship, should first extrapolate its true 
characteristics and the variables which enhance its application 
within the organisation. These having been established, it 
would be imperative to determine empirically the value of those 
dimensions and their enablers within organisations. The human 
factor behind the success of intrapreneurial endeavours also 
needs to be further explored.

Furthermore it is recommended that once the values of the 
dimensions have been determined, the Conceptual Model 
should be tested to determine its theoretical/academic value and 
its practical value.

REFERENCES

Andersen, B., & Fagerhaug, T. (2002). Performance measurement 
explained: designing and implementing your state of the art 
system. Wisconsin: Quality Press.

Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (2005). Managing performance: 
Performance management in action. London: Chartered 
Institute of Personnel and Development House.

Audretsch, D.B. Sustaining innovation and growth: policy for 
entrepreneurship Industry and Innovation. Sydney: Sep 2004 
Vol.11, Iss.3; p.167.

Antoncic, B (2000) Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and 
an Integrative model Development. Unpublished PhD Thesis, 
Case Western Reserve University.

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. Intrapreneurship modelling in 
transition economies: A comparison of Slovenia and the 
United States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 
Norfolk: Apr 2000.Vol.5, Iss. 1; pg. 21. 

Antoncic, B., & R. D. Clarif ying the intrapreneurship concept. 
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Bradford: 
2003. Vol. 10, Iss. 1, p.7.

Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. Corporate entrepreneurship 
contingencies and organizational wealth creation. The 
Journal of Management Development. Bradford: 2004.Vol.23, 
Iss. 5/6; pg. 518. 

Barrett, H., Balloun, J.L., Weinsten, A. Marketing mix factors 
as moderators of the corporate entrepreneurship - business 
performance relationship - a multistage, multivariate analysis. 
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. Statesboro: Spring 
2000.Vol.8, Iss. 2; pg. 50.

Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T., Hedges, I. An integrated 
business improvement system (IBIS) for construction. 
Measuring Business Excellence. Bradford: 2005.Vol.9, Iss. 2; 
pg. 42, 14 pgs

Bititci, U. S., Mendibil, K., Martinez,V., & Albores, P. Measuring 
and managing performance in extended enterprises. 
International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 
Bradford: 2005.Vol.25, Iss. 3/4; pg. 333,21 pgs 

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for 
education. An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: 
Allyn & Bacon.

Bostjan A., Robert D Hisrich. Corporate entrepreneurship 
contingencies and organizational wealth creation. The 
Journal of Management Development. Bradford: 2004, Vol 23, 
Iss. 5/6 p.518.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Method. New York: Oxford 
University.

Busco, C., Frigo, M. L., Giovannoni, E., Riccaboni, A., & Scapens, 
R.W. Integrating global organizations through performance 
measurement systems. Strategic Finance. Montvale: Jan 2006.
Vol.87, Iss. 7; pg. 30. 

Coulson-Thomas, C. Individuals and enterprise: developing 
intrapreneurs for the new millennium. Industrial and 
Commercial Training Volume 31 Number 7 1999 pp. 258-261.

Crandon, D.S., & Merchant, K.A. Principles to Guide the 
Development and Use of Effective Performance Measures 
Performance Improvement. Silver Spring: Feb 2006.Vol.45, Iss. 
2; pg. 17,7pgs.

Christensen, K.S. Enabling intrapreneurship: the case of a 
knowledge-intensive industrial company. European Journal 
of Innovation Management Volume 8 Number 3 2005 pp. 
305-322.

Dehne, T.  The corporate culture and customer-inspired innovation. 
R & D. Highlands Ranch: May 2003. Vol. 45, Iss. 5; pg. 11.

De Waal, A.A. (2002). Quest for balance: The human element in 
performance management systems. New York: John Wiley & 
Sons.

Eesley, D.T., &  Longenecker, C.O. Gateways to Intrapreneurship 
Industrial Management. Norcross: Jan/Feb 2006.Vol.48, Iss. 
1; pg. 18. 

Echols, A. E., & Christopher P. Neck, C.P. The impact of behaviors 
and structure on corporate entrepreneurial success. Journal of 
Managerial Psychology. Bradford: 1998. Vol. 13, Iss. 1/2; pg. 38 

Equist, C., Hommen, L., & Mckelvey, M. (2001) Innovation and 
employment: Process versus product innovation: Massachusetts: 
Edward Elgas Publishing.

Fattal, T. Intrapreneurship at work. CMA Management. Hamilton: 
Nov 2003.Vol.77, Iss. 7; pg. 14.

Fitzsimmons, J.R., Douglas, E.J., Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. 
Intrapreneurship in Australian Firms. Journal of the Australian 
and New Zealand Academy of Management. Lindfield: 2005.
Vol.11, Iss. 1; pg. 17.

Goosen, C. J. (2002) Key factor intrapreneurship: The development of 
a systems model to facilitate the perpetuation of entrepreneurship 
in the larger South African Organisation Unpublished PhD 
Theses: University of Stellenbosch.

Graham, J. Developing a Performance-Based Culture. The Journal 
for Quality and Participation. Cincinnati: Spring 2004.Vol.27, 
Iss. 1; pg. 4-5.

Greco, S., Caggiano, C., & Ballon, M. ‘I was seduced by the new 
economy’. Inc. Boston: Feb 1999.Vol.21, Iss. 2; pg. 34.

Grogan, J. (2001). Workplace law. Cape Town: Juta.
Hale, R., & Whitlam, P. (2000) Powering up performance 

management: An integrated approach to getting the best from 
your people. Gower Publishing: Hampshire.

Hua Tan, K., Platts, K., & Noble, J. Building performance through 
in-process measurement: Toward an “indicative” scorecard 
for business excellence. International Journal of Productivity 
and Performance Management. Bradford: 2004.Vol.53, Iss. 
3/4;pg. 233.

Jacobs, H., & Kruger, S. (2001) Establishing an intrapreneurial 
orientation as strategy: a framework for implementation. Acto 
Commercii, Vol. 1

Kaplan. R. S., & Norton. D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Measures 
that drive performance. Har vard Business Review. July-August 
2005.

Kuratko, D .F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2004). Corporate Entrepreneurs 
or Rogue middle Managers? A framework for Ethical 
Corporate Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 55: 
13-30.

INTRAPRENEURSHIP IN A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MODEL 7



Kuratko, D. F.; & Hodgetts, R. M. (2004). Entrepreneurship: theory, 
process, and practice. Ohio: Thomson Learning.

Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., & Hornsby, J.S. Improving firm 
performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s 
corporate entrepreneurship strategy. The Academy of 
Management Executive. Briarcliff Manor: Nov 2001.Vol.15, 
Iss. 4; pg. 60.

Lawn, J. The Challenge of Intra-preneurship. Food Management. 
Cleveland: Oct 2005.Vol.40, Iss. 11; pg. 10.

Lawrie, G., Cobbold, I.,& John Marshall. Corporate performance 
management system in a devolved UK governmental 
organisation: A case study. International Journal of Productivity 
and Performance Management. Bradford: 2004. Vol.53, Iss. 
3/4; pg. 353.

lLewis, J., Wright, P.C., & Geroy, G.D. Managing human capital: 
The study of a self-managed group venturing into the digital 
economy. Management Decision. London: 2004.Vol.42, Iss. 
1/2; pg. 205. 

Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organisation. New York: Mc Graw-
Hill. 

Madison, G. B. (1990). The Hermeneutics of Postmodernity: Figures 
and Themes. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 

Manion, J. Enhancing career marketabilit y through 
intrapreneurship. Nursing Administration Quarterly. Frederick: 
Winter 2001.Vol.25, Iss. 2; pg. 5.

Meyer, M. W., (2002) Rethinking performance measurement: Beyond 
the balance scorecard. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press.

Michelle, C. Becoming an entrepreneur. The Canadian Nurse. 
Apr 2005.Vol.101, Iss. 4; pg. 14. 

Miller, D.C., & Salkind, N.J. (2002). Handbook of Research Design 
& Social Measurement. California: Sage Publications. 

Mouton, J (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van 
Schaik. 

Neuman, W.L (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and 
quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Neuman, W.L (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and 
quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

O’Leary-Collins, M. A powerful business model for  
capturing innovation. Management Ser vices. Enfield: Summer 
2005.Vol.49, Iss. 2; pg. 37, 3 pgs Partington, D. (2002). 
Essential skills for management research. London: Sage 
Publications.

Olmsted, L. Non-stop innovation Inc. Boston: Jul 2005.Vol.27, Iss. 
7; pg. 34.

Rampersad, H. K. (2003) Total Performance Scorecard: Redefining 
management to achieve performance with integrity. Amsterdam: 
Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rebecca, A. The relationship of vertical and horizontal 
individualism and collectivism to intrapreneurship and 
organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization 
Development Journal. Bradford: 1997.Vol.18, Iss. 4; pg. 179.

Robinson, M. The ten commandments of entrepreneurs. New 
Zealand Management. Auckland: Dec 2001.Vol.48, Iss.11; 
pg.95. 

Robson, I. Implementing a performance measurement system 
capable of creating a culture of high performance International 
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. Bradford: 
2005.Vol.54, Iss.1/2; pg.137. 

Rodgers, K. Stepping up performance management. Personnel 
Today. Sutton: Jun 7, 2005. pg. 20.

Russell, R.D. Developing A Process Model Of Intrapreneurial 
Systems: A Cognitive Mapping Approach. Entrepreneurship: 
Theory & Practice, 10422587, Spring99, Vol. 23, Issue 3.

Salavou, H. The concept of innovativeness: should we need to 
focus? European Journal of Innovation Management. Bradford: 
2004.Vol.7, Iss. 1; pg. 33 

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for 
business students. Ashford: Gosport.

Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. Triggering 
events, corporate entrepreneurship and the marketing 
function. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. Statesboro: 
Spring 2000.Vol.8, Iss. 2; pg. 18.

Schwandt, T.A. (2003). Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and 
constructionism. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). 
Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Shurink, W.J. (2004c). Lecture Three: Considerations when 
choosing a qualitative style of research. Introducing key 
features of an interpretive approach to social science. University 
of Johannesburg 27-28

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data; methods for 
analysing talk, text, and interaction. London: Sage Publications.

Slabbert, J.A., Prinsloo, J.J., Swanepoel, B.J., & Backer, W. (2003). 
Managing employment relations in South Africa. Durban: 
Butterworths.

Smith, M. Performance Management Methodology Business 
Credit. New York: Nov/Dec 2005.Vol.107, Iss.10; pg. 54.

Stevens, T. Idea dollars Industry Week. Cleveland: Feb 16, 1998.
Vol.247, Iss. 4; pg. 47.

Sundbo, J. Empowerment of employees in small and medium-
sized service firms. Employee Relations. Bradford: 1999.Vol.21, 
Iss. 2; pg. 105. 

Tangen, S. Improving the performance of a performance measure. 
Measuring Business Excellence. Bradford: 2005.Vol.9,Iss. 2; pg. 4.

Taylor, B. From corporate governance to corporate 
entrepreneurship. Journal of Change Management. London: 
Dec 2001.Vol.2, Iss. 2; pg. 128.

Templer, A. The HRM response to global changes in employment 
relationships. Management Research News. Patrington: 2000.
Vol.23, Iss.2-4. p 75.

Thompson, J.L. Innovation through people. Management 
Decision. London: 2004.Vol.42, Iss. 9; pg.1082.

Thornberry, N. E. Corporate entrepreneurship: Teaching 
managers to be entrepreneurs. The Journal of Management 
Development. Bradford: 2003.Vol.22, Iss.4; pg. 329.

Tosi, H.L., & Mero, N.P. (2003). The fundamentals of organisational 
behaviour: What managers need to know. Blackwell Publishing: 
Oxford.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resources Champions: The next agenda 
for adding value and delivering results. USA: Harvard Business 
School.

Verweire, K., & Van den Berghe (2004). Integrated performance 
management: New hype or new paradigm. London: Sage 
Publications 

Wade, D. & Recardo, R. (2001). Corporate performance management. 
Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Whittaker; L (2001) Information systems evaluation: A post 
dualist interpretation. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University 
of Pretoria.

Williams, K. How Does Your Company Measure Performance? 
Strategic Finance. Montvale: Dec 2004. Vol. 86, Iss. 6; pg. 17. 

Wilkes, J. Leading and lagging practices in performance 
management. Measuring Business Excellence. Bradford: 2005.
Vol.9, Iss.3; pg. 41.

Williams, R. S (2000). Performance management: Perspectives on 
employee performance. Cornwall: T.J International.

Williams, K. How Does Your Company Measure Performance? 
Strategic Finance. Montvale: Dec 2004.Vol.86, Iss.6; pg. 17.

Wunderer, R. Employees as “co-intrapreneurs” a transformation 
concept. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 
Bradford 2001.Vol 22, Iss. 5’/6, p.193.

Yamada, J. A multi-dimensional view of entrepreneurship: 
Towards a research agenda on organisation emergence. The 
Journal of Management Development. Bradford: 2004, Vol 23, 
Iss. ¾ p.329.

Zhao, F. Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and 
innovation International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour 
& Research. Volume 11 Number 1 2005 pp. 25-41

FOBA, DE VILIIERS8