Next Article in Journal
Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Resilient Entrepreneurship among European Higher Education Graduates
Previous Article in Journal
A Catalogue Supporting Software Sustainability Design
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Relationship between the Knowledge Economy and Global Competitiveness in the European Union
Article

Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Public R&D Institutions

1
Department of Applied Mathematics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Calea Dorobantilor 15-17, Bucharest 010552, Romania
2
Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Applied Mathematics, Bucharest 050711, Romania
3
Institute of Space Science, 409 Atomistilor Street, Magurele 077125, Romania
4
Department of Statistics and Econometrics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Calea Dorobantilor 15-17, Bucharest 010552, Romania
5
Department of Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Str. Caderea Bastiliei 2-10, Bucharest 010374, Romania
6
Department of Economics and Economic Policies, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Calea Dorobantilor 15-17, Bucharest 010552, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(7), 2297; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072297
Received: 26 May 2018 / Revised: 28 June 2018 / Accepted: 2 July 2018 / Published: 3 July 2018
This paper aimed at establishing a Corporate Entrepreneurship diagnosis model within public R&D institutions. We based our analysis on empirical identification of a generalized set of organizational factors, perceived as intrapreneurship vectors. The quantitative research targeted 50 experienced public entities and was based on validating one of the most popular psychometric instruments in the entrepreneurial literature: the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI)—originally intended for the North American economic environment. As recent literature questioned the cross-cultural portability of psychometric instruments, this study intended to validate the five-factor intrinsic structure of CEAI. The five factors deduced by our statistical analysis were: support for opportunity investigations and reinforcement; dynamic environment and recognition; decreased formalization; knowledge sharing; time availability and strategic awareness. Next, the factor scores were used as input variables for a logistic regression procedure, with the output variable being the intrapreneurial value of the respondents’ institutions. Two factors contribute considerably to the predicted intrapreneurial value: support for opportunity investigations and reinforcement and decreased formalization. The validity of the whole approach is supported by the relevance of the original CEAI questionnaire, able to reveal intrapreneurial characteristics, and by the prediction power of the logistic regression model over the intrapreneurial propensity of public institutions. View Full-Text
Keywords: corporate entrepreneurship; intrapreneurship; psychometric instrument; cross-cultural portability; personnel management; factor analysis; logistic regression corporate entrepreneurship; intrapreneurship; psychometric instrument; cross-cultural portability; personnel management; factor analysis; logistic regression
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Agapie, A.; Vizitiu, C.; Cristache, S.E.; Năstase, M.; Crăciun, L.; Molănescu, A.G. Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Public R&D Institutions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072297

AMA Style

Agapie A, Vizitiu C, Cristache SE, Năstase M, Crăciun L, Molănescu AG. Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Public R&D Institutions. Sustainability. 2018; 10(7):2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072297

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agapie, Alexandru, Cristian Vizitiu, Silvia E. Cristache, Marian Năstase, Liliana Crăciun, and Anca G. Molănescu. 2018. "Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Public R&D Institutions" Sustainability 10, no. 7: 2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072297

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop