Impacting Employee Performance by Supporting Intrapreneurial Activities

Abstract

Extensive empirical findings support the idea that intrapreneurial activity benefits employees, organizations, and society. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), this paper analyzes the mediating role of intrapreneurial behaviors in the relationship between organizational support for intrapreneurship and employee performance and the moderating role of intra-organizational social capital (ISC) in the relationship between organizational support and intrapreneurial behaviors. Hypotheses were tested using regression analyses via Hayes’ PROCESS macro, allowing for the assessment of moderation–mediation effects. Data were collected from 617 employees across various Israeli organizations using a structured questionnaire. The results indicate that intrapreneurial behaviors are positively associated with employee performance. Additionally, organizational support is indirectly related to performance through intrapreneurial behaviors. This indirect effect is stronger when ISC levels are high, indicating that ISC amplifies the positive impact of organizational support on intrapreneurial behaviors. The findings highlight the importance of both organizational context and individual differences in fostering intrapreneurial activity and enhancing employee performance.

1. Introduction

Intrapreneurial behavior, also known as “corporate entrepreneurship,” is an entrepreneurial activity within existing organizations (Klein, 2023). Intrapreneurial behavior has a beneficial effect on firms since it enables them to achieve higher performance and strategic advantages (Neessen et al., 2019). Previous research has categorized the antecedent factors of intrapreneurial behavior into three main groups: environmental factors, internal organizational attributes, and individual characteristics (e.g., Portalanza-Chavarría & Revuelto-Taboada, 2023; Neessen et al., 2019). Among these aspects, organizational support has attracted considerable scholarly attention, with research consistently confirming the contributions of organizational and managerial support to intrapreneurship (Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 2005; Pinchot, 1985). Other supportive roots, however, have gained less attention; specifically, the capacity to derive support from employee internal and external networks is known as social capital (SC) (Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1988).

SC refers to relationships among social actors and is an essential resource that can aid employees in advancing their ideas from opportunity to execution (Putnam, 2000). While SC was found to be an essential resource for employee success (Ben-Hador, 2017), the role of SC as an antecedent of intrapreneurship has gained less attention (Monnavarian & Ashena, 2009; Toledano et al., 2010). In the current study, we explore the role of intra-organizational social capital (ISC), which focuses on internal networks and trust structures (Di Vincenzo, 2016). Among the benefits of ISC are fostering knowledge, ideas, and trust within organizations, all of which are essential to the development of new ideas and initiatives (Wong & Lee, 2022).

However, intrapreneurship is hardly the result of a single process. As Belousova and Gailly (2013) noted, intrapreneurship begins with a single employee’s dream. Once the idea gains managerial acceptance, it requires team support and co-employee cooperation to promote and leverage organizational resources into outcomes. Therefore, we suggest that employees who know how to leverage their ISC will have more of a chance to stimulate their ideas as compared to employees with limited social capital.

In the current study, we explore the connection between organizational support and SC in terms of intrapreneurial behaviors and employee performance. Specifically, we seek to understand the role of intra-organizational social capital (ISC) in relation to organizational support as a motivating force that is related to intrapreneurship. By focusing on organizational support and ISC, we look at organizational aspects alongside employee factors. This connection will enable us to further understand not only the impact of different supportive aspects on intrapreneurial activities but also how this connection affects employee performance.

Drawing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), we propose that employee motivation to engage in intrapreneurial behaviors—and thereby enhance their performance—is driven by both intrinsic motivation and internalized forms of extrinsic motivation. According to SDT, sustained engagement arises when individuals’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported. While intrinsic motivation is central, SDT also emphasizes that extrinsic motivators—when experienced as autonomy-supportive and aligned with personal values—can be internalized and contribute to volitional behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Deci et al., 2017). In this context, we suggest that organizational support for intrapreneurship, encompassing five dimensions—including autonomy and rewards—creates the conditions necessary for employees to develop and sustain motivation for intrapreneurial action. Furthermore, employees with higher levels of ISC are more likely to fulfill their related needs, which enhances their motivation to engage in intrapreneurial behaviors. Together, organizational support and ISC facilitate the motivational processes that lead employees to engage in intrapreneurial behavior. By increasing their intrapreneurial behaviors, they also fulfill their needs for competence, which refers to the desire to demonstrate and improve one’s abilities.

To conclude, the purpose of this study is to explore the associations between organizational support for intrapreneurship and employee performance while examining the mediating role of intrapreneurial activities and the moderating influence of ISC. Although previous studies highlighted the positive contribution of intrapreneurial activity to organizational performance, less is known about its connection to employee performance. Although Pinchot (1985) initially described intrapreneurial activities at the individual level, most studies explored top-down processes, i.e., how upper-level managers transform valuable resources of firms into new ideas, products, and markets as well as higher organizational profits (Zahra & Covin, 1995). In the current study, we add another layer and explore employee perspectives, which have received less attention in the literature. As such, we are able to capture the two sides of the intrapreneurial equation: both the antecedents and their results.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Intrapreneurship

Intrapreneurship, or corporate entrepreneurship (CE), was coined by Pinchot (1985) to describe innovation activities conducted by employees within an existing organization, aiming to generate new business or undertake new services inside the firm. Intrapreneurship thus encompasses activities such as creating new ventures, products, services, technologies, administrative practices, strategies, and competitive advantages within established firms (B. Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003). The significance of intrapreneurial activities stems from their positive association with organizational performance (Criado-Gomis et al., 2018; Tisha, 2018; Zahra & Covin, 1995). Extensive research on the contribution of intrapreneurial behavior to small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) has demonstrated a positive association between intrapreneurship and organizational revenues, particularly in cases of dynamic and hostile environments (Klein, 2023). Organizations that encourage intrapreneurial behaviors were found to exhibit better performance and be more profitable, either by higher sales or by return on assets.

However, while previous studies focused primarily on the impact of intrapreneurship on organizational prosperity, research has rarely focused on the connections between intrapreneurship and employee performance (Kacperczyk, 2012; Madu & Urban, 2014), that is, the positive contribution of an individual employee to the organization’s success. Audenaert et al. (2016) define employee performance as achieving employee work goals and satisfying expectations set by the organization. Research from the employee perspective has shown that intrapreneurial employees are deeply invested in contributing to performance in addition to firm profitability (Madu & Urban, 2014). Similarly, Kuratko et al. (2005) found, through an evaluation of employee job satisfaction, a positive connection between corporate entrepreneurial actions and manager performance, as measured by the number of new ideas suggested by managers, the number of new ideas implemented by the organization, and the number of improvements implemented without official organizational approval. Accordingly, it can be expected that employees who engage more extensively in intrapreneurial activities will perceive their performance as higher compared to those who engage in such activities to a lesser extent. Even so, the impact of the expected contribution does not appear to have been thoroughly examined (Gawke et al., 2017). Kuratko et al. (2005) emphasized the critical role of organizations and managers in encouraging intrapreneurial behaviors by establishing a formal reward system and by gaining informal support for employees. Therefore, while intrapreneurship is aimed primarily at promoting organizational survival over time (B. Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003), it may also reward employees formally (promotion or financial reward) or informally (managerial recognition and appreciation). Higher employee performance results from its positive connection to intrapreneurship, employee work engagement, and employee personal resources (Gawke et al., 2017). According to these scholars, engaging in intrapreneurship helps fulfill employees’ competence needs (Deci et al., 2017) as well as self-efficacy, optimism, and ego-resilience (Neessen et al., 2019), which later results in higher levels of work engagement that are realized in higher performance. Concomitantly, we can assume that intrapreneurial activities and performance are connected; therefore, our first hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 1.

Intrapreneurial behavior is positively related to employee performance.

2.2. Organizational Support as an Antecedent of Intrapreneurial Behaviors

By demonstrating the positive connection between intrapreneurship and organizational profit, scholars have suggested that intrapreneurship depends on the amount of organizational support given to enhance intrapreneurial behaviors (Neessen et al., 2019; Klein, 2023). This captures the idea that to encourage intrapreneurial activities, organizations need to create work environments that are highly conducive to innovation and creativeness. To do so, employees should be encouraged to devise and express innovative concepts, take risks, and be proactive in accomplishing their ideas. Hornsby et al. (2002) argue that organizational support is not limited to a singular dimension but rather comprises five factors: rewards/reinforcement system, management support, tolerance for risk-taking, allocation of free time, and work discretion/autonomy. These five dimensions collectively represent the overall degree of organizational support invested in fostering intrapreneurial behavior, and each dimension also offers a distinct and meaningful contribution to this process. On the basis of the five dimensions, they developed a tool that measures each of the five aspects in a given organization, known as the CEAI—Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument.

The first dimension is constituted by the reward and reinforcement system. In addition to moral support, innovative employees need to sense that their efforts contribute to their own welfare. Therefore, organizations must establish reward systems to benefit entrepreneurial activities and readiness to take risks. The second dimension is management support for corporate entrepreneurship, which is the degree to which top managers encourage new ideas and promote entrepreneurial behaviors. Managerial support is expressed as moral encouragement through the provision of necessary resources. It also involves the willingness of lower- and mid-level managers to advocate upper-level managers for the approval and support of plans handed to them. The third category is tolerance for risk-taking, which represents the ability to absorb actions with unknown consequences that might result in failure. The development of new ideas is based on trial and error. Therefore, risk-averse managers may prevent their subordinates from developing products, resulting in unpredictable outcomes. As such, organizations must encourage managers to be tolerant of failures that derive from innovative behaviors. The fourth element is allocating free time for engaging in innovative development. Belousova and Gailly (2013) demonstrated that intrapreneurship processes are complex, taking several years, in which projects mature through discovery, evaluation, and refinement phases. As such, management should provide employees with time to think, observe, experiment, and develop during the intrapreneurship process. The last dimension represents work discretion, which involves the organizational climate and the amount of autonomy given to employees to make decisions regarding their work and to implement them as part of their work (Alpkan et al., 2010; Hornsby et al., 2002).

The role of organizational support as an antecedent of intrapreneurship has been demonstrated in several studies (Alpkan et al., 2010; Klein, 2023). For example, Alpkan et al. (2010) examined over 180 manufacturing firms and found that organizational support was positively associated with intrapreneurial behaviors. Among the five dimensions assessed, management support and tolerance for risk-taking had the most significant and positive effects on innovative performance. Similarly, Itzkovich and Klein (2017) reported a positive correlation between organizational support and intrapreneurship. Their study also concluded that organizational support mediated the relationship between workplace incivility and intrapreneurial behavior. In a similar vein, Klein (2023) found that organizational support for intrapreneurship is positively associated with intrapreneurial activities. The studies further showed that organizational support mediates the relationship between both transformational and transactional leadership and intrapreneurial activities, particularly in environments characterized by intense competition. In such highly competitive contexts, transformational leadership demonstrated a stronger association with organizational support, which in turn mediated its relationship with intrapreneurial behavior. Based on these findings, we posit that organizational support for intrapreneurship is positively associated with intrapreneurial behavior.

Hypothesis 2a.

Organizational support is positively related to intrapreneurial behaviors.

While previous studies have demonstrated that organizational support is associated with intrapreneurial behaviors and that intrapreneurial behaviors serve as mediators between organizational factors, particularly leadership style, and performance (Klein, 2023; Farrukh et al., 2022), the specific role of intrapreneurial behaviors as a mediator between organizational support and employee performance has received less attention in the literature (Kassem et al., 2021). Grounded in SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), we propose that intrapreneurial behaviors mediate the relationship between organizational support for intrapreneurship and employee performance. SDT offers a robust motivational framework for understanding how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interact across various life domains, including the workplace (Ryan et al., 2022). Within this framework, extrinsic motivators, including organizational compensation systems, serve as external stimuli, whereas psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness serve as intrinsic motivators (Chakrabarty, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation are critical for sustaining high levels of work performance and engagement, whereas the fulfillment of basic psychological needs is fundamental to workplace well-being (Good et al., 2022). Intrinsic motivation, in particular, has been shown to enhance performance in complex tasks that require learning, creativity, and problem-solving. When employees perceive their work as meaningful, feel a sense of ownership and autonomy, and receive constructive feedback and support, they are more likely to be autonomously motivated. This, in turn, leads to higher levels of performance, better learning outcomes, and improved psychological adjustment. Conversely, when motivation is externally controlled through contingent rewards or hierarchical power dynamics, employee focus may narrow to short-term objectives, potentially undermining long-term performance and engagement (Ryan et al., 2022; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, organizations that foster intrapreneurial behaviors by enhancing intrinsic motivation (e.g., through work discretion autonomy, management support, and tolerance for risk-taking) alongside extrinsic motivators (e.g., performance-based rewards) are more likely to see increased intrapreneurial activity among employees. These behaviors, in turn, are expected to contribute to higher performance evaluations.

Hypothesis 2b.

Intrapreneurial behaviors mediate the relationship between organizational support for intrapreneurship and employee performance.

While organizational perspectives have received considerable attention as antecedents of intrapreneurial behavior, we argue that intrapreneurship is also influenced by another important source of support—the ability of employees to leverage their social capital to transform ideas into ventures.

2.3. ISC and Intrapreneurship

SC is an intangible asset that stems from connections between people (Burt, 1992). Social capital can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated and cooperative actions. SC also describes different levels of benefits derived from social connectivity, spanning from individual (Mouw, 2003) through intermediate (e.g., the family) (Halpern, 2005) to even broader levels of association (e.g., the nation) (Edwards & Foley, 1997). Similarly, in the organizational context, SC is used to describe benefits that derive from interpersonal connections at different levels, such as the level of personal interconnections of employees (personal SC) and the level of connections between organizations, which is the organization’s external SC (Ben-Hador, 2017).

The current study focuses on the intra-organizational (ISC) level, which is based on social relationships between employees in organizational units, both in and between departments, and on different working statuses in the firm (Ben-Hador, 2016). Putnam et al. (1993) defined ISC as network ties that depend on both trust and cooperation norms. The ISC is composed of trust, reciprocity, common goals, mutual assistance, and the sharing of information and knowledge between different entities inside the firm (Eckhaus & Ben-Hador, 2017). The benefits of ISC can be felt at both the personal and organizational levels. On the personal level, employees feel more satisfied, and their organizational engagement and performance levels rise (Tansley & Newell, 2007). At the organizational level, organizational performance improves (Ben-Hador, 2017).

The role of ISC as an antecedent of intrapreneurship has gained little attention in the literature (Behnoosh, 2012; Monnavarian & Ashena, 2009; Toledano et al., 2010). These studies often indicate the role of ISC in fostering knowledge, ideas, and, above all, trust among colleagues, which are essential to developing new products and services. Similarly, Belousova and Gailly (2013) described the process of intrapreneurship as a cumulative process that starts with one employee’s idea but relies on teamwork and support. The first step is usually to conceal the information-gathering process from multiple sources, such as technical, operational, and marketing departments. If the idea succeeds in fulfilling a business proposal, the intrapreneur, with the aid of other colleagues, needs to convince their managers to provide them with the necessary resources and organizational support. We suggest that through this extensive process, employees with better ISC will have a higher chance of becoming intrapreneurs since they can leverage their ISC to help gain information, resources, and support. Indeed, previous studies have indicated the role of ISC in facilitating the diffusion and creation of innovations, resulting from the sharing and transfer of implicit and explicit knowledge among co-employees and within teams (Tortoriello et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2011). Therefore, ISC can be a resource that will aid in developing the initial idea, persuade other organization members to participate in the development of the product/service, and convince management to allocate resources. Even so, only a few studies have investigated the relationship between ISC and intrapreneurship. For instance, Monnavarian and Ashena (2009) posited a positive relationship between ISC and intrapreneurship. Similarly, Toledano et al. (2010) followed two case studies through the development of intrapreneurship in small family firms. In both cases, the ability of owner–managers to extract network communication and trust from their employees contributed to the success of intrapreneurial behaviors. In addition, based on data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Urbano and Turró (2013) found that personal networks are among the internal factors that contribute to entrepreneurship. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3.

ISC is positively related to intrapreneurial behaviors.

In addition to organizational support, intrapreneurship depends on the ability to foster teamwork and extract support and trust from co-employees (Belousova & Gailly, 2013; Toledano et al., 2010). Hence, employees who use their ISC to promote their intrapreneurial behaviors are more likely to succeed in harnessing knowledge, material, and other organizational resources to actualize their dreams into new products or services (Pérez-Luño et al., 2011). In line with SDT theory, ISC may also amplify the connection between organizational support and intrapreneurial behaviors by fulfilling their need for relatedness. Relatedness needs capture the desire to have meaningful relationships with others and impact the degree to which individuals actualize innate tendencies for growth and exploration (Cerasoli et al., 2016), which can be achieved by engaging in intrapreneurial behaviors. Indeed, a previous meta-analysis revealed that meeting relatedness needs positively contributes to higher performance (Cerasoli et al., 2016). As such, we posit that ISC will amplify the connection between organizational support and intrapreneurial behaviors, such that employees who work in organizations that promote intrapreneurship and exhibit higher levels of ISC will demonstrate greater intrapreneurial behavior. Based on the assumption that intrapreneurial behaviors mediate the relationship between organizational support and employee behaviors, we posit moderation–mediation connections. Employees who have more ISC and work in organizations that support intrapreneurship will exhibit more intrapreneurial behaviors and higher performance. Thus, our final hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 4.

The relationship between organizational support and employee performance through intrapreneurial behaviors is moderated by ISC.

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of the study.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

Google Forms were used to distribute the survey to Israeli employees 21 years of age and older. Participation in the study was voluntary, and the questionnaire was clarified so that it was anonymous, with no personal data transferred to the organization. It was also clarified that the participants may terminate their participation at any moment if they desire. Overall, 617 employees participated in the study: 44.2% were male, 26% were single, and the remaining 74% were married, divorced, or widowed. Educational years, on average, were 13 years (SD = 2) and ranged between 10 and 24 years. On average, employee tenure was 9.39 years (SD = 5.0). A total of 24.6% of the sample is composed of participants in the technology, financial, and professional consulting services sectors.

Table 1. Participants’ industries/sectors distribution.

Category	No. of Participants	%
Energy	46	7.5%
Healthcare	36	5.8%
Education	25	4.1%
Agriculture	46	7.5%
Technology	65	10.5%
Textiles and Fashion	28	4.5%
Public Sector	32	5.2%
Food and Beverage	46	7.5%
Financial	29	4.7%
Leisure and Entertainment	68	11.0%
Retail	13	2.1%
Professional Consulting Services	58	9.4%
Transportation	23	3.7%
Other	102	16.5%
Total	617	100.0%

presents the participants’ sectors and industries.

3.2. Measurements

Appendix A presents the items included in the questionnaire.

Performance. To measure employee performance levels, we used a self-reported scale based on Black and Porter’s (1991) measurement. The scale contains 5 items for respondent self-evaluation of performance compared with their co-employees, on a scale ranging from 1—very low (i.e., well below average) to 5—very high (i.e., well above the employee average). Employee performance was calculated as the average score across the five questionnaire items. The overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.849.

Intrapreneurial behaviors. This was measured through De Jong et al.’s (2011) questionnaire, which included nine items (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.889). The original scale looked at co-employee intrapreneurial behavior. However, in the current study, the participants were asked to evaluate their own intrapreneurial behavior. The response scale ranged from 1—not at all to 5—very often. Intrapreneurial behavior was measured by calculating the average score of the nine relevant items.

Organizational support. To measure the amount of organizational support, we used Alpkan et al.’s (2010) questionnaire, which is based on the CEAI tool, with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly disagree (Kuratko et al., 1990). The questionnaire contains 5 categories, representing different aspects of organizational support: (1) reward system (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.800); (2) management support for idea generation (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.714); (3) tolerance for risk-taking (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.829); (4) allocation of free time (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.745); and (5) work discretion (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.746). The response scale ranged from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree. Each component was calculated as the mean of the items representing that specific dimension. In addition, a composite variable—organizational support—was computed by averaging the scores of the five indicators (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.892).

ISC. A questionnaire developed by Carmeli et al. (2009) was used, with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree, consisting of six items. The scale reliability is 0.74 Cronbach’s alpha. The ISC score was calculated as the mean of the six corresponding items.

Demographic variables. In line with previous findings (Parker, 2011), we controlled several variables that were found to be important and were given to us by the HR department. The demographic variables included gender (“gender”, 0—male, 1—female), marital status (“marital”, 0—single, 1—other), number of years of education (“education”), and years of working in the current position (“tenure”).

3.3. Data Analysis

To examine the hypothesized relationships, we employed a combination of hierarchical multiple regression analyses and moderation–mediation modeling using Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS version 28 (Models 4 and 7). First, we tested the direct effects of demographic controls, organizational support, ISC, and intrapreneurial behaviors on employee performance. Tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) diagnostics were conducted to ensure no multicollinearity issues, with all values within acceptable thresholds. Next, to assess the mediating role of intrapreneurial behaviors in the relationship between organizational support and employee performance, we applied Model 4 of the PROCESS macro. The significance of the indirect effect was evaluated using bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. To test our moderated mediation hypothesis, we used Model 7 of the PROCESS macro. This model allowed for the simultaneous estimation of the conditional indirect effects. All variables were mean-centered prior to creating interaction terms to reduce multicollinearity. Bootstrapped confidence intervals (n = 5000) were used to determine the significance of the interaction and conditional indirect effects.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Tenure	9.39	5.0	1
2. Education years	13	2	−0.168 **	1
3. Gender (0—male, 1—female)			−0.014	0.108	1
4. Marital status (0—single, 1—other)			0.312 **	−0.009	0.111 *	1
5. Intrapreneurial behaviors	2.85	0.81	−0.162 **	0.202 **	−0.063	−0.053	1
6. Reward system	3.48	0.80	−0.232 **	−0.054	0.059	−0.170 **	0.307 **	1
7. Management support	3.32	0.74	−0.136 **	0.083	0.085 *	−0.031	0.257 **	0.511 **	1
8. Tolerance for risk-taking	2.71	0.84	−0.109 *	0.017	0.086 *	−0.027	0.384 **	0.420 **	0.599 **	1
9. Allocation of free time	2.98	0.86	−0.089	0.024	0.049	−0.117 **	0.284 **	0.403 **	0.518 **	0.508 **	1
10. Work discretion	3.15	0.87	−0.142 **	−0.024	0.048	−0.098 *	0.297 **	0.386 **	0.384 **	0.424 **	0.466 **	1
11. ISC	3.69	0.62	−0.205 **	0.103	0.106 *	−0.062	0.483 **	0.480 **	0.420 **	0.253 **	0.272 **	0.417 **	0.483 **
12. Performance	3.95	0.54	0.094	0.094	0.008	0.119 **	0.230 **	0.039	0.034	−0.056	−0.046	−0.028	0.284 **	1

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables. Table 2 shows that intrapreneurship was negatively connected to tenure (r = −162, p < 0.01) and positively connected to educational years (r = 0.202, p < 0.01), indicating that more mature and highly educated employees tend to initiate intrapreneurial projects. The correlation between the five dimensions of organizational support indicates positive intra-connectivity, suggesting mutual dependency. Hence, organizations that support employees in one aspect tend to be supportive in other aspects as well. Performance was positively connected to intrapreneurship (r = 0.230, p < 0.01) and intra-organizational SC (r = 0.251, p < 0.01). However, there was no significant direct connection between organizational support and performance, implying that organizational support influences employee performance in more subtle ways.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

To evaluate the connection between intrapreneurial behaviors and employee performance (H1), a four-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with employee performance as the dependent variable. Demographic variables were entered in the first step (Model 2.1) as control variables, whereas organizational support was entered in the second step (Model 2.2), ISC in the third step (Model 2.3), and intrapreneurial behaviors in the last step (Model 2.4). To examine the possibility of multicollinearity, we conducted tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) tests. Multicollinearity occurs when two or more independent variables in a regression model are highly correlated. A tolerance value lower than 0.10 suggests that more than 90% of the variance is explained by other predictors, indicating critical multicollinearity. A VIF value greater than 5 indicates that the standard errors of the coefficients are inflated, which can undermine the reliability of the statistical tests and reduce the interpretability of the model (Cohen et al., 2013). Since the results of both the VIF and tolerance tests were within acceptable ranges, we proceeded with hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The regression statistics are presented in

Table 3. Moderated regression analysis results with employee performance as dependent variable.

	Model 2.1	Model 2.2	Model 2.3	Model 2.4	Tolerance	VIF
Control variables
Tenure	0.152 1	0.198 *	0.172 *	0.180	0.75	1.32
Education years	0.157 *	0.156 1	0.120	0.043	0.93	1.08
Gender (0—male, 1—female)	−0.035	−0.025	−0.021	−0.045	0.87	1.21
Marital status (0—single, 1—other)	0.099	0.139 1	0.125	0.091	0.85	1.32
Organizational support
Reward system		0.042	−0.046	−0.096	0.46	2.17
Management support		0.264 *	0.124	0.194 *	0.38	2.65
Tolerance of risk-taking		−0.197 *	−0.149	−0.264 **	0.47	2.13
Allocation of free time		−0.067	−0.066	−0.082	0.41	2.40
Work discretion		0.033	0.015	0.036	0.52	1.95
ISC			0.357 **	0.233 **	0.41	2.41
Intrapreneurial behaviors				0.344 ***	0.64	1.55
Adj R2	0.030	0.054	0.141	0.217
Chg. R2		0.052	0.087 ***	0.076 **
Incremental F-test	2.295 1	2.05 *	3.702 ***	5.150 ***

Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported; dependent variable employee performance; ¹ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

.

The hierarchical multiple regressions showed that years of education and tenure were positively related to performance. The introduction of organizational support factors revealed that both management support (β = 0.264, p < 0.05) and tolerance of risk-taking contribute to performance (β = −0.194, p < 0.05). Introducing ISC variables in the third step makes a significant contribution to employee performance and indicates a positive connection between ISC and performance (β = 0.357, p < 0.001). This suggests that employees with more networks evaluate themselves as exhibiting better performance. Finally, introducing intrapreneurial behaviors significantly contributed to employee performance and registered the highest impact on performance (β = 0.344, p < 0.001) than ISC did (β = 0.234, p < 0.05), supporting the first hypothesis (H1). Among the five factors of organizational support, both management support (β = 0.194, p < 0.05) and tolerance of risk-taking (β = −0.08, p < 0.01) significantly contributed to performance.

Our next hypothesis argued that intrapreneurial behavior would be positively connected to organizational support for intrapreneurship and ISC. To inspect this relationship, a three-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with intrapreneurial behavior as the dependent variable. Demographic variables were entered in the first step (Model 3.1), organizational support was entered in the second step (Model 3.2), and ISC variables in the third step (Model 3.3). To assess the presence of multicollinearity, both tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) tests were conducted. The results indicated values within acceptable thresholds (VIF < 5; tolerance > 0.10), thereby supporting the validity of the multiple regression analysis.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis results with intrapreneurial behaviors as dependent variables.

	Model 3.1	Model 3.2	Model 3.3	Tolerance	VIF
Control variables
Tenure	0.053	0.024	−0.014	0.91	1.09
Education years	0.246 **	0.251 **	0.194 **	0.93	1.10
Gender (0—male, 1—female)	−0.110	−0.136 *	−0.180 *	0.95	1.06
Marital status (0—single, 1—other)	0.146 *	0.115 1	0.110 1	0.97	1.03
Organizational support
Reward system		0.204 *	0.112	0.59	1.7
Management support		−0.114	−0.246 *	0.44	2.25
Tolerance for risk-taking		0.309 **	0.348 **	0.58	1.71
Allocation of free time		0.039	0.069	0.48	2.05
Work discretion		−0.078	−0.117 1	0.65	1.52
ISC			0.358 **	0.61	1.65
Adj R2	0.066	0.177	0.264
Chg. R2		0.130 **	0.087 **
Incremental F-test	4.489 **	5.742 **	8.146 **

Note: Standardized regression coefficients are reported; ¹ p < 0.10; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

presents the results of the multivariate regression models.

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at stage one (Model 3.1), intrapreneurial behavior was connected to years of education (β = 0.246, p < 0.001) and marital status (β = 0.146, p < 0.05). Employees with more years of education and married employees engage more in intrapreneurial behaviors. The introduction of organizational support added another 13% to the overall variance, confirming Hypothesis 2a. Even so, only two sub-factors, reward system (β = 0.204, p < 0.05) and tolerance for risk-taking (β = 0.309, p < 0.01), were significantly connected to intrapreneurship. The results of the third model point to a positive connection between ISC and intrapreneurial behaviors (β = 0.358, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 3 (H3). With respect to the organizational support factors, managerial support negatively contributed to intrapreneurial behaviors (β = −0.246, p < 0.05), whereas tolerance for risk-taking contributed positively to intrapreneurial behavior (β = 0.348, p < 0.001), indicating that higher managerial support decreases the tendency to engage in intrapreneurship, whereas tolerance for taking risks encourages employees to participate in new ventures.

Our last assumption claimed that the connection between organizational support and employee performance is moderated by ISC and mediated by intrapreneurial behavior. To measure the moderation–mediation hypothesis, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017; Model 7) with a bootstrap sampling distribution (n = 10,000) and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effects. Organizational support was calculated in terms of five dimensions: reward systems, management support, tolerance for risk-taking, allocation of free time, and work discretion. We included ISC as the moderated variable, intrapreneurial behaviors as mediators, and employee performance as the dependent variable. We controlled age, gender, education, and organizational tenure in the analysis.

Table 5. Regression results for mediation and moderation effects.

	Model 4		Model 7
Effect	Intrapreneurial Behaviors	Performance	Intrapreneurial Behaviors
	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
Constant	0.36 (0.31)	3.27 (0.20) **	2.37 ** (0.89)
Tenure	−0.00 (0.01)	0.01 (0.00) **	−0.01 (0.00)
Education years	0.19 * (0.04)	0.03 (0.03)	−0.12 ** (0.04)
Gender (0—male, 1—female)	−0.23 ** (0.07)	0.06 (0.06)	−0.31 ** (0.07)
Marital status (0—single, 1—other)	0.02 (0.09)	0.16 (0.07) *	0.07 (0.08)
Organizational support	0.54 (0.06) **	−0.11 (0.05) *	−0.77 (0.28) **
Intrapreneurial behaviors		0.26 (0.04) **	−0.39 ** (0.11)
ISC			−0.28 (0.23)
ISC X organizational support			0.27 ** (0.07)
R2	0.23	0.14	0.42
MSE	0.50	0.31	0.37
F	F(5, 534) = 22.09 **	F(6, 533) = 9.56 **	F(6, 533) = 34.59 **
ISC			B (SE)
Low ISC			0.31 (0.01)
High ISC			0.43 ** (0.10)

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

displays the PROCESS model results.

We first examined the mediating relationship with intrapreneurial behavior as the mediator using the SPSS Process macro (Hayes, 2017; Model 4). Organizational support was significantly associated with performance (β = −0.13, p < 0.05). Furthermore, intrapreneurial behavior was significantly related to performance (β = 0.34, p < 0.001). Combining these results, we examined the indirect effects of organizational support on employee performance via intrapreneurial behaviors. The indirect effect was significant (indirect effect = 0.13, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.07, 0.20]) and supported Hypothesis 2b. Next, we measured the moderation–mediation assumption with the ISC as the moderator and intrapreneurial behaviors as the mediator between organizational support and performance using the SPSS Process macro (Hayes, 2017; Model 7), as shown in Table 5. We used information from the bootstrap sampling distribution (n = 5000) to estimate unstandardized coefficients with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effects. The results for ISC revealed a significant interaction effect between ISC and organizational support on intrapreneurial behaviors (F(1, 318) = 16.53, p  < 0.001). The interaction is plotted in Figure 2. To examine the nature of the interaction, we conducted simple slope analyses that indicated that the positive effect of organizational support on intrapreneurial behaviors was apparent for employees with more ISC (t = 4.73, p < 0.001) but not for employees who reported a low level of ISC (t = 0.95, ns). Following the results of moderation as conditional analyses, we tested the mediated–moderation model. The bootstrap procedure revealed an overall moderation–mediation effect (indirect effect = 0.07, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.03, 0.12]), which supported Hypothesis 4.

5. Discussion

Intrapreneurship can achieve many benefits, but its antecedents have yet to be identified. The current study aimed to reveal the contribution of organizational support for intrapreneurship and ISC to intrapreneurial behaviors. Our findings show that both organizational support and ISC are positively connected to intrapreneurial behavior and that intrapreneurial behaviors mediate between these two factors and employee performance. Hence, to excel and demonstrate better performance, employees should have better network ties inside their firm, as well as organizational support that will help to manifest creative ideas into reality. The findings strengthen those of previous studies that demonstrated the affirmative contribution of ISC to intrapreneurial activities (Ben-Hador & Klein, 2020) and organizational performance (Ben-Hador, 2017; Timberlake, 2005) as well as its significant contribution to fostering creative thinking and innovations (Pérez-Luño et al., 2011; Rost, 2011). Extensive ISC provides better communication and important information on innovation opportunities, facilitates access to resources, provides implicit knowledge, and, above all, legitimizes intrapreneurial ideas among top management. Therefore, it is a crucial element of the intrapreneurship process.

Our findings align with Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci et al., 2017), suggesting that organizations that attend to employees’ basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are more likely to cultivate intrinsic motivation, which has been consistently linked to improved performance outcomes. When organizational practices enhance both extrinsic motivation (e.g., through structured reward systems) and intrinsic motivation (e.g., by providing greater autonomy), employees demonstrate a heightened propensity to engage in intrapreneurial behaviors. Moreover, intrapreneurial activity itself may serve as a powerful conduit for satisfying the need for competence—one of the central tenets of SDT. These activities typically require initiative, innovation, and complex problem-solving, offering employees opportunities to experience mastery, skill development, and personal efficacy. As SDT posits, the satisfaction of the competence need is essential for fostering intrinsic motivation and sustained engagement. This tendency appears to be particularly pronounced among individuals embedded in environments characterized by high levels of ISC, which may also reflect the fulfillment of their relatedness needs. Consistent with these theoretical assertions, the current findings indicate that employees who reported higher levels of organizational support, greater ISC, and more frequent engagement in intrapreneurial behaviors also exhibited higher levels of job performance.

While the overall relationship between organizational support and intrapreneurial activity aligns with prior empirical evidence (Baruah & Ward, 2015; Itzkovich & Klein, 2017), our results suggest that this association is particularly driven by two core components: managerial support and tolerance for risk-taking. The latter, in particular, reflects the organization’s capacity to absorb uncertainty—an essential condition for enabling innovative and entrepreneurial initiatives within the firm (Miller, 1983).

More surprisingly, managerial support is negatively associated with intrapreneurial behaviors. Higher levels of managerial support led employees to decrease their tendency to engage in intrapreneurial activities. While previous studies have shown that managerial incivility can inhibit employee desire to engage in such behaviors (Itzkovich & Klein, 2017), this does not explain the negative correlation between high levels of managerial support and intrapreneurial behaviors. This finding may indicate a more complex relationship between managerial activities and employee readiness to participate in creative and innovative processes. Research suggests that managerial support, which aims to foster creativity, must be accompanied by other facilitating factors, such as organizational culture (Hogan & Coote, 2014), leadership styles (Gerards et al., 2021), and strong network ties (Ahearne et al., 2014). Moreover, employees may differ in their psychological responses to managerial behaviors. While some may interpret managerial support as encouragement, others may perceive it as excessive control or a sign of mistrust in their ability to work independently. High levels of managerial involvement often require employees to seek frequent approvals, which may be interpreted as a lack of confidence in their autonomy and competence.

Furthermore, intrapreneurial behaviors have been linked to proactiveness, risk-taking, and opportunity recognition (Neessen et al., 2019). Employees who score high on these traits may benefit from organizational support for intrapreneurship, but those with lower levels of such characteristics might perceive demands for innovation as intimidating or burdensome. Since autonomy is considered a key antecedent of intrapreneurship (Hornsby et al., 2002), frequent managerial oversight may diminish employees’ willingness to act entrepreneurially, particularly when such oversight conflicts with their need for autonomy. Therefore, we recommend that future studies explore the nuanced and potentially contradictory relationship between managerial support and intrapreneurial behaviors.

Limitations and Further Research Suggestions

The current research attempted to identify the antecedents of intrapreneurial behavior and its relationship to employee performance. Since ISC was found to be critical for supporting trust and better communication, we need to better understand the factors that facilitate connections between intrapreneurial teams and how these connections enable employee idea generation, implementation, and legitimation. Future research should also explore the connection between external social capital and intrapreneurship. Our study, however, did not address the external level. Thus, external ties with external entities such as suppliers, customers, investors, and competitors are very important for an organization’s survival and should be addressed in the future.

Another limitation lies in the measurement of employee performance, which, in this study, was self-reported. This could lead to the risk of common method bias (Siemsen et al., 2010). Moreover, it has been claimed that evaluations from sources such as supervisor evaluations are more valid than self-evaluations (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). However, to maintain the participants’ anonymity, it was impossible to collect data about them from other evaluation resources, such as their managers. Even so, this bias is considered negligible (Siemsen et al., 2010), and self-reported appraisal proved to be as valid as other evaluation techniques (Campbell & Lee, 1988). To reduce the risk of common method bias (CMB), we recommend that future studies expand the current research and validate our findings using peer or supervisor assessments.

We also recommend that future studies investigate additional antecedents of intrapreneurial activities. Previous research has identified variables at the organizational level—such as organizational structure, knowledge transfer systems, and the strength of human resource management (HRM) practices—as well as at the managerial level, including leadership styles and employee characteristics (Gerards et al., 2021; Neessen et al., 2019; Portalanza-Chavarría & Revuelto-Taboada, 2023). One particularly interesting direction for future research would be to examine the potential reciprocal influence between intrapreneurial behaviors and employee performance. For example, high-performing employees may be more inclined to engage in intrapreneurial behaviors. This could be explained by a stronger sense of engagement with the organization or by underlying personality traits, such as proactivity, that drive both high performance and intrapreneurial behavior (Neessen et al., 2019).

Finally, the current study focused on employee intrapreneurial behaviors that are driven by organizational support and social capital. However, other organizational aspects may also affect the development of intrapreneurship, including organizational culture, resources, and strategy. As such, these variables should be controlled for in future studies. Even so, since our study is among the few to focus on social capital as an antecedent of intrapreneurial activities, this field is very promising and open to future research initiatives.

6. Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Practice

The results of the present study enable us to understand the connection between intrapreneurial activities and employee performance. While the concept of intrapreneurship was initially designed to describe individual behavior (Pinchot, 1985), research has focused on the effect of intrapreneurship at the organizational level, neglecting the individual perspective. The current study confirms that intrapreneurial behavior contributes not only to organizational productivity (J. Antoncic & Antoncic, 2011; Criado-Gomis et al., 2018) but also to employee performance. Intrapreneurial employees perceived themselves as higher performing than non-intrapreneurial employees did. In fact, intrapreneurial behavior had the greatest impact on employee performance—more than demographic support, organizational support, and social capital. However, while previous studies have examined the impact of intrapreneurial activities on organizational prosperity, research has scarcely examined the connections between intrapreneurial behavior and employee performance (Madu & Urban, 2014). As such, our study is among the first to indicate the significant role of intrapreneurial activities not only at the organizational level but also in employee self-evaluation. Even so, more studies need to assess the connection between employees and organizational performance.

In addition to its direct connection to employee performance, intrapreneurial behavior was also found to mediate between two types of support: organizational support and intra-organizational social capital. The indirect effect that was found implies that organizational support and social capital are not alone sufficient to increase employee performance; i.e., it is not the quantity of supportive connections that affects employee performance but rather how they utilize their social capital. As such, from a managerial perspective, managers should encourage employees to mobilize their organizational and social capital support systems to engage in intrapreneurial activities. The effect of better team cohesion on performance is well known; hence, various training programs exist to increase team cohesion through unique experiences (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009). We suggest that these programs should be accompanied by initiatives to encourage employees to improve their social networks throughout the firm and across departments. Structural changes should also be taken into consideration, moving from a bureaucratic and functional structure to a matrix and cross-functional structure. As previous studies have indicated, a structure that enables the flow of knowledge between units increases innovation (e.g., Tsai, 2001). Since a matrix structure connects employees from different departments and with different statuses, it extends their intra-organizational social capital. Therefore, employees in matrix structure firms benefit from greater access to cross-departmental knowledge. They can then leverage this knowledge to execute intrapreneurial activities, which will later contribute to their performance.

As noted, our research focused on intra-organizational social capital and organizational support as antecedents of intrapreneurial activities. The results indicate that the ability to promote new projects is a complex puzzle composed of factors present at the individual and organizational levels. Therefore, further research should be conducted to extend our understanding of the associations between intrapreneurship, social capital, and employee characteristics. Since social capital was found to be critical for supporting trust and better communication, we need to better understand the factors that facilitate connections between intrapreneurial teams and how these connections enable employee idea generation, implantation, and legitimation.